Texas Gov signs off on bill to keep Sharia law out of courts

[SassyIrishLass]

Not much of a fight, pass a law...pfft done

We already have a law

It is called the US Constitution

And in Texas it will remain supreme law, well done Texas stomp it out before it begins

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Those Texans are smart

So Texas is writing a law confirming the Constitutional separation of church and state?

Why not write a law confirming freedom of speech?

Just stop, if Texas wants to pass a law that's Texas's prerogative and if you don't like it then don't go to Texas. Simple, no?

But instead you feel the need to whine and bawl about it.

And it is my prerogative to mock Texas for passing Boogieman legislation to pander to their bigoted base

Texas doesn't give two shits what you mock, you nor any other prog

 

[rightwinger]

We already have a law

It is called the US Constitution

And in Texas it will remain supreme law, well done Texas stomp it out before it begins

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Those Texans are smart

So Texas is writing a law confirming the Constitutional separation of church and state?

Why not write a law confirming freedom of speech?

Just stop, if Texas wants to pass a law that's Texas's prerogative and if you don't like it then don't go to Texas. Simple, no?

But instead you feel the need to whine and bawl about it.

And it is my prerogative to mock Texas for passing Boogieman legislation to pander to their bigoted base

Texas doesn't give two shits what you mock, you nor any other prog

That is why we have an interweb

To be able to mock those who amuse us. In this case, Texas confirms they are a bunch of buttfuck morons dedicated to pandering to racists and bible thumpers

 

[SassyIrishLass]

And in Texas it will remain supreme law, well done Texas stomp it out before it begins

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Those Texans are smart

So Texas is writing a law confirming the Constitutional separation of church and state?

Why not write a law confirming freedom of speech?

Just stop, if Texas wants to pass a law that's Texas's prerogative and if you don't like it then don't go to Texas. Simple, no?

But instead you feel the need to whine and bawl about it.

And it is my prerogative to mock Texas for passing Boogieman legislation to pander to their bigoted base

Texas doesn't give two shits what you mock, you nor any other prog

That is why we have an interweb

To be able to mock those who amuse us. In this case, Texas confirms they are a bunch of buttfuck morons dedicated to pandering to racists and bible thumpers

You think Texas is actually reading your nonsense? LOL

Get over it, all you Islamapologists, the great state of Texas stuffed you

 

[rightwinger]

So Texas is writing a law confirming the Constitutional separation of church and state?

Why not write a law confirming freedom of speech?

Just stop, if Texas wants to pass a law that's Texas's prerogative and if you don't like it then don't go to Texas. Simple, no?

But instead you feel the need to whine and bawl about it.

And it is my prerogative to mock Texas for passing Boogieman legislation to pander to their bigoted base

Texas doesn't give two shits what you mock, you nor any other prog

That is why we have an interweb

To be able to mock those who amuse us. In this case, Texas confirms they are a bunch of buttfuck morons dedicated to pandering to racists and bible thumpers

You think Texas is actually reading your nonsense? LOL

Get over it, all you Islamapologists, the great state of Texas stuffed you

As a card carrying USMB member, I am free to mock any state I please

If it displeases you, you are welcome to stay off this thread

 

[Coyote]

Did you ACTUALLY read your source? Because it's not supporting what you think it is....

yea, and i agree it's not 100% dead on but in this case i'm not certain something could be.

for example, in that link a muslim said he can rape his wife cause that's how they live. ie - their laws. he wanted to be found innocent of a crime since under *their* law he would be.

now - if texas is taking a preemptive measure measure here and simply saying "don't bother trying to use your laws we don't recognize them here" then yes, this article would point out why Texas and other states are getting ahead of this one and shutting it down before it becomes an issue.

I don't think that is what it said at all.

It gave that one particular case, where a judge made a bad ruling that was overturned. It also expanded on how erroneous people's ideas of "Creeping Sharia" are by giving examples what can and can not be done in US law as well as how foreign laws (which Sharia would be) come into play if you are dealing with someone married under another country's laws and coming to the US (just one example where courts have to consider other laws).

well i won't go too deep into arguing against your points cause i've been slammed at work and not able to do the research i like to do.

so that brings me to a simple question - if shaira law is not being pushed for here in the US by muslims, and Texas as well as other states are doing PR type moves to say "NOT HERE" (and this could well be that) does it hurt anything? i mean, they're not going to push for it anyway, right?

Does it hurt anything? It's a waste of time, for one (don't they have more important things to legislate?) and it sends a message to the Muslim community: "you aren't really American".

it sends a message to the Muslim community: "you aren't really American"

Anyone who lives by the Koran and allows it to supersede the U.S. Constitution is not and cannot be an American! Period.

That isn't happening however - strawman.

 

[Coyote]

I think a lot of people don't understand what "sharia" is. The see what ISIS does, they see how women are treated in parts of the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia and they think "Sharia" but it's not that simple- what EXACTLY is a law banning "Sharia" banning? If it's banning murdering gay people, that is already against the law. If it's banning domestic abuse that is already against the law.


I think this is a good interview, and it makes some good points: Who's Behind The Movement To Ban Shariah Law?

On what Shariah law is


"Shariah literally means the way to the watering hole and is more commonly referred to as 'the way.' It is, most simply put, the law that guides Islamic beliefs and actions. But when Westerners think of a legal code, they tend to think of a fixed set of laws and Shariah is a lot more fluid than that, in part because there's no governing authoring in Islam. So while Islam's four major schools of law agree on many basic areas of Shariah, there are many areas that lack consensus and there's really a whole spectrum around the world in ways Muslims observe Shariah law. One of the key points is missing in this debate is that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries like the United States, there is broad agreement that Shariah requires them to abide by the laws of the land in exchange for the right to worship freely."


On creating a debate about Shariah



"[Yerushalmi] really set out on what might seem like an impossible mission, which was to make this very arcane and complex subject of Shariah a focus of national scrutiny. This was a word that was not even part of our vernacular a few years ago. ... A lot of people would argue that what has come of this is not really a substantive debate about Shariah as much as a shouting match. It's a shouting match that involves really simple messages on both sides — 'Shariah is bad' or 'Shariah is a non-issue.' But the leaders of this campaign really talk about it in a most preemptive way than a prescriptive way. What they say they're doing is trying to prevent Shariah from having the kind of influence seen in Europe, particularly in England, where the Muslim community is far less integrated and where there are Shariah tribunals."​

Muslim women don't attend these Sharia tribunals by choice the evidence collected by member of the House of Lords and renowned human rights activist Baroness Cox for example shows that in the U.K. they are being forced to use these parallel legal systems under the threats of violence, murder, and being ostracized from their families and communities.

Bow Group Report: "A Parallel World - confronting the abuse of Muslim women in Britain" | The Bow Group

We have the President of the Sharia council on record calling for the legalization of marital rape and a member of the board of governors calling for legalizing wife beating.

Apologists for Shariah like Coyote actually support the rape and murder of Muslim women, the evidence for this support is the canary in the coal mine that is the UK. So Coyote, when did you first realize that you support legalizing beating and raping Muslim women?

We are talking about the US idiot. You do realize that Britain and the US are two completely different countries with different laws, constitutions, rights and freedoms?

 

[Coyote]

Answer me this. Plain and simple. Should the police have returned that toddler I saved, simply because it is their culture?

I think a lot of people don't understand what "sharia" is. The see what ISIS does, they see how women are treated in parts of the Arab world, such as Saudi Arabia and they think "Sharia" but it's not that simple- what EXACTLY is a law banning "Sharia" banning? If it's banning murdering gay people, that is already against the law. If it's banning domestic abuse that is already against the law.


I think this is a good interview, and it makes some good points: Who's Behind The Movement To Ban Shariah Law?

On what Shariah law is


"Shariah literally means the way to the watering hole and is more commonly referred to as 'the way.' It is, most simply put, the law that guides Islamic beliefs and actions. But when Westerners think of a legal code, they tend to think of a fixed set of laws and Shariah is a lot more fluid than that, in part because there's no governing authoring in Islam. So while Islam's four major schools of law agree on many basic areas of Shariah, there are many areas that lack consensus and there's really a whole spectrum around the world in ways Muslims observe Shariah law. One of the key points is missing in this debate is that Muslims living in non-Muslim countries like the United States, there is broad agreement that Shariah requires them to abide by the laws of the land in exchange for the right to worship freely."


On creating a debate about Shariah



"[Yerushalmi] really set out on what might seem like an impossible mission, which was to make this very arcane and complex subject of Shariah a focus of national scrutiny. This was a word that was not even part of our vernacular a few years ago. ... A lot of people would argue that what has come of this is not really a substantive debate about Shariah as much as a shouting match. It's a shouting match that involves really simple messages on both sides — 'Shariah is bad' or 'Shariah is a non-issue.' But the leaders of this campaign really talk about it in a most preemptive way than a prescriptive way. What they say they're doing is trying to prevent Shariah from having the kind of influence seen in Europe, particularly in England, where the Muslim community is far less integrated and where there are Shariah tribunals."​

I had to go back and find that post again:

I literally lived a few doors down from the center and Mosque. It became a big deal.
And, I kept a child from getting hit on a major road because dad left her in a car while he went to pray, by herself. She escaped, it was 90 degrees out, no diaper, or underpants, couldn't speak and in a velveteen filthy dress, herself filthy as well. I found her getting ready to cross the street a block from there. Since she didn't speak she could tell me nothing. Called the police, they stated, she was probably from the Mosque and that was not the first time. They picked her up and kept her til her father called looking for her, and returned her. I had to leave for my mother in laws funeral, called them when I got back, asked what happened. Told me they returned her, and explaining he had left her in the car for prayers, as I stated. I asked why, with what had happened, the heat, and her condition, they stated it is their culture.

My answer is NO. No child should be returned to an abusive situation because of anyone's so-called "culture".

Do you think she should have been?

And, by extension what about other examples of "cultural" child neglect or religiously based child abuse? We hear of this all the time.

I am curious - is that ALL that was done? Are you sure child protective services weren't notified? If they weren't, if it wasn't looked into - then that is criminal.

 

[Coyote]

Poll: Most U.S. Muslims would trade Constitution for Shariah

Here is the first problem and they will keep fighting until they win our Constitution away.

The CSP poll has been debunked for it's methodology multiple times. Try to at least find something reputable.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Now that that is over Taxus can get on to more important state matters like making sure donut shops are open on Sundays. The Double-Chin state wants to be sure all Taxuns have the god given right to eat glazed donuts before cherch.

 

[Coyote]

Again you're wrong. You can write in anything you want but clauses which violate the written laws of the jurisdiction, are unenforceable.

Every contract contains a provision which reads:

"This agreement is written and is to construed with the laws of [insert jurisdiction here i.e. the State of Texas]. If any clause contained herein is found to be at variance with such laws, such clause shall be deleted from this agreement. "

In English, it says that any part of the contract which does not conform to the written law of the jurisdiction named, is not enforceable.

There is a slight nuance here. If two parties agree to arbitration, the arbitrators judgement or ruling does not have to conform or be based on the law.

This is how many muslim women are abused by sharia courts in Europe and its proved to be the thin edge of the wedge. They are threatened and ostracised if they decide they need recourse to the law of the land so they suffer the Islamic rulings in silence. Better to nip it in the bud as Texas appears to be doing, imho.

Threatening someone because they take recourse in the law is already illegal. Has been for a long time.

And that helps women who are oppressed and who won't avail themselves of our 'man made' laws not one iota. That's the problem with parallel legal systems under which women are abused and frightened.

Sharia is not a parallel legal system in the US. It cannot become one, before or after that silly Texas crap. People like Alex Jones and Hannity have convinced you that it has a possibility of becoming a parallel system, but they were just lying to stir up the weak minded and the crazies.

Exactly. It's also a system used by other religious groups to voluntarily solve civil manners - but that is over looked. I don't see anyone screaming about it in other religions even though women are traditionally subservient to men in those as well.

The thing is - it does not supersede the US Constitution or laws. And domestic abuse is ILLEGAL and women always have recourse to secular courts regardless. Whether they do so is another matter because in domestic abuse situations - regardless of religious background - the victims are often reluctant to.

At what point should the state intervene in people's religious choices? That's pretty tricky sometimes when you are dealing with adults who have rights and free choice. It's even tricky when you are dealing with children, as we have found in this country where the state tries to intervene when parents make religiously based medical treatment choices. But to tell them they can't use their religious values in determining how to marry, divorce, divide property, create a contract or settle custody disputes has wide ranging legal consequences for all Americans who follow a faith.

I think the only real purpose in this law is to try to construct a law that singles out Muslims and will (they hope) pass constitutional muster ostensably to "protect women" (and if you believe that is the real reason behind it, I have a bridge to sell).

I question whether the "stated purpose" of this law (by it's promoters) - is even necessary.

For example - in divorce cases. Anyone can get a secular divorce, but if you have a religious marriage within certain communities- then in order to get remarried you need a religious divorce (or you leave the community). This doesn't just apply to Muslims, but Jews and Catholics as well. These are some of the things that the religious civil arbritation courts decide within their communities. For example:

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts

As an attorney, consultant or expert witness, I have handled more than 100 cases involving components of Sharia. In a case I tried in 2002, Odatalla v. Odatalla, a New Jersey couple had signed an Islamic marriage contract consistent with their cultural traditions. When the wife filed for divorce, she asked the court to enforce the mahr, or dowry provision, in her contract, which called for the husband’s payment of $10,000 upon the dissolution of their marriage. Superior Court Judge John Selser found the marriage contract valid under New Jersey law, concluding, “Clearly, this court can enforce a contract which is not in contravention of established law or public policy.”​

Another example - child custody disputes have to go through a court of law - they do not get resolved by "voluntary arbritation" and judges have latitude and MUST consider what is best for a child. This law, which on the surface claims to protect women in custody disputes is protecting them from a non-existent situation.

Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications.​

So given that - what does this law ACTUALLY DO?

It sends a message to Muslims that "we don't want you here, we don't think you are real Americans, and we are going to single out your religion even though there are already laws in place that that make what we don't like illegal" - that's effectively what it says to those people.

 

[rightwinger]

Now that that is over Taxus can get on to more important state matters like making sure donut shops are open on Sundays. The Double-Chin state wants to be sure all Taxuns have the god given right to eat glazed donuts before cherch.

Banning Donut Shops from being open on Sundays is an example of Christian Sharia Law
Forcing their religious views on the rest of us

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Threatening someone because they take recourse in the law is already illegal. Has been for a long time.

And that helps women who are oppressed and who won't avail themselves of our 'man made' laws not one iota. That's the problem with parallel legal systems under which women are abused and frightened.

Sharia is not a parallel legal system in the US. It cannot become one, before or after that silly Texas crap. People like Alex Jones and Hannity have convinced you that it has a possibility of becoming a parallel system, but they were just lying to stir up the weak minded and the crazies.

I don't know who Alex Jones is and have never listened to Hannity. Sharia law is a reality in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, where I live. It started innocuously enough, but now runs as a parallel legal system. People here thought it couldn't happen too.
There have been instances where US judges have taken into account sharia law and no doubt there are people who want that stopped asap.
I applaud Texas and the other states who are making sure sharia can make no inroads, particularly in family law.

Sharia Law is NOT a reality in Great Britain or any other Western jurisdiction. This is a lie.

Lol. Tell that to all the Muslim women who've had their right to a divorce denied in one of the 80+ Sharia courts in the U.K., even those who's husbands beat them. Tell that to all the Muslim women of One Law For All who are trying to get this parallel system banned.

their religion. While America is getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America ..In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child, consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.
Even though a woman is abused, she can not obtain a divorce.
To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and the man does not have to say why he has beaten her.
The husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the Western World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
Ripping the West in Two. Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.
She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.
Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel . He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .
When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.
But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.
In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.
For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.
Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.
While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.
While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.
It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.
While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA .. Dearborn Mich. is one... and there are others...
I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. the peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to