Every once in a while an issue arises that can leave no doubt as to one's true colors. Clear examples of this are the congressional bills that unambiguously prevent judges in American courts from citing or using Sharia in their rulings. If you support them, you oppose Islamic law in America; if you oppose them, you don't. The purity of this issue doesn't allow for prevarication. Michigan Representative Dave Agema, R-Grandville, has introduced the newest of these bills. While it doesn't openly reference Islamic law (Sharia), it clearly intends to prevent judges from including Sharia in their rulings. The bill states that "no foreign law shall supersede federal laws or constitution or state laws or constitution." As one would predict, the Islamist and apologist "usual suspects"; CAIR, the ACLU, Muslim activists and apologists who claim to be "loyal Americans", are oozing from the woodwork to deplore the "bigotry and Islamophobia" these laws represent.
Their reactions are both interesting and revealing. To make my point, I'll concede that certain arguments against the dangers of radical Islam are at least somewhat controversial. As such, not all who speak out against them support a hidden agenda to advance Islamism. An example might be the Disney employee, Imane Boudlal, who sued Disney to allow her to wear her hijab rather than Disney garb as a greeter at Disneyland. Although her supporters are misguided and being used as pawns by Islamists, they might truly feel this is her right as an American. These anti-Sharia bills, however, whose only purpose is to protect the sanctity of our Constitution, leave no room for obfuscation.