Gov't is endoring Shirah law?

[Dredly]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471004,00.html

he U.S. government's bailout of the American International Group is helping promote Shariah law, a lawsuit filed in federal court in Michigan alleges.

The suit — brought with the support of the Thomas More Law Center, a non-profit law firm that promotes conservative Christian values — claims that making U.S. taxpayers comply with Shariah, the Islamic legal framework based on the Koran, is unconstitutional.

This month, AIG announced that it would offer Shariah-compliant homeowner insurance policies, known as takaful, to U.S. customers through one of its subsidiaries. To be Shariah compliant, companies cannot earn interest and must agree to send a percentage of their revenue to Islamic charitable groups.

The lawsuit — by Iraq war veteran Kevin Murray, on behalf of U.S. taxpayers, against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve — claims that by subsidizing AIG, the federal government is conveying "...a message of endorsement and promotion of Shariah-based Islam ... and [a] message of disfavor of and hostility toward Christianity and Judaism."

In September, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve took a nearly 80-percent stake in AIG when it injected $150 billion to help prop up the troubled company.

"The suit is aimed at persuading the U.S. government it is unconstitutional to engage in the promotion of a faith," Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy told FOX News. "In this case, Islam, and its practices, which include among many other things, Shariah."

While takaful insurance is more common in Europe and Southeast Asia, it is relatively unknown in the U.S. The Ernst and Young professional services firm earlier this year called takaful insurance a growth industry, in part because it is perceived as more stable than conventional insurance, which allows for elements of speculation, interest and gambling.

Gaffney, who opposes Shariah, said the federal lawsuit sheds light on a problem that is under the radar. "There's also a host of other aspects of Shariah that are now beginning to be adopted or accommodated in our country. We think far from being frivolous or innocuous or innocent, these represent a form of, what I think [is] best described as stealth Jihad."

A constitutional law expert who reviewed the court documents for FOX News said he questioned whether the case will ever get to trial.

"The plaintiff is going to have a very hard time in showing they have standing under the establishment clause," said Robert Tuttle, who specializes in religion, law and the establishment clause of the Constitution at George Washington University. The establishment clause, part of the First Amendment, prohibits the establishment of a national faith.

"The question is whether the government has funded religion, not whether the religion is good or bad that the government has funded. Then the next question is whether the government is responsible for what AIG has done."

While the case raises interesting legal questions about the use of federal bailout money, Tuttle adds: "I can't imagine any court saying, under existing law, that the government will be responsible for what AIG does. And I think there's an interesting law professor question there."

Neither AIG nor the Treasury Department would comment on pending litigation, though a spokesman for AIG told FOX News that takaful insurance has been available in non-U.S. markets since 2006, and AIG has never had any problems

[imperialism2024]

Sigh

Switch a few words around, and Sharia law is the GOP's platform

[Philbert]

Sigh

Switch a few words around, and Sharia law is the GOP's platform

Switch a few more words around, and Sharia law is the first act of Macbeth.

[phillyd2]

And changing more words its the US Constitution. So, by that logic we are all living under Sharia law

[angus]

Sigh

Switch a few words around, and Sharia law is the GOP's platform

Respectfully, I have a different opinion.

Suppression of Christianity, anti-Semitism, demagoguery, special rights for Muslims granted to no other religions, the overall perception of women as chattel, oppressive practices, and a pervasive burning hatred of Western thinking, freedom and individualism...sounds more like the Dems to me.

Maybe the difference is one need not move any words around when comparing the anti-American sentiment expressed by both Islamic terrorists and the Dem leadership. Both stunted in moral development, they are both regressed to pre-rational thinking. They hold almost identical positions when it comes to traditional Western civilization and rationalism.

I am not surprised by any actions taken by .gov.

My take on it anyway.

[PocketProtector]

Respectfully, I have a different opinion.

Suppression of Christianity, anti-Semitism, demagoguery, special rights for Muslims granted to no other religions, the overall perception of women as chattel, oppressive practices, and a pervasive burning hatred of Western thinking, freedom and individualism...sounds more like the Dems to me.

Maybe the difference is one need not move any words around when comparing the anti-American sentiment expressed by both Islamic terrorists and the Dem leadership. Both stunted in moral development, they are both regressed to pre-rational thinking. They hold almost identical positions when it comes to traditional Western civilization and rationalism.

I am not surprised by any actions taken by .gov.

My take on it anyway.

Respectfully I agree

[NineseveN]

Respectfully, I have a different opinion.

Suppression of Christianity, anti-Semitism, demagoguery, special rights for Muslims granted to no other religions, the overall perception of women as chattel, oppressive practices, and a pervasive burning hatred of Western thinking, freedom and individualism...sounds more like the Dems to me.

Maybe the difference is one need not move any words around when comparing the anti-American sentiment expressed by both Islamic terrorists and the Dem leadership. Both stunted in moral development, they are both regressed to pre-rational thinking. They hold almost identical positions when it comes to traditional Western civilization and rationalism.

I am not surprised by any actions taken by .gov.

My take on it anyway.

I think you misunderstood (or maybe I did), but what I got from the post you're replying to is that Sharia rules based on the morality dictated by the faith, which is a near direct parallel to the desire to rule based on Conservative Christian values (legislate from the pulpit); which is still a large part of the GOP platform. The question, as the article mentioned in terms of the lawsuit, isn't whether or not the religion in question is good or bad (Islam or Christianity), it's whether or not the government's support, intervention or prohibitions on it are supported by the 1st Amendment, or if there is even anything of that nature going on in the first place. But we needn't get into that argument about the GOP again, it's kinda off-topic here.

Regardless, this may turn out to be an interesting lawsuit...or it may die a quiet and insignificant death...my money's on the latter.

[adymond]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471004,00.html
[snip]

This month, AIG announced that it would offer Shariah-compliant homeowner insurance policies, known as takaful, to U.S. customers through one of its subsidiaries. To be Shariah compliant, companies cannot earn interest and must agree to send a percentage of their revenue to Islamic charitable groups.

[snip]

I think you misunderstood (or maybe I did), but what I got form the post you're replying to is that Sharia rules based on the morality dictated by the faith, which is a near direct parallel to the desire to rule based on Conservative Christian values (legislate from the pulpit); which is still a large part of the GOP platform. The question, as the article mentioned in terms of the lawsuit, isn't whether or not the religion in question is good or bad (Islam or Christianity), it's whether or not the government's support, intervention or prohibitions on it are supported by the 1st Amendment, or if there is even anything of that nature going on in the first place. But we needn't get into that argument about the GOP again, it's kinda off-topic here.

Regardless, this may turn out to be an interesting lawsuit...or it may die a quiet and insignificant death...my money's on the latter.

That one part I left from the first post makes me hope your wager is wrong. IF (and that's a big if) AIG agreed to be Sharia compliant I have an even bigger problem with the bail out. Hell Manchester United should be sporting a patch that says USA since they still wear the f'ing AIG logo on their jerseys.

If AIG agreed to tithe to the catholic church, give to a Jewish organization, put some money into Hindu and Bhuddist organizations etc. I would be more inclined accept the premise that they are not doing anything unconstitutional, but using government money to support a business that is publicly pledging money as a business entity (to say not the individuals that comprise the organization) to any single religion sounds like the government implicitly endorsing a religion and that to me seems a slippery slope.

[NineseveN]

That one part I left from the first post makes me hope your wager is wrong. IF (and that's a big if) AIG agreed to be Sharia compliant I have an even bigger problem with the bail out. Hell Manchester United should be sporting a patch that says USA since they still wear the f'ing AIG logo on their jerseys.

If AIG agreed to tithe to the catholic church, give to a Jewish organization, put some money into Hindu and Bhuddist organizations etc. I would be more inclined accept the premise that they are not doing anything unconstitutional, but using government money to support a business that is publicly pledging money as a business entity (to say not the individuals that comprise the organization) to any single religion sounds like the government implicitly endorsing a religion and that to me seems a slippery slope.

Well, let's look at this objectively if we can, AIG MEMSA launched in September of 2006.

Info on Takaful though AIG MEMSA: http://www.aigtakaful-enaya.com/aig/takaful/faqs.jsp


The subsidiary in question has been offering this "product" in the Middle East for more than 2 years as AIG MEMSA. This is nothing new, what is new is offering it to US customers (at least apparently, I don't know enough about it to be sure here). AIG MEMSA is adhering to Takaful in order to sell insurance products to Muslims that require or desire it, they just weren't doing it for US-based Muslims until now (again, I assume this is the case anyway). I don't know, that's a hard charge to make stick IMHO, that the govt is responsible for what a subsidiary of AIG does or that AIG allows the subsidiary to offer a product to a market in this country that may be in demand. I really don't know how I feel about this other than the fact that I don't like the bailout at all for reasons far removed from this nonsense (or what seems to be nonsense anyway). Someone would need to make a better case than, [it's Sharia/Muslim/Islam and it's the government so it's bad]...

[adymond]

I think my misgiving is more that the government ownes a stake in a private company that is pledging to give money to one specific religion in order to offer a product to members of that religion (I don't give a rats ass if it's the frickin Mormons or Muslims). That's my take.