State Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and state Rep. Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, have introduced a bill that would make it a felony to adhere to Sharia law in the state of Tennessee — punishable by 15 years in jail. The facially unconstitutional law would make Tennessee the leading state in the Union in the denial of freedom of religion.
The law declares Sharia to be a danger to homeland security and includes any adherence to Sharia (including feet washing and prayers) as prohibited acts.
Matheny is the House speaker pro tempore and actually says that he is defending the U.S. Constitution by denying religious practices to citizens.
The law was reportedly drafted by David Yerushalmi, an Ariz.-based attorney who runs the Society of Americans for National Existence, a nonprofit that says following Shariah is treasonous. The article below reports that Yerushalmi has “close ties to Frank Gaffney, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy.”
Yerushalmi has been denounced as a “facsict” by writers like Richard Silverstein, who quotes Yerushalmi on such notable comments as this:
One must admit readily that the radical liberal Jew is a fact of the West and a destructive one…Indeed, Jews in the main have turned their backs on the belief in G-d and His commandments as a book of laws for a particular and chosen people…What interest does America have in a strong Israel? If your answer is democracy in a liberal or western sense, know you have sided with the Palestinians of Hamas.
The bill is little more than an anti-Islamic screed. It includes such “findings” as:
The knowing adherence to sharia and to foreign sharia authorities is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the United States government and the government of this state through the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions by the likely use of imminent criminal violence and terrorism with the aim of imposing sharia on the people of this state.
It misstates critical aspects of the Islamic faith:
Sharia in particular includes a war doctrine known as jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of sharia due to a consensus among sharia authorities throughout the ages
Jihad is in fact a general term that does not mean violent overthrow but a wide range of religious based charity and service, according to experts on Islam.
The bill is SB 1028 in the Senate and HB 1353 in the House. It treats mere adherence to Sharia as tantamount to terrorism, and includes a provision giving the state attorney general the power to designate a sharia-following organization in the same way that the U.S. Attorney General declares an organization to be a terrorist organization:
(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.
Here is the law: SB1028
There are few sites more critical of the abuses of Sharia law than this blog. If you search Sharia on this site, you will bring up an endless array of shocking abuses. However, the way to fight such abuse is not to become equally authoritarian and hateful. Most of these abuses are concentrated in radical Islamic governments. Sharia law is far broader in its application and interpretation.
It is highly ironic to see politicians advocating a bill criminalizing religious practices in the name of protecting a Constitution created to protect religious freedoms. One would have to go pretty far from our shores to find how to implement such laws. For example, Saudi Arabia outlaws places of worship of other religions and, of course, the Taliban regularly punishes those who practice other religions.
In the end, these legislators will simply expend taxpayer money to defend a law that has been unconstitutional since the establishment of this Republic.
Source: Tennessean
Jonathan Turley
RE: Gyges, February 25, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Brian,
I think you may have missed a joke somewhere in there. Which is pretty amazing, because given the context of the conversation, it’s pretty clear which side of the issue I stand on.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, given your habit of steering the conversation to your personal obsession, you.
#################################
I may not have missed any jokes, I often use straight-man to straight-man humor to minimize certain forms of common misunderstanding, though such humor often implodes explosively.
I do not steer “the conversation” to myself, I steer it toward recognizing the more subtle and damaging aspects of child abuse which I have come to understand. Because of confidentiality issues, the only “case study” I can properly use is my own life; I have lived with and talked with many hundreds of people who were devastatingly abused as children, and many of these adults live in terror of being disinherited or worse if those of their families who acted in abusive ways were ever to learn that those adults-abused-as-children were sharing their experiences with a scientist such as me.
The people with whom I do pastoral counseling are free to tell anyone anything regarding our counseling sessions, while I, myself, work within strict pastoral privilege. My dad and his parents were ordained clergy, I am third generation in learning how to accomplish effective and decent pastoral counseling work.
My work is not about me, yet the only person I can ethically describe in real detail is myself, due to confidentiality requirements.
Those who are not adequately trained and educated for the sort of pastoral counseling I do may not have practical access to understanding the appropriate ethical and moral standards within which such counseling can be safe and effective.
My dad published an article regarding pastoral counseling and rural ministry circa 1962 in Pastoral Psychology, and mention of it can be found via the Internet.
If there is a real fire, it is not improper to whisper, “Fire!” in a crowded theater if doing so will almost certainly lead to everyone getting out safely.
“You sometimes remind me of that most clever of all the wild beasts…”
A human?
Yeah, I get that a lot.
And as to your attempting to twist that your lie of omission is somehow a critical component to the ethics of your work and not simply another lie – which is exactly what it is, a lie?
That’s as funny as you thinking you could even carry Galileo’s scientific jock, Brian.
Perhaps even funnier.
What’s next for you? Telling us up is down and black is white? Maybe who’s on first?
RE: Panche Master, February 25, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I hear that a blessed nuptial is planned for these individuals. Please stop by and ask about our professional discounts.
Jacksonville, North Carolina
910-347-2884
Our Weddings are Divine . . .
Our Catering is Gourmet
And Our Photography is Timeless
We do not discriminate based on race, sex, or professions. Everyone is welcome. We put the Gay back in business. No one need bend over to get serviced. Everyone is welcome and accommodations are flexible. These are ala carte and the fees which are extra are requested to be in writing and paid for in advance. Now accepting all major credit cards along with proper identification.
Phone is extra
###################################
It is about time someone injected levity into this cataclysm of concatenations…
I am married, have been since 1975, and plan for my marriage to last far into the future. Thus, being of the monogamous sort, I am simply not available now.
I do, however, very strongly favor LBGTTTQQ… people being able to marry one another without interference from bullies or other people who believe they have the right to regulate actually harmless and also regulate actually helpful conduct between understanding and consenting people.
I would, being an ordained clergy member, contentedly marry any two people of sufficient age who asked me to marry them, provided that they would work with me in the sort of pre-marriage counseling which I find all people wisely have available.
I am a strong supporter of Pflag.
I have a hunch, though, that, were I sufficiently through grieving my wife’s moving on, and were the marriage of Bil and myself strongly advocated, I am rather sure that we would not get through that necessary pre-marriage counseling with the outcome of marriage being all that likely.
Nonetheless, Karl Popper wrote some really good advice in this regard. In “The Poverty of Historicism,” Routledge Classics, 2002, Popper argues against the historicist notion of future predictability, in a manner which I find severely challenges what I believe to be the view being promulgated by BiL. In the manner of Popper, I find BiL to be intensely of the historicist tradition.
Popper’s concern about predictability is dealt with rather well in my work through the use of system dynamics modeling in which the probability methods in use are strongly Bayesian.
It is my plan that my wife and I will live satisfactorily together for many more years.
RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., February 25, 2011 at 5:58 pm
“However, my doing that here would tend, in ways I experience as very improper, this blawg.”
Makes no intelligible sense to me. Had the idea in my thoughts, apparently the instructions for finding words were waylaid
Better (it makes some sense to me) is: “However, my doing that here would tend, in ways I experience as very improper, contravene my understanding of what is appropriate on this blawg.”
I hear that a blessed nuptial is planned for these individuals. Please stop by and ask about our professional discounts.
Jacksonville, North Carolina
910-347-2884
Our Weddings are Divine . . .
Our Catering is Gourmet
And Our Photography is Timeless
We do not discriminate based on race, sex, or professions. Everyone is welcome. We put the Gay back in business. No one need bend over to get serviced. Everyone is welcome and accommodations are flexible. These are ala carte and the fees which are extra are requested to be in writing and paid for in advance. Now accepting all major credit cards along with proper identification.
Phone is extra.
http://www.2panache.com/
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 25, 2011 at 11:45 am
Brian,
Claiming it is unethical to defend your postulates in a forum that thrives on assertions and (this is very important) proofs is simply evasion.
.
.
.
But saying that to prove your assertion is unethical?
Is just simply hilarious.
###########################################
Of course, saying that it is unethical to “prove my assertion” is ludicrous far beyond simply hilarious.
However, you seem to me to be an artist of connotative juxtaposition of talent that surely is nearly miraculous.
By the method of null hypothesis invalidation, I “proved” my thesis to my committee, a bunch very well qualified to both understand and if-possible-reject it.
As a human-subject-research scientist, I find some very stringent ethical factors which I cannot violate without putting at undue risk years of very challenging work.
On the web site I have “on standby,” I will very clearly provide such evidence as people may find useful. However, my doing that here would tend, in ways I experience as very improper, this blawg. Indeed, your responses to my posted comments to people not you, and your jumping in as though judge, jury (and almighty god?) has left me with validating your mistaken understandings of my work through my ignoring them, or writing in the sometimes subtle straight-man to straight-man obscure humor I have found to be the least awful way to not admit to your stipulations by default.
Oh, my, my, my, BiL, you are clever and then some.
You sometimes remind me of that most clever of all the wild beasts…
Brian,
I think you may have missed a joke somewhere in there. Which is pretty amazing, because given the context of the conversation, it’s pretty clear which side of the issue I stand on.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, given your habit of steering the conversation to your personal obsession, you.
Or, and here’s an idea, you could defend your postulate instead of simply repeating it ad nauseum.
Awwwww.
So I’m a bully for destroying your antisocial propaganda, am I?
Play the victim card some more too.
That’s equally as funny as you thinking you’re even in the same stadium as Galileo, let alone the same league.
By the way, you might want to check out that fire extinguisher of yours.
It’s full of shit.
“I may happen to be the first person with the needed research and license to be not only entitled, but also mandated, to question the biophysical validity of the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence.”
Because anyone else would realize the futility of trying to blame effect for cause.
The use of dispute resolution in the adversarial mode – not unique to Anglo-American jurisprudence although part of its tradition – is not the cause of adversity, but rather the effect of mitigating the negative effects of adversity.
But please, compare yourself to Galileo again.
That never ceases to be funny.
RE: Dr. Brian Buddha, JD, PHD., February 25, 2011 at 12:30 pm
I am pleased to announce the partnership of Mr. Harris and Mr. Buddha. As you have noticed they have been moving around and around to various threads on this blog. You can see that they make a cute couple and have the agility to jack all of the threads for personal reasons and vendettas. Please join us in praising the efforts of both of the fine intelligent men on our behalf.
Thank You both for your continued eaffronts.
########################################
If I recall correctly, I was the first one to mention our research partnership, and BiL, as I recall, took exception to my view.
I am not commenting on all the threads here, only on those whose topic is very close to my research interest focus.
Were BiL to allow that I am a real person, with a real doctoral dissertation and a real Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer license (No. 34106-6) which is trivial to verify via the Internet of by otherwise checking with the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing, there would not be the need for me to reject his claims about me because he would not be making them.
I allow that each person who comes upon any of my comments is adequately qualified to make a personal decision about the value of my work without needing supervision from BiL.
I guess, and it is only a guess, that I have far more trust in ordinary people than has BiL. Perhaps that is because I am merely an ordinary person who happened to stumble into an idea and wrote and defended a Ph.D. dissertation about it.
There likely are special people in the world, I am just not one of them.
Were BiL to stop shooting “flaming arrows” my way, I would have no need for regularly using my “fire extinguisher” as I have been doing.
That last sentence can be taken very differently than I had in mind, however, those who find the “X-rated meaning” are not finding what I really meant.
I welcome fussing about the “diatribe,” and would like it to stop without my being “bullied off the ranch.”
I do need to give proper credit to BiL, for I find he is illustrating quite superbly the basic method I have found used by every bully I have ever encountered in person.
I find no fault with BiL, for I believe that he is doing as his total life circumstances allow him to do.
RE: Dr. J Brian Harris Fan Club, February 25, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Dr. Brian Buddha, JD, PHD.:
How do you know Buddha has a JD? Just because he told you? Personally I kind of doubt it because he typically isnt right on case law and Bob Esq has to help him out.
#########################################
I do not know that he has a Juris Doctor, nor that he does not. Without evidence, such as a state Bar Association membership number, I have no way to meaningfully ask such a question. However, I have looked into some of his cites, and they suggest to me that he is almost certainly very well qualified as an attorney-at-law.
I find it impossible to question the work of any attorney regarding case law, for the simple reason that I observe that almost any important precedent has an alternative precedent which could be used to drive a decision the other way.
While I do not mind having a “fan club,” I seek to promote the meaning of The Constitution of the United States of America, as found in the Constitution’s preamble, “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”
I prefer to promote Union in the manner of respect, kindness, decency and sharing, that the Union may become ever more perfect. Divisiveness is as though anathema to Union, as I am able to understand.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts…
People who found their lives veritably ruined by the effects of the Adversarial Principle have asked me to learn what I may be able to do, and it is on behalf of those who have found their lives ripped and torn asunder by the workings of the Adversarial Principle that I work and write as I do.
That, “We the people…” includes the members of the legal profession, yet “the rest of us” vastly outnumber the legal profession members. If it is well established that my work is scientifically valid, then the rest of us may properly decline to be subsumed by the legal profession as presently constituted as intrinsically adversarial.
I would guess, in consequence of a considerable research effort, that I may happen to be the first person with the needed research and license to be not only entitled, but also mandated, to question the biophysical validity of the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence.
There surely is some reason why this blawg has many instances as thread-starters which contain plausible evidence of a legal system gone amok.
I am beginning to wonder to what extent I am doing a variant deja vu of Galileo and those “not in the Bible” moons of Jupiter?
Gyges 1, February 25, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Buddha,
You don’t understand, Muslims are scary.
#####################################
I worked with and around Muslims while working at Cook County Children’s Hospital, not one of whom did I find even one jot of a whit scary.
Violent people, regardless of other factors, are scary because they are violent, and I remain unaware of any major religion which has not had some people within its purview who have been of the violent ilk.
Overgeneralization is of fallacy in every formal logic text I have yet found.
Prejudice is a form of hatred. I put my understanding of The Koran to use in my daily life, the better that peace may truly be upon us.
From my close-at-hand George Sale translation:
XXIX
The Chapter of the Spider
Revealed at Mecca
In the name of the most merciful God.
Do men imagine that it shall be sufficient for them to say, We believe; while they be not proved? We heretofore proved those who were before them; For God will surely know those who are sincere, and he will surely know the liars. Do they who work evil think that they shall prevent us from taking vengeance on them ? An ill judgment do they make.
J. Brian Harris: No one who works evil can prevent me from taking vengeance against such person; what prevents me from taking vengeance is my conscience, Peace Be Upon Us, which does not allow me the luxury of finding fault with those who I find to be truly innocent.
I seem to recall a survey in which atheists scored higher in knowledge of the Bible than did avowed Christians. I find there are avowed Muslims who have not studied the meaning of The Koran as much as I have. To know about The Koran or the Bible does not imply understanding either of them.
Awwwww.
Is that the best you got, lil’ amateur troll?
Because it’s really pathetic, B.
Since you seem to value what Bob says?
Why not ask him if he thinks I have a J.D.?
Or mespo or raff or Mike A. for that matter.
My four aces will trump your two high.
Or is that “too”?
Because you must be high to think I care what you think of me.
Thanks for playin’ though.
Dr. Brian Buddha, JD, PHD.:
How do you know Buddha has a JD? Just because he told you? Personally I kind of doubt it because he typically isnt right on case law and Bob Esq has to help him out.
Dr. Brian Buddha, JD, PHD.:
A brilliant observation, could they actually be one and the same? Dr. Harris as Dr. Jekyll? We certainly know Buddha is Mr. SnHyde
Buddha is a Sophist:
nanny-nanny-boo-boo will just get you laughed at around these parts.
And I have done a good deal of laughing at your posts today, funny girl that you are.
Buddha,
You don’t understand, Muslims are scary.
Ginger,
You’ve yet to show any reason WHY you view fundamentalist Muslim sects as worse than any other.
You want abuse of women? I can give you that in the U.S. by Fundamentalist Christians (using religious doctrine as an excuse). You want state sponsored killing of gays? I can give you that by Christians in Africa. You want calls for theocracies? Boy howdy can I give you that.
I can give you starving kids to death, killing kids by refusing medical treatment, and kidnapping, all in the name of fundamentalist religion in the U.S.
Buddha,
Give em’ hell Harry….