It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Anti Sharia Law' Measure Passes Texas Senate

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   


The Texas Senate last night passed and sent to Gov. Greg Abbott a measure that would prevent any 'international law' from being used in Texas civil courts, a bill many detractors say is Islamaphobic, News Radio 1200 WOAI reports.

State Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) doesn't mention Islamic Koranic law, or 'Sharia Law' in her bill. She simply says it guarantees that no laws fro 'foreign courts' will be adopted by Texas civil court judges.

"It's just to provide some belt and suspenders to make sure that, with judicial discretion, we don't trump Texas law, American law, with a foreign law regarding family law," Campbell said.


Read more: www.woai.com...


'Anti Sharia Law' Measure Passes Texas Senate

Should a local family court judge be allowed to decide to rule by way of a religious based family law system in a community that is primarily composed of that religious belief as long as it doesn't contradict state and federal law?

I'm really surprised that this bill was authored by a senator that represents a small town that has almost zero Muslim community members.



+2 more 
posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
More pandering to the right. In the U.S. You can only use US law, not religious law. If a church wants discipline it's followers they could use sharia but not in court of law. Just more scare tactics of the right. We really should let Texas secede. Oh I'm so scared, the Muslims are taking over.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: quercusrex


State Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) doesn't mention Islamic Koranic law, or 'Sharia Law' in her bill.

Typical politician…

"I'm not saying what I'm saying, I'm just saying…"

Someone remind her of her own countries #1 constitutional Amendment:

"-Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …"



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: quercusrex

In private, people may choose to come to whatever agreements they see fit.

The consequences of those decisions may be challenged in actual court if say, the 'verdict' of the private agreement is to behead someone for drawing a picture. That is a crime.

I am trying to come up with a sufficiently hyperbolic example of absurd foreign or religious law which might be worse than sharia and I can't off the top of my head (no pun intended).



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Can't see how this is a law establishing a religion.


+15 more 
posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Cant believe you libs are running from Separation of Church and State.
Good for Texas.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
This will be before the Supremes before too long. I can't see it standing without some form of challenge.

Fear strikes again.


+38 more 
posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Good job, from what I've read in regards to this, Sharia Law should be outlawed everywhere apart from the land where it spawned, and if the followers don't like that then they can bugger off back to where it's enforced and good riddance.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

But, as the article states, these religious laws are used to mediate in local courts in the north east for Amish and Hassidic communities. The governing concept being as long as they don't contradict state and federal law.


edit on 22-5-2015 by quercusrex because: spelling



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: quercusrex

It wouln't anyway.

There's no way that any state would allow 'international law' to supersede the Constitution. That's ridiculous.

Just more pandering during election season it seems.

~Tenth



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Coagula

There is absolutely no chance of Sharia Law becoming anything remotely resembling a danger here.

It would take major changes in, not only the constitution, but in population demographics. Muslims constitute a small minority in the United States.

So the fear is groundless.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

How is deciding on the religious education of the children in a divorce suit "superseding the constitution"? Ultimately that's what these "religious law" cases are used for.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: quercusrex
a reply to: intrptr

Can't see how this is a law establishing a religion.


Not what it means. Law and religion should never mix. Or do you prefer the Middle Ages when the Pope and King ruled hand in hand?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Coagula


Sharia Law should be outlawed everywhere apart from the land where it spawned, and if the followers don't like that then they can bugger off back to where it's enforced and good riddance.

This isn't about religion bashing, its whether the State should pass laws regarding religion, any religion.

Lawfully, its a no brainer. But I get the whole Islam aphobia thing.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: quercusrex
a reply to: tothetenthpower

How is deciding on the religious education of the children in a divorce suit "superseding the constitution"? Ultimately that's what these "religious law" cases are used for.



Because it's establishing that religious doctrine can be used within the judicial system. That's not how it's supposed to work.

One nation, one law. Even when all parties agree to use such things, I don't think it should be allowed.

~Tenth



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: quercusrex

It's pandering, an attempt to justify the baseless fears Conservatives/Christians/FOXites have of Muslims. It's already the law of the land.


+12 more 
posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: quercusrex

Damwel, this is not a bad thing this religious group and it's strict tengents, are a threat to you. They should be openly pushed back against, told if they want to practice , practice behind closed doors you are our enemy,and your sharia law is the law of extremists ! Proud to be from the great state of Texas we are always willing to show our middle finger in spite of the pc bull#, and you'd be surprised Texas as a whole is politcaly conservative but socially rather liberal , a beautiful balanced and outstanding state. Glad someone is standing up to these idiots and telling them you ain't practicing that bull # here. We are the law of the land not your bull#.

I don't care what kind of liberal extremist arguments anyone can come up with here. I really don't buy into the two party system but I'm also not gonna buy the hate America blaim America camp that's fortified on ATS. Look sharia law is an extremist doctrine it totally is against our law, furthermor these people want to cut our heads off. screw them and the horse they rode in on.we oughta supply tickets to Syria for anyone combating Texas stance.

Before im misconstrued as speaking about all Muslims I'm not. I'm speaking about extremism and the implementation of an institution that is extreme.

Furthermore even though the law of the land exists , and it moot we should still make it point, to say you aren't practicing that here and we are the enemy's of sharia law.
edit on 22-5-2015 by TechniXcality because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr Law and religion mix all the time. Why do you think we can't buy whiskey on a Sunday in Texas or why bakeries can't refuse to make cakes for gay weddings. Our local laws and our religious views are intertwined. The state just can't mandate a religious choice.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Local 'courts'. They have no legal standing whatsoever. It's like going to your priest or pastor for marriage counseling or neighborly disputes. It's a verbal agreement between folks after receiving council from a religious leader (s).



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: quercusrex

And they should not be, they simply are because of the religion of the majority where those laws pertain. Christianity is worked into our laws unconstitutionally but no other religion has a shot at achieving this.




top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join