• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kansas bans Sharia Law

Hilarious. The fallout should be pretty entertaining.
 
Emphasis mine:

I'm confused; what is the problem with this bill? We don't give free BC pills to everyone and its sexism but forbidding courts from using standards which are openly biased against women and that's an atrocity? I really don't understand this logic.
 

This is nothing but election time bull crap to appeal to the islamaphobes.

Now don't get me wrong, I oppose Sharia Law with all my heart but...

There's already something in place that stops Sharia Law and laws like it from being passed.

It's called the constitution.
 
ARG - journalists never fail to fail when it comes to reporting on bills- they never *ever* cite a bill by name or give direct links to bill-text, etc.

Anyway - apparently (according to different articles) it doesn't refer to Sharia Law specifically so I don't know why peole only key into Sharia Law as if it's all about it. . . I would be able to comment further if I could lay my hands on it.
 
Last edited:

The logic stems from a context that I suspect you've never been exposed to. There are tons of contractual contexts in which people use religious law (sometimes Sharia, sometimes Talmudic, sometimes Christian) to set the parameters of whatever agreement they've created. Sometimes this involves marriage, or children, or what have you. The point that I'm making is that currently US law in every jurisdiction sometimes references religious legal authorities; generally in narrow contexts, and always contexts in which both parties have acceded to such use. What this law does is basically bar Sharia law from being treated the same way that Jewish and Cannon law are currently treated, and have been treated for hundreds of years.
 


Err, the article didn't expressly state it, but it showed that the only people even mentioning sharia law are the opponents of the bill. And, again, from the quote, supposedly there was a study that demonstrated that cases are ruled with such standards in mind. Now, I don't know the specifics of the bill or the study, since the article was so kind as to link to NOTHING, but from the information given the bill seems to be intended to combat a problem in a sensible matter. Again, if I could actually SEE THE BILL, I would form my opinion based on that, but I can't seem to find it.
 

The article expressly states that the bill covers all non-us forms of law, the article and opponents simply choose to emphasis that this encompasses Sharia law as well. So what's your point? According to the article, it's not specifically targeting sharia law.
 
Yeah - I've read through recent activity, etc - from their own government website and can't find this horrid bill. . . for something so 'bad' it sure as hell is quite 'invisible'
 
I never knew Sharia law was put into power here in my great state.
How does one ban something that never existed?
 
Republic Now! said:
The article expressly states that the bill covers all non-us forms of law
Click to expand...

And your reading of that is that Cannon law is not a US form of law? From the perspective of the people that wrote this bill?
 
Last edited:
Aderleth said:
And your reading of that is that Cannon law is not a US form of law?
Click to expand...

I'll be happy to give precise quotes from the bill-text concerning all issues once I find it . . . crap journalism makes this very complicated!
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'll be happy to give precise quotes from the bill-text concerning all issues once I find it . . . crap journalism makes this very complicated!
Click to expand...

That would be nice. The article has some pretty unfortunate quotes from the legislative proponents of the bill:

"Mast said research showed more than 50 cases around the United States where courts or government agencies took laws from Sharia or other legal systems into account in decision-making.

Commonly, they involved divorce, child custody, property division or other cases where the woman was treated unfairly, Mast said.

"I want people of other cultures, when they come to the United States, to know the freedoms they have in regard to women's and children's rights," said Mast, a Republican. "An important part of this bill would be to educate them.""
 
Ugh, worst kind of fear-mongering. This whole "Sharia law threat" is so strange to me. It's hard for me to think like someone who believes the absolute worst about Muslims at all times.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Ugh, worst kind of fear-mongering. This whole "Sharia law threat" is so strange to me. It's hard for me to think like someone who believes the absolute worst about Muslims at all times.
Click to expand...

Over these years - having read thousands of bills. Usually when journalists write a crap, vague article without any quote and without naming the bill itself - it's all bs to incite anger, fear and paranoia. Wtihout quotes and proper sources: they can skew information and fool the masses easily.

Tomorrow I'll have more time to read through bills until I find the portioin question - right now there are about 12 waiting to be signed by the govenor; I'll read them all. . . but hopefully someone else beats me to it overnight!
 
The bill: House Bill 2087

Two pages long.


It would include US based religions, since these are not a state or territory of the United States.
 
Republic Now! said:
The bill: House Bill 2087

Two pages long.



It would include US based religions, since these are not a state or territory of the United States.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Why was it also attached to SB79? I was wondering when I posted my link what exactly it had to do with some of the things outlined in my link.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Interesting. Why was it also attached to SB79? I was wondering when I posted my link what exactly it had to do with some of the things outlined in my link.
Click to expand...

You linked a supplemental note on SB 79. SB 79 is the same bill. Look, the legal system is complex. It's definitely the same bill, though.
 
It's a crap bill written strictly to placate the right wing extremists of Kansas. It's a throw away bill. On the other hand you have to wonder how it might apply to the Roman Catholic Church. If the Pope commands many good and faithful Roman Catholics will follow. Could be an issue.
 
Republic Now! said:
You linked a supplemental note on SB 79. SB 79 is the same bill. Look, the legal system is complex. It's definitely the same bill, though.
Click to expand...

One is a House Bill, the other is a Senate Bill (SB). It appears that SB 79 is a striker bill.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
One is a House Bill, the other is a Senate Bill (SB).
Click to expand...

Right. Apparently SB 79 Used to be something else, and HB 2087 became about reappointment of senate districts. Regardless, it's the same bill.
 
Why is my state wasting time on this bull**** in government is beyond me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…