Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Kansas lawmakers pass ‘Sharia’ law bill

Posted by   + Show Post

A bill that would ban the use of foreign legal codes in Kansas courts — broadly written but particularly aimed at Islamic “Sharia” law — is on its way to the governor.

The 33-3 Senate vote came after a long and at times emotional debate Friday.

Opponents, including two senators who signed the committee report to bring the bill to the Senate floor, called it intolerant and unnecessary.

Proponents fired back that the bill would protect the U.S. and Kansas constitutions and prevent the use of foreign law to take away fundamental rights enjoyed in American courts.

Sen. Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, apologized for putting the Senate in the position of having to vote on the bill, which passed the House 120-0 earlier in the week.

“This is one where I made some mistakes. The first one was signing the conference report,” he said.

Emphasizing that he is a Christian, Owens said: “I think this bill will set Kansas out as a place not to go if you believe any other way than particularly a very small religious-right perspective. … This country is based on freedom. And it isn’t ‘You can only be free if you think like me.’”

Sen. Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican, supported the bill. Of opponents’ comments, he said: “I almost think they’re outrageous. Not only have we had a stretch of the truth, we’ve had a stretch of the rules. We don’t have any intolerance in this bill. Nobody’s stripped of their freedom of religion. This is talking about the law — American law, American courts.”

Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, argued that Sharia law itself is intolerant.

“They stone women to death in countries that have Sharia law,” she said.

Republican Sen. Chris Steineger of Kansas City, Kan., said the bill is obviously directed at Muslims.

He said he was first approached about the bill in January. The original pitch wasn’t about protecting the Constitution but that Muslims were trying to use Sharia law to take over the United States and had to be stopped.

“I thought that was quite ludicrous at the time, and I still do,” he said. “This (bill) doesn’t say Sharia law, but that’s how it was marketed back in January and all session long, and I have all the emails to prove it.”

Both the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the National Conference of State Legislatures say anti-Sharia proposals have been considered in 20 states, including Kansas. Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that specifically mentioned Sharia law, but both a federal judge and a federal appeals court blocked it.

source


Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/11/3607044/kansas-lawmakers-pass-bill-that.html#storylink=cpy

by on May. 12, 2012 at 9:01 AM
Replies (221-227):
NWP
by guerrilla girl on May. 14, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Trim the poor Trees!


Redwall
by Silver Member on May. 14, 2012 at 7:05 PM

And I respect your opinion to think so....

stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on May. 14, 2012 at 10:07 PM
1 mom liked this

You are just throwing shit out there.  Did you read what the judge's comments were after the story broke?  Lecturing someone about acting like an idiot does not mean the guy was ruling based on Sharia.  He didn't base it on the "fact that the victim provoked his attacker."  Did you watch the video of the supposed attack?  I did.  It shows nothing.  The judge explained his ruling clearly.  There is no reason to accuse the judge of lying about it.  It's just because you WANT to believe it.  The lie is this: The judge ruled based on Sharia law.  That's why that case was even brought up in this thread.  And now you are changing it to a free speech argument.  The problem is, is that you just want to believe the worst, and since the facts don't support it, you are making shit up to go with your story.

Where is your support that that the judge ruled based on Sharia?  There is none.  

Quoting kailu1835:

 Yeah, he just went on and on about how the attacker was justified in attacking his victim, but it was conveineintly "for a lack of evidence."  And the only part of the lie was that he wasn't a muslim when the original article said he was.  He based throwing it out on the fact that the victim "provoked" his attacker by wearing a stupid costume.

Lack of evidence my ass.  This guy was attacked in front of a full crowd of people.

Quoting stacymomof2:

No, kailu, the other part that you are conveniently forgetting is that the judge threw it out for lack of evidence.  The judge did NOT believe the attacker was "in the right."  He just believed that the exchange did not meet the requirements for assault.  Why in the world are you hanging on to the lie of that story after the real story came out?  It was NOT just the accusation that the judge was a Muslim, which he is not.  It is the further part of the story that claims the judge based his ruling on the fact that the accused was Muslim and therefore was justified based on his religion.  That was NOT THE CASE. You are ignoring the truth and stating the direct opposite of it.  WHY?

Quoting kailu1835:

 Yes it is.  Listen to the audio.  The victim of a brutal beating got off because this judge believed that the attacker was in his right because the victim SAID something derrogative towards a Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE&feature=youtu.be

The only thing that has been found to not be true is that he supposedly said "If I'm a muslim, I'd find it offensive" and not "I'm a muslim, I find it offensive."  Although I tell you I've listened to that bit 5 times and every time it sounds like he is saying the second, not the first.  It is true that a man attacked another man in the name of Islam and the judge went into detail about why the victim had it coming.

Quoting stacymomof2:

That story isn't true. http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/16085257/FEAR_MONGERING_101

Quoting kailu1835:

 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291921/sharia-court-pennsylvania-transcript-andrew-c-mccarthy#

Quoting Shortiekt:

Lily we may as well give it up... there will be no proof.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Proof?

Quoting Shortiekt:

What cases? I'd love to know only because I have always been taught that ignorance of the law does not negate responsibility.

Quoting Aichia:

There has been a few assault cases where the perpetrator got off claiming that they where following the sharia laws & didn't know they conflicted with the US laws.


Quoting Arwyn724:

 "Foriegn legal codes in American courts"  Why should this even be a question?  American court system, American law.  Break the law in any other foreign country and see if your trial (if you get a trial) will be conducted using American law.  Chances are, no.




 


 


 


muslimahpj
by Ruby Member on May. 26, 2012 at 3:58 PM

BUMP!

stormcris
by Christy on May. 26, 2012 at 4:18 PM
1 mom liked this

Its on her link I don't understand how it could be missed.


Quote:

All that aside I’ve got here basically — I don’t want to say, “He said, she said.” But I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other. I understand — I’ve been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene — that the police officer on a bicycle didn’t stop and say, “Hey, let’s break this up.”

[Unintelligible]. You got a witness.

[Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:]

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don’t know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?”

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge. 


Quoting stacymomof2:

You are just throwing shit out there.  Did you read what the judge's comments were after the story broke?  Lecturing someone about acting like an idiot does not mean the guy was ruling based on Sharia.  He didn't base it on the "fact that the victim provoked his attacker."  Did you watch the video of the supposed attack?  I did.  It shows nothing.  The judge explained his ruling clearly.  There is no reason to accuse the judge of lying about it.  It's just because you WANT to believe it.  The lie is this: The judge ruled based on Sharia law.  That's why that case was even brought up in this thread.  And now you are changing it to a free speech argument.  The problem is, is that you just want to believe the worst, and since the facts don't support it, you are making shit up to go with your story.

Where is your support that that the judge ruled based on Sharia?  There is none.  

Quoting kailu1835:

 Yeah, he just went on and on about how the attacker was justified in attacking his victim, but it was conveineintly "for a lack of evidence."  And the only part of the lie was that he wasn't a muslim when the original article said he was.  He based throwing it out on the fact that the victim "provoked" his attacker by wearing a stupid costume.

Lack of evidence my ass.  This guy was attacked in front of a full crowd of people.

Quoting stacymomof2:

No, kailu, the other part that you are conveniently forgetting is that the judge threw it out for lack of evidence.  The judge did NOT believe the attacker was "in the right."  He just believed that the exchange did not meet the requirements for assault.  Why in the world are you hanging on to the lie of that story after the real story came out?  It was NOT just the accusation that the judge was a Muslim, which he is not.  It is the further part of the story that claims the judge based his ruling on the fact that the accused was Muslim and therefore was justified based on his religion.  That was NOT THE CASE. You are ignoring the truth and stating the direct opposite of it.  WHY?

Quoting kailu1835:

 Yes it is.  Listen to the audio.  The victim of a brutal beating got off because this judge believed that the attacker was in his right because the victim SAID something derrogative towards a Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf11F3y9LOE&feature=youtu.be

The only thing that has been found to not be true is that he supposedly said "If I'm a muslim, I'd find it offensive" and not "I'm a muslim, I find it offensive."  Although I tell you I've listened to that bit 5 times and every time it sounds like he is saying the second, not the first.  It is true that a man attacked another man in the name of Islam and the judge went into detail about why the victim had it coming.

Quoting stacymomof2:

That story isn't true. http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/16085257/FEAR_MONGERING_101

Quoting kailu1835:

 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291921/sharia-court-pennsylvania-transcript-andrew-c-mccarthy#

Quoting Shortiekt:

Lily we may as well give it up... there will be no proof.

Quoting LilyofPhilly:

Proof?

Quoting Shortiekt:

What cases? I'd love to know only because I have always been taught that ignorance of the law does not negate responsibility.

Quoting Aichia:

There has been a few assault cases where the perpetrator got off claiming that they where following the sharia laws & didn't know they conflicted with the US laws.


Quoting Arwyn724:

 "Foriegn legal codes in American courts"  Why should this even be a question?  American court system, American law.  Break the law in any other foreign country and see if your trial (if you get a trial) will be conducted using American law.  Chances are, no.




 


 


 



Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
Louis D. Brandeis
Euphoric
by Bazinga! on May. 26, 2012 at 4:37 PM

 Woah, Deja Vu.

muslimahpj
by Ruby Member on May. 26, 2012 at 5:20 PM
1 mom liked this

No kidding. lol

Quoting Euphoric:

 Woah, Deja Vu.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN