Dispatches from the Creation Wars

I was dying to see what the Worldnutdaily would do with the Florida “Sharia” case that has nothing at all to do with imposing Sharia. There was little room for doubt, of course — they would exaggerate it wildly like all the other wingnuts. But even for them, this article is audacious in its mendacity. Look how they seamlessly move from the trial to a totally unrelated issue as if there was some connection.

They get the basic facts right here:

An arbitration decision was obtained from a local Islamic scholar, but the court challenge now revolves around whether that was obtained under the teachings of the Quran.

An attorney representing the mosque has challenged the judge’s decision to the 2nd District Court of Appeal, questioning whether religious law has a place in the courts, the newspaper reported.

“The mosque believes wholeheartedly in the Quran and its teachings,” attorney Paul Thanasides told the newspaper. “They certainly follow Islamic law in connection with their spiritual endeavors. But with respect to secular endeavors, they believe Florida law should apply in Florida courts.”

The paper said the four former trustees and their representative could not be reached.

But the Times reported state Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz have proposed state law changes to disallow Islamic law in state courts.

Another expert from the University of Miami School of Law said an arbitration typically is run under the rules established when the arbitration procedure is set up, such as in a contract. Others told the newspaper the dispute is in state court, and state law should apply.

In an appeal of the judge’s decision, Thanasides said, “The First Amendment restricts courts’ authority to review, interpret and apply religious law because these actions interfere with a party’s right to choose, free from state involvement, the religious dogmas it will follow,” the newspaper reported.

And then this completely unrelated material follows immediately after that, as though there was some logical connection between the two:

WND reported only days earlier on a proposal by a team of Muslims who, under the banner of Shariah4America, suggested that the Statue of Liberty be covered with an Islamic burkha.

“The Statue of Liberty, designed by Frederic Bartholdi, stands on Liberty Island in New York Harbor; representing Libertas, the Roman (false) goddess of Freedom, it is symbolic of the rebellious nature of the U.S. Constitution that elevates the command of man over the command of God,” the organization announced.

“In Islam, the public veneration of idols and statues is strictly prohibited. This has forced sincere Muslims to develop realistic plans that will aid in the removal of the Statue of Liberty.

“Due to the scale of the task at hand, it is highly likely that rigorous safety checks will need to be employed before the demolition of the Statue of Liberty can commence; thus as a temporary measure, it is proposed that a large burkha is used to cover the statue, thereby shielding this horrendous eye sore from public view as well as sending a strong message to its French creators,” the website proclaimed.

“Post demolition, it is recommended that a minaret be built as a fitting replacement, allowing the glorification of God to be proclaimed daily as well as act as a powerful reminder of the superiority of Islam over all other ways of life,” the site said.

None of which has anything even remotely to do with the Florida case. There is no logical connection whatsoever. This is pure demagoguery, which happens to be the Worldnutdaily’s specialty.