'Anti Sharia Law' Measure Passes Texas Senate

originally posted by: damwel
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.

If we let Texas secede we could use them as a great buffer state for all the Mexican illegals. Just think of all the money it would save the rest of us.

originally posted by: quercusrex

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.

This already exists in America. Jewish communities have "Beth din", which are religious courts that do exactly this.

Beth Din of America
Beth din
Jewish Religious Courts already exist, Why not Sharia?
Religious Laws Long Recognized By U.S. Courts

If a lawsuit or trial in the American court system results in a clash between Beth Din rulings & US law, US law overrules the Beth din decisions. This is exactly what happens in Sharia decisions here, too. Of course, most people here don't actually know anything about Islam, Sharia law, or how Sharia law is actually implemented, so they wouldn't know this.

originally posted by: Lostinthedarkness
The point is no foreign law in Tx courts . As it should be.

But when reciprocal treaties are entered into By US Gov. things could get ugly.

Does a child custody case of a foreign family bridging 2 countries get resolved ? We give custody to Mom another country only Dad never a Mom. No out side influence on our courts. Or owe money to a bank with interest but interest is illegal in certain religions. Im a of a certain religion your usury has no claim on me. We CANT HAVE A 2 TIERED SYSTEM . One town in Tx already had a certain religion push for a separate court system .

They are trying to stop the creep of foreign laws into our system like a certain religion has done in France England and several European countries.

If they want foreign laws go live there .

How is Islamic law "foreign"? We've been in North America since before the US became a separate country. Depending on the study you believe, at least 15-30% of all African slaves brought into the New World were Muslims. And that includes ones who gained their freedom or escaped to free states & Canada. In other words, there were Muslims in North America before Texas even became a State of Mexico, much less before it became a US State.

In fact, the African Muslim Kingdom of Morocco was the first country to recognize America's independence.

Morocco became the first country to formally recognize the United States as an independent nation.[1] Formal U.S. relations with Morocco date from 1787 when the United States Congress ratified a Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the two nations.[2] [3] Renegotiated in 1836, the treaty is still in force, constituting the longest unbroken treaty relationship in U.S. history, and Tangier is home to the oldest U.S. diplomatic property in the world

Morocco–United States relations

And this was formalized with the Moroccan–American Treaty of Friendship negotiated by Thomas Barclay, and signed by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Muhammad III in 1786. So if a treaty with Muslims is good enough for 2 of our country's Founding Fathers, why isn't it good enough for you?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Maybe it is just a political statement

If these politicians wish to make 'political statements', they have every opportunity to do so for free, in public, and not at the expense of tax payer money. This is political pandering plain and simple, and it really shows the hypocrisy of these politicians and their constituents.

... Don't mess with Texas...

Who's messing with Texas? I notice people seem to think Texas is the center of the world, she really isn't. Nobody really cares.

BTW Texas is doing rather well to other states

I'm fairly certain there are far more pressing issues to attend to than imaginary islamic boogymen in closets.

BTW, Texas is not so swell as you make it out to be. 17%+ poverty rate, one of the highest in the Union, 4+ million people. One of the highest teen pregnancy rates that officials don't seem to give a damn about. These among other issues. And even if Texas was doing so swell and with little issue, is this excuse to waste tax payer time and money on political agendas? The simple answer is no.

a reply to: beezzer

Oh you're an anarchist now? Ok.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

They bring out these bogeymen precisely for the reasons you listed. It's to keep their constituents looking away from the real problems. Otherwise they'll be the ones receiving the public's' anger as backlash for their failing policies.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TechniXcality

You aren't grasping reality. Sharia Law can never be Legal Law in the United States.

I wouldn't bet on that! Judging by some of the responses in this thread, people are so passive and politically correct that they won't know when fundamental Islam becomes the majority in their community.

I respect Texas where people aren't afraid to protect their way of life! I think that's where I'll go to retire (or Alaska).

If a lawsuit or trial in the American court system results in a clash between Beth Din rulings & US law, US law overrules the Beth din decisions. This is exactly what happens in Sharia decisions here, too.

This is pretty much what I have been saying all along. The use of religious law as it applies to civil claimants in local county and state courts has been established as a valid method of judgment. I thought I made that pretty clear in my early posts.

I can see the need for this new law in Texas. There has been way to much giving in to the Muslim communities here in America. The Texas lawmaker are simply protecting our legal system from any other system encroaching upon the rights of the citizens of Texas.

originally posted by: quercusrex

If a lawsuit or trial in the American court system results in a clash between Beth Din rulings & US law, US law overrules the Beth din decisions. This is exactly what happens in Sharia decisions here, too.

This is pretty much what I have been saying all along. The use of religious law as it applies to civil claimants in local county and state courts has been established as a valid method of judgment. I thought I made that pretty clear in my early posts.

I'm agreeing with you, not disputing you. I was just highlighting it for the people who may think the situation is different.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

This has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with understanding law and the Constitution. You are scared witless by 0.9% percent of the US population.

Maybe it does have to something to do with Conservative political correctness, where you must name Islam the enemy and the only way to be safe is to hide behind law on top of law.

a reply to: Ceeker63

I can see the need for this new law in Texas.

And I can see the need for someone to explain the Constitution to you.

There has been way to much giving in to the Muslim communities here in America.

Really where? Surely you can give some proof of this. There are examples of America giving in to other religions like the Hobby Lobby decision that forces their employees to live by the owners religious laws.

The Texas lawmaker are simply protecting our legal system from any other system encroaching upon the rights of the citizens of Texas.

No they aren't they are just pandering to the stupid.

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Ceeker63
Really where? Surely you can give some proof of this. There are examples of America giving in to other religions like the Hobby Lobby decision that forces their employees to live by the owners religious laws.

There's a big difference between the law and corporate policy. Don't try to imply that Hobby Lobby has laws. I work for a company that has certain rules (nothing to do with religion) and could be fired for breaking them. If you don't like the company policies, you find another place to work. If the company winds up losing all its good workers, they'll change the rules.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Ceeker63
Really where? Surely you can give some proof of this. There are examples of America giving in to other religions like the Hobby Lobby decision that forces their employees to live by the owners religious laws.

There's a big difference between the law and corporate policy. Don't try to imply that Hobby Lobby has laws. I work for a company that has certain rules (nothing to do with religion) and could be fired for breaking them. If you don't like the company policies, you find another place to work. If the company winds up losing all its good workers, they'll change the rules.

Ok, but what does that have to do with his point? You said this:

There has been way to much giving in to the Muslim communities here in America.

Then he asked for examples. I'd like to know too.

a reply to: enlightenedservant
Ahh. Sorry, hadn't had my coffee yet. Carry on, then.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: grandmakdw

The laws you listed aren't exclusively religious. Nor do these laws impose or restrict the daily lives of average people in the name of promoting or preserving a particular religion.

You act as if Christianity is the authority on morality, hell, that religion is the authority on morality. Truth be told morality would exist just as well WITHOUT religion. The laws are common sense. Don't kill people. Duh. Don't steal. Duh. These same laws existed before the advent of organized religion, since without such laws tribes would fall apart.

Nice try at claiming some moral high ground, but you really just suggest throwing the baby out with the bath water.

And it's juvenile.

Where then is morality found?

African countries still buy and sell people regularly, in Africa many countries and cultures are supportive of slavery as are some Middle East cultures.

Nearly every middle eastern country and cultures, and Indonesian cultures, homosexuality should be punished by death.

Who decides?

If it is that a bunch of countries or cultures think something is right or wrong?

What is popular morality changes faster than the speed of lightening. Who decides what is right and srong?

If offensive speech is wrong, then I am offended by talk of climate change and demand it be kept private in the home so as not to offend me.

Who decides what is right or wrong? You? Obama? what if we elect a far right conservative President, is he/she now the final arbitour of morality?

There is very little cross cultural consensus as to what is moral or immoral.

ME would say murder is fine, as long as the person isn't Muslim.

Until the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment, both of which reduced the power of religion in Europe, the Christian forces were JUST as bad as any Muslim or other religious group... The Enlightenment thinkers often were very anti-Christian.

Inquisition, killing "witches," the crusades. Must I go on?

And, to this day the so-called "Christian" west has been the biggest killer, invader, couper, and regime changer worldwide after WWII, especially since the fall of the USSR.

So please save it. Where are your "Christian morals" when the US invaded Iraq illegally and killed scores of innocents? Your president then said he was a Christian, and all of my religious right friends at the time supported everything Bush did.

Also, as far as the very basic rules, in most of the famous and historic civilization centers, you are incorrect, most basic rules are there.

No stealing.
No murder.
No adultery.

Etc.

In fact, the BIble is also just as limited as other historic cultures such as the Egyptian or Sumerian, because just like them the Bible is perfectly okay with a number of actions and or states of society we now consider atrocities.

If the Old Testament is so great, how come it didn't talk against slavery? If the OT is so great, how come the text shows "God" commanding the Israelites to commit genocide on the Canaanites?

No text that supports genocide and slavery can ever be held up as an objective, transcendental paragon of virtue and morals. And now I am sure some of you will say "but that's because that was the state of society back then in the area." Fine, but then you have to admit that the OT was a relative document according to the consciousness of the time, NOT a panacea for all morals and societies now.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So there is no need to concern ourselves because there will never be a time when law makers enact laws that might be unconstitutional?

Apparently you are confident in local/state/federal law makers in their ability to pass laws that are only constitutional.

Good for you and your high IQ.

The rest of us dimwits will remain skeptical.

I wasn't aware that you were for free speech zones and more gun laws. Okay, on the gun laws, I'd imagine you are for more and a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. So I guess you don't really care about the Constiutution or Bill of Rights.

Nevermind.

You just engaged in a logical fallacy.

I am pro-Constitution, and have no interest in repealing the 2nd Amendment, nor any of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

While I am aware that our lawmakers have passed possibly unconstitutional laws or acts, such as the Patriot Act, I also am aware that our country completely panders to the Christians, NOT to the Muslims. No lawmaker, purely based on self-interest and wanting to be elected, will pander to the Muslims.

In fact, since 911 it has been the EXACT opposite. The entirety of the media and virtually all major pundits have demonized Muslims and Islam, as the boogeyman of the War on Terror.

If there is one thing we need to fear here in the US, it is the religious right and Christian Dominionists trying to pass Biblical rules into law, i.e. Christian "shariah."

There most definitely are Christians and lawmakers trying to do that in some way, shape, or form.

You say that because I don't believe that Shariah could be passed or observed that somehow I now am anti-Constitutional and anti-guns? Do you not see how there is no logical connection there?

originally posted by: quercusrex
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Ahh. Sorry, hadn't had my coffee yet. Carry on, then.

No worries. I have to have my fix of chocolate or I get a little grumpy. So my apologies if my post sounded a bit pointed or edgy.

a reply to: quercusrex
i totally agree with this law NO LAWS FROM ANYWHERE ELSE SHOULD TRUMP US CONSTITUTION OR STATE LAWS PERIOD. PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES WON'T FOLLOW ARE LAWS WHILE WE IN THEIR COUNTRY EJRM DEALING WITH AMERICANS SO WHY SHOULD THEY EXPECT US TO FOLLOW THEIRS WHEN THEY VISITING OUR COUNTRY AND WE DEALING WITH THEM? sorry if the caps offend any one.

a reply to: proteus33

And news flash, before this law no forigen law could trump us law...

It is a pointeless law that does not do anything new