Re: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah? CIRCULATE!

The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish
merchants
have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.
----
tit for tat

American Christians must stand for the religious liberty of Muslims if
they
are to argue persuasively for their own.
---
watching xians learn to stand up for their religious rights is fun

the anti-sharia movement's
implication that all Muslims are radicals amplifies resentments and
fuels
hate by encouraging Americans to view their neighbors with suspicion
and
distrust. Even worse, it threatens to turn our Muslim fellow citizens,
and
our Muslim allies abroad, against America.
---
the enemy of your friend is not necessarily your enemy

Anti-Muslim bigots and their public apologists must be vigorously
opposed
by Americans who recognize the value of a religious voice in the
public
square and the imperative that all Americans be treated equally under
the
law, whether they are religious or irreligious
---
the irreligious do not value a religious voice in the public square

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF-1nZ_RQg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w&feature=related



On Jun 14, 7:26 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Travis <twmc...@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM
> Subject: IMPORTANT! Have Conservatives Been Bought Off on Shariah?
> CIRCULATE!
> To:
>
>  ** **
>
> Look at the disturbing articles below.  Two conservative publications - *
> Townhall* and *National Review *- are decrying any threat to America from
> Shariah!****
>
> ** **
>
> In the *Townhall* piece, Steve Chapman chalks up *opposition* to shariah to
> *religious intolerance*.  He states that no one has been able to find a
> case in which shariah was considered in a Kansas court.  However, we know
> from a review of a small sample of published appellate court cases
> performed by the Center for Security Policy that there were 50 examples in
> 23 states that involved conflicts between shariah and constitutional law.
>  Shariah had been applied or formally recognized in these cases.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Matthew Schmitz goes a step further into the absurd by claiming that *the
> anti-shariah movement endangers our national security by alienating loyal
> Muslim citizens* and "assaulting" their religious liberty.  He refers to
> those who want to curtail the insinuation of shariah into American courts
> as "anti-Muslim bigots."  ****
>
> ** **
>
> *An important note*:  Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS reportedly gave $4 million
> to Grover Norquist's group Americans for Tax Reform.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Other recent disturbing developments:****
>
> ** **
>
> - The State Department *removed* sections covering the religious
> persecution of Christians since the "Arab Spring" from its Country Reports
> on Human Rights per the demands of the OIC (Organization of Islamic
> Cooperation).****
>
> - The FBI expunged 900 pages of training materials used in over 400
> presentations deemed "offensive to Muslims" by a Muslim Brotherhood,
> Hamas-affiliated organization - CAIR.****
>
> - The National Security Council (as well as State Department Muslim
> diplomatic appointees) met with OIC and MB leaders this year in Qatar for
> the World Islamic Forum (co-sponsored by the Saban Center of Middle East
> Policy of the Brookings Institution).  ****
>
> - The Obama administration admitted to holding "hundreds" of closed-door
> meeting with jihad-supporting, Muslim Brotherhood subsidiary CAIR.  ****
>
> - Obama and Hillary Clinton support the restrictions on free speech passed
> by the OIC at the U.N. which makes it an *international crime* to criticize
> Islam.  (The Istanbul Process)****
>
> ** **
>
> Janet Levy,****
>
> Los Angeles****
>
> ** **
>  The Bogus Threat from Shariah Law (also published in the Chicago Tribune
> and Reason)****
>
> **·         ***[image: Steve
> Chapman]*<http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> **·         **Steve Chapman <http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/> *
> ***
>
> **·         **June 10, 2012****
>
> In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this
> country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a
> hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a majority of
> the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken to be as
> American as Mountain Dew.****
>
> We've come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The belief that
> Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the fear
> that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.****
>
> That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts from
> applying Islamic Shariah law in any case. Arizona, Tennessee, Louisiana and
> Oklahoma have passed these bans, though the Oklahoma law was ruled
> unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.****
>
> In May, Kansas enacted its version, which doesn't mention Shariah but
> prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other
> legal codes. The point, however, is not in doubt. One supporter said the
> bill, which passed 122-0 in the House of Representatives, was needed
> because "they stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law."****
>
> Does that mean we need anti-Shariah laws to keep women from being stoned to
> death with the cheerful blessing of American courts? Amazingly, no. It
> seems that our laws and Constitution take precedence on American soil no
> matter what the rules are in Iran.****
>
> The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Peggy Mast, explained, "I want to make
> sure people understand there's sometimes a conflict between other laws and
> the Constitution, and we need to assert our Constitution is still the law
> of the land." That's like asserting that the sun is hot: It will be true
> regardless.****
>
> The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on indoor
> co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case where
> a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a verdict.*
> ***
>
> If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries to
> divorce her by saying "I divorce you" three times, in accordance with
> Shariah, he will find he's wasted his breath. State marriage law will
> govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts with the
> dictates of Islam.****
>
> The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it
> interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish merchants
> have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical
> court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.****
>
> If a Muslim-owned company wants to lend or borrow money in accordance with
> the Islamic ban on interest, its choice should likewise be respected. If a
> Muslim wants to allocate his estate according to Islamic rules, what's it
> to you? Outlawing such accommodation for Islam would illegally discriminate
> against one religion.****
>
> That problem is what led a federal appeals court to overturn the Oklahoma
> ban, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2010 as an amendment to the state
> constitution. The measure was a drone missile targeted specifically at
> Islam, in brazen defiance of the First Amendment.****
>
> In Kansas, by contrast, the lawmakers were so careful to avoid that pitfall
> that they largely defanged the measure. A decision resting on the
> application of foreign or other legal codes would be invalid only if the
> verdict violates "the fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted
> under the United States and Kansas constitutions" -- something courts
> generally are not allowed to do anyway.****
>
> University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, who generally
> disapproves of anti-Shariah measures, says the Kansas law "is so narrowed
> and watered-down it doesn't look to me like a very big deal." It's not
> impossible that it would prevent a court ruling, he says, but "it would be
> unusual."****
>
> Even so, the laws are based on fears that are unwarranted, if not
> fraudulent. Muslims, who make up a tiny percentage of the population, are
> not about to seize control of American law. The same conservatives who
> accuse judges of trying to stamp out expressions of Christian faith now
> imagine they are eager to do the bidding of ayatollahs.****
>
> Of course, it's always possible that people practicing a religion with many
> dark associations will bide their time, infiltrate our institutions and
> someday put us under the control of secretive foreign clerics. Those
> Catholics may be sneakier than you think.****
>
> ** **
>
> *NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE <http://www.nationalreview.com/> *www.nationalreview.com
> PRINT<http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/302280>
> ****
>
> *Fears of 'Creeping
> Sharia'<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302280/fears-creeping-sharia-m...>
> *
>
> By Matthew Schmitz <http://www.nationalreview.com/author/302281>****
>
> June 13, 2012 4:00
> A.M.<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302280/fears-creeping-sharia-m...>
> ****
>
> On May 7, the Kansas House voted unanimously in favor of a bill barring
> judges and government agencies from basing decisions on sharia or other
> "foreign" legal systems. Four days later, the Senate voted 33 to 3 in favor
> of the measure, which was then carried through the capitol building, past
> John Steuart Curry's famous painting of John Brown, to the office of
> Governor Sam Brownback, who signed it into law. This bill is only the
> latest manifestation of the growing anti-sharia movement in this country,
> which endangers our national security by alienating loyal Muslim citizens
> and assaults religious liberty by putting contracts with a religious
> motivation on an unequal footing with contracts that have no religious
> motivation.****
>
> Kansas's new law forbids courts and agencies to respect contracts drawn up
> under "any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state
> or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to,
> international organizations and tribunals" if the legal system does not
> grant the same "fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under
> the United States and Kansas constitutions."****
>
> Sharia, of course, does not grant all the rights that the U.S. Constitution
> does; neither does Christian canon law or Jewish Halakhic law (or English
> or French law, for that matter). But why should this fact prevent a court
> from honoring a contract made under the provisions of one of these
> "foreign" legal systems if the contract does not itself violate any U.S. or
> state regulations, laws, or constitutional provisions? Under one reading of
> the Kansas law, a contract that makes reference to canon law or sharia —
> but is otherwise perfectly legal — would be thrown out, while an identical
> one that makes no such reference would be upheld. The other possible
> reading of the law is that it only bars rulings based on foreign legal
> systems when the rulings themselves would violate constitutional rights.
> But in that case, as Professor Douglas
> Laycock<http://townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/2012/06/10/the_bogus_thre...>
> of
> the University of Virginia Law School has argued, the law is meaningless,
> for courts will not tolerate or enforce violations of constitutional rights
> in any case. ****
>
> The assumption undergirding the Kansas law, and similar laws enacted or
> being considered in other states, is that America faces a serious threat
> from "creeping sharia." While some Western countries do face real
> difficulties from large, radicalized Muslim populations, evidence for the
> Islamization of America is terribly thin.* *Sharia, moreover, is not one
> rigid legal system but rather an immensely varied set of legal, cultural,
> and ethical understandings. It varies between countries and regions,
> encompassing social custom and dietary habits as well as what Westerners
> consider matters of law.****
>
> Advocates for the Kansas law pointed to the divorce case of Hussein Hamdeh,
> a professor of physics at Wichita State University, and his wife, Hala, who
> were married in Lebanon. The way sharia is usually discussed, one might
> think there was some threat of a stoning, a beheading, or the lopping off
> of some less essential body part. In reality, the Hamdehs' divorce
> proceedings have been typified by the usual wrangling that takes place
> under America's current divorce laws (which themselves are very far from
> perfect).****
>
> Mr. Hamdeh requested that his wife receive no assets aside from a "bride
> gift" of approximately $5,000, offering as support his interpretation of
> Lebanese marriage law and the terms of their prenuptial agreement. Neither
> argument can survive scrutiny. Even under most readings of sharia, the
> bride gift does not exhaust the husband's financial obligations, according
> to Kansas attorney Ron Nelson, who spoke to reporter Andy Marso of the *Topeka
> Capital-Journal*. Nelson added: "The husband's claims that dower should
> satisfy his marital obligation are simply his positioning — much the same
> as nearly every other person who is going through a divorce and makes a
> goodly sum of money tries to do. But that's not a sharia question. And it's
> certainly not a position limited to men with Islamic beliefs or a Middle
> East background. What it comes down to is that in any divorce pending in
> Kansas, the courts apply Kansas divorce and property division law and
> Kansas law on the support of spouses and children."****
>
> The Hamdehs' divorce was never going to be decided, finally, on terms of
> sharia, but rather on settled American understandings of property and
> visitation rights. A contract based on sharia, just like a contract based
> on anything else, is enforceable only when it complies with the
> Constitution and applicable laws and regulations. A private contract does
> not become any more constitutional or legal because of an appeal to sharia,
> nor — barring discriminatory laws like those just passed by Kansas — does
> it become any less constitutional or legal.****
>
> Mr. Hamdeh's appeals to Islamic law should be of no more concern to a state
> legislature than the exaggerated claims and counterclaims heard in many
> divorce proceedings. And so the one concrete justification for Kansas's
> anti-sharia bill crumbles. In response to a fantastical need, Kansas has
> placed otherwise legal religious contracts on an unequal footing with
> identical ones entered into without a religious purpose.****
>
> The needlessness of such restrictions is underlined by another prominent
> case. In 2009, a New Jersey judge, in deference to his own reading of
> sharia, refused to grant a restraining order for a woman seeking protection
> from an abusive husband. The decision was overturned on appeal, not because
> the judge had misread sharia, but because he had misread American law,
> which trumps the terms of any private contract — whether it is made
> according to sharia, canon law, Halakhic law, or the whims of the two
> parties.****
>
> The *New Jersey Star-Ledger* summed up how the New Jersey case showed the
> needlessness of anti-sharia measures: "In 2009, a Hudson County judge gave
> too much weight to the religious beliefs of a Moroccan man accused of
> sexually assaulting his wife. The decision was overturned on appeal, and
> now the convicted defendant, who lives in Bayonne, faces up to 20 years in
> state prison." What we see here is a judicial error, not the vulnerability
> of American law to "creeping sharia."****
>
> Yet for months, prominent conservative politicians like Newt Gingrich and
> Michele Bachmann dignified the disreputable anti-sharia movement by
> mentioning the threat of sharia in campaign appearances. Rick Santorum, an
> erstwhile supporter of religious liberty, signed an anti-sharia pledge.
> This is a great political miscalculation. Anti-sharia measures like
> Kansas's risk discrediting the political effort to fight the Obama
> administration's unprecedented attack on religious liberty via the
> contraceptive and abortifacient mandate.****
>
> Other leading conservatives have recognized this danger. Tom Lynch, an
> officer of the conservative Thomas More Law Center, drew a sharp response
> from prominent conservatives when he tweeted, "Believe Islam a religion,
> then support the Becket Fund. Believe it will destroy US, then supt
> thomasmore.org."****
>
> The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty replied by calling on the Thomas More
> Law Center to end its involvement with the anti-sharia movement, and Robert
> P. George of Princeton University issued a statement saying, "This is no
> time for people of faith to be fighting amongst ourselves or casting unjust
> aspersions on each other. If the Thomas More Law Center professes itself to
> be a defender of religious liberty, let it follow the lead of the Becket
> Fund in standing up for the rights of all. Religious-freedom organizations
> should be leading the fight against religious bigotry; they should not be
> practicing it against our Muslim fellow citizens or anyone else."****
>
> It is particularly disappointing to see Sam Brownback — a committed
> Catholic with deep ties to the evangelical-Protestant community and a
> strong record on religious-liberty matters — signing an anti-sharia bill.
> Addressing the 2006 Religious Liberty Dinner in Washington, D.C., Brownback
> said that people denied religious liberty "deserve our efforts" to
> vindicate their rights. He cited the Epistle to the Hebrews in calling on
> those who possess liberty to remember "those who are mistreated as if you
> yourselves were suffering." Brownback's point is as true today as ever:
> American Christians must stand for the religious liberty of Muslims if they
> are to argue persuasively for their own.****
>
> Perhaps the most acute irony of the anti-sharia movement is that it
> undermines our national security, in particular our ability to
> constructively engage peaceful Muslims and to take action against
> terrorists. In ways various and immeasurable, the anti-sharia movement's
> implication that all Muslims are radicals amplifies resentments and fuels
> hate by encouraging Americans to view their neighbors with suspicion and
> distrust. Even worse, it threatens to turn our Muslim fellow citizens, and
> our Muslim allies abroad, against America.****
>
> The anti-sharia movement also undermines national security in much more
> concrete ways. Tom Lynch recently linked to a
> post<http://godfatherpolitics.com/5380/arabic-mandated-in-new-york-public-...>
> by
> one Gary DeMar contending that instruction in the Arabic language in a New
> York City public school was part of a program of deliberate Islamization.
> Now, the real reason the school selected Arabic was to help it gain
> certification from the prestigious International Baccalaureate (IB)
> program, but DeMar brushed this fact aside: "I suspect that the IB program
> is more about the Islamization of America than anything else."****
>
> Teaching Arabic in our schools, of course, is precisely the kind of thing
> that will help Americans combat terrorism. The fact that the anti-sharia
> people so readily oppose it shows they are much more concerned about the
> specter of "creeping sharia" than about readying our nation to
> intelligently counter immediate and ongoing terrorist threats. They would
> rather win a chimerical battle in the culture war than support policies
> that could provide critical aid to Americans engaged abroad who stand in
> need of agents, officers, and interpreters with a firm grasp of Arabic.****
>
> Unhinged rhetoric, if long enough tolerated, will eventually impose real
> costs. The National Conference of State Legislatures says anti-sharia
> measures already have been considered in 20 states, and Oklahoma, Arizona,
> Louisiana, and Tennessee have all enacted such measures. These bills put
> religious contracts on an unequal footing with secular ones without
> extending any new constitutional or legal protections to women in Muslim
> communities. Their conservative advocates embarrass the very name of
> "religious liberty" and endanger our national security.****
>
> Anti-Muslim bigots and their public apologists must be vigorously opposed
> by Americans who recognize the value of a religious voice in the public
> square and the imperative that all Americans be treated equally under the
> law, whether they are religious or irreligious, Christian, Muslim, or Jew.**
> **
>
> *— Matthew Schmitz is the deputy editor of *First Things *and can be
> reached via his Twitter handle, @matthewschmitz.*****
>
> *EDITOR'S NOTE*: This article has been amended since its initial posting.***
> *
>
> Permalink<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302280/fears-creeping-sharia-m...>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> © National Review Online 2012. All Rights Reserved.
>
> Home <http://www.nationalreview.com/> |
> Search<http://www.nationalreview.com/search>
>  | NR / Digital <http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd> |
> Donate<https://www.nationalreview.com/donate>
>  | Media Kit <http://www.nationalreview.com/media-kit> | Contact
> Us<http://www.nationalreview.com/contact>
>  | Privacy Policy <http://www.nationalreview.com/privacy> | Log
> In<http://www.nationalreview.com/user/login?destination=blogs%2Fprint%2F...>
> ****
>
>
>
>  image001.jpg
> 2KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.