- Posts tagged politics
- Explore politics on posterous
Why Sharia is Unconstitutional, and why Oklahoma should have left things alone
Oklahoma has decided to amend its Constitution to say that its judges may not consider or use Islamic Shari'a law. A Federal judge has stayed that for the time being.
There are at least four reasons why Shari'a is unconstitutional and should not be used in American courts, this Court could be wrong. First, if a civil court adopts shari'a per se it would be an unconstitutional as an endorsement of religion. I suppose if parties agree to have private arbitrations performed with reference to shari'a, that's their business. A court to be prudent should ascertain whether such an arbitration is voluntary, given the inequities which are inherent in shari'a from our point of view.
Second, and more importantly, when we understand that shari'a is not a matter of religious principles but a total system of life, we realize that shari'a as a system is already unconstitutional regardless of what Oklahoma does. This is because the U.S. Constitution says that the Federal government shall guarantee to each State "a Republican form of government." In other words, the United States will protect each State's government against usurpation by other forms of government which are not republican such as a monarchy, a Commmunist dictatorship - or an Islamic theocracy.
Third, I question whether and to what extent the U.S. government, in the person of a Federal judge, is able to simply draw a big "X" over a State constitutional provision. This should only be done in the clearest of circumstances, and only, in my opinion, where the U.S. Constitution has directly spoken. For example, no State could now amend its State Constitution so as to allow slavery.
Fourth, and least likely to prevail in our current environment, shari'a is against the American tradition which is built on the Christian tradition. As late as 1890 the Supreme Court could recognize that this is a Christian nation - not of course in the sense of having an established Church, but that the vast majority of people are Christian and our nation presupposes a Christian worldview. There is a secular way to uphold these principles if we reflect on the fact that our founding documents assert the values that come from the Protestant tradition - we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, etc. Now, the shari'a system of course doesn't recognize this at all since in Islam all men are not intrinsically equal by virtue of their humanity. In Islam, Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims, men more rights than women and so forth.
These four quick answers should be apparent to, at a minimum, any person in the United States who has been to law school. Yet, people do not speak against the political aspect of Islam, expressed through shari'a, because the Left is making common cause with Islam all over the world (a move they may live to regret).
As a side note, and as many have pointed out, doesn't Oklahoma by its Amendment simply uphold the purposes of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? We could actually see Oklahoma's decision to propose such a specific Amendment as foolish because it gives people the opportunity to litigate matters which should never be litigated. It should already be clear because of the First Amendment that the shari'a comprises no part of the law of Oklahoma.
So why put that ball in play, so to speak?
The Tsunami in the State Houses
Republicans now hold 3,735 state legislative seats to 3,119 state legislative seats held by Democrats, a stunning reversal of power from 2006 and 2008. Republicans have more seats in state legislatures than at any time since Reconstruction. These gains in state legislative seats led to a number of state legislative changes flipping from Democrat to Republican. In those 87 state legislative chambers contested on November 2, Republicans captured control from Democrats in at least nineteen chambers. In stark contrast, Democrats failed to gain a single state legislative chamber from Republicans.
Bruce Walker explains why the election of 2010 was so much worse for Democrats than just the loss of the House. Redistricting is also coming and Walker says the GOP should run at 260 House members through the end of the decade. Democrats could lose many more Senate seats, enough to give the GOP an LBJ-era majority. Read it.
Thank-you, CNN
Like many others, I rolled my eyes at the thought of CNN launching a show featuring former Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer and conservative-turned-moderate-enough-for-CNN Kathleen Parker. However, they might have done us a huge favor by broadcasting the views of Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary to an American audience.
Choudary puts the lie to the myths of Islamophobia. I can compliment Choudary, if for nothing else, for his honesty as he explains in this clip that he does support the imposition of shari'a law. It's actually refreshing to see him throw it out there without pretense.
Since Christiane Amanpour was not present to interrupt and make him look better, Choudary was captured saying, "They may say one thing to you in front of CNN. But I can assure you behind your backs, in every masjid [mosque] and every community center, they are standing with their Muslim brothers and sisters saying, We hope the Americans and British are pushed out of our countries, and we can implement the Sharia."
You mean to say that these folks actually LIE to CNN? Who would do such a thing?
This was too much even for a Democrat: Spitzer is either hamming it up or genuinely incredulous as he points out that Choudary should be arrested.
My question is why the British haven't expelled him and his followers from the U.K. Are they afraid to lance that boil and face the burning cars which have become a part of French life?
Watch the whole thing and see the real beliefs of Muslim radicals.
Will we work for them?
What do you think of this ad? True or not?
Jordanian recognizes Israel as "The Good Enemy"
I hope this gentleman's life insurance is paid up.
"The complexity Israel has with Palestinians revolves around security rather than ideological issues; Israel does not have an aim to enslave the Palestinians for life or purposely degrade their humanity. While many Arab countries have designed their systems to discriminate and humiliate the Palestinians, squeezing them into illiteracy and poverty while milking them for tax money.
"This has become most visible recently with calls in some Arab countries to revoke citizenships of all Palestinians there and actually to force them to seek local guarantors to obtain residency, thus enslaving them for life.
"This comes as a deeper shock for Palestinians when they see Israeli Arabs, with many of them describing themselves as “Palestinians in Israel”; those are full citizens of Israel with access to all privileges. Israeli Arabs are fully represented inside the Knesset while Palestinians, in their Arab homeland, are allowed only symbolic presence in parliaments, even at countries where they are the majority. And while some Arab countries selectively withdraw citizenships from Palestinians, many Arab Knesset members do not hesitate to speak against Israel with no fear of losing their citizenships or entitlements."
Umm, yeah.
Just having a meaningful would be a nice perk in many Arab countries.
Cuba cutting one million public sector jobs
Uh oh. This should get interesting. As America goes more in the direction of socialism, Raul Castro says, "We have to end forever the notion that Cuba is the only country in the world where you can live without working." Well, Mr. Castro, that sort of thing happens when people work without living.
I also find amusing the tone of the BBC article which speaks about the thriving "black economy" and the many trades people who work "independently without proper permission from the state."
I guess British Socialists, like their Cuban counterparts, find it reactionary or at least gauche that people would work in a profession of their choosing without "proper permission."
Also, can we soon expect another unofficial and yet officially pushed migration to the US?
Will China work more closely with the Islamic world?
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met here Friday with Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, pledging to enhance cooperation with the OIC.
Yang said the OIC is playing a more and more important role in international and regional affairs, and China is willing to further enhance exchanges and cooperation with the organization.
"China and the Islamic world shared a long-term friendship," Yang said. China hoped that the two sides would continue to support one another on issues concerning each other's core interests.
U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
This could get interesting.
US gets cozy with free speech foes
Few things are as alarming as the trend towards adopting Muslim sensibilities (read: theology) on freedom of speech. Jonathan Turley decries the Administration's acceptance of Muslim blasphemy concerns in USA Today. And with good reason.
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping...."
Blasphemy prosecutions in the West appear to have increased after the riots by Muslims following the publication of cartoons disrespecting prophet Mohammed in Denmark in 2005. Rioters killed Christians, burned churches and called for the execution of the cartoonists. While Western countries publicly defended free speech, some quietly moved to deter those who'd cause further controversies through unpopular speech.
In Britain, it is a crime to "abuse" or "threaten" a religion under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. A 15-year-old boy was charged last year for holding up a sign outside a Scientology building declaring, "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult. "In France, famed actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for saying in 2006 that Muslims were ruining France in a letter to then-Interior Minister (and now President) Nicolas Sarkozy. This year, Ireland joined this self-destructive trend with a blasphemy law that calls for the prosecution of anyone who writes or utters views deemed "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."
Actually, lots of people are aware of this and talk about it but they are routinely derided as "Islamophobic."
Hat tip: Christopher Fountain.
