“From the outset of learning of the purported arbitration award, the court’s concern has been whether there were ecclesiastical principles for dispute resolution involved that would compel the court to adopt the arbitration decision without considering state law. The court has concluded that as to the question of enforceability of the arbitrator’s award the case should proceed under ecclesiastical Islamic law.”

If that doesn’t scare people, it should.

Anyway, I hope the parents win the lawsuit.

Parents suing the school for violating their son’s First Amendment rights by telling him he couldn’t dance to his favorite song “We Shine” because of its references to Jesus. It said that after the boy’s audition the school’s principal, Jerilyn Shubert, told his mother the song was “offensive” and a violation of the “separation of church and state” and asked why he couldn’t “pick a song that does not say Jesus so many times?”

School has backed down but the parents are continuing with the lawsuit to make their point. This is what happens when dumbass liberals start trying to figure out what “seperation” means because they’re convinced it is in the constitution.

It was in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Note what he said — he also was not talking about anything more than what the clause itself says. He also was not advocating any of the lengths to which people today try to take the term.

The truth of the matter is, Sharia law is *already* being taken into consideration in the US.

In Tampa, Florida, a dispute arose over who controls the funds a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding.

Former trustees of the mosque are claiming in court they have the right to the funds. Current mosque leaders are disputing that claim.

The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.

The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.

Here’s the kicker.

The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.”

How ’bout this one?

This is reminiscent of the 2009 New Jersey case, where a Muslim woman sought a restraining order, in civil court, against her Muslim husband, who was raping her several times a day. The judge denied the restraining order because, in his opinion, the husband did not commit a crime because he was following his Islamic beliefs.

In the New Jersey case, and now in this recent case in Tampa, Muslims found themselves being subjected to sharia law against their will.

Think those are isolated cases? Guess again.

Follow this link to read more. There’s a PDF available off that page with 11 cases from here in the United States where Sharia law is trumping US law. That pdf is current as of November 2010. And it’s just a sampling, there are more.

The saddest thing of all is that such legislation protects non-Muslims AND Muslims alike from being subjected to Sharia law. When someone claims that opposition to Sharia law in America is “anti-Muslim,” I’d like to know what they think of the New Jersey woman and the mosque leaders in Tampa. Those Muslims sure would like to argue that statement.

I guess I’m one of the lowest common denominator, because this bothers the hell out of me.