Montana is spearheading legislation to keep Sharia Law from being implemented within its borders, this time FOR GOOD. Senate Bill 97, which was proposed by Sen. Keith Regier, prohibits state courts from using foreign laws, just advanced in the House with a 56-44 vote. (via Billings Gazette).

It is truly astonishing how the Democrats have such little respect for our founding fathers, that they were able to muster up 44 votes to ensure the savage ideals of Sharia Law remaining an option for U.S judges to force on the American people.

The fact that even “moderate” Muslims view Sharia Law as being superior to our American common law system is not only disturbing, but also nightmarish. Liberals can’t even concede to the notion that foreign laws should not be used in the American court system, ever!


This is just plane scary. Why would anyone want to have Muslim law implemented in our country?
I have said it before, and I will keep saying it. We need to deport all Muslims from this country.
And the sooner the better. To coin a fraise, " bring me your tired your sick and hungry etc , " does not apply any longer.

What do you think? Should we allow Sharia Law over our own?

RETW


PS I'm beginning to think we should eliminate the democratic party because of the treason that has taken hold of it.

Montana is spearheading legislation to keep Sharia Law from being implemented within its borders, this time FOR GOOD. Senate Bill 97, which was proposed by Sen. Keith Regier, prohibits state courts from using foreign laws, just advanced in the House with a 56-44 vote. (via Billings Gazette).

It is truly astonishing how the Democrats have such little respect for our founding fathers, that they were able to muster up 44 votes to ensure the savage ideals of Sharia Law remaining an option for U.S judges to force on the American people.

The fact that even “moderate” Muslims view Sharia Law as being superior to our American common law system is not only disturbing, but also nightmarish. Liberals can’t even concede to the notion that foreign laws should not be used in the American court system, ever!


This is just plane scary. Why would anyone want to have Muslim law implemented in our country?
I have said it before, and I will keep saying it. We need to deport all Muslims from this country.
And the sooner the better. To coin a fraise, " bring me your tired your sick and hungry etc , " does not apply any longer.

What do you think? Should we allow Sharia Law over our own?

RETW


PS I'm beginning to think we should eliminate the democratic party because of the treason that has taken hold of it.

Montana is spearheading legislation to keep Sharia Law from being implemented within its borders, this time FOR GOOD. Senate Bill 97, which was proposed by Sen. Keith Regier, prohibits state courts from using foreign laws, just advanced in the House with a 56-44 vote. (via Billings Gazette).

It is truly astonishing how the Democrats have such little respect for our founding fathers, that they were able to muster up 44 votes to ensure the savage ideals of Sharia Law remaining an option for U.S judges to force on the American people.

The fact that even “moderate” Muslims view Sharia Law as being superior to our American common law system is not only disturbing, but also nightmarish. Liberals can’t even concede to the notion that foreign laws should not be used in the American court system, ever!


This is just plane scary. Why would anyone want to have Muslim law implemented in our country?
I have said it before, and I will keep saying it. We need to deport all Muslims from this country.
And the sooner the better. To coin a fraise, " bring me your tired your sick and hungry etc , " does not apply any longer.

What do you think? Should we allow Sharia Law over our own?

RETW


PS I'm beginning to think we should eliminate the democratic party because of the treason that has taken hold of it.

You are under a misunderstanding, Rabbinic Laws do not superseded any laws of the land.

Muslim sharia have pressed for their decisions to carry legal force in the national law. In contrast, no similar pressure has been exerted by the rabbinical courts. A fundamental principal in democracies is that equality before the law must refer to all citizens, and take care to maintain the wall of separation between church and state. By contrast, sharia law has been used to justify breaches or defiance of national, secular law. Jewish rabbinical courts are limited to the very small number of Jews who resort to them, not to the whole Jewish population.

Both parties going to the rabbinical courts attend voluntarily and both must accept its judgments in order for them to be binding. The rabbinical courts have no coercive power over the Jewish community as a whole whereas sharia law is imposed on the entire Muslim population. Furthermore, sharia law appears inflexible when compared with rabbinical law which is constantly changing. The different branches of Judaism, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, have their own rabbinical authorities and therefore issue pluralistic, different interpretations of halakhah. Moreover, the procedures, rules, schedules, and requirements, used in rabbinical courts fluctuate at different times and in various places.

Although Rabbinical courts and sharia courts are based on religion, that is where the similarities end. Jewish law, though the law of the Jewish people, does not dictate the political life of Jews, nor does it seek to be incorporated into the national secular law. Indeed, interpretation of halakhah, decided by argument and vote, differs in Beth Dins.

The Beth Din is concerned only with civil cases. Above all, there is for the most part, if not complete, gender equality in its proceedings, contrary to the patriarchal nature of sharia courts and sharia law which discriminates against women and places them in an inferior position.

A fundamental principle in democracies is that equality before the law must refer to all citizens. The rabbinical courts do not seek to be in disharmony with national law. By contrast sharia law has been used, on the basis of religious principle to justify breaches or defiance of national, secular law, the question of polygamy being a notorious example.


Where one’s religious conduct harms others, government must interfere to protect the public good, and constitute our “public policies”. You will never hear a Jew say, “If we are practicing Jew, we are above the law of the land.” However, Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas CAIR branch he brazenly said: “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.”

A few states have taken a stand, here is a list of states who have modified their constitutions banning sharia law:

Alabama (two bills)
Arkansas
Florida (two bills)
Indiana (two bills)
Iowa
Kentucky
Mississippi (four bills)
Missouri (two bills)
North Carolina
Oklahoma (seven bills)
South Carolina (two bills)
Texas (six bills)
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming (two bills)

Do not try to use a people who are hated by muslims as your stepping stone to brining a foreign law to replace American judicial system... As Americans, we are quite content to abide by the laws laid down by our government.

Islam is NOT a religion!! It is a political ideology!! Allowing so-called "muslim law" is tantamount to allowing Mexican laws to be used in America. Those that advocate using "sharia law" need to go back or move to those countries that have it. The democratic party is flapping around like a fish out of water and looking for anything it can to restore it's credibility (if it ever had any). Unfortunately, no matter what "the people" say, activist judges will do whatever they want, anyway.

Islam is NOT a religion!! It is a political ideology!! Allowing so-called "muslim law" is tantamount to allowing Mexican laws to be used in America. Those that advocate using "sharia law" need to go back or move to those countries that have it. The democratic party is flapping around like a fish out of water and looking for anything it can to restore it's credibility (if it ever had any). Unfortunately, no matter what "the people" say, activist judges will do whatever they want, anyway.

That is one reason why one day they will not be relevant and thrown on the trash heap of history. Have you ever noticed that every sick, Antiamerican law, process or way of thinking that comes into being the Liberals or Democrats are the first ones to embrace it and force it on the rest of America by law or force? The very things that Sheria Law advocates the Liberals say they are against. There will have to be another hugh 9-11 that will have to take place before we really wakeup. Where is all the sense in all this?

That is one reason why one day they will not be relevant and thrown on the trash heap of history. Have you ever noticed that every sick, Antiamerican law, process or way of thinking that comes into being the Liberals or Democrats are the first ones to embrace it and force it on the rest of America by law or force? The very things that Sheria Law advocates the Liberals say they are against. There will have to be another hugh 9-11 that will have to take place before we really wakeup. Where is all the sense in all this?