Here, Here! Our hats off to Governor Brownback of Kansas for having the guts to do what every other US governor SHOULD be doing: Outlawing the stone age practice of Sharia "law".
This oppressive Islamic practice has no place in our country, regardless of the First Amendment granting Freedom of Religion.
It is our opinion that Sharia is not a religion. It is a male dominated cult of abuse, oppression, and hate.
Wake Up America!
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has signed a law aimed at keeping the state's courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes, and a national Muslim group's spokesman said Friday that a court challenge is likely.
The new law, taking effect July 1, doesn't specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.
"This bill should provide protection for Kansas citizens from the application of foreign laws," said Stephen Gele, spokesman for the American Public Policy Alliance, a Michigan group promoting model legislation similar to the new Kansas law. "The bill does not read, in any way, to be discriminatory against any religion."
But supporters have worried specifically about Shariah law being applied in Kansas court cases, and the alliance says on its website that it wants to protect Americans' freedoms from "infiltration" by foreign laws and legal doctrines, "especially Islamic Shariah Law."
Brownback's office notified the state Senate of his decision Friday, but he actually signed the measure Monday. The governor's spokeswoman, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, said in a statement that the bill "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions."
Muslim groups had urged Brownback to veto the measure, arguing that it promotes discrimination. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said a court challenge is likely because supporters of the measure frequently expressed concern about Shariah law.
Hooper said of Brownback, "If he claims it has nothing to do with Shariah or Islamic law or Muslims, then he wasn't paying attention."
Both the Washington-based council and the National Conference of State Legislatures say such proposals have been considered in 20 states, including Kansas. Gele said laws similar to Kansas' new statute have been enacted in Arizona, Louisiana and Tennessee.
Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that specifically mentioned Shariah law, but both a federal judge and a federal appeals court blocked it.
There are no known cases in which a Kansas judge has based a ruling on Islamic law. However, supporters of the bill have cited a pending case in Sedgwick County in which a man seeking to divorce his wife has asked for property to be divided under a marriage contract in line with Shariah law.
Supporters argue the measure simply ensures that legal decisions will protect long-cherished liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to equal treatment under the law. Gele said the measure would come into play if someone wanted to enforce a libel judgment against an American from a foreign nation without the same free speech protections.
"It is perfectly constitutional," he said.
The House approved the bill unanimously and the Senate, with broad, bipartisan support. Even some legislators who were skeptical of it believed it was broad and bland enough that it didn't represent a specific political attack on Muslims.
"This disturbing recent trend of activist judges relying upon the laws of other nations has been rejected by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the Kansas House and Senate," Jones-Sontag said.
The measure's chief sponsor, Rep. Peggy Mast, an Emporia Republican, also has said all Kansans, including Muslims, should be comfortable with the new law, but she did not immediately respond Friday to telephone and email messages seeking comment.
Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican, acknowledged that the measure merely "made some people happy" and that a vote against it could be cast politically as a vote in favor of Shariah law.
"Am I really concerned that Shariah law is going to take over the Kansas courts? No," he said. "I'm more concerned about getting jobs to Kansas."
The Michigan-based alliance advocates model "American Law for American Courts" legislation. Its website says, "America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems, particularly Shariah Law."
During the Kansas Senate's debate on the bill earlier this month, Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican described a vote for the measure as a vote for women's rights, adding, "They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law."
Hooper said supporters of such proposals have made it clear they are targeting Islamic law.
"Underlying all of this is demonizing Islam and marginalizing American Muslims," he said.
The new law, taking effect July 1, doesn't specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.
"This bill should provide protection for Kansas citizens from the application of foreign laws," said Stephen Gele, spokesman for the American Public Policy Alliance, a Michigan group promoting model legislation similar to the new Kansas law. "The bill does not read, in any way, to be discriminatory against any religion."
But supporters have worried specifically about Shariah law being applied in Kansas court cases, and the alliance says on its website that it wants to protect Americans' freedoms from "infiltration" by foreign laws and legal doctrines, "especially Islamic Shariah Law."
Brownback's office notified the state Senate of his decision Friday, but he actually signed the measure Monday. The governor's spokeswoman, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, said in a statement that the bill "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions."
Muslim groups had urged Brownback to veto the measure, arguing that it promotes discrimination. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, said a court challenge is likely because supporters of the measure frequently expressed concern about Shariah law.
Hooper said of Brownback, "If he claims it has nothing to do with Shariah or Islamic law or Muslims, then he wasn't paying attention."
Both the Washington-based council and the National Conference of State Legislatures say such proposals have been considered in 20 states, including Kansas. Gele said laws similar to Kansas' new statute have been enacted in Arizona, Louisiana and Tennessee.
Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that specifically mentioned Shariah law, but both a federal judge and a federal appeals court blocked it.
There are no known cases in which a Kansas judge has based a ruling on Islamic law. However, supporters of the bill have cited a pending case in Sedgwick County in which a man seeking to divorce his wife has asked for property to be divided under a marriage contract in line with Shariah law.
Supporters argue the measure simply ensures that legal decisions will protect long-cherished liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to equal treatment under the law. Gele said the measure would come into play if someone wanted to enforce a libel judgment against an American from a foreign nation without the same free speech protections.
"It is perfectly constitutional," he said.
The House approved the bill unanimously and the Senate, with broad, bipartisan support. Even some legislators who were skeptical of it believed it was broad and bland enough that it didn't represent a specific political attack on Muslims.
"This disturbing recent trend of activist judges relying upon the laws of other nations has been rejected by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the Kansas House and Senate," Jones-Sontag said.
The measure's chief sponsor, Rep. Peggy Mast, an Emporia Republican, also has said all Kansans, including Muslims, should be comfortable with the new law, but she did not immediately respond Friday to telephone and email messages seeking comment.
Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican, acknowledged that the measure merely "made some people happy" and that a vote against it could be cast politically as a vote in favor of Shariah law.
"Am I really concerned that Shariah law is going to take over the Kansas courts? No," he said. "I'm more concerned about getting jobs to Kansas."
The Michigan-based alliance advocates model "American Law for American Courts" legislation. Its website says, "America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems, particularly Shariah Law."
During the Kansas Senate's debate on the bill earlier this month, Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican described a vote for the measure as a vote for women's rights, adding, "They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law."
Hooper said supporters of such proposals have made it clear they are targeting Islamic law.
"Underlying all of this is demonizing Islam and marginalizing American Muslims," he said.
