Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has signed a bill that effectively bans Sharia law, a step that supporters intend will prevent Islamic law from being applied in Kansas courts.
You might be surprised to hear that US courts consider Sharia law in the first place. In fact, it's never happened in Kansas, according toFox News.
Nationally, US courts deal with cases involving Sharia law the same way they deal with any cases involving religion. The courts apply American law, but "recognize the right of people of faith to agree to settle disputes in accordance with the principles of their religion - a right exercised routinely by non-Muslims," says a report from the ACLU.
Within the Kansas state senate, debate about the bill was highly-charged and emotional. Supporters argued passionately that it was needed to protect American rights from being overridden by foreign laws. Senators opposing the bill felt just as strongly, calling it intolerant and also unnecessary, since the bill merely reiterates something that is already the case - that US courts base decisions on US law. Since the bill has become law, a spokesman from the Council on American-Islamic Relations called the bill a "pander" to "growing Islam-phobia."
A similar law passed in Oklahoma was overturned by federal courts in 2010, because it was deemed "discriminatory."
i believe, personally, that when people from any country or of any religion enter into the u.s. (or any other country) they mus live under the law of the land, not import their own laws to suit their personal creed. physical abuse of wives and children may be legal under some countries' laws, but it's not in the u.s. honour killings, and genital mutilation of females may be legal in other locations in the world, but not in the u.s. or anywhere else in the western world. it's my opinion that such things should remain 'at home'.
Come on, pal....NOBODY "imports their own laws to this country". When someone comes to live in the US they automatically live under the same laws that the rest of us live under...All coming from the US Constitution....Now people do have a right to practice their own faith or religion. But even with that, if they do something, while practicing that religion that breaks a law, they are held accountable for violating the law & prosecuted...Passing these ridiculous anti-sharia laws are silly, prejudicial, a major waste of time & money, bigoted, narrow-minded, and completely unnecessary.
@dances-weebles ---I have searched & searched for such a ruling in PA...I can find NONE!...I really don't want to "take YOUR word for it", so if you know the name of the defendant, the case, and/or the judge, I will certainly look the case up for my self...So if you would, please cite the case that you are referencing....(and please not some "blogger" whom you have read on the internet).
That's the same as saying "being a Muslim is a contradiction to our constitution and our way of life, people need to learn that." Sharia law isn't just a punitive legal code, it's the set of religious rules followed by Muslims, many of which are quite benign, like eating Halal food celebrating Eid.
ME, there is nothing benign about Sharia law. It is a violent, bigoted code. And the Koran calls for the death of all infidels, so nothing benign about it. As for the KS law, not a fan in that its pointless and will be overturned by the feds.. first chance they get. Nice to see the people of KS are aware of a problem though and not afraid to vote on it.
No, because it's not something that's even a problem - it's another wholly concocted "issue" by the far right - much like voter and welfare fraud. It's nothing but legalized racism, and is frankly embarrassing to the rest of the country. It's the equivalent of prosecuting martian-on-man hate crime; it literally doesn't happen in any meaningful (read: tangible) fashion.
Lots of places have used Sharia law - usually at the behest of the people in court. It's often used in divorce proceedings and other financial matters. Save for the stuff that directly invokes religious texts, it's actually fairly advanced and not totally dissimilar to Jewish law
Also Truthiness: It's not racist, it just doesn't exist at a meaningful rate. Welfare is one of the most efficient systems of its kind, and we're already very, very good at detecting fraud. People clamoring for welfare reform are beating a dead horse.
Obviously they are looking toward the future. I agree with what they did, and it doesn't discriminate, it doesn't even mention Sharia law. It states that no foreign laws will take prescience over US laws.
The only possible use of "Sharia Law" is in civil law when both sides agree to settle their case according to it. In civil law both sides can make an agreement to solve their case through any means they want including Judge Judy or a flip of a coin. There's no reason to make an exception for Sharia Law.
@1adam2 How is it "treason" to pick an alternative method of solving a civil court case? If two Christians agreed to resolve their legal dispute by talking to a priest nobody would have a problem with that.
@CommonSense because this is TheUnited States of America. and not the united states of islam, or rome. that would believe in the overthow of our constitution. and using the sharia law, is an attempt to do just that. those other nations, believe in the violent overthrow of our nation and its constitution. and they are looking, for a way in to do that. and they won't beguin to do that, untill they have built up some kind of base of power.
@CommonSense i mean we already have, a civil court system in place. and i like it the way it is, even if i do not like some judges who misuse it. and do not intrepet the constitution, as it is meant to be used. the sharia law, has no place in our constitution. the forfathers of this nation, were not stupid, unG-Dly or antG-D men.
i even accept what jefferson said, about seperation of church and state. which supports not allowing, any sharia law in either. but i do not accept, it's misintrepetation as seperation from G-D and state.
Then would you support a ban on people settling civil suits out of court altogether? Should the only way to settle a civil suit be to go to a civil court? If that became law then we would soon see all U.S. courts swamped with claims!
well since the constitution, is not based on sharia law. i believe it is necessary, to clarify this. muslems do not worship, the same G-D, or gods as you do. you can see this fact, in the differences in the constitution and the sharia law. and most certainly did not worship, TheG-D of our forefathers.