KANSAS CITY, Kansas (Reuters) -

Kansas lawmakers have passed legislation intended to prevent the state courts or agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws in making decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an embarrassment to the state.

The legislation, which passed 33-3 in the state Senate on Friday and 120-0 previously in the House, is widely known in Kansas as the "Sharia bill," because the perceived goal of supporters is to keep Islamic code from being recognized in Kansas.

The bill was sent to Republican Governor Sam Brownback, who has not indicated whether he will sign it.

In interviews on Saturday, a supporter of the bill said it reassured foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution will protect them. But an opponent said the bill's real purpose is to hold Islam out for ridicule.

Kansas Representative Peggy Mast, a lead sponsor of the bill for the past two years, said the goal was to make sure there was no confusion that American laws prevailed on American soil.

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."

State Senator Tim Owens, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there was no need for legislation reaffirming American laws that already exist. All the proposed legislation does, he said, was target one particular group - Muslims - for discrimination.

'UTTER NONSENSE'

"It's based on fear, it's based on intolerance and it is not based on understanding of the Constitution," said Owens, a Republican, who said the measure is an embarrassment to Kansas.

"People will ask, 'How narrow has that state become?'" Owens said. "How unwelcoming is this state?"

He said non-U.S. companies may be unwilling to do business in a state whose residents object to "anything different than what they think is appropriate."

Roughly 20 states have considered legislation similar to what has passed in Kansas, said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington. Some state legislatures, including Kansas, have passed laws that do not mention Sharia by name, he said.

Hooper said there was a movement by conservative-leaning state legislatures to introduce anti-Islam bills that have no legal foundation.

"Really, the goal seems to be (to demonize) Islam and (to marginalize) American Muslims," Hooper said. "Some (states) have passed these watered-down bills and declared a great victory. It's utter nonsense, but if your goal is to promote intolerance, I guess you won."

After Oklahoma voters approved a law in 2010 barring state judges from considering Sharia law specifically in making decisions, federal courts granted an injunction preventing the law from taking effect.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the injunction, ruling the law unfairly discriminated against a particular religion.

Sharia, or Islamic law, covers all aspects of Muslim life including religious obligations and financial dealings, and opponents of state bans say they could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims.

A report earlier this year showed that nearly a third of Americans believed American Muslims want to establish Sharia law in the United States.

seems those Dumb Judges need to have a good look at Europe,then revisit their decision!

Why would they want to do that?

might give them some perspective what happens when you let Sharia creep into your Laws!

Did anyone ever here of "freedom of religion"?

maybe, if they could,.. hear??

Ya'll come back now, here?

Thanks for pointing that out in such a classy manner.

I had two thoughts in my head not too or to.

One was do we not have freedome of religion here in america the other was did you people ever hear of freedom of religion?


Regardless of how it was spelled the meaning is the same.

i wasnt aware that the US lawmakers were ever allowed to use laws outside of the US to make decisions


seems reasonable to me and doesnt infringe on PERSONAL rights to practice whatever religion we choose,,,

Just some food for thought....

Sharia Law: The Key to Linguistic Rearmament in the War against Jihadism
By David Hegedus


The struggle against the jihadists is fought both on the physical battlefield and in the war of words. On the physical battlefield, we win easily. In a shootout between predator drones and bolt action rifles, the good guys win every time. However, in the war of words, we've allowed ourselves to be outgunned. We are reluctant to criticize any behavior by Muslims, no matter how outrageous, for fear of being called certain bad words such as Islamophobe, hater, and racist. It's high time we strap on our body armor and start shooting back.

Consider the term "Islamophobe." The payload of this verbal barb has two parts. The "Islamo-" part refers to a supposedly harmless foreign religion, and the "-phobe" part refers to an irrational fear. Liberals and jihadists wish to classify us as unsophisticated rubes, xenophobes. Users of this moniker should be corrected -- forcefully and quickly. We are not "Islamophobes," but we can be called "Shariaphobes." The first refers to a religion; the second refers to a legal system.

Sharia Law is a target which the liberals cannot defend. After all, without Sharia Law, Islam would be a harmless religion -- almost benign. Even though liberals might not mind that Sharia Law treats Christians and Jews like garbage, atheists, polytheists, and pagans are treated even worse. And how could any liberal defend the way it treats women and homosexuals?

Another important verbal barb is the term "hate." Liberals will often scold Christians by telling us that it's against our rules to hate. We should politely suggest that their ignorance of Western religions is matched only by their ignorance of non-Western religions: Christians are certainly allowed to hate; we just can't hate people. Historically, Christians have hated a lot of bad stuff. Take for instance slavery and Jim Crow laws.

However, the best example of hateful foreign laws would be the Apartheid laws of South Africa. Once liberals use the word "hate," ask them whether they hated the Apartheid laws of the 1980s. If they answer yes, then ask them: if Apartheid was hateful treating non-whites as subhuman, why isn't Sharia Law hateful for treating non-Muslims as subhuman? Furthermore, you can remind them that South African whites never crashed planes into skyscrapers or attempted to export their laws to Europe or America.

Since Sharia Law was the moral justification used by Mohamed Atta on Nine-Eleven, Americans are more than entitled to fear Sharia Law. Are we not perfectly justified in hating Sharia Law with the same passion the Mr. Ahmadinejad hates Jews? Just at the Iranian president is an anti-Semite, shouldn't patriotic Americans be "anti-Sharia-ites"?

Finally, consider the word "racist." This implies that we, "evil white racists," are now harassing Arabs, not on the basis of their outrageous behavior, but purely because of their slightly darker complexions. We should remind them that under our laws, people are held accountable for their actions as individuals regardless of membership in any ethnic or religious group. We call this equal protection under the law. This is exactly the opposite of Sharia Law. Furthermore, one should suggest (as politely as possible) that if Muslim immigrants find it unbearable to live under a legal system in which they are not given special privileges, they are free to leave.

We can also remind our liberal friends that the poison of Sharia Law crosses ethnic and national boundaries. Some of the world's most vicious jihadists are from Chechnya in the Northern Caucasus Mountains. We must ask our liberal critics how it is possible for American white racists to bring themselves to "hate" these genuine Caucasians.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/sharia_law_the_key_to_linguist.html

are you sure you know what that means?
Sharia would be infringing on Freedom of Religion!

ITs hard to find an impartial source about Sharia Law. I personally put more stake in what muslim writers have to say about it than I do the possibly jaded western writers (not that muslims cant be jaded too). IN the end it doesnt affect me though, because I am not muslim.

I am fine with muslims living how they choose to live with the values they choose.

and I am fine with non muslims doing the same.

I think its good for others to keep their laws out of US business and for US to keep their laws out of the business of others.

Sharia-Law would indeed give one set of Religion special Privileges,violating the First Amendment,regardless what the good Liberals wanna tell us!
It is happening here in Europe already!

Best.
Freedom of religion is a different topic.
No, they shouldn't have the freedom to force their laws on us.

Shouldn't force their "methodology" on western law....

Your quite welcome.

I'll have ta' take your word on that.
I's just an old workin' class redneck with a compooter.

did you ever hear of freedom from religion?

This is what I always say to people like you...."You so smart you break my heart".....