The Mythical Hero of the Right »« Pope Wants Christians to Gang Up on Secularists

Sekulow: Constitution Will Be Amended to Add Sharia Law

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice went on the 700 Club to tell their credulous followers that radical Muslims are going to amend the U.S. Constitution to impose Sharia law on America. With a straight face.

Sharia law is a real situation in the United States. You have leading Imams that are considered moderate saying Sharia law is compliant with the U.S. Constitution, and the reason the reason they say that is because they know the constitution can be amended through a process, so that’s what they mean by Sharia being compliant with the U.S. Constitution. Sure, you amend it to comply with Sharia law. So that’s why they say that…We’re seeing it play out right now and it’s horrifying.


That’s completely, unalterably, incontrovertibly insane. Muslims make up 1% of the United States and only a small percentage of those people want anything like Sharia law imposed in this country — and every single other person in the country would be opposed to it. I’d love to hear Sekulow lay out some actual pathway to get the constitution amended to do that. That would be highly amusing. Passing a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states. Paris Hilton will win the Nobel Prize for Physics before that happens.

Look, let’s not mince words here. Jay Sekulow is lying. He’s far too intelligent to actually believe what he’s saying. And he’s lying for one reason and one reason only: Because this kind of scare-mongering keeps the donations rolling in, which keeps him living like a king. This is all about separating the ignorant and credulous from their money as efficiently as possible.

Comments

  1. cag says

    This is all about separating the ignorant and credulous from their money as efficiently as possible.

    You have just made all other definitions of religion obsolete.

  2. slc1 says

    Not to be pedantic here but there are actually 4 ways a constitutional amendment can be approved.

    Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
    Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
    Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
    Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

    In any case, a 2/3 vote is required to propose an amendment and a 3/4 vote is required to approve it.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

  3. Dennis N says

    Muslims make up 1% of the United States and only a small percentage of those people want anything like Sharia law imposed in this country

    You’re forgetting how much atheists and liberals love Sharia law. That’s a good ‘nother 20% right there. Then there’s the cafeteria Christians who aren’t Real Christians who don’t hate gays enough, they’re also giving ground to Sharia.

  4. says

    I’m not so sure that $ekulow isn’t just twisting the words of some moderate Imams who have stated that Sharia law is compatible with the US constitution. What they were referring to of course is the sort of Sharia in which familial and civil disputes among Muslims are handled in a separate court, similar to Jewish Halakha courts. And as long as all parties agree to that form of arbitration, it’s perfectly legal. But if $ekulow let anyone know that’s what they meant, people would see that there’s nothing to fear. So what they really must have meant is that they want to change the Constitution, and man is that scary.

    Of course by such logic, anything and everything is compatible with the Constitution, because there is no limit to what you can amend. So it’s obvious that that’s not what they meant.

  5. tacitus says

    We’re seeing it play out right now and it’s horrifying.

    It’s Sekulow who is horrifying. Rarely have I seen such a combination of intelligence, mendaciousness, piety, and self-interest in one person.

    His radio show, where he is joined by his son who is a chip off the old block, is one long diatribe against the “enemies of Christianity”–liberals, Muslims, homosexuals, feminists, etc. and always takes the same format: scare the crap out of the listeners then get them to sign on to their their latest, worthless petition (and there is one on every show). Worthless, that is, except for gathering the names of even more fools who are easy marks for fundraising letters and selling their “charity-related” services for a fat commission.

  6. says

    And he’s lying for one reason and one reason only: Because this kind of scare-mongering keeps the donations rolling in, which keeps him living like a king.

    I would say there’s another reason. Fear and resentment of ethnic and religious minorities are what keep the white, Christian majority voting against their own self-interest.

  7. Michael Heath says

    Ed’s immediate response to what Jay Sekulow asserted:

    That’s completely, unalterably, incontrovertibly insane.

    And for Sekulow, it’s also typically disingenuous since he implies in that very statement that Muslims currently don’t enjoy the same constitutional protections Christians enjoy. So he’s also leveraging the emerging conservative assertion that falsely claims that Islam is not a religion.

  8. theguy says

    “Because this kind of scare-mongering keeps the donations rolling in, which keeps him living like a king. This is all about separating the ignorant and credulous from their money as efficiently as possible.”

    So what you’re saying is that he doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state;

    He believes in the separation of the gullible and their money.

    (Rimshot)

  9. John Hinkle says

    @tacitus

    Worthless, that is, except for gathering the names of even more fools who are easy marks for fundraising letters and selling their “charity-related” services for a fat commission.

    Well said. Along those lines, I just read an article in the Chicago Tribune (probably a few weeks old, I’m always behind on the treeware papers laying about) that the AFA and Ralph Reed and perhaps some other conservative Xian groups are teaming up with a few tech companies to data mine Xians from various databases in order to register conservative voters for the 2012 election. The databases are from various sources, mostly I suspect from conservative Xian organizations. But they are also mining relatively new data such as names from Perry’s pray-athon, tea party events, etc. They’re expecting, or hoping, to get millions of people registered.

    And that, my friend, is scary.

  10. dochopper says

    LOOK there is something over there to be “AFRAID OF”
    Give money to me and I will do my best to make it go away!

  11. says

    You have leading Imams that are considered moderate saying Sharia law is compliant with the U.S. Constitution…

    Another reason such imams say this could be because a person can voluntarily abide by Sharia law, and advocate the same to others, without violating the Constitution. But I guess that’s way too straightforward for deluded haters like Sekulow…

  12. says

    I’d be more worried about them amending the constitution to allow assassination of US citizens without trial, for the crime of incitement and conspiracy. In the US they probably wouldn’t have been able to go after the guy for anything that would have kept him in prison for very long (even if they could have gotten a conviction) but in Yemen they blow his ass to bits, along with a member of the press.

    I’m ready to support sharia law if it doesn’t permit stuff like that.

  13. lofgren says

    This is almost as funny as when fundamentalists fret about Sharia law because of the way it treats women.

  14. Chris from Europe says

    But is it really working? It was my impression that the sharia law hysteria is fading away.

    OT: The link “Older entries” produces a 404 error page. And the search doesn’t show anything to me, even if I know that it must be there.

  15. marymallone says

    I’m trying to understand a certain inconsistancy in this particular version of the “Sharia Law Takeover” thing (I’m so fascinated with this topic…it’s such a weird conspiracy theory that embodies the racism and distrust of Islam, the othering of cultures that aren’t Christian, and a complete disregard for reality). If the people who are trying to get Sharia law enforced in the US are so devious and ruthless, then why bother going through the Constitution? The idea that this mysterious group of Imams is ammending the Constitution assumes that a powerful enough group exists to have the ammendment be passed. If this group is so powerful, and if they are so anti-American, anti-freedom, etc., then why wouldn’t they just do away with the Constitution altogether? As usual, I do not understand.

  16. Michael Heath says

    marymallone,

    It mostly makes sense within two contexts. The current conspiracy falsely promotes the assumption that Christianists are defenders of the Constitution and all observant Muslims, even liberals and moderates, are enemies to the Constitution.

    The only part that still doesn’t make sense is the ‘creeping Sharia’ into our jurisprudence.

  17. says

    “LOOK there is something over there to be “AFRAID OF”
    Give money to me and I will do my best to PRETEND TO make it go away!”

    ftfy!

    Ed:

    Shit like this, by people like Sucksupthedough are the reason that I hate seeing comments by you (and others) that Sekulow, Paul and other lying scumbags–who lack the priniciples of even a crack whore–from the Farsidereichwing of the GOP “get it right” on some issues. The damage that they do requires, in my mind, some sort of disclaimer whenever they are being quoted by responsible, intelligent persons.

    I would suggest something along the lines of:

    “Loathsome, lying, hypocritical, hysterical scumbag (insert asswipe’s name here) has, accidentally, said something that actually makes sense.”.

    I would be willing to craft some of these types of disclaimers for you; I understand, however, that you may wish to take a less conciliatory tack with these fucking douchenozzles than I might.

  18. says

    This is a scare tactic that insults the intelligence of those it is aimed at.

    The man is either a liar or absolutely coocoo-for-cocoa-puffs.

    I am not quite sure which option would be worse.

  19. marymallone says

    Ah, I suppose I’m not thinking crazily enough (speaking of which, where did this Sharia Law thing come from? I mean, it’s like this…fairytale of sorts that has developed and taken root. I wonder who first suggested it, and who were the first few who said, “No, that’s not at all crazy; I think you’re onto something.”)

  20. says

    @Foster Disbelief:

    This is a scare tactic that insults the intelligence of those it is aimed at.

    I don’t think it’s possible to insult the intelligence of Pat Robertson’s viewers.

  21. dingojack says

    “… And whatever your problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumsen isn’t the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only.
    Making you afraid of it and telling who’s to blame for it.
    That, ladies and gentlemen is how you win elections… ”
    An American President (1995)

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply