Montana on the verge of a law that can pass constitutional muster prohibiting courts from applying sharia

In the face of American states and courts allowing Sharia Law to be a factor in our justice system, and the ongoing demand of jihadists that sharia law should rule the world, a number of states have advanced laws that would prohibit its application.  Montana is on the verge of passing such a law, carefully designed to withstand legal challenges asserting that it unfairly discriminates against Muslims, despite the best efforts of a Democrat legislator to insert a poison pill.

Erin Loranger reports on the Billings Gazette:

 After a lengthy debate, with Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on the intent of a Senate bill to prohibit state courts from applying foreign law, the legislation advanced in the House largely along party lines with a 56-44 vote.

Aenate Bill 97, carried by Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, doesn’t specifically mention Sharia law, but it was the only kind of foreign law mentioned during testimony in both the Senate and House judiciary committees.

That religious neutrality, so central to a law’s constitutionality, would have been sabotaged if a Democrat legislator had gotten her way:

Rep. Ellie Hill Smith, D-Missoula, said the testimony in the House Judiciary committee was also peppered with anti-Muslim bigotry. Since she thinks the bill targets people who practice Islam, she introduced an amendment that specifies a ban on both Sharia Law and the Law of Moses.

In the amendment’s language, a court would not be able to include the Law of Moses, which bans clothing made of two or more fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), the use of bears in retaliation for mocking the bald (II Kings 2:23-24), or the stoning of gluttons and drunkards (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21).

 “The courts have said that laws that single out certain religions violate the First Amendment,” she said. “So with this amendment I think we can show the state of Montana that is not just about Islamic Law.”

The amendment failed 82-18.

This is the legislative equivalent of a fake hate crime: we know you hate Muslims, so we’ll make the higher truth clear to all, never mind what you actually wrote.

An equally misguided Democrat legislator elaborated on the strategy:

Rep. Laurie Bishop, D-Livingston, said the legislation is almost identical to a bill that was struck down in Oklahoma for specifically mentioning Sharia Law. She said Regier’s version has the same end result even if it doesn’t say Sharia Law.

“Let’s not forget the roots of this bill,” she said. “Let’s not forget that our children are watching.”

Representative Laurie Bishop (D-Livingston)

Ahem, Rep, Bishop: the only reason that the law would have the same effect is that only Muslims are attempting to make their religious law superior to our American law. Jews do not impose their religious law, nor do Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, or Christians. In the world today, there is one group of a billion-plus people that has an active, well-funded, and (whenever it wishes) violent movement to impose its religious law by force on others, if necessary, but by submission to dhimmitude (backed by the threat of force), if possible.

If Buddhists, Hindus, or Christians were to advance such an effort through the courts, they would be covered, too.

Hat tip: Cheryl Jacobs Lewin

In the face of American states and courts allowing Sharia Law to be a factor in our justice system, and the ongoing demand of jihadists that sharia law should rule the world, a number of states have advanced laws that would prohibit its application.  Montana is on the verge of passing such a law, carefully designed to withstand legal challenges asserting that it unfairly discriminates against Muslims, despite the best efforts of a Democrat legislator to insert a poison pill.

Erin Loranger reports on the Billings Gazette:

 After a lengthy debate, with Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on the intent of a Senate bill to prohibit state courts from applying foreign law, the legislation advanced in the House largely along party lines with a 56-44 vote.

Aenate Bill 97, carried by Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, doesn’t specifically mention Sharia law, but it was the only kind of foreign law mentioned during testimony in both the Senate and House judiciary committees.

That religious neutrality, so central to a law’s constitutionality, would have been sabotaged if a Democrat legislator had gotten her way:

Rep. Ellie Hill Smith, D-Missoula, said the testimony in the House Judiciary committee was also peppered with anti-Muslim bigotry. Since she thinks the bill targets people who practice Islam, she introduced an amendment that specifies a ban on both Sharia Law and the Law of Moses.

In the amendment’s language, a court would not be able to include the Law of Moses, which bans clothing made of two or more fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), the use of bears in retaliation for mocking the bald (II Kings 2:23-24), or the stoning of gluttons and drunkards (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21).

 “The courts have said that laws that single out certain religions violate the First Amendment,” she said. “So with this amendment I think we can show the state of Montana that is not just about Islamic Law.”

The amendment failed 82-18.

This is the legislative equivalent of a fake hate crime: we know you hate Muslims, so we’ll make the higher truth clear to all, never mind what you actually wrote.

An equally misguided Democrat legislator elaborated on the strategy:

Rep. Laurie Bishop, D-Livingston, said the legislation is almost identical to a bill that was struck down in Oklahoma for specifically mentioning Sharia Law. She said Regier’s version has the same end result even if it doesn’t say Sharia Law.

“Let’s not forget the roots of this bill,” she said. “Let’s not forget that our children are watching.”

Representative Laurie Bishop (D-Livingston)

Ahem, Rep, Bishop: the only reason that the law would have the same effect is that only Muslims are attempting to make their religious law superior to our American law. Jews do not impose their religious law, nor do Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, or Christians. In the world today, there is one group of a billion-plus people that has an active, well-funded, and (whenever it wishes) violent movement to impose its religious law by force on others, if necessary, but by submission to dhimmitude (backed by the threat of force), if possible.

If Buddhists, Hindus, or Christians were to advance such an effort through the courts, they would be covered, too.

Hat tip: Cheryl Jacobs Lewin

RECENT VIDEOS