Montana Democrats Support Sharia Law
The Montana House of Representatives advanced a bill that would ban Sharia law in the state. With a Democrat Governor, there’s a good chance that he will veto it.
Senate Bill 97, sponsored by Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, passed mainly along party lines on Monday 56-44. While it does not specifically mention Sharia law, it was often the focus of discussion during debate.
‘If you go back and listen to the testimony of the proponents of this bill in both the House and Senate, the legislative intent is crystal clear that it targets one religion,’ Rep. Ellie Hill Smith, D-Missoula, said. ‘That this was a Shariah law bill. It’s what every proponent had talked about.’
Given the logic of Rep. Smith, it would be wrong to pass a bill that outlawed human sacrifice since such a ban would target a particular religion, the religion of the Aztecs. Polygamy is still outlawed even though some people claim a religious basis for the practice.
Smith “proposed a failed amendment to the bill to include a ban on both Sharia Law and the Law of Moses, in order to ‘show the state of Montana that it is not just about Islamic Law.’”
Several Mosaic laws have been banned already: Mosaic laws against abortion and same-sex marriage, and coming soon, laws prohibiting polygamy and pedophilia. Mosaic law also prohibits man-stealing (Ex. 21:16), a law, if it had been followed, would have prohibited the slave trade, something that Islam has never stopped being involved in.
Think about how many times the courts have ruled against posting copies of the Ten Commandments on government property. Christianity has been attacked by the courts in our nation’s government schools since the early 1960s.
The Preamble to the Montana Constitution states:
We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.
It’s “God,” not “Allah.” “God” never meant “Allah” to our Founders.
The United States Constitution states that it was drafted on “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.” The “Twelfth” is a reference to 1776, the year the Declaration of Independence was drafted where religious references are found that don’t have anything to do with Sharia law. The “Year of our Lord” is a direct reference to Jesus Christ, not Muhammad.
Consider rulings from the Supreme Court that concluded “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries”1 and that “the spread and practice of polygamy is . . . . contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.”2 Marriages were recognized in the United States as long as they were not “contrary to the general view of Christendom.”3
America has a law problem. There is no longer any basis for a fixed moral or legal standard. The Constitution is what the judges say it is. Law is what the courts and legislators say it is. There is no neutrality. Someone or some group will determine what the law is and how it is to be applied.
Although written in 1968, R. J. Rushdoony saw the inescapable logic of so-called moral “neutrality”:
The universe of evolution and humanism is a closed universe. There is no law, no appeal, no higher order, beyond and above the universe. Instead of an open window upwards, there is a closed cosmos. There is no ultimate law and decree beyond man and the universe. In practice, this means that the positive law of the state is absolute law. The state is the most powerful and most highly organized expression of humanistic man, and the state is the form and expression of humanistic law. Because there is no higher law of God as judge over the universe, over every human order, the law of the state is a closed system of law. There is no appeal beyond it. Man has no ‘right,’ no realm of justice, no source of law beyond the state, to which he can appeal against the state.
While the writers of the Declaration of Independence appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions . . . with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” today’s political class are left with moral nihilism. R. C. Sproul comments that “God’s existence,” not the fictional god of Islam, “is the chief element in constructing any worldview. To deny this chief premise is to set one’s sails for the island of nihilism. This is the darkest continent of the darkened mind — the ultimate paradise of the fool.”4.
When Newsweek‘s cover proclaimed, “God Bless America,” biblical content should be given to the definition of God. It makes a difference that our coins are stamped with “In God We Trust” instead of “In Allah We Trust.” It’s important to note that the Library of Congress has a quotation from a Psalm, instead of a quotation from the Koran. In addition, it’s significant to know that “every foreigner attests his renunciation of allegiance to his former sovereign and his acceptance of citizenship in this republic by an appeal to God”5 and not to the Buddha or Allah.
- Davis v. Beason (1890). 
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890). 
- U.S. ex rel. Modianos v. Tuttle, (E.D. La. 1925). 
- R. C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 171). 
- David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia, PA: The John C. Winston Co., 1905), 31. Brewer’s book has been reprinted and is available from American Vision.