THE SPEW ZONE

Islamists and other idiots proclaim freedom of religion as a justification for their establishing and takeover of towns, cities and ultimately states by also imposing the elements of Sharia and the laws of the Quran/Koran which is factually a theocracy and imposed religious law.

Yes. They have freedom of religion to believe and practice among themselves as they will so long as they DO NOT impose it upon others.

What does anger me are those making excuses for Islamists. To me, that signals ignorance, cowardice, or both. Islamists often invoke “freedom of religion” as a shield while attempting to establish dominance in towns, cities, and even states by imposing elements of Sharia law. Sharia is not simply religious practice—it is a theocratic legal system.

Yes, freedom of religion protects their right to believe and practice among themselves. But it does not give them the right to impose their system on others.

Naming or renaming streets after religious figures or heroes, especially ones that are celebrated for the murder of those with different beliefs them their own is disgusting and unacceptable, undermining independent civil law, or enforcing Sharia in whole or in part is not protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Claims that opposition to this is “racism” are false.

Islam is a religion, not a race.

The same is true for Judaism and Christianity and others that are religions, not a race!

Publicly blasting prayers five times a day is not private worship—it is disruptive, intimidating, and deliberately intrusive. That is not protected religious exercise; it is psychological pressure. No group gets a special pass to disturb the peace under the guise of faith.

The First Amendment protects both freedom of religion and freedom from religion through two key clauses:

• The Establishment Clause – prevents the government from establishing or endorsing religion.

• The Free Exercise Clause – protects the right to practice (or not practice) religion freely.

Together, these clauses ensure government neutrality toward religion and safeguard individual choice to believe or disbelieve without interference.

Establishment Clause

• Prevents government endorsement of religion

  • No national religion may be established.

  • Government cannot promote one faith over another.

• Maintains government neutrality

  • No official prayers or favoritism toward religious institutions.

• Applies to government-funded institutions

  • Public schools and other state-funded entities cannot organize or promote religious activities (e.g., school-led prayer).

Free Exercise Clause

• Protects individual belief and practice

  • Freedom to practice any religion—or none at all.

• Guarantees freedom from government interference

  • Includes rights such as wearing religious attire or engaging in worship when not disruptive.

• Allows for exemptions from laws

  • Individuals may be exempt from laws that substantially burden religious practice, unless the government proves a “compelling interest.”

• Applies to all beliefs

  • Extends protection to all faiths and non-faith positions, including atheism.

Bottom Line

The First Amendment ensures neutrality, choice, and protection:

• Government cannot impose religion.

• Individuals are free to practice—or reject—religion.

Full stop. End of story.

What about A burqa, also known as harabah? Should it be banned in the USA? As far as women wearing things to completely conceal identity as part of their religion and culture, and as much as I hate to say it, and i really do—if it’s someone’s personal choice, fine. But when entering public institutions like banks or applying for a driver’s license, they must show their faces and be fingerprinted like everyone else. Equal treatment means equal accountability. Otherwise, we’d have to ban traditional attire worn by Jews, Christians, and others, which I will not support.

Statement on Hostile Acts Under the Guise of Freedom

Waving foreign flags and shouting “Death to America” while holding U.S. citizenship is not a matter of religious expression or protected freedom. Such actions go beyond dissent or protest; they constitute an open declaration of hostility against the nation and its people. This behavior signals intentional subversion of the United States and aligns with the promotion of terrorism rather than legitimate political or religious practice.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but those protections are not absolute. They do not extend to acts that directly incite violence, advocate for the destruction of the nation, or provide material support to hostile entities. Abusing the concept of religious freedom to shield such conduct undermines the very principles of liberty and security that the Constitution is designed to protect.

Citizenship carries both rights and responsibilities. While disagreement with government policies is permissible and even healthy in a democracy, actively promoting the nation’s destruction crosses into treasonous territory. It cannot be tolerated under the guise of religious or political freedom. To allow such behavior unchecked would erode national security, embolden extremist movements, and weaken the social contract that binds citizens together.

Therefore, burning the US flag while chanting violent slogans against America and Americans should be recognized not as protected expression, but as deliberate subversion and intentional open acts of terrorism and declarations of war as domestic enemies that must be removed. It is a misuse of constitutional freedoms, a promotion of terrorism, and a betrayal of the obligations inherent in U.S. citizenship. It is not peaceful protest, it is not legitimate dissent.

This behavior demands decisive consequences. Citizenship is a privilege that carries obligations of loyalty and responsibility. Those who openly advocate for the destruction of the United States have forfeited their right to that privilege. Revocation of citizenship and immediate deportation must be enforced against individuals who engage in these acts.

The Cowardice is Unacceptable

Furthermore, those who attempt to shield, defend, or justify such unconstitutional trespasses must be treated as accessories to treason. By protecting or enabling this conduct, they align themselves with subversive forces and undermine national security. They too must be arrested, charged, jailed, deported, and stripped of all assets.

The rot cannot be allowed to spread. Associates, networks, and collaborators of these hostile actors must be identified and dismantled. Every link in the chain of subversion must be tracked down and removed, regardless of its source. Only through firm enforcement can the integrity of the nation be preserved and the responsibilities of citizenship upheld.

📜 Historical & Legal Precedents

• Reynolds v. United States (1879): The Supreme Court ruled that religious duty was not a defense against criminal indictment. This case established the principle that while belief is protected, actions that violate secular law are not.

• Employment Division v. Smith (1990): The Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws can restrict religious practices if they conflict with public policy. This means no religion can carve out exemptions that undermine civil law.

• Engel v. Vitale (1962): Struck down state-sponsored prayer in schools, reinforcing that government cannot endorse or impose religious practices.

These rulings show that the Constitution draws a hard line between private belief (protected) and public imposition (restricted).

⚖️ Civic Principles Not Yet Covered

• Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment): Religious law cannot override equal protection under U.S. law. For example, Sharia’s unequal treatment of women or non-Muslims would directly violate constitutional guarantees.

• Supremacy Clause (Article VI): The Constitution and federal law are the “supreme law of the land.” No religious code can supersede it.

• Public Order Doctrine: Freedom of religion and speech does not extend to actions that threaten public safety, incite violence, or undermine national security.

🚨 Practical Implications

• Religious Symbols in Public Policy: Naming streets or institutions after figures tied to religious violence undermines neutrality and risks legitimizing sectarian dominance.

• Public Worship vs. Private Worship: Loud, disruptive practices (like amplified calls to prayer) cross into public imposition. Courts have upheld noise ordinances and zoning laws as valid restrictions when religious practices disturb public peace.

• Dress Codes & Identification: The Constitution protects religious attire, but equal accountability requires compliance with identification laws (driver’s licenses, banks, airports). This balances free exercise with public safety.

The Constitution is clear: belief is protected, imposition is not. 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle—from Reynolds v. United States (1879), which ruled that religious duty cannot excuse breaking secular law, to Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down state-sponsored prayer.

The Establishment Clause forbids government endorsement of religion, while the Free Exercise Clause protects private practice.

Together, they ensure that no religious code—whether Biblical, Halakhic, or Sharia—can override the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which makes the Constitution and federal law the supreme law of the land.

Equal protection under the 14th Amendment further guarantees that religious systems treating people unequally cannot be imposed. In short: freedom of religion ends where the imposition of religious law begins.

Introduction and Fundamental Incompatibilities

The United States Constitution, ratified in 1787, establishes a secular republic rooted in individual liberties, separation of powers, and the rule of law derived from democratic processes. Islam, originating in the 7th century, functions not only as a religion but also as a legal system through Sharia—a comprehensive code derived from the Quran and Hadith governing personal, social, and political conduct.

• Fact 1: Muslims impose a view that Sharia Law supersedes the US Constitution.

• Fact 2: Sharia Law relegates women, minorities and other religious cultures as second class citizenship and demands all bow down to Muslim men no matter if their actions are inhumane or not.

Federal law reinforces this boundary. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (reaffirmed in 1965) bars ideologies incompatible with the Constitution—interpreted by some as grounds to restrict Islamist immigration.

Moreover, Sharia’s advocacy for theocracy directly conflicts with federal statutes on treason and sedition (18 U.S.C. § 2384), as it may be construed as promoting the overthrow of constitutional government.

Coldly stated, permitting Sharia within U.S. jurisdictions amounts to importing a rival sovereignty—an existential threat to national unity and security.

Islam’s foundational legal structure is inherently incompatible with the Constitution. Sharia prioritizes divine law over human legislation, directly challenging key constitutional amendments: the First (freedom of religion and speech), the Eighth (prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment), and the Fourteenth (equal protection under the law).

Sharia is often described as a totalitarian system that fuses religious and political authority, demanding submission to Allah’s will as interpreted by clerics. This stands in direct opposition to the Establishment Clause, which forbids government endorsement of any religion. Classical Sharia includes hudud punishments—such as amputation for theft and stoning for adultery—that violate the Eighth Amendment’s protections.

Legal analyses supporting this view assert that Islam’s theocratic framework functions more as a political ideology than a private faith, rendering it incompatible with constitutional integration unless fundamentally reformed.

Historical context reinforces this concern. The Founding Fathers, guided by Enlightenment principles, designed a system to prevent religious dominance in governance. In contrast, Islamist ideologies—distinct from moderate Muslim practices—promote a caliphate model in which Sharia supersedes secular law.

In the U.S., this manifests as “Sharia creep,” where Islamic arbitration tribunals adjudicate family disputes under religious law, raising civil rights concerns. While courts require alignment with U.S. law, critics warn of incremental erosion.

Additionally, Islam’s emphasis on the ummah (global Muslim community) over national allegiance raises questions of loyalty. Literal interpretations of Quranic calls for jihad against non-believers conflict with constitutional protections for speech, assembly, and religious freedom.

This incompatibility is not theoretical—it is observable in nations where Sharia-based governance suppresses dissent, curtails women’s rights, and marginalizes religious minorities, all of which contradict core American values.

Sharia Law as an Imposition of Foreign Laws Against U.S. Federal Statutes

Sharia law, rooted in Arabian tribal customs and Islamic scripture, is structurally foreign to the U.S. legal system. Its application—even in limited contexts—violates the Supremacy Clause (Article VI), which designates the Constitution and federal statutes as the supreme law of the land.

Any attempt to apply Sharia within American jurisdictions introduces a parallel legal framework that elevates religious edicts above constitutional protections. For example, Sharia’s family law provisions often discriminate against women in matters of inheritance, divorce, and custody—directly breaching the Equal Protection Clause.

In Oklahoma, voters approved a constitutional amendment banning Sharia in state courts. Federal judges struck it down as discriminatory under the First Amendment, yet the underlying concern remains: Sharia is not merely religious—it is a foreign legal code.

Organizations like the ACLU argue that such bans infringe on religious freedom. However, proponents counter that religious practices lose protection when they violate civil rights or impose unequal treatment which the ACLU is aware of and has lost sight of its original purpose.

Recent cases illustrate this tension. In Texas, proposals for Muslim-majority enclaves such as “Epic City” triggered federal investigations over potential Sharia enforcement. Ironically, these investigations underscore how Sharia’s exclusivity may itself violate equal treatment laws.

While no U.S. city officially enforces Sharia, informal tribunals in places like Dearborn, Michigan, adjudicate disputes under Islamic principles. These decisions are sometimes overturned by civil courts for violating constitutional standards.

• S.D. v. M.J.R. (2010): This case involved a restraining order request by a woman alleging sexual assault by her husband. The judge initially denied the order, citing the husband’s religious belief that he had a right to sex with his wife under Islamic law. The decision was overturned on appeal, with the higher court affirming that religious beliefs do not excuse criminal behavior.

• Marriage and Family Law Disputes: In some cases, New Jersey courts have reviewed marriages or divorces conducted under Islamic customs. While courts may consider religious context, they ultimately apply state law. Any attempt to enforce Sharia-based rulings must comply with U.S. constitutional standards.

Islam as a Threat to Democratic Constitutional Republics

Political Islam, particularly in its Islamist forms, poses a systemic threat to democratic republics by subordinating popular sovereignty to divine rule. In the U.S., authority derives from the people through elected representatives. In Islamism, authority flows from Allah, interpreted by religious elites—rendering democracy subordinate or illusory.

This theocratic model has produced failed states where elections exist but are nullified by Sharia, suppressing freedoms and civil rights. The threat is not limited to non-Muslims; radical groups such as ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood weaponize Islam to justify violence, often targeting moderate Muslims for ideological noncompliance.

In the U.S., Islamist ideologies infiltrate through migration, both legal and illegal, claims of asylum seeking to get a foot hold and then send finds and resources back to their own countries of origin they allegedly were "escaping," and conversion, promoting jihad as conquest and using Islamophobia claims to gas light everyone in an attempt to shut down discussions; an approach fundamentally incompatible with peaceful pluralism.

Demographic shifts through immigration from Muslim-majority nations may influence voting blocs toward Sharia-aligned policies, threatening the secular foundation of the republic.

Surveys show most Muslims reject radicalism, yet this is also part of the religious teaching to intentionally deceive those they seek to conquer. This itself is a smoke screen when people actually read what their religion has written in its books.

Europe offers a cautionary example. Sharp analysis reveals the emergence of “civilization threats” through no-go zones and parallel societies; scenarios that could replicate in the U.S. without intervention and more or less a back door style invasion and infestation.

Globally, unreformed Islam perpetuates cycles of repression, stifling personal freedom and innovation under rigid dogma, complain about the problems in their native countries, then move into other countries and complain they're not like their original countries; which defies logic unless we are honest and call it what it is; a systematic pattern and time honored Muslim tactic to take over and displace populations and engage in ethnic cleansing soon after.

London’s housing crisis has reached a boiling point—not just due to scarcity, but because of how allocation policies are being administered. Under Mayor Sadiq Khan’s leadership has implementing policies that systematically disadvantage native-born British citizens, particularly white working-class families and anyone that is Christian, and is the abuse of power and a violation public trust.

Sharia Imposition in U.S. Cities as a First Amendment Violation

Efforts to impose Sharia; even informally, violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by privileging one religion’s legal code over neutral governance.

• In Hamtramck, Michigan, a Muslim-majority city, impose Sharia-influenced and inclusions of Sharia laws into local laws, triggering lawsuits for religious favoritism.

Such actions create de facto theocracies, unconstitutional in their discrimination against non-Muslims and infringement on others’ free exercise rights

• Federal courts consistently reject Sharia when it conflicts with constitutional protections.

• In 2010, Oklahoma’s ban was overturned for targeting Islam, yet the underlying violations persist when Sharia overrides civil liberties demonstrating intentional favoritism of Islam and Sharia rejecting assimilation and promoting usurpation.

• In Irving, Texas, anti-Sharia protests spotlighted tribunals enforcing unequal treatment favoring Islam and Sharia and breaching due process and alienating citizens.

These practices introduce foreign norms into American civic life, promoting additional division and undermining constitutional unity as Islam directs Muslims to engage in and within every country they "migrate" to and use deception and claims of racism and Islamophobia to gas light everyone into turning a blind eye to these and other unacceptable activities.

• Islam’s incompatibility with constitutional governance stems from Sharia’s supremacy over secular law.

• This poses a threat to democratic institutions through ideological rigidity and subversion.

• While many Muslims live peacefully within the republic, this tends to be more of a factor of biding time so as to get Muslims in key areas of local governance and then impose unreformed elements jeopardize both national integrity and hiding clear intentions to overthrow America and any other country that opposes it.

• Many are more open about these intentions once they secure dominate control of a city and impose and intentionally isolated community areas and engage in the very racism they accuse everyone else of.

  
  

Policy responses, such as heightened scrutiny of Islamic organizations and their ban from public office, law enforcement and the like are essential to preserve constitutional order and to stop playing games and being brain washed to proclaim that to do so is blanket discrimination when in reality Islam is a cult of discrimination, suppression, slavery and murder of anyone that does not "submit" to it.

As for us?

Druwayu cannot Coexist with Islam

1. Foundational Structure Conflict

• Druwayu rejects cultural sedation, imposed propaganda, and blind devotion. It is not mythological, not occult, and not symbolic. It is not designed for minors and does not seek mass adoption or theological integration and rejects concepts such as punishment for "heresy, apostasy and so called blasphemy.

• Islam is a theistic religion based on submission to Allah, with legal and moral codes derived from the Quran and Hadith. It mandates theological supremacy and prescribes universal application of divine law (Sharia).

Druwayu’s refusal to submit to external theological authority and Islam’s requirement of universal submission are structurally incompatible and irreconcilable.

2. Identity and Boundary Enforcement

• Druwayu enforces strict boundaries around audience, content, and contributor discipline. It excludes minors as persons under 18 years of age or younger, rejects being imposed in public schools, or gaining attention by being intentionally provocative to cause publicity. It does not market itself as anything other than what it is and what it is not and o one is expected to abide by it.

• Islam, particularly in its political forms, promotes da’wah (invitation to Islam), global ummah identity, and religious expansion. It frames non-Islamic systems as false or idolatrous and deserving of eradication along with those who adhere to anything "not Islamic."

Druwayu’s boundary enforcement cannot coexist with Islam’s expansionist orientation. Any overlap would violate Druwayu’s exclusion protocols.

3. Structural and Doctrinal Irreconcilability

• Druwayu is not symbolic, not allegorical, and not fixed and allows for logic driven adaptation and evolution. Its content is designed for adult comprehension and literal clarity. It does not accommodate false narratives or counter imposed ideologies, nor makes claims of "Divine Revelation or Inspiration."

• Islam operates on a fixed theological narrative with symbolic rituals, stylized obligations, and proclaims authority based on claims of divine mandates that are arbitrary and clearly written by human hands and human constructs but pretends otherwise. It prohibits reinterpretation and rejects plural frameworks.

Druwayu’s literal structure and Islam’s symbolic theology cannot be reconciled. Coexistence would require one system to abandon its core standards which neither will. Furthermore, Druwayu rejects cowardice or submission by force while Islam promotes adherence under fear of death and by force.

4. Enforcement and Sovereignty

• Druwayu maintains internal custodianship and doctrinal enforcement. It does not recognize external religious governance or shared sovereignty directed by ecological concepts of the Drikeyu which in essence embraces true natural laws to which all are subject.

• Islam mandates theological dominance and frames governance through divine law in place of natural laws while proclaiming a natural order it fails to grasp.

Druwayu’s internal sovereignty and Islam’s external supremacy are mutually exclusive. Integration is structurally impossible. This is not a major issue with other identities or religious groups even if some of them hold extremist views of condemnation of Druwayu, and much of the hostility subsides once they know more about it but will resort to the goals of trying to initiate conversion from Druwayu, which is fine because Druwayu does not condemn anyone for choosing something other than Druwayu.

In conclusion, Islam, and movements like it, are poison and should never be tolerated under any excuse and we will not be silenced on these views no matter how much such types try to silence us. And while Muslims claim Islam has a right to exist, so do we without Islam and its twisted and perverse teaching and doctrines.

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.

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.

WE WILL NOT SUBMIT,

WE WILL NOT BOW,

WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED!