Should legal immigrationbe easier?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

SR might have different viewpoints, but I have no problem with Muslims coming here who fully intend to live under the constitution and laws of the United States. However, I see many aspects of Sharia law which are fundamentally at odds with the constitution. Freedom of religion does not mean one gets to avoid all the constitutional rights of others. Many Muslims who have come here in the past have done so to avoid persecution. Persecution from whom? And do we want those same persecutors to be able to freely come here now? A good constitutional criterion for coming to the United States is that those seeking citizenship will follow the constitution over their own religious beliefs such as killing those who choose to leave their religion. We have already seen cases of this in the United States.

Only as an under-prophet to Muhammed who they view as the way. In other words Yeshua is not the way - Muhammed is. Further, their view of Yeshua is one as taught in spurious and gnostic texts. They believe that the Jesus of the Bible is the highest sinner possible in that He equated Himself to God, which is committing the sin of shirk.  There were lots of other Yeshuas in His day. It was a common name. Theirs could have been any of the others and may as well have been...

The fear of Sharia Law in the United States and Europe is spurred on by demagogues. Muslims consist of 1% of the United States population (and not all of them would support such a change) and somehow they are going to supplant our legal system and replace it with theirs unless we are vigilant and careful? Please....

There are a few Muslims that practice Sharia within their own communities but this is akin to non-binding arbitration. LDS used to do something like this for members where Bishops would judge disputes between members and issue a judgement but it was also not legally binding. This is not a threat either.

As to who they were fleeing.....some from Israel, a few fled from the Palestinian relocation camps, persecution in nations where they are a minority (India, a few others in Asia) and others just from regular secular conflict in their homelands. Refugees are rarely terrorists or a threat. For one thing the refugee process is insanely rigorous. It is easier in basically all cases to just get a visa to visit.

[longview]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are a few Muslims that practice Sharia within their own communities but this is akin to non-binding arbitration.

Honor Killings done by moslem families are binding.  There is no calling back those murdered.  Moslems that leave Islam or apostatize are under real threats of execution.

Edited September 26, 2018 by longview

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, longview said:

Honor Killings done by moslem families are binding.  There is no calling back those murdered.  Moslems that leave Islam or apostatize are under real threats of execution.

Honor Killings are not part of Sharia Law. They are more a cultural phenomenon and less a religious one.

While the numbers are not tracked estimates put the number of honor killings in the US at 50 or less a year and some say that number is too high. While every death is a tragedy fixating on this cause as worrisome is ludicrous. Over ten times as many people died due to the accidental discharge of firearms, many more of suicide, and you can go on and on.

So why is this a huge concern? Because people are xenophobic (virtually all of them including myself) and the Islamic family down the street are scary and people fixate on the possibility they will kill their kid while ignoring the more conventional locals who abuse and kill their kids, the rampant abuse in our foster care system, the plague of child abuse of all kinds, and the like. It is almost as if every race and culture seems to do terrible things and picking a villain out of them to be the "really bad guys" is counterproductive and incredibly hurtful.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Honor Killings done by moslem families are binding.  There is no calling back those murdered.  Moslems that leave Islam or apostatize are under real threats of execution.

Honor killings/suicides are not limited to Muslim families. It is a common problem in many countries, regardless of religious affiliation. Brazil often gives lenient punishments to men (Christian usually) who kill their wives or girlfriends to "protect their honor". There was also a case of a Christian honor killing in India just a few months ago.

So-called honor killing in Catholic family shocks Indian state

From the article: "Kevin Joseph, 26, a member of Vijayapuram Diocese, was murdered in a so-called honor killing May 28, five days after he married 20-year-old Neenu Chacko of an affluent Christian family in Kollam district against the wishes of some members of her family....The man was dragged out of his house in Kottayam district with his cousin and taken away by a gang allegedly hired by the girl's family, police said. His body was later found in a stream in Thenmala in Kollam district. His cousin was released."

If you're looking to turn away immigrants that come from religions that have an "honor killing" problem, you're going to run out of God-fearing honorable immigrants real soon.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The fear of Sharia Law in the United States and Europe is spurred on by demagogues. Muslims consist of 1% of the United States population (and not all of them would support such a change) and somehow they are going to supplant our legal system and replace it with theirs unless we are vigilant and careful?

The people who fear Sharia Law sweeping across the land are usually the same people who want to erect monuments to the Ten Commandments on the lawn of every state capitol.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We have more Muslims here than you Americans do. I'm absolutely terrified that they're somehow going to take over and impose Sharia Law on the rest of us, and then, boom!, no more public urinals.

In the meantime, every time a Middle Eastern-looking man walks past the urinal and heads straight to a toilet cubicle, I feel culturally offended. I mean, if they're going to live here, they need to learn to p**s in the open like everyone else ...

Edited September 26, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

10 hours ago, longview said:

Honor Killings done by moslem families are binding.  There is no calling back those murdered.  Moslems that leave Islam or apostatize are under real threats of execution.

The problem isn't Muslims. The problem is extremists/fundamentalists, who exist in absolutely every religious tradition.

[rpn]

If we expect to have economic growth, we're going to have to accept more people.   And because few of them will be from free countries where they can make a living, most will be those starting at the bottom.   The United States demographics will change.   I'd like to hope the love of freedom and hard work and honesty and other values will not change.   But that will require that we establish one official language to do business, across the tribes and cultures arriving.

[Storm Rider]

16 hours ago, Danzo said:

I have seen  Muslims convert to be members of the Church.

I remember growing up and having brother Hussein on the high counsel speak to us during the first Persian gulf war.

On my mission there were several Muslim converts.  (one guy  from north Africa, Algeria I think) came into the church after having a private conversion to Christianity. He then looked up the Church of Jesus Christ in the phone book.

I also remember a confirmation in Arabic where one of the Church Members baptized his friend.  Both were former Muslims. 

Danzo, I was not speaking in absolutes. I also know a few Muslims that have joined the Church - both Shitte and Sunni. In the news, we see many instances where Muslims have converted to different sects within Christianity. However, in relative terms, Islam strongly reinforces the concept that conversion to any other religion is verboten. Culturally, Muslims also strongly discourage family members from conversion to other religions. With that as a foundation, I still think my point is accurate  - Muslims do not easily or widely convert to other religions. 

The future will reveal many things that will surprise each of us. Our Father in Heaven's will for all his children will not be denied. It will move forward. 

[Storm Rider]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I wasn't implying that the constitution shouldn't be changed, but just that it would be almost impossible I think in the current environment. I agree with you that this amendment could be worded better. However, back in the day it was adopted, people couldn't fly over here in one day, and have a baby. BTW why do you think they are doing this? Is if because they just think American hospitals are better, or is it because there are some strong political and religious motivations and goals behind it? In other words are they hoping to just move here and fundamentally change the United States? 

5

I can only address the choice of Muslims to come to the US for the birth of their children. The Middle East has long been torn by wars and strife and it remains so. The small GCC states sit on a powder keg and their citizens recognize the need to prepare for negative eventualities. Having two passports - Emirati and USA - gives them options. Emirati hospitals are excellent - many of them are staffed by European and US doctors and nursing staff from around the world. However, a perception remains among Emiratis that US hospitals are superior. 

[Rajah Manchou]

54 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

However, in relative terms, Islam strongly reinforces the concept that conversion to any other religion is verboten. Culturally, Muslims also strongly discourage family members from conversion to other religions. 

Would you see it is any easier for a Mormon to convert to another religion? My family on both sides is pretty solid Mormon going back to the 1830s-1840s. I cannot identify a single member of my family on either side, past or present, that has converted to another religion. 

If I myself were to convert to Islam, I expect the horror felt by my family, friends and church leaders would be equal to (or much worse) than the discouragement that my Muslim friends would receive from their families if they decided to convert to Mormonism.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Danzo]

44 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Danzo, I was not speaking in absolutes. I also know a few Muslims that have joined the Church - both Shitte and Sunni. In the news, we see many instances where Muslims have converted to different sects within Christianity. However, in relative terms, Islam strongly reinforces the concept that conversion to any other religion is verboten. Culturally, Muslims also strongly discourage family members from conversion to other religions. With that as a foundation, I still think my point is accurate  - Muslims do not easily or widely convert to other religions. 

The future will reveal many things that will surprise each of us. Our Father in Heaven's will for all his children will not be denied. It will move forward. 

I think you are correct in that people who live in Muslim majority countries have a hard time converting for cultural and religious reasons.  Most of the Converts from Islam that I have seen only come when they leave their country.  

 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

The problem isn't Muslims. The problem is extremists/fundamentalists, who exist in absolutely every religious tradition.

When over half a population wishes to live under Sharia law, that seems pretty extreme to me, and Pew research shows that is the case in more than a handful of countries. However, I concede that a lot of these people probably do not really understand what living under Sharia law means. It sounds good so they vote yes, but probably the vast majority of Muslims are too illiterate and poor to have all of Sharia available and to read it. For example after Iran made this choice under the Ayatolla, many had a change of heart, but have been stuck with Sharia. I think westerners going over to such countries to visit will have a change of heart as well when they realize the myriad of rules, and what ultimately happens. The idea that a few percent of the population is the cause of all the problems and that they somehow aren't true Muslims is just as much a stereotype as the belief or fear that all Muslims are dangerous. A real study of them shows they are the ones quoting and living by the Quran and the hadith. Most other Muslims don't really know what they say because they don't own them and don't read Arabic. They believe a common stereotype that Muhammed was a gentle, peaceful man, and would get all bent out of shape if you quote the hadith about the some-odd 64 military campaigns and caravan raids Muhammed led.  

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

The Middle East has long been torn by wars and strife and it remains so. The small GCC states sit on a powder keg and their citizens recognize the need to prepare for negative eventualities. Having two passports - Emirati and USA - gives them options.

Thank you for your reply. I will note for the reader that it seems counter-intuitive to accept the new and common moniker of Islam as a "religion of peace" to which the majority of peoples adhere in these war torn, powder keg countries. It also is quite opposite the 1400 year history of war for Islamic countries although so-called Christian European countries do not have a much better record when they mixed religion and politics as they did.

[longview]

Unlike many religions, Islam includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia (pronounced “sha-ree-uh”), which translates approximately as “way” or “path.” The precepts of Sharia are derived from the commandments of the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and precedents of Muhammad as found in the reliable hadiths and the Sira). Together, the Quran and the Sunnah establish the dictates of Sharia, which is the blueprint for the good Islamic society. Because Sharia originates with the Quran and the Sunnah, it is not optional. Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to combat.

There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.

The precepts of Sharia may be divided into two parts:

1. Acts of worship (al-ibadat), which includes:Ritual Purification (Wudu)
Prayers (Salah)
Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan)
Charity (Zakat)
Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj)

2. Human interaction (al-muamalat), which includes:

Financial transactions
Endowments
Laws of inheritance
Marriage, divorce, and child care
Food and drink (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
Penal punishments
War and peace
Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)

As one may see, there are few aspects of life that Sharia does not specifically govern. Everything from washing one’s hands to child-rearing to taxation to military policy fall under its dictates. Because Sharia is derivate of the Quran and the Sunnah, it affords some room for interpretation. But upon examination of the Islamic sources (see above), it is apparent that any meaningful application of Sharia is going to look very different from anything resembling a free or open society in the Western sense. The stoning of adulterers, execution of apostates and blasphemers, repression of other religions, and a mandatory hostility toward non-Islamic nations punctuated by regular warfare will be the norm. It seems fair then to classify Islam and its Sharia code as a form of totalitarianism.

The author of the ‘Majma’ al-Anhar fi Sharh Multaqal-Abhar’, in describing the rules of jihad according to the Hanafi School, said: ‘Jihad linguistically means to exert one’s utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee’ah {Sharia — Islamic law} it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols. This means that jihad is to strive to the utmost to ensure the strength of Islam by such means as fighting those who fight you and the dhimmies {non-Muslims living under Islamic rule} (if they violate any of the terms of the treaty) and the apostates (who are the worst of unbelievers, for they disbelieved after they have affirmed their belief).

taken from - https://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Would you see it is any easier for a Mormon to convert to another religion? My family on both sides is pretty solid Mormon going back to the 1830s-1840s. I cannot identify a single member of my family on either side, past or present, that has converted to another religion. 

If I myself were to convert to Islam, I expect the horror felt by my family, friends and church leaders would be equal to (or much worse) than the discouragement that my Muslim friends would receive from their families if they decided to convert to Mormonism.

Rajah, you seem to be addressing similarities between Islam and Mormonism. I agree that in this area there are similarities; neither religion is easy to leave by converting to another religion or church. However, one major difference is that if a Mormon leaves their church he does not lose his/her life. If a Muslim converts to another religion then she/he is marked for death. I cannot immediately think of another religion that has a similar doctrine of the faith regarding those who leave their religion. 

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, longview said:

To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to combat.

 

So are you saying that my Muslim friends and acquaintances that don't practice Sharia are bad Muslims.

Since you think sharia is bad Sharia, does that mean that that these Bad Muslims that don't practice Sharia are the good Muslims?

 

[Danzo]

Just now, Storm Rider said:

 If a Muslim converts to another religion then she/he is marked for death. 

I don't think this is always true.

The people who I know that converted to Mormonism (or other forms of Christianity) from Islam weren't marked for death by anyone.

It all depends on where they come from and the culture of the particular family. 

 

 

[longview]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

So are you saying that my Muslim friends and acquaintances that don't practice Sharia are bad Muslims.

Since you think sharia is bad Sharia, does that mean that that these Bad Muslims that don't practice Sharia are the good Muslims?

 

Not necessarily.   There is a high percentage of moslems that are not intimate with the contents of the Koran.  Even among those that are NOT illiterate.  That does not make them "bad" moslems.

Sharia is Sharia.  I don't think there are "competing" versions of Sharia.  I am not familiar with any differences in Sharia practices between Sunni and Shia.

Just as most moslems are not completely familiar with the Koran, most moslems do not necessarily live totally all aspects of Sharia.  I suppose it depends what country and society they live in.

[Storm Rider]

28 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't think this is always true.

The people who I know that converted to Mormonism (or other forms of Christianity) from Islam weren't marked for death by anyone.

It all depends on where they come from and the culture of the particular family. 

 

The prophet Muhammad, as quoted in the Hadith, states “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” I think this is often interpreted to mean kill him if he does recant. Regardless, the Hadith is normative teaching within all Islam. It is believed by all sects within Islam and is not simply a teaching of radical Islam.  I think what you may be saying is that it does not always happen or that all converts to other religions are not always killed. That is true. However, that does not mean they are free from punishment - it only means the teaching has not been implemented yet. I would be curious if these people would ever want to live under Sharia law again - that might help to understand the great sacrifice these individuals bear for the simple reason they have been touched by the Spirit and converted to Jesus Christ. 

[Anijen]

In this poll, I voted to make legal immigration easier. It is a very complex system and changes often (not for the better, making it more complex). 

Here is a list of changes I think would make legal immigration easier:

• Visa status for immigrant or nonimmigrant should be made easier, after all they were accepted in from their initial application, no need to keep it so complicated to renew it.
• An improved Merit Based Green Card, to hasten those to front of line status.
• Take some of the Federal responsibility out and allow states to create their own "Guest Worker Visa." Each state has their unique worker needs so making them more unique to the work needed would help.
• Create and charge for a permanent work-visa. Most countries have an application fee, but must countries also have a fee for citizenship. A permanent green card with a cost say of $30,000, each would take a tax burden off the Fed Gov, you would see more come here when the economy is booming, if the economy is slow fewer will come. 
• Get rid of the "per-country cap" and replace with a system that allows for individual merit. This would basically make economic value or individual merit rank over nationality. This would also allow for a higher entrance of currently high immigrant countries like China, Mexico, and India. The present day "per-country cap" limits how many immigrants can come from any given country every year.
• Instant US citizenship should be an option for any foreigners in our armed forces. Currently the Legal Permanent Resident (LPR's) have a short cut to citizenship, but I say if they can pass background checks to be a Marine and thus are willing to die for our country, we should it least make it much easier (instant).
• Change the policy for law breakers. Currently if a LPR leaves the country (e.g. to visit his grandma) and while abroad commits a misdemeanor they should be allowed back in. Presently if a law is broke it is incredibly difficult to come back into the U.S. legally without a long delay (if ever). 

 

A few words on Sharia Law (I see it mentioned a lot in previous posts):

It would be darn near impossible to allow Sharia Law to be a legally binding authority here in the U.S. The reason is simple; the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which does not allow the government to entangle itself in religion (see Lemon Test). Islam with Sharia Law is a theocratic type of government (Theocracy) and the U.S. with separation of Church and State would not allow it, even in an unofficial way. The Lemon Test is from a U.S. Supreme Court case. The Lemon Test, has three prongs and all three must be met, (1) the law (here Sharia Law) must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) the law (Sharia Law) must be one that does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. As we can see, Sharia Law would fail not just one, but all three prongs of the test.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, rpn said:

If we expect to have economic growth, we're going to have to accept more people.   And because few of them will be from free countries where they can make a living, most will be those starting at the bottom.   The United States demographics will change.   I'd like to hope the love of freedom and hard work and honesty and other values will not change.   But that will require that we establish one official language to do business, across the tribes and cultures arriving.

Is the English language somehow inherently tied to freedom, hard work, and honesty?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Unlike many religions, Islam includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia (pronounced “sha-ree-uh”), which translates approximately as “way” or “path.” The precepts of Sharia are derived from the commandments of the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and precedents of Muhammad as found in the reliable hadiths and the Sira). Together, the Quran and the Sunnah establish the dictates of Sharia, which is the blueprint for the good Islamic society. Because Sharia originates with the Quran and the Sunnah, it is not optional. Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to combat.

There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.

The precepts of Sharia may be divided into two parts:

1. Acts of worship (al-ibadat), which includes:Ritual Purification (Wudu)
Prayers (Salah)
Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan)
Charity (Zakat)
Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj)

2. Human interaction (al-muamalat), which includes:

Financial transactions
Endowments
Laws of inheritance
Marriage, divorce, and child care
Food and drink (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
Penal punishments
War and peace
Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)

As one may see, there are few aspects of life that Sharia does not specifically govern. Everything from washing one’s hands to child-rearing to taxation to military policy fall under its dictates. Because Sharia is derivate of the Quran and the Sunnah, it affords some room for interpretation. But upon examination of the Islamic sources (see above), it is apparent that any meaningful application of Sharia is going to look very different from anything resembling a free or open society in the Western sense. The stoning of adulterers, execution of apostates and blasphemers, repression of other religions, and a mandatory hostility toward non-Islamic nations punctuated by regular warfare will be the norm. It seems fair then to classify Islam and its Sharia code as a form of totalitarianism.

The author of the ‘Majma’ al-Anhar fi Sharh Multaqal-Abhar’, in describing the rules of jihad according to the Hanafi School, said: ‘Jihad linguistically means to exert one’s utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee’ah {Sharia — Islamic law} it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols. This means that jihad is to strive to the utmost to ensure the strength of Islam by such means as fighting those who fight you and the dhimmies {non-Muslims living under Islamic rule} (if they violate any of the terms of the treaty) and the apostates (who are the worst of unbelievers, for they disbelieved after they have affirmed their belief).

taken from - https://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101

Ridiculous. You could argue that the Talmud is derived from the Torah (true) and that therefore the Old Testament is inextricably tied to it and it is impossible to use the Old Testament as scripture without accepting the Talmud (false). I know what I am teaching in my next Gospel Doctrine class if this reasoning is solid. This kind of rhetorical nonsense does work well at riling up fear in the ignorant but this is about all it is good for.

I would also treat a website called jihadwatch with extreme suspicion in general. It is possible that it might be biased or sensationalist in some way and it is likely that it is written by a xenophobic certifiably crazy person and not a serious student of Islamic culture. It is probably about as accurate as those Baptist “Know your cults” seminars are in presenting the LDS faith.

Edited September 26, 2018 by The Nehor

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Sharia is Sharia.  I don't think there are "competing" versions of Sharia.  I am not familiar with any differences in Sharia practices between Sunni and Shia.

To live Sharia is to follow Muhammed. This encompasses every aspect of life, so in a sense is much like ancient Judaism which had rules about which shoe to put on first. This was the very type of thing Yeshua said was burdensome - not to mention - pointless. If Muhammed ate with his left hand, which he did according to some Hadith, then you must too. If he said to drink camel urine to cure sickness, or to dunk a fly that lands on your drink, then guess what...?

The Shia do have some different Hadith than Sunni, and they interpret some shared Hadith differently. A lot of differences however, are "permissive" differences - such as whether you can engage in a "temporary marriage" while away from home. Perhaps the western equivalent of visiting a brothel - or whether it is permissible to engage in heterosexual sodomy. 

Anyway, Sharia is not just about what you must do, but also what is permissible. Much of it is not punishable since no punishment is strictly attached in the Koran nor Hadith, but governments have done a few strange things. Some of the Quran is rather vague about what is specifically punishable. For instance if one "makes trouble in the land" a recommended punishment is crucifixion. Obviously, this is quite open to interpretation, but is apparently the will of Allah to carry out somehow.

[Danzo]

One change that is desperately needed in immigration law is a statute of limitations.

Why is it that attempted murder has a statute of limitations but crossing an imaginary line without permission doesn't?

 

[longview]

3 hours ago, Anijen said:

A few words on Sharia Law (I see it mentioned a lot in previous posts):

It would be darn near impossible to allow Sharia Law to be a legally binding authority here in the U.S. The reason is simple; the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which does not allow the government to entangle itself in religion (see Lemon Test). Islam with Sharia Law is a theocratic type of government (Theocracy) and the U.S. with separation of Church and State would not allow it, even in an unofficial way. The Lemon Test is from a U.S. Supreme Court case. The Lemon Test, has three prongs and all three must be met, (1) the law (here Sharia Law) must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) the law (Sharia Law) must be one that does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. As we can see, Sharia Law would fail not just one, but all three prongs of the test.

Sadly, you have not been paying close attention to news reports.  In the last several years we have seen hysterical reactions of public school administrators and teachers to students bringing bibles to study during lunch breaks, wearing the cross on a necklace, engaging in casual conversations about Christianity and many other innocuous expressions.  On the other hand, there are many classroom sessions in which students get to wear the chador, practise moslem prayers, dietary experiences, etc, all in the name of "multiculturalism".  They even have them say a prayer that commits them to Islam.  I have read of a few colleges that have set aside special rooms for ritualistic cleansing (some kind of basins) and prayer spaces.

Most of the government establishment only pay lip service to the Constitution.  They run circles around it.  The Obama Administration had numerous moslem activists with several having ties to Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR and other terrorist organizations.  All three of your "prongs" have been breached numerous times in the last few decades.

Edited September 27, 2018 by longview