Kansas bans Islamic law

[Rich]

Hopefully the rest of the states will quickly follow suit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47574780/ns ... nd_courts/

[ShotgunBlast]

I don't understand why this is even necessary since the US has a set of laws. For those judges that have cited Muslim law or any other country's or culture's law, sounds like they need a refresher course in what country they're in.

Personally I don't have a problem with this and would think that you'd get more support if you didn't give them names like "the Shariah bill". Wow, way to put a bullseye on your bill like you're specifically targeting this group.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

Prepare for DOJ lawsuit in 3...2...1...

[VBshooter]

Holy galloping Christ on a crutch.../Obama and his "pals" are about to come unglued...How dare a state act independently and pass a law protecting itself without his permission..... Way to go Kansas... 49 more to go

[TheGodfather]

For those judges that have cited Muslim law or any other country's or culture's law, sounds like they need a refresher course in what country they're in.

They don't need a refresher course. They know the law and they know that they're breaking it to support their own agenda. What they need is a jail cell.

[ShotgunBlast]

For those judges that have cited Muslim law or any other country's or culture's law, sounds like they need a refresher course in what country they're in.

They don't need a refresher course. They know the law and they know that they're breaking it to support their own agenda. What they need is a jail cell.

[SHMIV]

For those judges that have cited Muslim law or any other country's or culture's law, sounds like they need a refresher course in what country they're in.

They don't need a refresher course. They know the law and they know that they're breaking it to support their own agenda. What they need is a jail cell.

Exactly.

[Atamisk]

This is insane. Reading the article one question came to mind: since when has anybody cared what laws are applied to civil matters, especially of different cultures? Obviously US law applies to criminal (and civil) cases, which means the only way an ethnic custom can be applied is with the consent of all involved parties.

This bill is ethnic prejudice made law, and it's ludicrous. Unless there's something I'm missing here?

[Kreutz]

Constitution trumps state laws. I have no sympathy for Islam, but this is blatantly unconstitutional and pointless. Any judge making a decision on Sharia law will have it overturned by an appeals court.

[M1A4ME]

I don't understand why this is even necessary since the US has a set of laws. For those judges that have cited Muslim law or any other country's or culture's law, sounds like they need a refresher course in what country they're in.

Personally I don't have a problem with this and would think that you'd get more support if you didn't give them names like "the Shariah bill". Wow, way to put a bullseye on your bill like you're specifically targeting this group.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yeah, what we need is a law that says when a judge/prosecutor, etc. quotes or follows any laws but federal/state/local laws and ordinances they should automatcally be removed from office, lose their license (be disbarred) and a public announcement (newspapers, TV, etc) be made about why they were removed and replaced.

[VBshooter]

THe fact that any state has to even think of this is evidence that things have gotten out of hand and the country has been slipping further into the crapper with little to no notice, We need laws like that if we ever intend to preserve the way of life and principals that make this country head and shoulders above the rest of the world, If the Islamists or whoever don;t like our laws, tough sh!t ,,, go somewhere else and change that place into your damn Utopia of Sharia garbage ,,,,,,Maybe try Antarctica

[FiremanBob]

Kreutz is completely wrong again, unless he can provide a Constitution-based argument for his assertion.

All the Kansas bill does is explicitly assert the supremacy of state law in decisions rendered by the state courts and agencies to provide guidance to those entities. This will avoid time and money wasted in arguing frivolous and bad-faith claims by militant Muslims.

For example: if "honor-killing" is allowed by Sharia, will a murderer claim that state law does not apply and he should go free? How about the Islamic tenet that it is ok to lie to or cheat an infidel as a tactic to weaken Islam's enemies?

Suppose that it were the Catholic church that demanded using canon law to make decisions, and militant Catholics started litigation to outlaw divorce and put the abortion industry out of business (a good idea, but the wrong way to go about it)?

[Kreutz]

How am I wrong? Without a ban on Sharia law or not no honor killer is gonna use that excuse and walk. It's utterly unnecessary. Incidentally a judge using his concept of Christian mercy letting a murderer walk wouldn't happen either.

This is a red herring.

I was going to mention Canon law but figured few would know what it is given the protestant character of the state. Its perfectly analogous as no judge will get away legislating based on that.

[FiremanBob]

Kreutz, realizing that he cannot defend his assertion that the Kansas law would be unconstitutional, attempts to turn the question and demand that I prove him wrong. No, sonny, it's your job to defend your original assertion. Again I ask, what would be unconstitutional about the Kansas law? (And again, Kreutz will fail to find a credible argument.)

Note that murder is not the only example I cited. I can easily envision attempts to use sharia to weasel out of tort litigation. And despite the merit or lack any in the hypothetical claim of a Sharia defense against American law, don't think they wouldn't try to use it to disrupt the proceeding and create a propaganda war in their home countries. Remember the Danish cartoons and the phony flushed Koran incidents, as well as the nonsense over how women may dress in the KSM trial now underway?

[donut]

The whole thing is a hoot and a cataclysmic waste of time. Nothing says "getting stuff done" like instituting redundant legislation. Way to earn those paychecks. I agree with the above posters and that if we have people on the bench trying to bypass or stretch the law any which way, they ought to not be on the bench. Last I understood it, the Constitution was the basis of law in this country.

It's like being in the military and not knowing how to march.

Yet, here's some funny stuff. Now if you read the bill, it's official name is "Senate Bill No. 79". Nowhere in the bill do the words "Sharia, Islam, Muslim, or Islamic" appear. Neat trick, it would be hard to prove a discrimination case if no one group is targeted. However, the complacency of these so called legislators who at the same time don't bother to correct anyone when they call it the "Sharia Bill" is up for interpretation. Why oh why would that be? Perhaps by demonizing something is the only way to get attention and therefore appear productive and or effective? Again, neat trick. How many of these guys actually read this thing before they voted for it and attached their names to it? Did they vote for it because of what it says or out of some outright paranoia that some group wants to establish a Islamic Caliphate in Kansas? Has someone in this country ever walked on a honor killing? I don't think so, (if they have I'll admit fault for not researching it) I believe they get charged with murder in some degree like every other scumbag. I don't think the bill is unconstitutional given the text of the bill, but I do think it is stupid.

[Diomed]

As far as I can tell, this law mainly screws around with private contracts, in the sense that if you want to go into binding arbitration of a religious nature, you're probably going to run afoul of this law, since most religions aren't as liberal as the US Consitution is, and probably the Kansas one as well. It doesn't seem to exclude things like canon law-based activities from its prohibition.

So, I guess since everyone will be equally inconvenienced, it's a good law, under our modern standards.

[davasmith]

Bah humbug~! I call bullsh*t on it all. Now in more important importance, ........................ may I call your attention to the upcoming election? Do we move forward or do we make another change to believe in?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Kreutz, realizing that he cannot defend his assertion that the Kansas law would be unconstitutional, attempts to turn the question and demand that I prove him wrong. No, sonny, it's your job to defend your original assertion. Again I ask, what would be unconstitutional about the Kansas law? (And again, Kreutz will fail to find a credible argument.)

Note that murder is not the only example I cited. I can easily envision attempts to use sharia to weasel out of tort litigation. And despite the merit or lack any in the hypothetical claim of a Sharia defense against American law, don't think they wouldn't try to use it to disrupt the proceeding and create a propaganda war in their home countries. Remember the Danish cartoons and the phony flushed Koran incidents, as well as the nonsense over how women may dress in the KSM trial now underway?

From the guy that failed to prove why this is necessary at all?

Talk about turning things around.

Just blame Obama. Keep it simple stupid; don't tamper with the formula.

[FiremanBob]

Kreutz really is an idiot. Now he imagines that I wrote something that I didn't: viz, a statement that the law is necessary. I originally took issue with his claim that the law is unconstitutional.

Once again, the intellectual dishonesty of this Kreutz troll is beneath contempt. It would be different if he had a sense of humor at least.

[dorminWS]

Kreutz really is an idiot. Now he imagines that I wrote something that I didn't: viz, a statement that the law is necessary. I originally took issue with his claim that the law is unconstitutional.

Once again, the intellectual dishonesty of this Kreutz troll is beneath contempt. It would be different if he had a sense of humor at least.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ah, give the boy a break. He's a liberal and a damnyankee. He therefore can't help being intellectually dishonest any more than a dog can help licking its ....eeerr....ummm .... package. If he wasn't blind to the concept of intellectual honesty he'd be a good honest conservative; or maybe a republican or at least a RINO.