Posted on 01/03/2026 7:17:23 PM PST by aimhigh
Elaine Ellinger’s article reveals why banning Sharia without defining religion is a legal fraud—and what must be done to stop the endless cycle of empty legislation.
Randy Fine’s proposed U.S. legislation, H.R. 5512, titled: No Shari’a Act, promises to prohibit U.S. courts from enforcing any ruling “based in whole or in part” on Sharia if it violates constitutional rights.
Hope is not strategy.
The bill is well-intentioned but doomed. Remarkably, the bill never once defines the word “Shari’a” — leaving judges to guess what qualifies. Without that definition, and without fixing the deeper constitutional blind spot on what actually qualifies as a protected “religion,” the legislation is unenforceable and, frankly, meaningless. (rest of article explains this and offers a solution)
(Excerpt) Read more at rairfoundation.com ...
I wish we would define Islam as not a religion as defined under the constitution.
Because it isn’t in the spirit of the founders intention.
amend the Constitution to outlaw any court of civil or criminal authority that operates outside of the constitutional frame work; throw in a ban on haijab and burqa in public just to make clear what is the target audience, just discourage any militancy in any way shape or form.
the writer obviously is a better guide than i, but why noy just put it in am amendment. In 1787, there were those that said bill of rights was not necessary
What Actually Works: A Legal Threshold for “Religion”.The real solution is to do what the Founders never did: establish an objective legal threshold for what qualifies as a “religion” eligible for tax exemptions, institutional recognition, public funding and special accommodations.
Pre-1960s American courts (Reynolds v United States 1879, Davis v. Beason 1890, Utah’s inclusion in the republic — Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v U.S. 1890 [6]) and current European jurisprudence (e.g., ECtHR cases such as Refah Partisi v. Turkey (2003) [7] and Dogru v. France (2008) [8]) already recognize that a belief system can forfeit protected religious status when its authoritative doctrines:
(a) seek to replace the secular legal order,
(b) deny equal rights on grounds of sex or belief, or
(c) authorize violence or coercion against non-adherents or apostates.
My own proposed legislation — fully drafted for the United States, Canada, the U.K., and France — translates these principles into clear statutory language [9]. To earn public privileges, a belief system must demonstrably affirm:
>equality before the law (including testimony, inheritance, and divorce),
>rejection of violence or coercion to enforce belief,
>rejection of slavery and polygamy or FGM as religious rights [10],
>protection of children and freedom to leave the faith, and the supremacy of civil law over any competing legal code.Peaceful, private belief remains fully protected. Public privilege, however, is conditional — and rightly so.
Without this, well-meaning legislation will never survive judicial review — and Sharia will continue advancing one accommodation at a time, protected by the very constitutional freedoms that classical Sharia doctrine explicitly seeks to restrict or replace.
Until Congress or the courts are willing to define both ‘Sharia’ and the outer boundaries of what qualifies as a protected ‘religion’ in a secular republic, every new anti-Sharia bill will die in committee or in court. The accommodation train will keep rolling — one prayer room, one halal cafeteria, one gender-segregated swimming hour at a time — until the destination is no longer recognizable as constitutional America.
Sharia isn't just the icky stuff. It includes the dietary laws and even stuff we all agree about.
I believe, that not all sharia is bad.
It is a set of laws, based on Islam.
But not everything in it is bad. It contains some laws with which everybody would agree.
So just banning the whole sharia cannot be done.
One has to ban specific portion of sharia to be enforceable and not contra productive.
If a religion includes human sacrifice, would it be legal to practice? No. Any religious “right” must first be legal in order to practice it freely.
How can something be enforced if it is unconstitutional?
Can we make you a Judge/Justice? More logic than most.
bump
Islamists are not participants in the social contract that is the Constitution. They have no intention of abiding by its terms; indeed they intend to subvert them and subsume the rest of the American population under Sharia. They are therefore undeserving of its protections.
No contract or agreement with an Infidel, and no oath of office a Muslim might take would they consider to be valid.
Easy, deport them all
Something that might help make your case is the legal petition in India that tried to ban the Koran. It is discussed in the book “The Calcutta Quran Petition” by Sita Ram Goel [1]. The issues listed in the complaint include that the Koran
1. incites violence
2. disturbs public tranquility
3. promotes, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill will between different religious communities
4. and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India.
A report on the book is at
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4343990/posts
The book itself is at
[1] Sita Ram Goel, “The Calcutta Quran Petition” (3rd ed.), 1999, Voice of India, New Delhi, https://archive.org/details/the-calcutta-quran-petition-sita-ram-goel/mode/2up
moslems prove the koran teachings by their actions.
islam IS a cult that only worships murder and conquest.
IS a pathetic person unable to recognize this truth.
Thank You for Your Post and for allowing my rant.
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.