Proposed Tennessee Law Prohibiting Sha'ria

[Coito ergo sum]

Link below, but in part it says:

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Sharia” means the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which
are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet
Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any
person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States or
Tennessee Constitutions, or the destruction of the national existence of the
United States or the sovereignty of this state, and which includes among other
methods to achieve these ends, the likely use of imminent violence. Any rule,
precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the
authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie
sharia without any further evidentiary showing;

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB1028.pdf

(a)
(1) The attorney general and reporter is authorized to designate an
organization as a sharia organization in accordance with this subsection (a) if the
attorney general and reporter finds that:
(A) The organization knowingly adheres to sharia;
(B) The organization engages in, or retains the capability and
intent to engage in, an act of terrorism as defined in § 39-13-803; and
(C) The act of terrorism of the organization threatens the security
or public safety of this state's residents.

(C) Upon notification under subdivision (a)(2)(A)(i), the attorney
general and reporter may require financial institutions doing business in
this state, possessing or controlling any assets of any organization
included in the notification, to block all financial transactions involving
those assets until further directive from either the attorney general and
reporter, an act of the general assembly, or an order of court.

[Seth]

Doomed to be thrown out for violating the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. They need to simply write a law that says "No law other than laws duly enacted under the state or federal Constitutions shall be enforceable."

Or, they need to go through Sharia law and explicitly forbid each and every practice mentioned in it, but WITHOUT making reference to Sharia or Islam.

[JimC]

Doomed to be thrown out for violating the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. They need to simply write a law that says "No law other than laws duly enacted under the state or federal Constitutions shall be enforceable."

Or, they need to go through Sharia law and explicitly forbid each and every practice mentioned in it, but WITHOUT making reference to Sharia or Islam.

Within some islamic communities within other countries, elements of Sharia law are used in the process of settling civil disputes between community members, as well as the more obvious role of being an arbiter of religious rules and precepts.

As long as no law from the host country is broken in any attempt by community members to enforce such rulings, and as long as there is absolutely no formal recognition of Sharia by local jurisprudence, I see no issue with it existing in that context.

If individuals start to advocate religiously-motivated violence against the state, that could be dealt with in the approriate way, just like you would deal with people advocating such violence from a Marxist perspective...

Or the perspective of a right-wing militia group...

There was a situation in Britain a while ago where there were suggestions by nutters such as the Archbishop of Canterbury that British law itself should be altered to accomodate some aspects of Sharia, or to recognise its rulings in some way, which of course is poisonous lunacy...

There was a thread oin it, somewhere...

[FBM]

Republican-run TN doesn't seem to give any more of a rat's ass about separation of church and state than either of the Bush's did. Glad I don't live in that place anymore.

[charlou]

Doomed to be thrown out for violating the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. They need to simply write a law that says "No law other than laws duly enacted under the state or federal Constitutions shall be enforceable."

Or, they need to go through Sharia law and explicitly forbid each and every practice mentioned in it, but WITHOUT making reference to Sharia or Islam.

Within some islamic communities within other countries, elements of Sharia law are used in the process of settling civil disputes between community members, as well as the more obvious role of being an arbiter of religious rules and precepts.

As long as no law from the host country is broken in any attempt by community members to enforce such rulings, and as long as there is absolutely no formal recognition of Sharia by local jurisprudence, I see no issue with it existing in that context.

If individuals start to advocate religiously-motivated violence against the state, that could be dealt with in the approriate way, just like you would deal with people advocating such violence from a Marxist perspective...

Or the perspective of a right-wing militia group...

There was a situation in Britain a while ago where there were suggestions by nutters such as the Archbishop of Canterbury that British law itself should be altered to accomodate some aspects of Sharia, or to recognise its rulings in some way, which of course is poisonous lunacy...

There was a thread oin it, somewhere...

Yes, I agree that a secular country's established laws should be sufficient to cover any crimes committed under the auspices of other ideological beliefs, without having to resort to special concessions wrt the actions of any particular ideology.

I'm not sure what the US freedom of religion policy incorporates ... Does it include freedom to practice religious law by default, ie trumping, or ignoring US law?

[Seth]

Doomed to be thrown out for violating the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. They need to simply write a law that says "No law other than laws duly enacted under the state or federal Constitutions shall be enforceable."

Or, they need to go through Sharia law and explicitly forbid each and every practice mentioned in it, but WITHOUT making reference to Sharia or Islam.

Within some islamic communities within other countries, elements of Sharia law are used in the process of settling civil disputes between community members, as well as the more obvious role of being an arbiter of religious rules and precepts.

As long as no law from the host country is broken in any attempt by community members to enforce such rulings, and as long as there is absolutely no formal recognition of Sharia by local jurisprudence, I see no issue with it existing in that context.

If individuals start to advocate religiously-motivated violence against the state, that could be dealt with in the approriate way, just like you would deal with people advocating such violence from a Marxist perspective...

Or the perspective of a right-wing militia group...

There was a situation in Britain a while ago where there were suggestions by nutters such as the Archbishop of Canterbury that British law itself should be altered to accomodate some aspects of Sharia, or to recognise its rulings in some way, which of course is poisonous lunacy...

There was a thread oin it, somewhere...

The actual key to this is to somehow place in the law the notion that no religious belief, practice, precept or "law" may be imposed, enforced or used against anyone against their will. Somehow, the laws of society need to express the notion that religion or religious beliefs cannot be forced on anyone, and that the only laws that can be made compulsory are those that are duly enacted by the civil government. In that regard, the law must clearly state that a) any person may openly or covertly reject any religious belief, practice, precept or "law" without involuntary sanction by the religion or church involved other than removal from membership and participation in that church's functions, and b) that any person, whether a religious authority or not, who physically harms, oppresses, restrains, imprisons or so much as touches another person against their will and their express consent commits a criminal offense.

I'm not sure how to word that without making reference to religion that would violate the First Amendment, but there must be a way to do so.

[Seth]

Republican-run TN doesn't seem to give any more of a rat's ass about separation of church and state than either of the Bush's did. Glad I don't live in that place anymore.

In reality, this is simply pandering to the voters, since the legislature knows full well such a law is unconstitutional. It's nothing more than a declaration of opposition to Sharia law that will be put on the books but which will be unenforceable. I actually see that as a positive thing. If it inhibits radical Muslims from attempting to impose Sharia law in TN, I'm fine with that.