Shariah: The Threat to America

My shocking and eye-opening interview with former U.S. Marine and FBI Counter-terrorism officer, John Guandolo, airs May 7 and May 8 on our Radio program.  You can download for free the entire report that Mr. Guandolo co-authored here.  Go to to learn more about Mr. Guandolo and the work he and others are doing to inform America about the threat of Shariah law in the United States.


Free Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
8 replies
  1. Luke says:

    Dr. Turek,

    You said in an earlier post that “It is only the Christian worldview that secures the unalienable rights… — rights that include the right to life, liberty, equal treatment, and religious freedom,” thereby excluding Judaism.

    I asked then what it was about Judaism that made it unable to secure these rights.

    (I did not receive an answer.)

    My question now is: how do you feel about Halakha being used in American courts?

    As you now, many observant Jews now go to a Beth Din to resolve disputes and these decisions have been enforced by US courts for a long time now.

    There is real and serious concern now in Jewish communities that Halakha could be simply disallowed under many of these laws. This would affect so many things in the Jewish community from disputes about kosher food to divorce proceedings.

    How do you feel about this? Should Halakha be protected?

    It’s something many orthodox and reformed leaders in the community are concerned about.



  2. Tim D. says:

    That’s an interesting question, Mr. Luke — I wasn’t aware there were such Jewish communities in the U.S., or that Halakha was ever used in American courts.

    Got some readin’ to do this weekend, ah do 😀

  3. Luke says:


    Courts have to do this, otherwise the decision of a beth din would be meaningless, essentially negating the religious freedom of the Orthodox community.

    Courts must understand the expectations of the parties involved, and this often involves learning (through expert testimony or other means) about any foreign or religious law involved in the case and the law must often be cited in the judgment.

    If a couple is married in France or under Jewish law, but enters some dispute in a court, how can the court judge a dispute if they are not allowed to take the original contract (because it’s a foreign or Jewish law) into consideration?

    This is an issue that has received quite a bit of talk in the Jewish community as of late.


  4. Paul Henri says:

    Courts enforcing religious rules is hogwash unless the rules are derived impliedly from Christianity. I am uninformed about the subject; but it seems to be a liberal ideology: we are whatever we choose to be.

  5. Tim D. says:

    Courts enforcing religious rules is hogwash unless the rules are derived impliedly from Christianity. I am uninformed about the subject; but it seems to be a liberal ideology: we are whatever we choose to be.


    Oh and hypocrisy too.

  6. Pat D. says:

    I find it interesting there is no more bloging on this subject after June 21st. Very important discussion. Our Constitutional law derives from Judeo-Christian belief directly from the commandments (miswah’s) of God (Yaweh) Himself. The U.S.A is a Christian nation no matter how some people try to skew the subject. The leading framers of our early and primary documents were all serious students of the Pentatuch, the Talmut, and the New Covenant (New Testament). They framed our Constitution and additions / changes by the pure essence of the Word in the Bible. It is therefor obvious that all Jewish religious law, that happens to be rooted in the Bible, must by default be considered in a court regardless of more recent precedents that may, or may not, have been correctly set in court decisions since our national documents were written.

  7. Pat D. says:

    One more thing. When we seriously study the Quran (Koran, whatever) we learn that Judeo-Christian law and Sharia law are not compatible. Therefor, by default, Sharia law is inconsistent and not compatible with our law of the U.S.A. to the extent that most of Sharia law is actually illegal in the U.S.A. system. For instance, non muslims must convert, or die by the sword (or any other expedient method). Keep in mind that some folks who have the read the Quran and see no great incompatibility to our law, have actually been reading modern printings of the “Koran” which have been “doctored” to make Sharia seem more palatable to American sensitivities. There is just no way to apply Sharia in American Courts, e.g. if you want justice to prevail.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *