Religious Freedom and the Constitution: Why Sharia, Halakha, and Canon Law Do Not Override U.S. Law

 

Debates about religion and the Constitution often generate more heat than light. One recurring claim is that Islam is inherently incompatible with the United States because of Sharia law. However, a closer look at the Constitution and the role of religious law in America shows a more nuanced reality.

The United States is founded on the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Every American—regardless of religious belief—is subject to the same federal, state, and local laws. Religious traditions may guide the personal beliefs and practices of their adherents, but they do not replace or supersede American civil law.

This principle applies equally to Sharia, Jewish Halakha, and Catholic Canon Law.

For many Muslims, Sharia primarily refers to personal religious obligations such as prayer, fasting during Ramadan, charitable giving, dietary practices, family responsibilities, and ethical conduct. Around the world, some countries incorporate aspects of Sharia into their legal systems, but the United States does not. American courts do not apply religious law in place of the Constitution.

Likewise, Halakha serves as the body of Jewish religious law that governs many aspects of Jewish religious life, while Canon Law governs the internal organization, sacraments, and discipline of the Catholic Church. Neither has legal authority over the U.S. Constitution or American civil courts.

The Constitution's guarantees of religious liberty allow Americans to practice their faith freely while remaining subject to the same civil laws as everyone else. This balance protects Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists, and people of every other belief system.

That does not mean religious freedom is unlimited. The government may prohibit conduct that violates criminal or civil law, even if someone claims a religious justification. Religious beliefs are protected, but actions remain subject to constitutional limits and duly enacted laws.

It is therefore reasonable to oppose any attempt by any religious group to impose its religious legal code through the government. The same constitutional principle would apply whether the proposed system were based on Sharia, Halakha, Canon Law, or any other religious code.

The strength of the American system lies in its neutrality. The government neither establishes a national religion nor elevates one religious legal system above another. Instead, the Constitution remains the nation's highest legal authority, ensuring that all citizens enjoy equal protection under the law while retaining the freedom to practice—or reject—the religion of their choice.

In the United States, religious law may shape the conscience of believers, but it does not replace the Constitution. That principle has long been a cornerstone of American religious liberty and remains central to the nation's constitutional framework.

Thomas Massie’s Defeat Exposes a Republican Civil War Over Conservatism, Spending, and Foreign Influence

 

The defeat of Thomas Massie is being celebrated across establishment Republican circles as a victory for party discipline. But beneath the celebration lies a deeper question many grassroots conservatives are now asking: If a legislator with some of the highest constitutional and fiscal conservative ratings in Congress can be politically destroyed, what exactly does the Republican Party still stand for?

For years, Massie built a reputation as one of the few Republicans willing to vote against massive spending bills regardless of which party controlled Washington. He frequently opposed omnibus packages, foreign aid expansions, warrantless surveillance renewals, and debt ceiling increases. Supporters viewed him as one of the last legislators operating from a strict constitutional framework rather than partisan convenience.

His allies now argue that his defeat was not simply a rejection by voters, but the culmination of an unprecedented financial and political campaign led by establishment interests, Super PACs, foreign policy hawks, and donor networks determined to eliminate one of Congress’ most consistent dissenters.

The numbers fueling that argument are difficult to ignore.

According to conservative scorecards cited by Massie supporters — including , , and — Massie routinely ranked near the very top of the Republican conference on issues involving limited government, spending restraint, civil liberties, and constitutional adherence.

The composite rankings circulated after the election paint a devastating picture for establishment Republicans.

Out of more than 200 House Republicans, only a tiny fraction allegedly scored above 90 percent on combined liberty-oriented metrics. The overwhelming majority reportedly fell into middling or failing ranges according to the same conservative organizations many grassroots activists have relied upon for years.

That has triggered accusations of hypocrisy from conservatives who say the term “RINO” is now being weaponized against lawmakers who actually vote conservatively, while Republicans who routinely support trillion-dollar spending packages escape scrutiny because they align with party leadership and donor interests.

The criticism intensified because many of the same Republicans who helped isolate Massie have simultaneously backed:

• multi-trillion-dollar continuing resolutions,
• repeated debt ceiling increases,
• record federal deficits,
• expanding military expenditures,
• and ongoing foreign aid authorizations.

Critics argue that the modern Republican establishment campaigns on fiscal conservatism while governing as managers of permanent federal expansion.

The frustration extends beyond spending.

Massie frequently clashed with Republican leadership on foreign policy, surveillance powers, COVID-era policies, and federal authority. He often voted alone or among a tiny minority willing to oppose bipartisan consensus measures.

To supporters, that independence made him one of the last authentic constitutional conservatives in Washington.

To opponents, it made him unreliable and politically dangerous.

The result, many activists argue, is a Republican Party increasingly hostile toward ideological consistency and increasingly loyal to donor infrastructure, lobbying interests, and political machinery centered in Washington rather than grassroots voters.

The backlash against Donald Trump from some former Massie supporters reflects that growing divide.

For years, many constitutional conservatives viewed Trump as an outsider capable of dismantling the Republican establishment. But Massie’s defeat has led some activists to accuse Trump of becoming aligned with the same donor networks and power structures he once campaigned against.

Those critics point specifically to escalating federal debt, expanding deficits, massive spending agreements, and interventionist foreign policy positions that they argue conflict with traditional limited-government conservatism.

The anger has now evolved into broader calls for a political realignment.

Across conservative grassroots circles, discussions about creating a new “America Party” or liberty-focused coalition have intensified. Supporters argue the existing two-party system no longer represents voters concerned about constitutional limits, federal spending, civil liberties, and national debt.

Whether those efforts materialize into an organized movement remains uncertain.

What is certain is that Massie’s defeat has become symbolic far beyond a single congressional race.

To establishment Republicans, it was a demonstration of political power and party enforcement.

To many liberty conservatives, it was a warning.

A lawmaker celebrated for opposing debt expansion, challenging party orthodoxy, and defending constitutional limits was defeated not despite those positions, but — in the eyes of supporters — because of them.

And in a nation now carrying a debt exceeding $38 trillion, that reality is fueling an uncomfortable question many Republicans would rather avoid:

If legislators with near-perfect conservative scorecards are no longer welcome in the Republican Party, what definition of conservatism remains?

Land Of The Free? U.S. Feds Arresting Those For Criticizing Obama

The federals have a program called a program called "Vigilant Eagle" part of Homeland Security to watch and report any anti-Obama or U.S. Government posts on social media.

From The Rutherford Institute:
 In the four years since the start of Operation Vigilant Eagle, the government has steadily ramped up its campaign to “silence” dissidents, especially those with military backgrounds. Coupled with the DHS’ dual reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism,” which broadly define extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics have boded ill for anyone seen as opposing the government.

 One particularly troubling mental health label being applied to veterans and others who challenge the status quo is “oppositional defiance disorder” (ODD). As journalist Anthony Martin explains, an ODD diagnosis 

 “denotes that the person exhibits ‘symptoms’ such as the questioning of authority, the refusal to follow directions, stubbornness, the unwillingness to go along with the crowd, and the practice of disobeying or ignoring orders. Persons may also receive such a label if they are considered free thinkers, nonconformists, or individuals who are suspicious of large, centralized government… At one time the accepted protocol among mental health professionals was to reserve the diagnosis of oppositional defiance disorder for children or adolescents who exhibited uncontrollable defiance toward their parents and teachers.”

 The case of 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub—who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys—is a prime example of the government’s war on veterans.

 
This is the video of Brandon J Raub, being "arrested" and taken away by Chesterfield County Virginia Police Department

Raub’s case exposes the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans—especially military veterans—for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state.

Illinios Legislature : Give Us Your Social Media Passwords

A new Illinois law passed by legislators now can demand a student's social media password.  This is the equivalent of your being required to give law enforcement keys to your house without a warrant.

This law is in direct conflict with the 4th amendment of the Constitution of illegal search and seizure without warrent.

The new law gives school districts and colleges the ability to demand a student's social media password regardless if it was posted after hours

.

Some parents have already received letters from the schools to notify them of the new rules.  

I would never allow any child in my family to give up their password.  The passwords are protected under a parent's authority who granted them internet access through their account.  No child can get a telecommunications account to the internet accept through a parent or guardian.  No telecommunications company will do business with a minor under the age of 18.  

Synopsis of the law via Illinois General Assembly :

"In provisions concerning bullying prevention, prohibits a student from being subjected to bullying through the transmission of information from a computer that is accessed at a nonschool-related location, activity, function, or program or from the use of technology or an electronic device that is not owned, leased, or used by a school district or school if the bullying substantially interferes with or limits the victim's ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school or substantially disrupts the educational process or orderly operation of a school. Provides that the definition of bullying includes cyber-bullying; defines "cyber-bullying". Provides that a school district's or non-public, non-sectarian elementary or secondary school's policy on bullying shall include a process to investigate whether a reported act of bullying is within the scope of the district or school and, if not, a process for referral of such an act to the appropriate jurisdiction. Requires computers without web-filtering software or computers with web-filtering software that is disabled to be used when complaints of cyber-bullying are investigated. Effective immediately."

Total Violation Of Constitution. Entire Town Questioned By FBI / Police. Pen Marked Like Cattle By FBI / Police

In what can only be described as a disgustingly total disregard for one's constitutional rights, the FBI in conjunction with the Michigan State Police and Armada Police would not let anyone leave or enter the village of Armada, Michigan without harassing questions by the FBI and Police.

The search was in response for the murder of April Milsap who was murdered on a rural trail walking her dog in Armada.  April was murdered on July 24, 2014.  The search took place 7 days later on 7/31/14.  

Not one suspect out of the multiple hundreds that were questioned and marked like cattle by a red pen after they spoke with the police or FBI

The Beginning Of The End Of Obamacare: Supreme Court Sides With Hobby Lobby

It is a great day for America! The Constitution Stands!  The First Amendment that allows for freedom of religion has faced it's greatest test and has won! 

The justices’ 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law. And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans.

Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 and the Supreme Court upheld two years later.

Two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama’s campaign for re-election.

On Monday, dealing with a small sliver of the law, Roberts sided with the four justices who would have struck down the law in its entirety.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. The court’s four liberal justices dissented.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs,” Alito said.

He suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said.

Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations. Those groups can tell the government that providing the coverage violates their religious beliefs. At that point, the groups’ insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

The accommodation is the subject of separate legal challenges, but the court said Monday that the profit-seeking companies could not assert religious claims in such a situation.

The administration said a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what’s best for their health, not whether they can afford it. The government’s supporters pointed to research showing that nearly one-third of women would change their contraceptive if cost were not an issue; a very effective means of birth control, the intrauterine device, can cost up to $1,000.

The contraceptives at issue before the court were the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, and two IUDs.

Nearly 50 businesses have sued over covering contraceptives. Some, like those involved in the Supreme Court case, are willing to cover most methods of contraception, as long as they can exclude drugs or devices that the government says may work after an egg has been fertilized. Other companies object to paying for any form of birth control.

There are separate lawsuits challenging the contraception provision from religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges and charities.

A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large American employers already had offered such coverage before the health care law required it.

It is unclear how many women potentially are affected by the high court ruling. The Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-crafts stores is by far the largest employer of any company that has gone to court to fight the birth control provision.

Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby has more than 15,000 full-time employees in more than 600 crafts stores in 41 states. The Greens are evangelical Christians who also own Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain.

The other company is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa., owned by a Mennonite family and employing 950 people in making wood cabinets

The Balanced Budget Amendment Constitutionalizes Obamacare

Peter Konetchy

Today we welcome a guest post from +Peter Konetchy candidate for Congress in Michigan's 4th Congressional District.

Assume you understood that Obamacare had nothing to do with healthcare but with the imposition of absolute control over the people, that it was 100% unconstitutional, and though actively being implemented, was unlawful and could be legally ignored by the people and the states, or could possibly be overturned by a future court.

If you supported this program, what would be a fail safe solution to ensure it could never be eliminated?

Remember Rahm Emanuel’s quote “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Following suit, Washington created a crisis of unsustainable spending which will force our economic collapse unless immediately addressed.

The carefully crafted “solution” is to develop a groundswell of support for a “common-sense” Balanced Budget Amendment forcing Washington to limited spending to what it is able to collect — theoretically averting this government created catastrophe. 

What are the actual ramifications of a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Spending will no longer be based on delegated constitutionally authority, but on what government is able to collect through taxation — a very significant difference.  The end result will be that Congress can spend money at its sole discretion to promote any program whatsoever – as long as it doesn’t spend more than it collects.  Think of the incentive to impose the highest tax possible, on every aspect of society, to fund this insatiable lust for power.

Funding of programs which are now unconstitutional, such as Obamacare, will be immediately be re-classified as constitutional — as long as they can be funded without incurring a deficit.  If money is tight Congress can use its discretion to cut critical programs such as defense and immigration — unless additional money can be extorted from the people.

The true solution, which the establishment, media, and talking heads will not address, is to enforce the existing provisions of the Constitution which restrict federal taxation and spending to that directly needed to provide for our defense, maintain our sovereignty, and represent our interests in world affairs.  When adhered to throughout the majority of our history, federal spending averaged just 2-3% of GDP, we had no income tax, no IRS, no debt, and a vibrant economy which elevated our nation to a world class superpower in every regard.

Government despises our Constitution because a free people have no need of federal oversight or control.  Passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment will achieve the long sought after goal of allowing Congress to rule by its discretion, and will irrevocably destroy any concept of a constitutionally limited government of the people.

We must think before we act.

If you think Congress need's more common sense people like Peter Konetchy, please visit his website www.peterkonetchy.com and offer to help by making a donation of any amount, no amount is too small and by sharing his articles.