• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Kansas governor signs bill banning Islamic law

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,535
7,590
146
Agreed. And with all the recent attempts to make circumcision and kosher style slaughtering of cows illegal, I can quickly see this law making it illegal to follow the Jewish religion.

Fear of sharia is real - but only if we decide to not follow the Constitution. As long as we do, it cannot take over. If we do not have laws forcing people to go to Church on Sunday (and we do not) after more than two centuries of Christian domination of the US, we have nothing to fear from sharia taking over.
But you just said there is no freedom from religion. So this law would be fine if it said you must use Juedo Christian law instead of prohibiting sharia law?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
FTM!

Why should we even consider the "laws" of a people that are still fucking their goats and living in caves?

It's a shame that Kansas and other States even have to consider such actions.
The shame is that Kansas, or any other place in America, thinks they "have to" do anything like this. Our legal system must follow the US legal code already, and beyond that our constitution SPECIFICALLY prohibits the government from implementing religious law. Laws like this are pointless, and the sentiment they express (summed up nicely by your "goat fucker" comment) is pretty sad.

If it was just pandering for political gain, that would be bad enough. But in spite of efforts like this to fight an imaginary war with anyone who's a member of the "wrong" religion, people seem to be forgetting the actual violent conflict with specific people and groups that we're engaged in. Going after the Islamic menace isn't just a waste of time, it's actually hurting our efforts to pursue Islamic terrorists by basically giving their propaganda about America's war with Islam a helping hand.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
The Freedom of Religion is not Freedom FROM Religion
austin cline said:
Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.
We do have freedom from religion, but it does not apply in this case. What I think would better explain it is that we don't ban people from religious expression as long as it is not directly imposing on someone's freedom.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,848
1
0
it was that if both parties consented to use it to resolve a dispute in a way that did not run afoul of US law they were allowed to do so.
I have doubts that any free woman would truly consent to a misogynistic religion's rules to resolve a dispute. If they agree to it, it's probably because they're socially trapped.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
But you just said there is no freedom from religion. So this law would be fine if it said you must use Juedo Christian law instead of prohibiting sharia law?
Read my posts in this thread again, but engage your thinking skills first. If you still have questions, post them after doing so.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
We do have freedom from religion, but it does not apply in this case. What I think would better explain it is that we don't ban people from religious expression as long as it is not directly imposing on someone's freedom.
You are doing it wrong, it clearly does not say FROM. Austin Cline is clearly wrong, his obvious bias clouds his thinking.

Freedom FROM something means you prevent (or actively try to) that something from happening. Such as the freedom from being forced to house federal troops in your home and the freedom from being force to perform self incrimination.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
So if I'm understanding this correctly a plausible situation is as such:

2 parties enter into a legally binding contract that doesn't brake any state/national law, but simply applies additional sharia laws in the contract.

In the state of Kansas, if one person broke the rules of the contract simply because it was sharia law, it wouldn't matter? Yea, that is definitely not illegal if both parties willingly and in good faith consented.

-GP
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
This law is extraordinarily stupid. It's not like under the current system people can use Sharia in court proceedings in ways that violate US laws, it was that if both parties consented to use it to resolve a dispute in a way that did not run afoul of US law they were allowed to do so. This law now prohibits two people engaging in an otherwise legal contract due to the fact that its terms are Islamic or extranational in origin.

How such an arrangement could be offensive to anyone here is beyond me outside of Islamophobia. There is simply no other plausible explanation I can think of.
Under US law and the laws of the several states, if people agree by contract to govern their dispute by the Code of Hammurabi, or the rules of association for the Mickey Mouse Club, they can legally do so. This law arbitrarily singles out one system of rules for exclusion.

- wolf
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I have doubts that any free woman would truly consent to a misogynistic religion's rules to resolve a dispute. If they agree to it, it's probably because they're socially trapped.
Under the law, the existence of duress automatically negates what would otherwise be a binding contract. I don't know if being "social trapped" constitutes duress. You'd have to be more specific.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,195
6,242
136
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2087_01_0000.pdf

This new law WILL be struck down by the federal courts IF it is enforced against people who willingly enter said agreements. The Freedom of Religion is not Freedom FROM Religion, so this law violates the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution...and the first amendment has been incorporated to the States as well.

This law is the government forcing people to not follow their religion and must be struck down.
Don't you just hate it when stupid people do stupid illogical things when motivated by fear?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,097
20,747
136
Under US law and the laws of the several states, if people agree by contract to govern their dispute by the Code of Hammurabi, or the rules of association for the Mickey Mouse Club, they can legally do so. This law arbitrarily singles out one system of rules for exclusion.

- wolf
True, although I think it tries to get around that by saying any 'international' law or something like that. Regardless, I think we agree on the central point. People can use whatever rules they want to govern their contracts so long as that contract's terms don't violate US law. This is trying to change that, and that's mighty shitty.

I feel like people always need some sort of Other to attack. While it was nice to see that gays are losing that status, the stupider segments of our society seem to have latched onto Muslims instead.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,630
181
106
I live under the laws of the United States of America. Most if not all of those are taken from a background of Judeo-Christian experience/history.
And I thought they could be linked directly back to the Code of Hammarabi.

edit :make that HammUrabi
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Under US law and the laws of the several states, if people agree by contract to govern their dispute by the Code of Hammurabi, or the rules of association for the Mickey Mouse Club, they can legally do so. This law arbitrarily singles out one system of rules for exclusion.

- wolf

Agreed. Unless said code involves human sacrifice or such things that the SCOTUS has already ruled are outside the protection of the First Amendment, the agreement should be binding.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
I live under the laws of the United States of America. Most if not all of those are taken from a background of Judeo-Christian experience/history.
Really? Just as an example, show us how many of the 10 Commandments are codified into U.S. Federal law. Please cite actual court cases and majority judicial interpretations.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,709
3,515
126
Americans haven't got past tribalism. We went to a different part of the world and fucked with people and a few of their more insane flew some planes into one of our cities. Now it's us against them and everything they stand for.

I like this law. I really know nothing about Sharia law except that it might be rather extensive. It might say a million things I could use to nullify any contract I make I don't like. There might be some line in there that is just like in Sharia law. Contract null and void. Cool for me.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Really? Just as an example, show us how many of the 10 Commandments are codified into U.S. Federal law. Please cite actual court cases and majority judicial interpretations.
Quite a few are, but obviously not all of them. Here are some I know are, and can dig up court cases if you wish, but I think you will already agree with me.

Aseret HaDibrot - The Ten Commandments
1. Belief in God - No
2. Have no other Gods - No
3. Not use the Name of God needlessly and not breaking oaths - The first half no, second half yes. Oral contracts are binding, oaths in court are binding
4. Keep the Sabbath Holy - Christians (due to the machinations of Emperor Constantine) incorrectly think Sunday is the Sabbath Day. Due to this, there were many laws against selling on Sunday. These have mostly been removed, though some remain.
5. Do not disrepect your Mother and Father - No, but we need this.
6. No Murder - Yes
7. No Adultery - Depends on the state, some have adultery as a crime still.
8. No Stealing - Yes
9. No lying in court - Yes (Jews extend this one to ALL forms of Lashon Hara - evil tongue, in that sense some of it is, some is not).
10. Do not covet - Partially. Covetting is to desire something so fully you will go to any length to get it. The act of covetting is not illegal, but a great many of the actions done due to covetting are, such as stalking, murder, rape, etc.


It is a mixed bad for codification into law.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,788
1,523
136
The law clearly violates an individual's freedom to contract and will be shot down in court.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Quite a few are, but obviously not all of them. Here are some I know are, and can dig up court cases if you wish, but I think you will already agree with me.

Aseret HaDibrot - The Ten Commandments
1. Belief in God - No
2. Have no other Gods - No
3. Not use the Name of God needlessly and not breaking oaths - The first half no, second half yes. Oral contracts are binding, oaths in court are binding
4. Keep the Sabbath Holy - Christians (due to the machinations of Emperor Constantine) incorrectly think Sunday is the Sabbath Day. Due to this, there were many laws against selling on Sunday. These have mostly been removed, though some remain.
5. Do not disrepect your Mother and Father - No, but we need this.
6. No Murder - Yes
7. No Adultery - Depends on the state, some have adultery as a crime still.
8. No Stealing - Yes
9. No lying in court - Yes (Jews extend this one to ALL forms of Lashon Hara - evil tongue, in that sense some of it is, some is not).
10. Do not covet - Partially. Covetting is to desire something so fully you will go to any length to get it. The act of covetting is not illegal, but a great many of the actions done due to covetting are, such as stalking, murder, rape, etc.


It is a mixed bad for codification into law.
Some religious principles show up in our legal system, but they're not really specific to Christian beliefs, as far as I can tell. No murder, no stealing, no lying to the legal system of your country, etc, are pretty broadly accepted by a number of religious belief systems (and non religious systems). On the other hand, fundamental American freedoms like freedom of religion, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, etc, are NOT found in Christian beliefs (interestingly, freedom of religion is actually more supported by basic Islamic beliefs than Christian ones).

If our founding principles are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, it looks to me like that's true only in the broadest sense in a way that could apply to many belief systems. And on the other side of things, it's clear that our founding fathers used other sources to come up with our fundamental laws and guiding principles.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,848
1
0
Under the law, the existence of duress automatically negates what would otherwise be a binding contract. I don't know if being "social trapped" constitutes duress. You'd have to be more specific.
I doubt it would, but I think this consideration would be more (but not perfectly) analogous to an adhesion contract than to duress. I'm not buying that a woman in an equal bargaining position with a man would agree to be governed by Sharia.

And just to be clear (since we have had this issue in the past) I'm talking about what should be considered and not what is necessarily considered under the law right now.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Americans haven't got past tribalism.
...
Forget other countries, look at the way Americans view each other. At least if you listen to the pundits, you'd be under the impression that people from places like rural Texas and people from places like San Francisco are mortal enemies locked in a life and death struggle from which only one can emerge. And a lot of people are buying into that "culture war" type BS, which is why politicians can get a fair amount of mileage out of disparaging their fellow Americans because they happen to live in the wrong part of America. This is particularly noticeable in some conservative pundits (although by no means limited to them), who talk about big cities and the coasts with a pretty remarkable level of hatred.

It's kind of sad, really...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,110
3,155
126
When Kansas is the last State without Sharia Law, it will be the largest by population State as people flee to it. Shrewd move Kansas, shrewd move....
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Some religious principles show up in our legal system, but they're not really specific to Christian beliefs, as far as I can tell. No murder, no stealing, no lying to the legal system of your country, etc, are pretty broadly accepted by a number of religious belief systems (and non religious systems). On the other hand, fundamental American freedoms like freedom of religion, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, etc, are NOT found in Christian beliefs (interestingly, freedom of religion is actually more supported by basic Islamic beliefs than Christian ones).

If our founding principles are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, it looks to me like that's true only in the broadest sense in a way that could apply to many belief systems. And on the other side of things, it's clear that our founding fathers used other sources to come up with our fundamental laws and guiding principles.
I mostly agree. I think it is obvious the founding fathers used Christianity as a moral guide - since most of them were Christians and they were creating a set of rules for a mostly Christian nation and were basing those rules off of the rules of England which also was a mostly Christian nation. They definately did not create a theocracy, or ever intend to create one.

Islam is really not much different from other religions in the regard to allowing them. Polytheists are on the "kill on sight" list, as are atheists. Jews and Christians are allowed provided they do not mind being second class citizens and pay a special "you are not a Muslim so suck it up" tax. Not saying other religions are better, simply saying Islam is not better.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY