Posted on 03/20/2016 12:45:56 PM PDT by Ray76
In Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts, David Yerushalmi, Esq., Director of the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) and General Counsel for the Center for Security Policy, and AFLC co-founder Robert J. Muise, Esq. describe the use by our Islamic supremacist enemies of U.S. jurisprudence to compel submission to the doctrine they call shariah. As with so many other facets of the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealthy, pre-violent jihad against this country, most of us are unaware that such lawfare is taking place, let alone with such deleterious effects.
Video and PDF at link
(Excerpt) Read more at centerforsecuritypolicy.org ...
BOOK RELEASE: Offensive and Defensive Lawfare: Fighting Civilization Jihad in America’s Courts
They will succeed in the lawfare as long as we don’t recognize that the first amendment as it currently stands is flawed and the Islamists are cleverly and successfully using it against us.
It protects the EXERCISE of religion - any religion.
So they rightfully claim that it protects their right to exercise their religious, including sharia.
Unless we amend the first amendment in a way that would exclude the free exercise of Islam and similar religions, they will win because they have one of our most fundamental law on their side.
Thanks.
Sharia is not religious, it is political.
The video at this link is well worth the time. http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/video/understanding-war-terror-through-islamic-law#.Vu8Dthl2vwl
Also of interest:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3408837/posts
http://counterjihadreport.com/catastrophic-failure-blindfolding-america-in-the-face-of-jihad/
“Sharia is not religious, it is political.”
They’ll claim that it’s part and parcel of their religion (and it is). Additionally (and unfortunately} the Constitution doesn’t define what is a religion. Even pastafarians have been given constitutional protection - that’s how idiotic it’s become.
I know we’re in love with the Constitution (and I am too), but, if there’s a problem with it we better address it. The founders were humans, and had enough foresight to put in provisions for changing it if enough people saw the need.
I’m getting to the point of believing that the freedom of religion clause needs to be changed. I wonder how many others are starting to think the same way. As it is right now it’s serving the Islamists rather well.
I think it would be pretty easy for American courts to refuse to sanction Sharia. You can’t allow some without accepting all, & under no circumstances would we allow the stoning to death of adulterers & or the chopping off of hands of thieves. The totality of Sharia is anathema to our constitution. Reject it as a package deal.
“You can’t allow some without accepting all, & under no circumstances would we allow the stoning to death of adulterers & or the chopping off of hands of thieves. The totality of Sharia is anathema to our constitution. Reject it as a package deal.The totality of Sharia is anathema to our constitution. Reject it as a package deal.”
As far as I know the constitution has nothing in it regarding what is criminally unlawful. The provisions that it does have regarding people that are accused of a crime, are procedural in nature and protective of the rights of the accuser.
What is considered a crime is defined mostly at the state level (there are some federal laws as well, but not the constitution).
Basically, what the constitution does is create a very basic framework for a government, AND forbids that government from infringing upon certain freedoms (abilities) that humans naturally have - such as speaking, and thinking. The constitution gives almost unlimited freedom to speak and think.
People also have the ability to act, but that is not as broadly protected by the constitution as speaking and thinking. In fact it only protects a few specific acts - possessing arms, having a house that is your “castle”, and perhaps a couple more.
It makes all the common sense in the world to not forbid the government from restricting how a person can act. You definitely don’t want to live in a society where anyone can do whatever the hell they please without limits. So they codified the old saying: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”.
In other words, you can think and say whatever you want, just don’t cause others physical harm.
So far so good, but they had a bit of an oversight when they stuck in the first amendment, the free EXERCISE of religion. (they probably weren’t thinking of Islam or other similar retrograde religions). Exercise means action, so basically they opened up “freedom of action” if it’s done in the name of religion. This could include actions that cause physical harm to others in the name of a religion. (like stoning).
I think we could fight islam much more effectively if the first amendment was changed to limit the exercise of religion to only acts that do not cause physical harm or damage to private property. This would immediately make Sharia law unconstitutional.
I’d say it’s already there. You cannot limit my practice of my religion in exercising your religion. Specifically, enacting a legal system, Sharia, violates my religious rights. Sharia by Muslim practice covers believers and non believers.
“You cannot limit my practice of my religion in exercising your religion.”
But a muslim “religious court” could still stone a muslim woman “adulterer” to death and chop off the hand of a muslim thief?
No, we have laws against that. You’ll notice that your assertion of religious rights has never been made in the prosecution of “honor” killers. Even the use of hallucinogenic drugs has not been permitted except in an isolated case. Jim Jones was run out of the country because his People’s Temple violated so many laws. Oddball sects constantly are running foul of child abuse statues.
The logic seems flawed.
Does it protect their right to wage jihad and rape infidel women? What is needed is a judiciary that is not intent upon destroying America
“What is needed is a judiciary that is not intent upon destroying America”
But it would help the judiciary if they had firmer ground to stand on than what the first amendment currently says. They have through all sort of contortions as it currently stands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.