When 70% of voters in Oklahoma approved an anti-sharia bill called State Question 755, it appeared the US was beginning to see the light of reason, but then Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange decided that Oklahomans were in no danger and halted the amendment before it be ratified into law. Many people, especially the apologists for Islam and the progressive left saw her decision as a victory against Islamophobia and hate-mongering. The next wave is upon us, however as Wyoming is starting to agitate for anti-sharia laws.
The heartland of America has bred some strange and innovative people, I am not surprised to see Wyoming go against popular (but misguided) opinion that sharia is not a threat to the US.
Go Wyoming!
From the Billings Gazette Jan 20
Wyoming legislation targets Islamic, international law
CASPER— Wyoming judges wouldn't be allowed to consider Islamic law or international law when making rulings, under a proposed state constitutional amendment introduced this week.
To date, no Wyoming court rulings have been based on Islamic law, or Shariah. But state Rep. Gerald Gay, R-Casper, said his proposed constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 8, is meant as a "pre-emptive strike" to ensure judges don't rely on Shariah in cases involving, for example, arranged marriages, "honor killings" or usury cases.
While it is unlikely that the measure will pass this year, Rep, Gay believes by raising the issue and opening a narrative it will raise awareness and make it easier in the future for the law to pass.
We applaude the effort, and support Rep. Gay and the cojones he has to bring it to the table.
Good luck.
Read it all
The heartland of America has bred some strange and innovative people, I am not surprised to see Wyoming go against popular (but misguided) opinion that sharia is not a threat to the US.
Go Wyoming!
From the Billings Gazette Jan 20
Wyoming legislation targets Islamic, international law
CASPER— Wyoming judges wouldn't be allowed to consider Islamic law or international law when making rulings, under a proposed state constitutional amendment introduced this week.
To date, no Wyoming court rulings have been based on Islamic law, or Shariah. But state Rep. Gerald Gay, R-Casper, said his proposed constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 8, is meant as a "pre-emptive strike" to ensure judges don't rely on Shariah in cases involving, for example, arranged marriages, "honor killings" or usury cases.
While it is unlikely that the measure will pass this year, Rep, Gay believes by raising the issue and opening a narrative it will raise awareness and make it easier in the future for the law to pass.
We applaude the effort, and support Rep. Gay and the cojones he has to bring it to the table.
Good luck.
Read it all
7 comments:
Good to see Wyoming taking a stand against the imminent prospect of Islamic law. I was worried there - when I go to Yellowstone, I don't want to see all the cowgirls in burkas. It's a significant as the Battle of Vienna, 1683.
Lets not forget the actual date of the battle at the gates of vienna, Sept 11, 1683. The final battle between Islam and the West ended badly for Islam, they were finally pushed back to the land from which they came, ending 1,000 years of subjugation, enslavement and murder by the "religion of peace" against the citizens of Europe. It is no coincidence that the 19 hijackers used Sept 11 as their date of attack, they were just avenging 1,000 years of "Islamophobia"
Ah Mr. Knott,
The anti-Semite strikes again! After doing a little research & visiting the website that you recommended in an earlier post, your anti-Israel, anti-Semitic views are noted. Now for you: Shariah law allows for the stoning of women, the beating of disobedient women, & the murder of women (honor killings). It allows for the mutilation of women (Female Genital Mutilation), & it proclaims that woman are the property of men to be used as their men wish. According to Averroes, MOST Islamic scholars say that a women's testimony is unacceptable regardless of whether they testify alongside male witnesses. However, he writes that the school of thought known as the Zahiris believe that if two or more women testify alongside a male witness, then (as in cases regarding financial transactions), their testimony is acceptable. However the general consensus is that the legal value of the testimony of women is half that of a man, that is IF her testimony is to be considered at all. Having lived in the Middle East for a number of years (& I am a woman by the way), I have seen first hand the devastating consequences of Shariah law as practiced on men, women & children. In various states around the country, Muslims have attempted & are attempting to have Shariah law implemented in the United States. Team B II, a group of highly accomplished civilian & military national security professionals, has released a 177 page document, a major new national security assessment examining the threat posed by Shariah to America. It always amazes me that any American could uphold the practice of Shariah law. If Shariah was the law of the land, this blog, this discussion, and any discussion of Shariah would be forbidden.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
Barry - September 11th was also the day of the bloody US backed coup in Chile in 1973. Your other commentator is a humorless moron - doesn't he realise I'm being sarcastic about Wyoming falling to the forces of Islam? And doesn't he realise that 'anti-semite' is a compliment - it's American for 'Palestine solidarity activist' - someone who cares about the only victims of serious racial and religious oppression in the Western world today?
'anti-semite' is a compliment - it's American for 'Palestine solidarity activist' - someone who cares about the only victims of serious racial and religious oppression in the Western world today"
Really Jay?
I am curious, how are the refugees victims of racial and religious oppression when the Palestinian people do not exist, neither does a land of "Palestine". Both are recent constructs designed a political movement soley to destroy Israel and the Jews. Nowhere in history is there ANY record of a Palestineian people, coinage, government, society or anything else which historically points to a "Palestinian" land, unless it is the Jews one is referring to. There is no ethnic cleansing, no genocide, no suppression of rights, nothing. The refugees are entitled to most of Jordan and a small part of Syria as their land, not Israel. It is the Arab League who is directly responsibile for the refugees and their plight, not the Jews. History is very clear on this, but the propaganda and anti-semitism which spews forth from groups like Hamas or the PA, and their continuous lies and demonization of Israel, presents a false picture to the public. Palestine is Israel, it is not for the refugees. If the refugees want to live in Israel, let them become Israeli citizens, if they can. They are not the original inhabitants of that land and nothing said can change that.
That's an ingenious argument Barry - the Palestinians aren't a race, so they can't be victims of racism! Your own race-based assumptions are shown when you raise the red herring of whether the land belongs to the Jews, or to the non-existent Palestinians. When the US pressurised South Africa to abandon apartheid, it didn't argue about which people are a race, or which race had the right to live there, and I'm not arguing this with regard to Israel. I look on people as individuals, not races, in line with the Western tradition. Anyone born there should be able to live there. Anyone whose great great... grandparents lived there too. Regardless of race or religion. This means Palestinians would all be allowed to come back before some crazed Jewish fascist from Brooklyn gets to go there, not because they are a 'people' but because that's where they were kicked out of. This approach makes your history lesson irrelevant. And this is the approach taken by Western countries - EXCEPT when it's Jews running apartheid. This is one of the great issues of our time - how people like you, Barry, can get away with it when your South African counterparts, and their modern-day equivalents ('fascists') are reviled.
Your comments about "crazed Jewish fascist from Brooklyn" and the gem, "anti-Semite is a compliment", only goes to prove that you are a Judeophobe, coming from a place of prejudice, racism, and intolerance. You are not interested in social justice, equality, or freedom. Your only intention is to demonize Judaism.
Post a Comment