Archive for Friday, May 25, 2012

Brownback signs bill blocking use of Islamic law

May 25, 2012, 10:26 a.m. Updated May 25, 2012, 1:54 p.m.


— Gov. Sam Brownback has signed into law a bill aimed at keeping Kansas courts or government agencies from basing decisions on Islamic or other foreign legal codes.

Brownback's office notified the Senate of his action Friday, but he actually signed the measure Monday. The new law will take effect in July.

Muslim groups had urged him to veto the measure, arguing it promotes discrimination. Supporters say it simply restates American values.

Supporters have worried about Shariah law being applied in Kansas courts. However, they also point out that the bill doesn't specifically mention codes within the Islamic legal system.

Instead, it says courts or other tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.


Greg Cooper 5 years, 4 months ago

Dear Governor Brownback,

You've done enough damage to our state by your actions. Please, please do not let this heinous bill become law by your inaction.

Veto this bigoted bill with no uncertainty, and make a statement decrying the spirit in which is was introduced.

The State of Kansas has become a cauldron of faux-Christian social engineering, and this bill gives credence to the idea that only "Christian" values are wanted here. At least this time, let the nation know that we are not the leaders in bigotry, that the melting pot we came from is still the U.S. ideal.

Veto this bill, Governor, and do something right for the state.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

Have you ever heard of is what Islamists do to the law in host countries...they try to impose and replace existing law with their Sharia perversion of the law. Talk about a war on women! Sharia law is an assault on the rights of women and those of other religions. Bigotry would result if we allow Sharia to be incorporated into our law. Thank you Sam Brownback for signing this bill into law!

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 4 months ago

Wow, sounds like what Christianists are trying to do.

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

kansanjayhawk (anonymous) replies… "Have you ever heard of subrogation..."

Inigo Montoya replies "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Sean Livingstone 5 years, 3 months ago

Kansasjayhawk, so why didn't Sam Brownback sign bill to legalize gay marriage? Marriage between a man and a woman is a Christian principle, and no religion is above the law... the constitution allows freedom of religion.. but want religions out of politics. I'm a Catholic... how I worship my God has nothing to do with you.... I don't think Gays should get married in my church, but they can get married somewhere else.

By the way, how many Muslims are there in the state of Kansas? My goodness.

John Hamm 5 years, 3 months ago

Ridiculous! You'd like foreign laws and regulations to apply to American citizens through American courts..... You want to live under those laws - move there! - I'll stay in America for a while longer.

Abdu Omar 5 years, 4 months ago

Thank you, caughtinthemiddle for decrying what is truth. Kansas is a great place for everyone to grow and be educated. Kansas is the best of America and without this atrocious bill to claim how bigoted and anti-anything not Christian we could be seen to be. There are many religious faiths in Kansas and America, let's welcome them all, keep to our great Constitution and not show prejudice.

Please VETO the bill.

Thank you.

John Hamm 5 years, 3 months ago

I just can't understand the thought processes of Larryville Liberals. It's just beyond me. This is not religious "faith" this is the LAW based upon that faith and it ain't nearly what you are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Don Whiteley 5 years, 4 months ago

This time, Gov. Brownback is finally doing something right. Americans would not expect our Government to interfere with their religious practice, but neither would we expect the Government to uphold religious laws when they run counter to our State's and our Country's laws. Just like Christian and Jewish beliefs, Muslim beliefs have no place in our legal system.

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

This is a non issue. The supreme law of the land is and always has been the Constitution.

And have you missed the recent laws attempting to impose so-called Crhsitian beliefs on all citizens -- for instance those laws attempting to deny equal rights in marriage to gay citizens?

bradh 5 years, 4 months ago

Everywhere the marriage issue has been put on the ballot the citizens have determined that marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm sure many of those voting are Christian, just as I'm sure many are Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, etc. It is your bias that claims only one group is involved.

As for this being a non-issue, you might want to look at It would seem to disprove your assertion that this is a non-issue since the courts have used Sharia or foreign laws contrary to local and state laws in 23 states. Sounds like a problem to me.

deec 5 years, 4 months ago

Human rights should not be fodder for popular vote.

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

It is about as much trouble as Rabbinical courts which also deals with the same issues all of those court cases due. The majority of those cases are divorce and custody related. All those cases are civil law. Several dealt with contractual issues.

I also don't think you actually read the article (the PDF) which describes the cases.

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

Whereas we agree it was a waste of time, I also think this law to be born of nothing but pandering to an ignorant fearful base of the GOP, and pandering to ignorants of whatever stripe is generally lousy public policy.

There is no chance whatsoever of what is feared actually coming to pass, and hence there is no reason to codify the ignorance that it might into law.

Republican government (in general, not the party) is a fine tool but it only works, like a car, if you use the tool with intelligence. That's whats lacking here.

Don Whiteley 5 years, 4 months ago

No, I have not missed it. Have you missed how these changes usually fail and those that don't, are usually struck down? Have you noticed the brutality with which Sharia law is implemented in Iran? Is that a non-issue too?

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

Of course.

Because there are no Muslims who were born in this country, and thus no American Muslims.

number1jayhawker 5 years, 4 months ago

Sign it! This isn't about whether or not we believe in freedom of religion (which we do), it's about keeping Muslim Laws that are very anti female out of our state.

Chimi_McSchweezy 5 years, 4 months ago

Anti-female laws? That is rich. Have you seen the results of the legislative session?

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

That is completely false. This sessions laws have protected women through informed consent and reduction of abortion as a method of birth control.

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

You are incorrect. Try reading up on the law in a variety of sources and you will find that you believe things which are not true.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 4 months ago

There is no one unified Islamic belief system. Like the Protestants there are many branches and they all have slightly different beliefs. They each interpret Shari'ia according to their own belief.

Hanbali: This is the most conservative school of Shari'a. It is used in Saudi Arabia and some states in Northern Nigeria. Hanifi: This is the most liberal school, and is relatively open to modern ideas. Maliki: This is based on the practices of the people of Medina during Muhammad's lifetime. Shafi'i: This is a conservative school that emphasizes on the opinions of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad.

Learning: it's a good thing.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

An none of these should ever be referenced by US courts apart from the United States Constitution.

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

Psst: that's already the law in the US, where the Constitution is the law of the land.

Do you believe we should pass laws in Kansas stating that Chinese laws do not apply in Kansas? If not why not?

The real question is why an unnecessary law needed to be passed. The answer is simple bigotry, I suggest, post 9/11, against Muslims, a bigotry the Founders explicitly did not share, in order to pander to the benighted ignorants in the Kansas GOP.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

An none of these should ever be referenced by US courts apart from the United States Constitution.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 4 months ago

kansasjayhawk, my post is meant to inform people that Islam is very complex not that Shari'ia law should be followed in the U.S. The link I gave is where you can find facts about this law if you are interested in that.

skinny 5 years, 4 months ago

Sign the bill, it says nothing about Shiria Law in its wording.

Brian Laird 5 years, 4 months ago

So I guess that using English common law is now out. That ought to shake things up.

Seriously, isn't a ban on abortion part of Catholic Canon Law coming out of the Vatican? Damn furiners.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

Using the common law as incorporated by U S law and statutes would be no problem. Using foreign sources apart from our constitution would be a problem! Using religious based Sharia law would surely be illegal.

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

Common Law is from England.

Canon Law comes from the Vatican.

Biblical Law comes from the Middle East.

pace 5 years, 4 months ago

Why do we ever think Brownback will back away from bigoted, crazy, loony bills? He loves them.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

That is not a problem here because this is not a bigoted, crazy, looney bill!

pace 5 years, 4 months ago

You are wrong. This is a no cause bill. Doesn't move any law.

somedude20 5 years, 4 months ago

Ooh my little pretty one, pretty one. When you gonna give me some time, Shariah? Ooh you make my motor run, my motor run. Gun it comin' off the line Shariah Such a dirty mind. Always get it up for the touch of the younger kind. My my my i yi woo. M M M My Shariah

"I drank what?"- Socrates 469-399 BC

Shane Garrett 5 years, 4 months ago

In 1916, Roosevelt observed: “Wherever the Mohammedans have had a complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared” (ditto Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism …). Roosevelt rejected as “naive” the notion that “all religions are the same.” Some religions, he explained, “give a higher value to each human life, and some religions and belief systems give a lower value.” Our “social values,” including equality before the law, exist “only because the Christians of Europe (did) what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do – that is, to beat back the Muslim invader.”

Graczyk 5 years, 4 months ago

Congratulations. You quoted a bigot. Fine company you keep there.

Shane Garrett 5 years, 4 months ago

Don't keep company with dead presidents. Just using a liberal minded democrat to help with the argument for passing a law. Apparently big brother needs to protect us. Just like he needs to protect us from voter fraud.
I could have used a similar statement made by John Quincy Adams, if you like. Sorry if you uncomfortable living in a land that makes reference to a sky god by its founding fathers.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

"Sorry if you uncomfortable living in a land that makes reference to a sky god by its founding fathers."

To what exactly are you referring when you say the founding fathers referred to a "sky god"?

Shane Garrett 5 years, 4 months ago

The supreme being that was faithfully believed in at the time of the founding fathers whom had a Christian, although, mostly Protestant faith.

kuguardgrl13 5 years, 3 months ago

"Just using a liberal minded democrat to help with the argument for passing a law."

The quote you used is by TEDDY Roosevelt. TR was a Republican for most of his political career. Check your sources.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

All religions have in them moderate and extremist camps. Islam is now dominated by extremists, and has been for some time.

Who knows? If it hadn't been for the Enlightenment and secular and scientific thought, christinaity might still be dominated by extremists today. It certainly seems as if many in this country want a return to christian extremism.

Let's hope this new law protects against fundamentalist christianity as well as sharia.

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

Islam isn't dominated by extremists, it's just that they're shouting the loudest.

Shane Garrett 5 years, 4 months ago

Shouting with rockets, murder, mass killings, and terror. I suppose your answer would be that us infidels should just surrender.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Not at all.

I'm just aware that there are many moderate Muslims, but we don't hear much about them, because of the actions of the extremists.

booyalab 5 years, 3 months ago

The extremists aren't dominating, they're just the ones with all the weapons and political power? Uh, ok.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

jafs, I must disagree.

It isn't just the strong arm leaders of islamic countries who are extremists. Indeed, many strong arm leaders kept the extremists in the population at bay (in Iraq and Egypt, for example).

And look at Egypt. The people will vote in the Muslim Brotherhood.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

I just think there are many moderate Muslims that you never hear about, and that the attention is focused on the extremists.

Don Whiteley 5 years, 3 months ago

While I don't totally disagree with you, don't forget to look at Europe in the dark and middle ages. Remember things like The Inquisition? The 30 Years War (Catholics vs Protestants)? Remember Pope Innocent VIII's (There's a contradiction in a name) Papal Bull against witchcraft that set off the witch hunts that sent thousands of innocent women across Europe and America to their deaths? Christianity, as yet another Middle Eastern Religion, has more than it's share of violence against the individual and the group.

John Hamm 5 years, 3 months ago

+1 and one of these days some, only some, of these Liberals will realize this isn't the ravings of a bigot but someone with an understanding of Islam and its preachings.

Brock Masters 5 years, 4 months ago

This is an issue because a judge applied Islamic law when dealing with domestic abuse case. Had the judge's ruling been allowed to stand the woman would have been subjected to abuse.

Hence, clarifying that all citizens, women of different faiths included, are protected by US law is a good thing.

I've heard a lot of complaints but no specifics. How will anyone be adversely impacted by this law?

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

Do you have a link or source for that case?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

jafs, ag....what you doubt me? I'm hurt.

Just google it and you'll find a lot, but here are a couple. I was unable to find what I deem a reliable link to the domestic case so I might be wrong on that one, but there are several other instances of judges applying sharia law.

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

1) Marital rape was not illegal in all 50 states until 1993 so there really is not a ton of moral ground that the U.S. can take here. Kansas still has some exemptions to marital rape charges.

"In some, offenses which involve sexual acts other than penetration are precluded for spouses. For example, in Kansas, sexual battery consists of "the intentional touching of the person of another who is 16 or more years of age, who is not the spouse of the offender and who does not consent thereto, with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the offender or another.""

  1. The case was overturned in the Appellate court.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

I am confused. Are you justifying the judges actions?

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

You must be confused.

It was overturned by the Appellate court.

Which means that our current system works without unnecessary legislation such as this.

Additionally, this type of article is typically used by Fox to show us how scary the Mooslems are and why we should enact laws to protect us from them.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

So you don't support the judge ruling based on sharia law?

The law KS just passed would have prevented the ruling in the first place making it unnecessary to overturn it on appeal.

What about the law don't you like and what problems does it create?

It is not Brownbacks law but had overwhelming bipartisan support.

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

If the Governor signs it, it becomes his law. If that thinking applies to laws Obama or Sebelius signed, then it applies to him too. I wouldn't him to feel left out.

I have no issue with religious law being considered in rendering a judgment if the parties agree to that.

Actually, since we are not provided all the details as to why the case was overturned (we just have the Fox version), one really can't say if this law would have prevented the case from being overturned. And what if the reason for it being overturned was a different interpretation of Sharia Law?

You do understand that Sharia Law has many different interpretations and many of those interpretations are cultural rather than based strictly on Islam?

This law is simply unnecessary and its main purpose to is discriminate against Muslims. You don't see any of the legislators discussing any other foreign or international law in reference to this bill.

How much do you know about the rabbinical courts? No one seems to have an issue about that but they handle the same types of cases (all civil law) that everyone is worked up about Sharia Law. And their decisions are considering binding arbitration.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

"2. The case was overturned in the Appellate court."

Is "2" the number of times the woman was raped after the judge's ruling but before she won the appeal for the restraining order? 2 is 2 too many times if you ask me. Do you think those 2 rapes are OK?

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Again, no primary source is available.

But, from my reading of other secondary sources I found, the main issue the judge ruled on had to do with "criminal intent" - ie. the husband didn't have that, as he believed he had the right to have sex with his wife, even if she didn't want to, based on his religious beliefs.

That's a bit different from somebody who knows it's wrong, and does it anyway.

It's problematic, of course, and I have no idea why the judge denied the restraining order, if the reporting is accurate.

I'd like to have been able to look at the actual case, rather than right-wing opinion sites.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Well I backed up my claims so I guess you trust me now -ain't that special.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

You're funny and obviously uninformed since you didn't know about these cases. I am glad I was able to better inform you.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

I did, and found a number of secondary sources, but when I tried to go to the link on the actual court case, I was unable to do so.

So, I question the authenticity of that case.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Geez jags you set the bar high. Primary sources......I will keep it in mind. Of course you cite a primary source for everything you reference-right?

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

When asked, I certainly try to do so.

Do you believe that secondary opinion pieces are correct, even when there's a clear bias in them?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Well, if you read my initial response with links I said I found some about the domestic case but didn't find them to be credible so I do understand bias. In the case of the fox news link, I do find their news reporting pretty accurate. This of course does not apply to their commentators. All commentators have biases and some more than others.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Those are both about the same case.

And, if my reading is correct, the parties involved had an agreement to use Islamic guidelines and arbitration - that's a contract between consenting adults - the judge simply ruled that it was binding, essentially.

This is the kind of problem I have with these laws - don't we agree that consenting adults should be able to enter into these sorts of contracts and have them be legally binding?

If you and I agree that any of our contract disputes will be resolved by Jewish, or Catholic doctrine, isn't that our right?

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

"the judge simply ruled that it was binding, essentially."

That is the problem. The judge shirked his duty to protect a person under American law and instead enforced Sharia law.

Legally binding contracts are mediated by judges. People can voluntarily accept any contracts. But in disputes regarding those contracts, American law, not some other law is binding.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Well, then you're limiting the right of consenting adults to enter into binding contracts of their own free will.

Hardly a very libertarian position, I'd think.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

The people can enter into any contract. As long as they accept the foreign ruling, no problem. If one party doesn't like the result, it goes to the legal system where only American law should be considered. If the judge uses any other code, especially religious law, he's blatantly breaking the frst amendment. "respecting an establishment of religion"

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Then that contract doesn't mean much.

If I agree to arbitration, then I should abide by the results - that's what a contract means.

Why wouldn't "American law" find contracts between consenting adults to be enforceable?

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

Sure, but contracts can be broken by judges. It's one of the things we pay them to do.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Yes, but if the contracts are entered into freely, by consenting adults, then they should be valid in the vast majority of cases, I would think.

To enter into a contract stipulating arbitration, and then to sue in the courts because you don't like the outcome lacks integrity.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

Yes, it lacks integrity, but their is no law against being a scumbag with no integrity. You don't see me in jail do you?


jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

In the case referenced, my understanding is that both are on American soil.

Since we believe in freedom of religion, people should be free to make contracts using their religious principles, I think, even if those are different from our secular courts.

MYOB 5 years, 4 months ago

Please read up on shariah law if you don't understand it. People say it will never happen, but I bet those are the same people that would have scoffed if you'd said the twin towers would be brought down by terrorists.

Thank you Governor.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

I don't have a problem with this law in theory. The Constitution is and should always be the law of the land, and religious traditions should not supersede the Constitution, be they christian, islamic, jewish, hindu, etc.

I do have a problem with the lawmakers who wrote the law, trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and in doing so intimidating a religious minority in this country.

All religions have moderate and extremist camps within them. Islam right now is dominated by extremists, as christianity was until the Enlightenment and which many seem to want again.

Let's hope that in the long run, a law such as this will protect us from the overreach and excesses of fundamentalist christianity, denying civil rights for religious reasons (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

I disagree with your characterization of those who wrote the law. They are patriots and Statesmen not bigots.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

The Constitution and statutes of the U S should be referenced by our courts not sharia law or any other foreign law document.

kansanjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

religious values are permitted by the first amendment to influence public policy...but establishment of a religion by using religious law would be excluded...Sharia is Islamic exclusive and anti-woman's rights.

hujiko 5 years, 3 months ago

You are completely void of empathy. Unreachable, maybe.

How can you justify showing support for a law based on Christianity, such as prohibition of abortion, while also denying laws based on other religions, such as Islam?

Seriously, you cannot possibly defend this without having to allow or disallow both. Exclusion is based in prejudice and bigotry.

Unfortunately, you will never respond.

Haiku_Cuckoo 5 years, 4 months ago

In 2007, a Muslim man in Maryland cited religious law when he wanted to give almost nothing to his wife upon their divorce. Are some of you posters fine with that sort of thing? I don't like #heblowsalot but he's doing the right thing here by using US laws in US courts.

The result of that Maryland case:

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

He can cite it all he wants, but the courts have to follow our laws.

Haiku_Cuckoo 5 years, 4 months ago

Bingo! We already have our own laws in place, so there's no need for foreign or religious laws.

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago


There's lots of completely non-religious soon-to-be-ex husbands who want to give almost next to nothing to their soon-to-be ex wives and (and vice versa).

Sometimes those people succeed without citing any religious law.

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

So Christians wouldn't try to usurp the law of the United States, would they? Listen to this radical. Radical is radical - Muslim or Christian

bunnyhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

I'm a woman who wonders how much you can see from the dark cavern in which your head apparently resides.

Don Whiteley 5 years, 3 months ago

What he signed into law DOES NOT prohibit our legislature from considering foreign laws and documents, such as the Magna Carta or the Quran, to create laws in Kansas. What it does is make it illegal for our courts to consider foreign and religious laws when making a judgement. They are only allowed to consider the laws of our Land. Sounds fair to me.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

distant, thank you for explaining the law. It amazes me that people are quick to post without understanding the issue.

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

So... this law makes it okay for legislators to consider foreign laws and documents to create law but the courts who are to interpret those laws cannot?

I see. Another power grab by the legislature to disrupt the uniquely American checks and balances our Founding Fathers set up.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

No you misunderstand the law. It simply prevents applying foreign laws. Judges can consider whatever they want provided their decision is based on US law.

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

No. There is no misunderstanding. Perhaps you missed part of distant_voice's explanation?

"What it does is make it illegal for our courts to consider foreign and religious laws when making a judgement."

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

Additionally, how is a judge supposed to render a judgment on a law that the legislators based on foreign documents or law without considering the foreign documents or laws used?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Pretty easy. What does the US law say? No need to consider the materials used to write it.

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

That should be interesting since the hypothetical law is not based on U.S. law.

So, I guess abortion laws that considered Canon Law in creating them would be unconstitutional. Because Canon Law (foreign law) could not be used to consider in rendering a judgment on abortion law.

It also seems that any person who believes in a religion that originated somewhere other than the U.S. (Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Lutherans - just to name a few) might have some difficulties in suing if they believe they are being discriminated against due to their religious beliefs. A judge could not consider their religious laws or their holy books (foreign documents) in rendering the judgment - which is what the judge did in the case that was overturned.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

Can the judges in question read the statute? I don't see anything else except the words in the law as being relevant. Judges should judge law; It isn't their job to divine the "intent" of those that wrote the law. I don't want them to have that much leeway.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

The legislature can sit 100 chimps behind typewriters and vote on whatever comes out of the room. If they all vote "yea", it goes to the president (or governor), and if he signs it, it is law. That's their job, the only real difference now is that they use sleazeball special interest groups instead of chimps.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

The legislature is not allowed by the constitution to decide what law is constitutional.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

I think they have plenty of lawyers to tell the party leaders what is probably constitutional or not. That doesn't matter as the can pass any bill they want.

Expecting legislators that in general to use their common sense probably isn't a bad idea, although I'm not sure how much of the commodity most of them have.

Remember, algore invented the internets which is really just a system of tubes.

It's not a bad idea, I just don't think our legislators have near the background to even consider the constitutionality of a law. Especially congress. The senate isn't so bad, but any loon with some charisma can fool his way into the house.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Sure the legislature considers the constitutionality of a bill they are considering. In fact, that is part of the function of the legislative research branch.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

So, if you and I enter into a contract, and agree that any disputes will be resolved by Jewish arbitration, that won't be binding?

That's one of the cases fred linked to - of course with Islamic arbitration.

What if Jewish arbitration has different guidelines than our civil system, and after we've gone through it, one of us sues the other?

The results of the arbitration are different from the results of our civil procedure - should it be overturned?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

If the foreign law violates US law then it doesn't matter if they contracted to use it.

Just as an extreme example, lets say a person has an employment contract and they agree that the laws of their culture will determine disciplinary action. The employee steals from the business and the religious or foreign law calls for his hand to be cut off.

No court will enforce this despite the contract.

So two parties can contract all they want but if it violates US law it is void.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

So, in civil cases like the ones I keep mentioning, people won't be allowed to enter into binding contracts of their own free will, if those contracts use different guidelines from our court system?

I'm not at all sure I think that's a great idea, since it limits the freedom of people to enter into voluntary contracts quite a bit.

I understand the problem you're referring to with the employment contract, but I think there are many cases that wouldn't involve that sort of harm, and there'd be a way to prevent those without preventing all of the cases.

If you and I start a business, and agree that business disputes should be handled by our religious guidelines, I think that should be just fine.

Even if they differ from the secular court system's approach.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

It's as binding as you want it to be. If you dispute the rabbi's decision, you can take that dispute to the legal system and from that point the jewish stuff becomes not only irrelevant, but an abridgment of the US constitution for any government judge to recognize the contract in any form.

First amendment.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Seems to me that's actually an abridgement of their 1st amendment rights to practice their religion.

How is it constitutionally wrong to recognize mutually binding contracts that involve religious beliefs?

The whole point of using religious arbitration rather than the secular courts is made meaningless if the courts just overturn them.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

No. If one party of the contract no longer wants to be accountable to the religions law, the judge is bound not to consider that religion while ruling.

The legal system did it's job protecting freedom of religion when they allowed the private contract. However, if one person wants out of a religious contract, the state has to protect that person's right to be free of religious tenets.

Religious contracts are only as valid as all parties agree.

"The whole point of using religious arbitration rather than the secular courts is made meaningless if the courts just overturn them."

That's what excommunication is for. If you break a churches tenets, they can toss you. That's their only option, and a good one since if you aren't willing to abide by whatever godbook is at the heart of the question, you aren't a willing member of the cult.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

That's called "breach of contract" in other situations - seems the same to me in this one.

If two people get married, based on the agreement that divorce matters, like adultery, etc. will be decided on the basis of their religious system, then changing their mind about that is essentially breach of contract.

That's a problem because the other party in the marriage may have relied on that agreement when deciding to marry, just as people do that in a variety of contracts.

The whole point of contracts is that people are promising certain things, and that others rely on those promises - people can break those contracts, but there are consequences for doing that.

But, if these laws supercede any of these sorts of contracts, then there won't be those consequences, at least not the ones that were agreed to, and relied upon, by the parties involved.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

Only if it is challenged in court and found to conflict with America law. A man can tell his wife to wear a bonnet, and she can if she wants. That doesn't mean the courts can compel her to wear a bonnet if she changes her mind.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Consider divorces - many religions may have a variety of different approaches to them, and guidelines for them.

Those may differ from our secular "no fault" "community property" etc. guidelines.

If I marry somebody, and our religion says that adulterers lose the right to any joint property, and the right to alimony, and my wife and I agree to those terms, they should be binding, I think.

For her (or me) to commit adultery, and then take the other to court for alimony and a joint property division seems wrong - if we didn't like those terms, we shouldn't have entered into that agreement in the first place.

And, one or the other might have chosen not to marry, without that agreement.

So, if we have that agreement, I think that the courts should uphold those, if the contract was entered into freely and willingly by consenting adults.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

"and the right to alimony, and my wife and I agree to those terms, they should be binding, I think."

If it is just a religious marriage, the court cannot rule the contract binding because the government is strictly forbidden from inform any decision with any religion.

If you had a nice jesus-wedding, knelt before god and his fellow on earth and promised to love some other person forever, that would be beautiful. But what happens when you go to college and become a Buddhist? Is the christian "contract" still binding? Are you willing to allow the government to force a buddhist to honor a baptist contract?

Jafs, you know better.

That's why we have marriage in the eye or the law, which is a whole different animal. That's all secular and bickering over the dog and the Corvette, and at some time the judge will decide who gets what.

As for what two people that consent to do (and continue consenting), they should be left unmolested by the government as long as they violate no other parties' rights.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Who said it was "just" a religious marriage?

And, I disagree that a court can't find a contract between two religious people binding - that seems a bit nuts.

The question isn't one of holding people to the contract, ie. forcing them to stay married. It's one of consequences when the marriage dissolves, which were agreed to by both parties.

So, again, if I marry, based on the idea that there will be consequences for adultery, I think courts should uphold that contract if adultery occurs, rather than substituting secular guidelines.

Biscayne 5 years, 4 months ago

Gov Brownback, you did the right thing, If people don.t want to abide by our laws, they need to leave this country.

bunnyhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

The issue here is not Sharia law. The issue is the complete and total lack of rational and reasoned thought behind any of the many radical policy changes enacted by our governor and legislators. These changes affecting all Kansas have been made primarily on the basis of promoting "Christian" values--although they are wholly inconsistent with the Christian values I was taught as a child growing up in Kansas by parents and grandparents who grew up in the state of Kansas. There is not even a hint of the Golden Rule in these policy changes. They are throwing life as we know it out the window as fast as they can. Regardless of where we are on the political spectrum, Kansans are going to be cleaning up the tragedies and messes made by this lot for generations to come. Sam Brownack is, without a doubt, the worst single thing to have ever happened to the once glorious State of Kansas. I guess some of us will sleep better knowing we are safe from the vast Muslim hordes storming across the plains of Kansas. Thanks, Guv!

Don Whiteley 5 years, 3 months ago

And a liberal radical like you will, of course, provide our rational thought for us.

Glenn Reed 5 years, 4 months ago

This is, quite literally, a do-nothing "law."

There's no reason to get excited because some "victory" over sharia law happened, because there was no such victory. Get enough radical woman-hating "islamist" psychos in our government, and we'll be subject to "sharia" law anyway. Much like the radical woman-hating "christian" psychos in our current government are doing.

There's no reason to get angry because some bigoted twerp signed a bill banning foreign law, because we weren't subject to a foreign law to begin with.

If we're to get excited or angry, it should be about the time taken by our state legislature taking this from concept to signing.

"Yay for wasted time!" or "Boo for wasted time!" That's really the only two options here.

Alyosha 5 years, 4 months ago

So that means Christian "laws" like the Ten Commandments can not be used as the basis for American law, yes?

Realizing that the Bible was written in the Middle East, before English existed, it is a clearly "foreign'" yes?

Or do Kansans believe that Jesus and the Catholic Church were Americans, not foreign Romans?

Haiku_Cuckoo 5 years, 4 months ago

The 10 Commandments are the basis of American law? That's news to me. What's the penalty for coveting thy neighbor's goods or using the Lord's name in vain?

Shane Garrett 5 years, 4 months ago

Alyosha, America was founded on freedom of religion and the 10 commandments of the old testament were the foundations of our moral laws. The other laws are contractual in nature. Have no fear Sam Brownbacker is here.

Armstrong 5 years, 4 months ago

Maybe the pro-sharia folks should take a long tour of the Islamic countries to see first hand how it works. What a bunch of idiots. Thanks Sam for some common sense - what Larryvillers lack

hujiko 5 years, 3 months ago

I am neither pro-sharia nor pro-this-bill.

However I am pro-quit-wasting-the-legislative-session-on-bills-meant-to-scare-the-public-needlessly-and-instill-xenophobic-and-prejudiced-tendencies

Armstrong 5 years, 3 months ago

That is Rothschild's job. The L J W " reporter" does that day in day out

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

This is weird. I sitting here reading comments by American citizens criticizing a law that forbids the use of foreign laws in our courts. That just doesn't make sense.

Unless the underlying law comes out of the UN. For some strange reason, a mouthy group of Americans seem to want the UN to have more control over the US. That puts a lot of the above comments from the left in perspective.

Blue helmets on American streets other than training will never be acceptable. At least not on my street.

I salute you, Mr Brownback for keeping the UN and every every other legal system except our own out of our courts. Good job. Now delete about half the laws and I might like it here. Also, federal legislators and Mr President, you can delete about half of your laws too. They are just as, if not more, onerous than Kansas law.

As for you American citizens willing to give yourself over other organizations or countries laws or religions, please feel free. Do as you wish and arbitrate as you wish, but just remember, our laws written, or adopted by congress from the precursor to our legislation, in our country are the law of the land and the only code that belongs in our courtrooms.

kuguardgrl13 5 years, 3 months ago

So what you're saying is we're not allowed to criticize what we don't agree with. Isn't that what democracy is? You said yourself that you don't like what Obama or the feds are doing. That's criticizing. Part of Freedom of Speech is criticizing one's government when they do something you don't agree with. How do you fix that? Vote for politicians that you do agree with. Write your congressmen when they pass laws that you don't believe in. None of us have said that the Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land. It is. We don't need these extraneous laws to tell us that. Brownie has wasted ink confirming what we've done for 200+ years. If our judges aren't capable of making rulings based on our laws, then they shouldn't be sitting in a court. There's nothing to say that judges and legislators can't REFERENCE foreign laws. Where have many of our laws come from? As long as the final ruling is based on our laws. We do need to understand foreign laws though. Many a journalist has gotten in trouble in the Middle East for breaking one of their laws. And when you're in a foreign country, you are subject to their laws just as foreigners are subject to our laws when they are in the US. That's an international agreement that's written into your passport.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Referencing a foreign law is one thing, but applying it in a ruling is different. US judges have based their rulings not on US law, but on foreign law. This makes it clear that it is not legal to do so.

And is it really fair to blame Brownback when the legislature passed it with overwhelming bipartisan support?

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

"There's nothing to say that judges and legislators can't reference foreign laws."

There is now, at least for judges. Legislators can pass any law, whether it is constitutional is up to the judge.

"So what you're saying is we're not allowed to criticize what we don't agree with."

I don't care what you criticize. Make yourself a sign and stand on Mass. Use sunblock.

"None of us have said that the Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land. It is."

No, the constitution allows states to pass their own laws, and if those laws don't conflict with the constitution or federal law, the state law is the law of the land.

"We don't need these extraneous laws to tell us that."

If the law is extraneous, which other Kansas law forbids foreign code from being considered by jurists?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

I agree with you. Might point was they can look at it, read it and refer to it, but it doesn't matter because they can't apply it. They can only apply US law.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

I'm not even sure I like them looking at it. It could taint their decisions.

Glenn Reed 5 years, 3 months ago

Normally you tend to make a certain kind of sense in your posts, at least the ones that I've read. The selfish, short-sighted sense that most libertarians subscribe to, to be sure, but it's still a line of logic that can be followed.

Which makes this post seem a bit odd to me.

Right now, you are subject to United States Federal Law, Kansas State Law, and City of Lawrence Law, assuming that you're living in Lawrence. Any set of rules above that are up to you, so long as they don't conflict with Fed, State, or City laws.

From my reading of the bill, none of this changes in the slightest when the law goes into effect.

I wouldn't have expected a libertarian to have an opinion one way or the other, since their legal rights aren't being changed. At most, I would have expected something similar to "government wasted time here, so government is bad."

But here you are giving the governor a high-five.

Exactly what do you think will change when this law goes into effect?

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

I like the law because it makes plain that the only law that belongs in our state courtrooms is state law. I know it's sounds like a non-issue, but it serves as a check against judges that might want inform their decision with international or UN law or whichever backwards god-lie law they might subscribe to.

Libertarian or not, I think that only American law belongs in American courtrooms, and I'm not sure that is plainly stated in other laws or in our state constitution.

"Right now, you are subject to United States Federal Law, Kansas State Law, and City of Lawrence Law, assuming that you're living in Lawrence. Any set of rules above that are up to you, so long as they don't conflict with Fed, State, or City laws."

That is beautiful. That is my opinion, exactly.

However, can you point out the law that strictly forbids Kansas judges from in any way forming their opinion, and therefore verdict and sentence, based on other laws? Is it forbidden somewhere in the Kansas statutes or constitution?

Glenn Reed 5 years, 3 months ago

My question would be, Why would you need a law prohibiting the use of foreign laws to form a legal opinion?

If a judge hears a case in Kansas, why would he consider Oregon Law in forming his decision? That just doesn't make sense to me. There's really no good reason to. Especially in the context of appeals. Surely the risk of one's judgement getting overturned will give a judge pause.

To have a law that says the court must consider only the laws of it's jurisdiction seems to be more of an emotional move than a rational one, in my opinion.

In a longer view, what's the point?

This new law doesn't prohibit the legislature from taking foreign laws as a basis for domestic bills, though. We could have a bill based on an Oregon law get through our legislature, it gets signed into law, then our courts can consider it.

The same thing goes for the religion thing, too. Some nut decides imagination is enough to write a bill, it gets signed into law, then that law can be referenced by our courts.

Exactly what is accomplished law? I mean short of being an imaginary salvo in a culture war?

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

"If a judge hears a case in Kansas, why would he consider Oregon Law in forming his decision?"

I feel a little more comfortable outright taking that ability from judges. You might be happy with "That just doesn't make sense to me." but I doubt that would be an effective legal argument and basis for appeal.

"Exactly what is accomplished law?"

Limiting judges. Any limits placed on judges is a good thing, IMO.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

So much for the 3 branch theory of government, I guess.

Your version gives the legislature more power than the judiciary, which kind of goes against the idea of independent, co-equal branchs, and checks and balances.

Glenn Reed 5 years, 3 months ago


I wouldn't say that....

The judiciary can still overturn a law they believe to be in conflict with the constitution.

That thought is more about an environment where the government is basically on the same page.

For example: God-fearing legislature writes god-fearing bills. God-fearing governor signs god-fearing laws. God-fearing judges rule god-fearing laws to be constitutional.

My point is, if people were looking for something to reduce/remove undesirable influence on their government, this law really isn't it.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

My comment was for Liberty.

But, I get your point as well.

The SC, at various levels, can do what you say, but local courts cannot - if the legislation says they can't consider other laws, then they can't do that.

Glenn Reed 5 years, 3 months ago

"...accomplished by this law?" I shouldn't post when I'm tired. Seems the meaning of the comment came across, though. :P

My problem is, there are no new limits being placed on the judiciary. At least, nothing that isn't exclusively symbolic.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

So, contracts between consenting adults agreeing to Jewish, or Catholic, or Islamic arbitration will be overturned by the courts?

If not, then the courts will be "considering" foreign laws with their decisions.

Let's say you and I agree to have Jewish guidelines as arbitration in a contract if there are any disputes, and we have some disputes, which are settled by that arbitration. Then, one of us doesn't like it, and sues to have a civil court decide them instead.

What happens, with this legislation, and what should happen?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Religious contracts are overturned just about everyday. Consider the vows one takes in a religious marriage are a verbal contract but courts void them all the time.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

I can imagine the uproar by those criticizing the Governor for signing the law if a judge applied Canon law to a court case.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Actually, I believe that there have been instances where Catholic doctrine was used, in civil cases, because both parties agreed to that.

I have no problem with that.

How about you?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

I do have a problem with a judge apply Canon law and not US law.

Do you have a problem with it being done in a criminal case?

Or how about a civil case where someone is suing for damages because a spouse divorced another and their religion forbids divorce?

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Again, the parties involve decide, of their own free will, to apply their religious guidelines - why shouldn't they be able to do that?

If all parties agree in a criminal case, why not? Of course, that means the defendant would have to agree, which is unlikely.

I thought that libertarians, and small government conservatives were all about freedom of consenting adults.

If both people in the marriage agreed to the religious guidelines, why not enforce them? Let's say that you and I marry, and agree that any bad outcomes of the marriage will be adjudicated by our religious beliefs/guidelines. Why should courts overturn that contract?

Seems to me that consenting adults should be free to enter into the widest possible variety of contracts, if they're doing so of their own free will.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Not sure you're my type :) but for discussion sake lets say we got married and agreed to unto death do we part. You want a divorce and I don't. Should a judge grant you a divorce despite our contract to stay together until death?

Criminal case - the judge rules you have to stay married to me because of our contract. You tell me I'd rather die and we agree that I will put you out of your misery and kill you. We both agreed - should I escape prosecution for murder?

I agree that if two people want to use a religious arbritrator they should be free to do so, but the judge should only rule if the contract terms were met, not interpret and apply the religious law - that is up to the abritrator.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago


Those are tricky questions, for sure - I'll have to think about them for a little bit.

On the last paragraph, if a judge overturns the religious arbitration, they're doing more than that, aren't they?

If I hire you to kill me, should you be prosecuted?

Should suicide be illegal?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Suicide should be legal for all adults.

The question if you hire me to kill you has already by the courts and the answer is yes. Just ask Dr. Jack.

While I am a libertarian I am not an anarchist. I respect the law even when I disagree with it. I just believe bad laws should be repealed.

The judge shouldn't overturn the abritration provided it does not violate US law. Two parties agreed to abritration. Did they seek and receive arbritration? Yes - did the arbritrator's ruling violate any US law? No - case closed. The judge should not consider if the arbritrator correctly applied the religious law.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Well, it's not that simple.

Divorce regulations may differ from secular to religious traditions.

Does that mean that divorce guidelines agreed to by the married parties should be overturned by secular guidelines?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

They can be if for example in the case of children they are not in the best interest of the child.

Your right about divorce regulations differing from secular to religious. In the eyes of the state a couple is divorced, but in the eyes of the church they may be considered married. You don't want a judge applying religious law when there is a conflict do you?

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

If there are children involved, I think the state has a reasonable interest in protecting them.

You keep missing the point, somehow - I wonder if it's on purpose - you seem intelligent.

If my wife and I get married in a religious ceremony, and agree to have any divorce settlements settled by religious guidelines rather than secular ones, then why shouldn't that be a binding contract?

Absent other considerations, like the welfare of children, etc.

I want for people to be able to enter into whatever contracts they like, and have the state support and enforce those, if they involve consenting adults operating of their own free will.

Don't you?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

jafs, perhaps I miss the point because a) you're not articulating it clearly, b) posting on the internet is less than an ideal way of communicating - the give and take is slow and delayed c) I'm being obtuse on purpose or d) I'm just dumb.

I am picking b, but I'll leave it up to you to decide for yourself.

As for your point, basically what you're suggesting is nothing more than a prenuptial agreement if done before the marriage and if not, then it is just an agreement and the court should uphold it if it does not violate any state or federal laws.

With that said, I agree, the court should uphold and enforce the contract.

pace 5 years, 3 months ago

He should have been signing a bill assuring services to help returning veterans. No deal , Koch don't care, Brownback will pose for pictures besides the wounded.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Do you have a link to back up your statement?

Sparko 5 years, 3 months ago

So I guess Catholics can't impose their will on contraceptive availability and abortion is now a personal oral choice not subject to radical religious zealotry in Kansas? Phew. Dodged a bullet.

OzD 5 years, 3 months ago

Does this law impact covenant marriage? Just for certain religious groups?

Katara 5 years, 3 months ago

I don't see why it wouldn't.

The Bible would certainly count as a foreign document.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

What part of scripture is on the marriage license?

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

Who cares about covenant marriage? You might just as well shack up in the eyes of the law.

First Amendment.

RibMan 5 years, 3 months ago

I support women's rights. Anything that minimizes their rights I am four square against. I am also pro-gay rights. Anything that diminishes their rights has no place in our law. I am familiar with Sharia law. From my reading, it is hostile to women and gays.

Armstrong 5 years, 3 months ago

Now that is a HUGE liberal mind bender. Can't wait to see how that gets rationalized.

Armstrong 5 years, 3 months ago

When was the last time a group of Christians stoned a woman to death

Armstrong 5 years, 3 months ago

Duck and dodge baby. Good strategy when you can't answer

Glenn Reed 5 years, 3 months ago


"Starve the pregnant 13 year old rape victim to death." "Stone the pregnant 13 year old rape victim to death."

Both of them horrify me. Why is the first one any better than the last one?

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 3 months ago

Well, Armstrong, in 1693, women and men were believed to be witches and pressed to death with stones, and they were hung and burned at the stake, by Christians doing the will of God. Of course, that was a group of Christian judges.

Joe Hyde 5 years, 3 months ago

In the event our Kansas Legislature suddenly experiences difficulty coming up with more xenophobic ideas that need the governor's signature to become law, I'd like to offer some help in advance.

Republican legislators can introduce a bill making it illegal for any person physically located in Kansas to inhale air from the opposite side of the planet. Planet earth, that is.

The atmosphere on Mars, they've apparently already had some of that stuff trucked in and are hyperventilating on it.

costello 5 years, 3 months ago

It's discouraging to me how many citizens don't seem to have even the most basic understanding of the law. People have the right to contract. If I make a contract with someone and that contract doesn't violate any U.S. or state law, then the courts should enforce the contract if I have to sue. If I negotiate a contract with a resident of Washington State, and the contract includes a clause saying that disputes will be settled in a Kansas court using Kansas law, and the other party tries to sue in Washington, that court should enforce the clause. We bargained for that, and it should be enforced. It's no one's business but mine and the other party's. I'm not trying to force Kansas law on the entire country - just the other party in this dispute. And he agreed beforehand.

If I make a contract to have someone murdered and the other party refuses to fullfill his obligations under the contract by carrying out the murder, I'm not going to find a court to enforce that contract. It's illegal to murder people. If the contract violates the law, it's unenforceable.

That's the way it already works - even without this silly sharia law thing the governor signed. A Kansas court isn't going to enforce provisions of a contract which violate the state's public policy. They will enforce provisions which the parties have agreed to and which don't violate the law. Why is that not okay? Why can't I make a contract and have it enforced?

My understanding is that at least some Muslims negotiate their marriage contracts. I had a friend, for example, whose father didn't trust the man her daughter had picked for a husband, so he had added to the marriage contract provisions designed to safe guard her financial interests should this rather feckless man decide to divorce her. She mentioned this to me on several occasions, and I could tell she took great comfort in it - because her husband really was an unreliable jerk. They live in a U.S. territory. If they divorce, should the judge refuse to enforce the contract? She will certainly walk away with more under this contract than under the divorce law of the territory she lives in. Both parties agreed to the contract. Why should it not be enforceable?

The legislators who passed this law and the governor who signed it know - or should know - how the law works. They know this law gives no protection we don't already have. The sole purpose of this law is to play on the fear and bigotry of ignorant people. It's inexcusable. It just adds more fuel to the fire of hate that's already burning in this country.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Everyone is ragging on the governor about signing the bill but are you equally upset with Davis, Ballard and Holland who voted for the bill? Without the legisture passing the bill the governor would not have anything to sign.

Let's oust Ballard, Davis and Holland for voting for this horrible bill - what's that? Oh I see they get a pass cause they're D's.

Armstrong 5 years, 3 months ago

Better yet, oust the Larryvillagers that think Shariah law is a good idea and actually has a place in our laws

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Truth is they really don't think it is a good idea. They just want to bash Brownback. They would scream separation of church and state if a judge applied any religious law against them.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

If I entered into an agreement to use my religious guidelines instead of secular ones, I'd be very glad for a secular judge to respect that.

In fact, I'd consider it part of my 1st amendment right to practice my religion freely.

For the government to disallow that is more of a problem of church-state separation, in my view.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

It is different when both parties agree to certain conditions, but entirely different when a judge imposes religous law based on the desires of one party or just the judges idea of justice. It was this situation to which I was referring in my earlier post.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

That's exactly one of the cases you cited, where both parties agreed to abide by Islamic mediation.

In the domestic case, if it's real, the judge took into account the beliefs of the defendant, in judging whether or not he had "criminal intent" - he didn't impose religious law.

If I believe that I have the right to do something, that may in fact counter the idea of "criminal intent" - ie. the intent to knowingly do something wrong.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

If they voted for it, I'm disappointed with them.

Do you really think that those three votes would have decided the law in the other direction? Seems unlikely in KS.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

They did vote for it. It passed the House with no votes against and only 3 voted against it in the senate. Francisco voted against it in the senate.

Yeah, I know you want a link, but you'll have to look it up yourself Just type in kansas sb79 votes and you should find a link.

No it would have still passed but why does that matter. The point is they supported the bill that many on here are criticizing the governor for signing. Their rage should be shared equally between the legislature and the governor if they really believe it is a heinous bill.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Sure, the whole legislature - I'm sure that you can find many people willing to criticize it as well - I'd be glad to :-)

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Nice - your disrespect for democracy and the rights of a minority are duly noted.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

Perhaps in a pure democracy without constitutional rights and protections.

But, that's not what we have.

I should have been more precise - disrespect for our constitution, and the rights of a minority in this country.

Much as those on the right seem to want "mob rule" when they're in the majority, that's not what our founders intended.

And, of course, when they're in the minority, they're not as fond of that idea.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 5 years, 3 months ago

Great!! Now, how about a law that prevents the so called "christian values" being restricted from codification in law also. Most all of the fables in the bible have been quoted to bolster some of the stupid and goofy laws that so called "conservative" christians have advocated.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

Please refrain from degrading the word "succubus". The succubus on Ugly Americans is hot (she lactates fire, for god's sake). To recap, Succubus good, democrat bad.

Thank you for your time.

Gareth Skarka 5 years, 3 months ago

Whoops. We're all in trouble.

Murder is barred by Sharia law ( specifically under Qisas, which involves personal injury and has several categories: intentional murder (first-degree), quasi-intentional murder (second-degree), unintentional murder (manslaughter), intentional injury, and semi-intentional/unintentional injury).

Sam Brownshirt has just blocked the use of Sharia law in Kansas -- or basing decisions based on any foreign legal code.

I guess that means that murder is now legal in Kansas....

booyalab 5 years, 3 months ago

The article was obviously too long for you to read so here is the part you missed, "it says courts or other tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions."

Gareth Skarka 5 years, 3 months ago

Somebody should also ask the next obvious question -- is a Governor who is a member of Opus Dei, and therefore obviously basing his decisions on foreign (in this case Vatican) influence, now barred from serving due to this law?

Glenn Reed 5 years, 3 months ago

Not at all.

In fact, if we replace enough of the legislature and judiciary with Opus Dei folks, you'll find yourself under a lot of new Kansas regulations that are in line with Opus Dei code. Or something.

Beyond the most empty of empty symbolism, this law is nothing. You are not protected nor hurt by this thing.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 3 months ago Opus dei is a group within the Catholic Church and there are women as well as men. They do a lot of things. Perhaps you are thinking of Dan Browns book which is fiction. I doubt the governor is under Vatican influence. Ha, ha, maybe Jim Beam but not Benedict.

akuna 5 years, 3 months ago

Gov. Brownback's hypocrisies know no bounds.

Lartist5 5 years, 3 months ago

Their time would have been better spent passing a law that protects us from monsters under the bed....

Steve Stucky 5 years, 3 months ago

lj world reports, "Brownback sneezes". 240 posters can't believe it, and demand repubs be thrown out of state.

EmmieB 5 years, 3 months ago

the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the equal and uninhibited rights of all men regardless of religion. This is what brings us the term "separation of church and state" which means that religious affairs must always be separated from political affairs. A distinction needs to be understood between Sharia law and United States law, and while Sharia may be used to dictate one's personal life it cannot be used to make political decisions that influence the lives of others. Example: A court judge, if he is Muslim, cannot make decisions based on his own personal biases but must base his decisions on the laws established by the United States justice system. It's just as unfair for a Christian judge to treat a case unfairly if either of the parties, prosecution or defense, has a difference in religious affiliation: example it wouldn't be right for a Christian judge to ignore a witness testimony if said witness turns out to be Jewish or an atheist. Religious law must not be confused with political law. It violates the First Amendment by giving Muslims an unfair footing in politics and in the justice system if their Sharia law is allowed to be just as powerful in society as State laws. Religious law can apply to one's personal practices, but never be used to interfere in state affairs in a country that promotes religious freedom and equality. I think it's unfair to single out Muslims with a law such as the one signed into effect Everything I said SHOULD be common sense: what I said about Muslims ALSO applies to Roman Catholics, Hassidic Jews, the Amish, and any and every other religion The Amish have existed in this country since its founding, and they have their own societies, their own religious beliefs and ideals that dictate how their lives are run, but these beliefs do not interfere with state politics: the United States judicial system is unaffected by the Amish and the rules within their tight-knit communities. Likewise, the Muslim communities far and wide may have their own rules, and Muslims may have their own way of living and practicing their faith, but, like the Amish, they still respect the country in which they reside, and their religious beliefs and ways of living do not conflict with the United States judicial system. by targeting a specific group, Governor Brownback is making himself look like an idiot. The First Amendment states, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" NO LAW issued in the United States shall support OR oppose any religion. This law directly opposes Islam while ignoring every other religion. YES, there should definitely be a separation of church and state. However, this applies to ALL religions, not just Islam, and I think Governor Brownback is a FOOL for putting forth such a law in the first place, since all it does is: state the obvious that has been in affect since the birth of this nation

kawdog 5 years, 3 months ago

The problem as I see it is the perpetual tug of war between those thoughtful people who, in sincere humility, acknowledge their incomplete knowledge and understanding of reality, admit of the possibility of our subjection to higher orders of consciousness and will, and those people who either fear admittance of such possibility lest it slide into superstition and brutality, or who themselves are superstitious and brutal.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.