Leo Berman is a Texas State Representative who once commented that “Barack Obama is God’s punishment on us…” at Glenn Beck’s “Taking Back America” rally. (I mention this not to signal readers which “side” to take, but to illustrate his view of religion.)
I just noticed that the Huffington Post reported that he is seeking to ban “religious or cultural law” in Texas. I know he’s pushing it because he doesn’t want Islamic law to play a factor in the courts, but neither did I see any “Christian exception” in his bill.
Maybe I’m wildly misinformed, but I was under the impression that the foundation of the conservative culture wars is a particular flavor of Christian dogma. Is it possible he doesn’t understand how his bill, if passed into law, would undercut the footing his fellow conservatives have on so many hotly contested issues: reproductive rights, creationism, homosexual rights, stem-cell research just to name a few. Hell, isn’t the original reason liquor stores are closed on Sundays is because it’s the Lord’s day?
If he gets his wish and this passes as-is, will longstanding laws rooted in Christian doctrine be subject to its scope?
I’m not that familiar with Texas politics. But one possibility that occurs to me is that he expects his fellow Christian conservatives to shoot down the bill because it has no exemption for Christianity. He can then go home and tell his base that he tried to stop those evil Muslims, without the kinds of problems pushing through a bill with exceptions for Christians would have.
Well, this is a proposed amendment to be put to voter referendum. The Texas legislature could pass the bill and the buck (to the voters) at the same time. However, I’m not sure the wording of the proposed amendment passes muster (IANAL nor a Texas legal scholar). How would/could a court interpret a ‘cultural’ law? Aren’t all laws pretty much at least representative of the particular culture which carries them? For that matter, what makes a ‘religious’ law?
IIRC, the “seed of truth” in the silly sharia law scare is that some contracts between members of the same religious groups agree to use mediation remedies inspired by the groups religious codes. I believe orthodox Jewish groups are actually the most common case of this in the US, but it exists amongst Muslim immigrants as well. So in that contracts are enforced by the courts, the court can find itself “interpreting religious laws”.
But its silly, since a) Muslims aren’t the only utilizers of this type of contract, b) as long as all parties agree to the terms, there isn’t really any reason to forbid it and c) the parts of Sharia law used in these contracts are pretty uncontroversial. You can’t contract to do something illegal, so no ones going to be legally bound to submit to being stoned if the commit adultery, for example.
Another component of these types of legislative proposals (didn’t a neighboring state pass one lately, too?) is preventing courts from “using foreign law” which is really just bringing up other legal sources or practices as reference, analogy or example: e.g. quoting the UN Declaration of Rights, making a reference to how every other major developed democracy has approved or repealed X Y or Z, which AFAIK no US court ever uses as an actual basis for their decisions but it still ticks off some people.
All parties to racist or anti-Semitic restrictive covenants in real estate deals agreed to their terms in the bad old days, and they are properly illegal today, as William H. Rehnquist was chagrined to realize in his Senate confirmation hearings.
Simplicio, they were indeed “pretty uncontroversial” at the time. But I don’t know of anyone today who, looking back, thinks it was a good thing we let them take root and become relatively common back then.
RNATB, Jews and black people weren’t parties to those contracts - they were kept out of neighborhoods by them.
oooooooooo! yes! The law currently prohibits liquor sales on Sunday, and beer and wine can only be purchased after noon. Car sales are prohibited, too (we can buy non-food items such as pantyhose on Sun. now, though). Gimme a beer, this could work out well.
This new law specifically states that courts will uphold “laws of this state”, therefore all blue laws, etc. are perfectly safe. It’s only those religious/cultural laws that are not identical to state/federal law that would be affected.
Since Texas is a good Christian state, it’s state laws are proudly based on Christian beliefs, and state laws are protected under the resolution.
