NJ Becomes Latest State To Drop Anti-Shariah
Bill - Yusuf Khan, South Dakota - Ian Millhiser
12 March 2012By Juan Cole
Among a series of setbacks for the McCarthyist-style
anti-Shariah movement, New Jersey became the newest
state to drop its ridiculous A-919 bill penned to
prohibit the application of "foreign laws".
Fabricating an imaginary threat of an impending
Shariah law that would somehow take over each US
state, leading Islamophobes met with initial success
as they attempted to influence various lawmakers into
considering such a bill for implementation.
As of late however, anti-Muslim hate tactics appear to
be falling flat on their face as NJ becomes the latest
state – after GA, FL & MN - to withdraw its so-called
foreign law bill drafted to protect it from the
non-existent Shariah threat.
"New Jersey need not follow other states that have
either passed or attempted to pass similar legislation
that has the principal objective of demonizing the
faith of millions of American Muslims," said Dr. Aref
Assaf, president of the American Arab Forum.
CAIR-NJ Chair Nadia Kahf had the following to add,
"Rather than strengthening constitutional protections,
these bills undoubtedly violate religious freedom and
weaken the independence of our courts."
"We thank Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi for her
decision in support of religious freedom and
constitutional rights."
South Dakota Governor Signs
Unconstitutional Anti-Muslim Bill - Ian Millhiser
Yesterday, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R)
signed an unconstitutional law that purports to target
courts applying religious law, but which is almost
certainly part of a broader push by Islamophobic
advocates to fight the imaginary problem of courts
substituting Islamic law for American law. The brief
bill Daugaard signed provides simply that "[n]o court,
administrative agency, or other governmental agency
may enforce any provisions of any religious code."
Although this bill does not specifically call out any
particular religion for ill treatment, it violates the
Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. As the
Supreme Court explained in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye
v. Hialeah, "the protections of the Free Exercise
Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates
against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or
prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for
religious reasons."
While it is uncommon for American courts to apply
religious law, it is not unheard of. Private parties
sometimes enter into contracts where they agree to
resolve their disputes under something other than U.S.
law, and individuals sometimes write wills devising
their property according to the tenets of their faith.
Under the bill Daugaard signed, however, courts will
be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to
be resolved under French law or ancient Roman law or
under the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition
rules, but they won't be allowed to enforce contracts
requiring disputes to be resolved under the
requirements of someone's religious beliefs. This is
discrimination "against some or all religious
beliefs," and is therefore unconstitutional.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments