The Republican-sponsored anti-sharia legislation which would ensure that Islamic and other foreign laws are kept out of consideration by South Carolina courts is being stonewalled by Democrat panderers who seek to appease Muslim supremacists pushing hard to get sharia law recognized by American courts.
Post and Courier: A vote on the anti-Sharia law bill was postponed until Tuesday at the earliest after an hours-long debate over Charleston Republican Rep. Chip Limehouse’s proposal. Limehouse has said a law is needed to prevent radical Islamic beliefs from infiltrating state courts. Democrats said the bill showed why the GOP was unfit to govern and why South Carolina is the butt of late-night television jokes. They accused Republicans of legislating off of Internet rumors.
Defenders of the measure said that events in Iraq and the growth of radical Islam in America mean that South Carolina should ensure that laws adhered to by militant groups like ISIS don’t end up in U.S. courts. Sharia law is also sometimes used in Muslim communities to settle contract disputes or family matters, although American courts are not bound by those rules. The terrorist group ISIS has used the 14th century laws to justify the beheading of prisoners in Syria and Iraq.
Limehouse has cited the Center for Security Policy, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank, that has prompted states around the country to introduce laws banning the use of foreign or Sharia laws. The center has cited 146 cases in 32 states where Sharia law was used as a legal argument. Those states are Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Washington, Alabama and Florida, according to the center.
A fear of Islamic law has grown particularly among conservative groups around the country as terrorist groups have carried out attacks and spread their message on social media. Rep. Joe Neal, D-Hopkins, said Republicans were fear-mongering. “Laws in this state ought to be based on our Constitution not on fear, not on suspicion,” he said. “We’re better than this because we don’t need to give in to fear … and the kind of low-brow politics this seems to represent.”