THE SPEW ZONE

The United States is a constitutional republic, not a theocracy. Our system of government is founded upon the Constitution, which guarantees individual rights, equality under the law, and separation of church and state. For this reason, Islam—as a political-religious system that demands governance by sharia law—is fundamentally incompatible with the United States Constitution and must never be given legal or political authority here.

INTRODUCTION

The United States is a constitutional republic founded upon secular law. The Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, prohibits government establishment of religion while safeguarding free exercise of private belief. Any attempt to incorporate or enforce religious legal codes—including Islamic Sharia law, Christian canon law, Jewish halakha, Hindu dharma, or any other religious system—into binding civil or criminal law directly violates the Constitution and threatens the sovereignty of the republic.

This brief demonstrates that sharia law, derived from Islam and inseparable from its governance model, is incompatible with the United States Constitution. It further shows how accommodations and symbolic encroachments risk eroding the separation of church and state, citing relevant legal precedents.

STATEMENT OF INCONTESTABLE FACTS

1. Islam and Sharia Law

   • Islam, unlike some religions, explicitly merges faith with governance. Its legal code, sharia, is not presented as optional but as binding law for all adherents, with prescribed punishments for blasphemy, apostasy, and religious dissent.

2. Examples in the United States

   • In Paterson, New Jersey, Mayor Andre Sayegh has described the city as “the capital of Palestine in the United States” and “the fourth holiest city in the world” after Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem (NJ 101.5).

   • The city has adopted policies accommodating Islamic practice, including halal meals in schools and holiday closures for Eid. A section of Main Street was renamed “Palestine Way” (VIN News).

   • Palestinian flags and Arabic signage dominate certain neighborhoods (Shore News Network).

   • While symbolic, these measures illustrate the increasing overlap of religious-political identity with public governance.

3. Legal Challenges

   • In Muneer Awad v. Paul Ziriax, 754 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (W.D. Okla. 2010), a federal court struck down Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment prohibiting state courts from considering sharia law.

   • The court held that the amendment violated the Establishment Clause by singling out one religion.

   • Numerous U.S. cases involving family disputes have seen parties attempt to apply religious law (including sharia) to matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

   • While typically voluntary among consenting Muslims, such cases raise constitutional questions when introduced into secular courts (see shariainamerica.com).

MY ARGUMENT

I. The Establishment Clause Prohibits Religious Law as Civil Law

• The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

• This has been applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

• In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court struck down school prayer, affirming that government may not endorse or promote religion.

• By the same principle, no form of sharia—or any religious code—may be enforced by government authority.

II. Religious Belief Is Protected, but Religious Law Cannot Supersede Secular Law

• In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), the Supreme Court held that while belief is protected, practices violating secular law (in that case, polygamy under Mormon teaching) are not.

• The Court distinguished between freedom of belief and the limits on religiously motivated conduct that conflicts with public law.

• Similarly, while Muslims may practice their faith privately, sharia law cannot be enforced in civil governance, as it directly contradicts constitutional protections of speech, religion, and equality.

  
  

III. Sharia Law Conflicts with Fundamental Constitutional Rights

1. Freedom of Speech and Religion

   • Sharia punishes blasphemy and apostasy; U.S. law protects both under the First Amendment.

2. Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment)

   • Sharia enshrines inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims and between men and women. U.S. law guarantees equal protection to all persons (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)).

3. Due Process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)

   • Sharia sanctions corporal punishments and vigilante justice, which violate U.S. standards of due process.

IV. Attempts to Incorporate Sharia Threaten Constitutional Sovereignty

• Symbolic proclamations, such as those made in Paterson, NJ, or public policy accommodations tailored exclusively for one religion, risk eroding secular neutrality.

• The Constitution demands that laws be passed in a secular, neutral fashion—not according to religious authority (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), establishing the “Lemon Test”).

V. Treason Against the Republic

• To replace or subordinate secular law to religious law is to attack the sovereignty of the Constitution itself.

• Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution—the Supremacy Clause—establishes that the Constitution and laws of the United States are the “supreme Law of the Land.”

• Any attempt to impose sharia law is therefore not only unconstitutional but a betrayal of the republic.

CONCLUSION

Islamic sharia law is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.

• It undermines freedom of speech, equal protection, due process, and secular governance.

• Supreme Court precedent has repeatedly affirmed that while private belief is protected, no religious legal system may govern civic life.

• Symbolic and legal encroachments (Paterson, NJ; Awad v. Ziriax; family law disputes) demonstrate the need for vigilance.

The Constitution protects freedom of worship, but it does not and cannot allow any religion—Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or otherwise—to replace secular law with religious supremacy.

To allow sharia law, in any form, to govern in the United States is not tolerance. It is treason against the republic.

I have taken the time to create a Memorandum you can highlight and copy and use wherever it is most certainly needed and adapt to your particular State.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW (State of Oregon)

I. Introduction

This memorandum examines the constitutional and legal implications of incorporating Islamic sharia law into the legal system of the United States, with specific reference to Oregon state law. While individuals are free to practice their religion privately, the application of religious laws, including sharia, in civil governance conflicts with the foundational principles of the U.S. Constitution and Oregon's legal statutes.

II. Oregon Legislative Action on Sharia Law

In 2017, Oregon introduced Senate Bill 479, which explicitly prohibits courts from considering sharia law in making judicial decisions. The bill states:

This legislative action reflects Oregon's commitment to ensuring that all judicial decisions are based on secular law, aligning with the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

III. Oregon Statutory Provisions Supporting Secular Governance

Oregon law provides several statutes that reinforce the state's dedication to secular governance and the non-application of religious laws in civil matters:

• ORS 65.042 – Religious Corporations; Constitutional Protections: This statute acknowledges that if religious doctrine or practice governing the affairs of a religious corporation is inconsistent with the provisions of the chapter on the same subject, the religious doctrine or practice shall control to the extent required by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of this state, or both. This provision ensures that religious practices do not override secular legal requirements unless constitutionally mandated. OregonLaws.

• ORS 65.044 to 65.067 – Religious Corporations: These sections outline the formation and governance of religious corporations in Oregon, emphasizing that such organizations must operate within the confines of secular law and are subject to the same legal standards as other nonprofit entities. Oregon Legislature.

IV. Oregon Judicial Precedent

Oregon courts have consistently upheld the principle of secular governance and the non-application of religious laws in civil matters:

• Cooper v. Eugene School District, 301 Or. 358 (1986): The Oregon Supreme Court held that public schools must maintain religious neutrality, emphasizing that the display of religious symbols or adherence to religious practices by public officials could be seen as an endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

• Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990): Although a U.S. Supreme Court decision, this case originated in Oregon and established that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court ruled that Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to individuals fired for using peyote in religious ceremonies, as the state's drug laws applied equally to all individuals, regardless of religious beliefs .

V. Conclusion

The incorporation of sharia law into the legal system of the United States, and specifically within Oregon, is incompatible with both federal and state constitutional principles. Oregon statutes and judicial precedents affirm the state's commitment to secular governance and the non-application of religious laws in civil matters. Therefore, any attempt to apply sharia law in Oregon courts would contravene established legal standards and constitutional mandates.

--------------- FOR LICENSED ATTORNEY ---------------

Respectfully submitted,

[Attorney’s Name]

[Title / Bar No.]

[Date]

WE WILL NOT SUBMIT,

WE WILL NOT BOW,

WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED!