Rep Allen West Says New Congress Should Prioritize Threat Of ‘Infiltration Of The Sharia Practice’ In U.S.

[Bang]

Can anyone explain to me what the belief is with regards to Sharia law infiltrating our government? Calmly please?

I don't even understand where this is coming from? Have some states passed Sharia law? I know Oklahoma passed a "no sharia law" law, but I don't even udnerstand why people are concerned, in the least, about this.

It's simple.

Pick a group that is different, a group that people are already afraid of, and invent boogiemen based on the group and use the fear created to be elected.

Then follow up on it with a crusade against said group on grounds like this that are unfounded but sound scary, and soon you've got pitchforks and torches marching up to the castle to burn out the evil Frankenmuslim.

~Bang

[twa]

I wonder what the author of that article thinks about private arbitration. Because that is really all he is talking about.

Sharia law's influence has gone beyond private arbitration in other places hasn't it?

Is pressure being brought to bear in private arbitration a problem worth considering in your opinion?

[Predicto]

Sharia law's influence has gone beyond private arbitration in other places hasn't it?

Sure. All sorts of awful things happen in other countries that don't have an Establisment clause that has been interpreted as a strict separation of church and state, like the good ole USA does. Thank you ACLU.

Is pressure being brought to bear in private arbitration a problem worth considering in your opinion?

Of course it is. If the arbitration is not mutual and free of coercion, then it is not valid. Of course, that is a question that must be applied to all arbitrations - the terrors of encroaching Sharia doesn't change the analysis.

[twa]

But Sharia and State law are intermingled in many countries...If we use those countries laws in deliberations in our courts,do we then trust the judge to have Salomon's wisdom to carve the church part out?

Since Sharia is religious law then I don't see why you object to it's exclusion.

[Predicto]

But Sharia and State law are intermingled in many countries...If we use those countries laws in deliberations in our courts,do we then trust the judge to have Salomon's wisdom to carve the church part out?

Since Sharia is religious law then I don't see why you object to it's exclusion.

Red herring. We don't "use other countries' laws in our courts". In private arbitration, however, you can use any law that the parties agree upon. For example, you can ask that the arbitrator decide your business dispute under Singapore law, if both sides want to. The key, of course, is both sides wanting to.

I don't object to "Sharia law exclusion". I object to the singling out of Sharia law as opposed to any other religious law, and I laugh at the idea that there is any possible actual need to do so other than to pander to certain groups of paranoid brain dead voters.

[twa]

Red herring. We don't "use other countries' laws in our courts". In private arbitration, however, you can use any law that the parties agree upon. For example, you can ask that the arbitrator decide your business dispute under Singapore law, if both sides want to. The key, of course, is both sides wanting to.

I don't object to "Sharia law exclusion". I object to the singling out of Sharia law as opposed to any other religious law, and I laugh at the idea that there is any possible actual need to do so other than to pander to certain groups of paranoid brain dead voters.

Justice Ginsburg seems to disagree with you

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/08/02/justice-ginsburg-on-using-foreign-and-international-law-in-constitutional-adjudication/

I'd be happy to add Catholic Cannon law exclusion if it makes ya feel better,though it is not much of a issue

[Predicto]

Justice Ginsburg seems to disagree with you

http://opiniojuris.org/2010/08/02/justice-ginsburg-on-using-foreign-and-international-law-in-constitutional-adjudication/

I'd be happy to add Catholic Cannon law exclusion if it makes ya feel better,though it is not much of a issue

Hate to pull the "attorney working in the appellate courts" card on you, but examining foreign and international law for its potential guidance in constitutional interpretation is not what we are talking about here. We have been doing that since the very first days of the Republic, without ever giving up an ounce of our American sovereignity.

I'm done with this discussion. I continue to believe that Allen West is a shallow, pandering fearmonger as well as a war criminal. If you'll excuse me, I have to go now and inflitrate some more Sharia into a legal opinion.

[twa]

Hey you sound like West's mirror image....maybe you have a future in politics too?

Cali could probably use some Sharia

[Larry]

Cali could probably use some Sharia

I think they all drink Chardonnay.

[Stadium-Armory]

This is what conservatives who want to encourage individual liberty and freedom should be doing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/18/hospital-visitation-regulations-go-effect-today

Hospital Visitation Regulations Go Into Effect Today

Posted by Brian Bond on January 18, 2011 at 05:41 PM EST

"There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean – a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them."

With those words on April 15, 2010 President Obama directed HHS Secretary Sebelius to initiate rulemaking to ensure that hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid respect the rights of patients to designate visitors. The President further advised that the rule should ensure that participating hospitals may not deny visitation privileges based on factors including sexual orientation or gender identity.

Today the new Hospital Visitation Regulations go into effect.

This policy impacts millions of LGBT Americans and their families. The President saw an injustice and felt very strongly about correcting this and has spoken about it often over the years. I want to thank HHS Secretary Sebelius and her team for their resolve to see this rule implemented. In fact, long before this rule was finalized, back in June, 2010 the Secretary laid the groundwork by reaching out to leaders of major hospital associations asking them to encourage their member hospitals to not wait for the formal rulemaking to run its course regarding patient-centered visitation rights suggested by the President.

This significant policy change is due in no small part to the journeys of two incredibly courageous and passionate women, Janice Langbehn and Charlene Strong. Both lived through unimaginable experiences with the loss of their wives and life partners. While I never had the opportunity to meet Janice’s wife Lisa Pond, or Charlene’s wife Kate Fleming, I have had the honor to meet and work with Janice and Charlene. I want to thank them for bringing us all into their lives and for sharing themselves and their families with us, and for using their voices to make lives better for LGBT families.

Not that other garbage..

[Skin'Em84]

He will find out who is behind this.

[LD0506]

I honestly hate it when I see people say "Ok, I'm done with this discussion............" because usually those are the very ones deserving of further debate. The broader implications of this are more important than the particulars, and you only get those in by widening the discussion.

I am somewhat in agreement w/ Bang in that this guy is using a "business model" for his career path that we have seen time and time again. You demonize a demographic so you can present yourself as the savior from it, and it is always characterized by over-the-top rhetoric. He is no more dangerous (or any less for that matter) than others that have done the same. We have institutional protections from his ilk, and I don't mean legal recourse or censoring his message. Dragging it out into the light and examining it is the best way to sanitize repugnant views and civilize fringies. Weirdness grows in the dark. The fact that he is discussed here is part of the process to weed out the truly dangerous from the merely opportunistic.

To those that feel America's open, inclusive nature is protection enough from "creeping Sharia" the same way it was from the Red Menace in the 50's or Tory influence in the 1800's, isn't it enough against attention-whoring political loons as well? The body politic is not as susceptible to rabble rousing as some fear, the current media stance of needing to fill a 24 hr/day news cycle no matter what gives some a bully pulpit far greater in appearance than in actuality.

[Larry]

I honestly hate it when I see people say "Ok, I'm done with this discussion............" because usually those are the very ones deserving of further debate.

Actually, my own, broad-brush opinion of that line is that the person who's using it is a person who knows that the sound bite slogans he's about to spout have a life expectancy (in an open forum) roughly comparable to one of Captain Kirk's redshirts. But the poster wants to spout them, anyway, even though even the poster knows they're bogus. Therefore, his SOP is to shove his redshirts out onto the stage, and then beam himself to safety while the redshirts are dying.

But that's just an opinion.

[DRSmith]

If indivulas want to follow elements of Sharia law that do not conflict with the law of the land, would not the government making such laws be a violation of the constitution regarding religous establishment?

[twa]

This is what conservatives who want to encourage individual liberty and freedom should be doing:

Not that other garbage..

They should do something already being done?

Anyone wishing to advance same sex or woman's rights certainly should not object to limiting Sharia's influence ...though I doubt that is West's focus

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/24/west-ellison-antithesis

During a recent episode of The Shalom Show, host Richard Peritz asked freshman Rep. Allen West (R-FL) how he planned to cope with regular interactions with political opponents, in particular Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who the host described as someone that “supports Islam.” In his reply, West painted Ellison as someone who “really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established”:

PERITZ: Since you’re with a new crowd, people you haven’t really met before, and will be very closely associating with in the future, including Keith Ellison, who supports Islam, how will you manage that, if I may ask, because it’s not really easy to be polite with individuals one totally disagrees with, which I believe may be the case.

WEST: Well I think it’s most important that I stand upon the principles that people elected me to go to Washington, DC and represent them on Capitol Hill. So that when you run into someone that is counter, or someone that really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established, you’ve got to be able to defeat them intellectually in debate and discourse, and you to just have to be able to challenge each and every one of their assertions very wisely and very forthright.

West has a long history of offensive rhetoric aimed at Islam. He has said that displays of the “coexist” bumper sticker, which has the symbols of many major religions, including Islam, “represents something that would give away our country. Would give away who we are, our rights and freedoms and liberties because they are afraid to stand up and confront that which is the antithesis, anathema of who we are.” West has also said that Islam is “a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, it is not a religion,” and he believes terrorism is fundamental to Islam: “this is not a perversion. They are doing exactly what this book [the Quran] says.” West even criticizes Republicans who do not declare full opposition to Islam. “George Bush got snookered into going into some mosque, taking his shoes off, and then saying that Islam was a religion of peace,” he said during his congressional campaign.

Casting political opponents as existential threats to America, as he does here to Ellison, is also nothing new for the Tea Party favorite. As he was preparing to take office, West declared that he was “even more focused that this liberal, progressive, socialist agenda, this left-wing, vile, vicious, despicable machine that’s out there is soundly brought to its knees.” He’s also said that progressives “detest anyone who has the courage of conviction and love of America, something which they find unconscionable,” and that “[l]iberals seek to destroy any institution of intrinsic value: God, country, family, honor, valor, courage, virtue.”

[Larry]

The scary thing is that I suspect that his assertion that he's representing the will of his constituents, when he does this, is correct.

[twa]

If indivulas want to follow elements of Sharia law that do not conflict with the law of the land, would not the government making such laws be a violation of the constitution regarding religous establishment?

Is anyone proposing that?

There is conflict between some Sharia laws and our laws correct?

[Larry]

There is conflict between some Sharia laws and our laws correct?

In which case, guess which one wins.

[Henry]

In which case, guess which one wins.

Well we should make it our top priority that it stay that way, dadgumit!

[Stadium-Armory]

The scary thing is that I suspect that his assertion that he's representing the will of his constituents, when he does this, is correct.

So that's the entire thing in a nut shell. Don't blame the crazy politicians, they (in most cases) truly are representing their constituents. It always bothers me when people say stuff like: "I hate all these crazy politicians. Its the politicians fault". I firmly believe that the politicans that hold office, are a reflection of what their constituents (generally) want. If we want politicians to behave differnetly, we should demand a different type of politician at the ballot box. Only when the people change (one way or the other) will the politicians change.

[twa]

So West is simply supporting our law with his hyperbole after the fashion of those that warn against fundamentalist Christian influence in our society?

[Madison Redskin]

So West is simply supporting our law with his hyperbole after the fashion of those that warn against fundamentalist Christian influence in our society?

First, the other side to that coin is that Christian fundamentalists shouldn't complain about Muslim fundamentalists blurring the lines between Mosque and State.

Second, whereas only a tiny fraction of the U.S. population is Muslim, a large majority of the U.S. population is Christian. So, the notion that Muslims who believe in Sharia law will "take away our freedoms" is miniscule. Conversely, the notion that extremist Christians will "take away our freedoms" is, at the very least, plausible.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, West is not just warning against Sharia law. West is also saying that Islam itself is a threat to America (see Brave's post).

So, in short, that was a pretty poor analogy.

[twa]

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, West is not just warning against Sharia law. West is also saying that Islam itself is a threat to America (see Brave's post).

So, in short, that was a pretty poor analogy.

Braves post uses selective quoting...Islam as practiced in many counties IS a threat if allowed,and West would be happy to expound on that if you wish

How many of those Christians in the US are true fundamentalists?

History certainly illustrates the danger from both Christian and Islamic marriage of church/State....only one is much of a factor today

I think West overstates the issue,just as many opposed to Christian fundamentalists do,but it's a free country and he certainly earned the right to speak his opinion.

[ACW]

Hey West, Keith Ellison is more American then you you bigoted scum.