Tampa to Tackle Shariah

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Salon:

The Republican Party platform will likely include a plank this year opposing the imagined threat of Islamic law​

While leaders like Speaker Boehner and Sen. John McCain were rightly praised for taking a strong stand against Rep. Michele Bachmann’s witch hunt against Muslims in the U.S. government, don’t give the party of Lincoln a pass on Islamophobia just yet. In Tampa this week, GOP leaders adopted a plank to their platform supporting a ban on foreign law and aimed at Shariah, the Islamic religious law that many conservatives insist is secretly insinuating itself in the U.S. The platform still has to be approved by the entire convention in a vote next week, but generally, most things approved by the platform committee make it into the final platform.

TPM’s Ryan Reilly reports that the man behind the effort to add the amendment is none other than Kris Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state who moonlights as an anti-immigration activist. Kobach wrote Arizona’s infamous SB-1070 “papers please” immigration law, and advised a handful of other states on their similar laws cracking down on undocumented migrants. Kobach is (or at least was during the primary) an adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, and likely the man behind Romney’s “self-deportation” immigration policy.

But Kobach is nothing if not prolific, and apparently he has now taken up the fight against Shariah. Critics charge that just as the threat of undocumented immigration is used to justify discrimination against Hispanics, the spectre of Shariah is used to justify discrimination against Muslims. ...

So, Romney and the Republican Party are apparently stepping forward to protect me from the threat of Shariah law. Frankly, I'd be much more interesting in learning whether there might be something in Shariah law to protect me from the threat of Romney and the Republican Party.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is interesting to see such hypocrisy from the Republican Party — who hold reprehensible views when it comes to issues such as women's rights — when they try to "protect" people from imaginary threats. I'd say they are a far bigger threat to progress than any of the fabricated "threats" they so strongly preach against.

But at the end of the day, I remain an outsider to US politics, so I probably shouldn't bother myself too much with clowns who are engaged in the political field there. There are enough of them in my country to worry about.

 

[Tarheeler]

Thank God we have the Republicans to protect us from Muslims, homosexuals, Mexicans, Socialists, public education, comprehensive universal health care, equal rights, and tolerance.

Where on earth would we be without them?

 

[Rival]

Imagined threat of Shari'ah?
People, open your eyes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Given the expansion of Islam, I wouldn't be surprised if Shariah law began creeping into our system.
But I expect that it would take many many decades. I've seen no sign of it yet.
Likely, it would begin a couple ways:
1) With parties mutually agreeing to let it rule in court sanctioned arbitration.
I've no problem with that, since it wouldn't be forced upon me.
2) Judges will often rule based upon personal values, independent of the law. I've seen it happen many times.
If a judge is Muslim, that adds another flavor of insidious theocracy to the mix.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank God we have the Republicans to protect us from Muslims, homosexuals, Mexicans, Socialists, public education, comprehensive universal health care, equal rights, and tolerance.

Those idiots! And all the time they're focussed on such nonsense the real threat continues unabated: communists dumping flouride into our drinking water!

 

[Revoltingest]

Those idiots! And all the time they're focussed on such nonsense the real threat continues unabated: communists dumping flouride into our drinking water!

No....the biggest threat to western civilization is that those monsters might require voters to have ID!
Millions upon millions of poor folk face financial ruin cuz they can't afford to drive to get those prohibitively
expensive birth certificates. We're a nation of undocumented citizens.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Imagined threat of Shari'ah?
People, open your eyes.

Interesting avatar. Is that an Arabian horse?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So, Romney and the Republican Party are apparently stepping forward to protect me from the threat of Shariah law. Frankly, I'd be much more interesting in learning whether there might be something in Shariah law to protect me from the threat of Romney and the Republican Party.

Kind of a fight fire with fire approach.

 

[Tarheeler]

Those idiots! And all the time they're focussed on such nonsense the real threat continues unabated: communists dumping flouride into our drinking water!

Umm, yeah.... that too!

 

[Rival]

Interesting avatar. Is that an Arabian horse?

No, it's Death on a horse from a tarot card.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, it's Death on a horse from a tarot card.

I thought the guy looked rather gaunt. The horse, on the other hand, ...

 

[tytlyf]

Given the expansion of Islam, I wouldn't be surprised if Shariah law began creeping into our system.
But I expect that it would take many many decades. I've seen no sign of it yet.
Likely, it would begin a couple ways:
1) With parties mutually agreeing to let it rule in court sanctioned arbitration.
I've no problem with that, since it wouldn't be forced upon me.
2) Judges will often rule based upon personal values, independent of the law. I've seen it happen many times.
If a judge is Muslim, that adds another flavor of insidious theocracy to the mix.

You can't be serious. As long as America has the Constitution, that will never happen. That's why it's important to stand up to christians who are trying to infuse their beliefs into the system. As more and more Americans become less religious, this will continue to reinforce a secular society and the want to keep ANY religion out of our system. So as years go by, they are losing ground.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As more and more Americans become less religious, this will continue to reinforce a secular society and the want to keep ANY religion out of our system.

That would be very sad, particularly since the intent of the Constitution was to keep the oppression of and favoratism for ANY religion out of our system.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can't be serious.

Oh, but I can.

As long as America has the Constitution, that will never happen.

The Constitution is a "living document", which is regularly amended by judicial fiat to suit evolving values, eg, the Kelo Decision.

That's why it's important to stand up to christians who are trying to infuse their beliefs into the system. As more and more Americans become less religious, this will continue to reinforce a secular society and the want to keep ANY religion out of our system. So as years go by, they are losing ground.

I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.

 

[Mathematician]

Government secularism (particularly on the federal level) has always managed to avoid (to an extent) the lack of respect for religious diversity that exists on the social level.

 

[TashaN]

How do you define a "foreign law"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Law that's soft on foreigners?

 

[TashaN]

Law that's soft on foreigners?

lol.

 

[gnomon]

You can't be serious. As long as America has the Constitution, that will never happen. That's why it's important to stand up to christians who are trying to infuse their beliefs into the system. As more and more Americans become less religious, this will continue to reinforce a secular society and the want to keep ANY religion out of our system. So as years go by, they are losing ground.

Don't count out anything. The U.S. Constitution has been repeatedly ignored in the last decade regarding private property rights as well as instances of due process.

But I don't think Sharia is an issue in this country. Even if it were I don't think any court would, in the right circumstances, recognize a ruling under Sharia law where pertinent U.S. laws stand.

Romney and Obama should be taking a closer look at certain laws across the State which violate the Constitution as exercised by many municipalities in regards to the takings of private property instead.

But they don't. Which is why they both suck and not fit for the job of President of the USA given that the position they desire is to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect the rights of it's citizens.

For any clue as to what I'm talking about just google the many news regarding eminent domain, asset forfeiture and the numerous drug laws across this nation.