The twisted logic the judge applied is MIND BLOWING!
According to the judges decision, it is discriminatory to make Muslim inmates eat non-halal food, but not it is not discriminatory to force feed [all] non-Muslims halal food (Islamic slaughtered & blessed in the name of allah).
Sharia is no longer creeping, it is on the march.
(Greeley Gazette) –A federal judge says an Ohio prison that forces all inmates to adhere to a strict Islamic diet is not an establishment of religion because everyone eats the same food.
A federal judge recently threw out prisoner James Rivers’ lawsuit against Ohio Prison director Gary Mohr’s decision to ban pork from kitchens in all prisons under control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Mohr made the decision to stop serving pork products after a Muslim on death row filed a lawsuit against the prison system.
Abdul Awkal, an inmate on death row, argued in his lawsuit that the prison’s failure to provide halal meals violated his religious freedoms.
Awkal was later joined by a second Muslim who is not on death row. Prison authorities had argued that they provided non-pork and vegetarian options for Muslims. The Muslims said that was not good enough and still insisted that the food they were given meet halal standards.
Former Navy chaplain Dr. Gordon Klingenschmitt says while the judge ruled it is acceptable to force all non-Muslims to adhere to a Muslim diet, Christians have no dietary rights.
“This is another example of the Islamicization [sic] of America. It’s establishing Islam as the state religion of the prison system,” Klingenschmitt contends.
“The judge’s reasoning is this: He said as long as all of the prisoners are forced to eat the same food, then there’s no discrimination taking place. In other words, if he enforces Muslim law equally, then there’s no establishment of religion. I think that’s wrong, and I pray this is overturned on the appeal.”
Dr. Gordon Klingenschmitt urges Americans who wish to halt the enforcement of Sharia law in US courts to sign his petition:
Stop Muslim Sharia and Foreign Law from enforcement in American courts by activist judges. Select here, sign petition, we will fax all 535 Congressmen and Senators (saving you time!) to pass H.R. 973 and protect our Constitution.
This shocking report may help you with your decision on whether you should speak out against Sharia influenced court decisions.
More from Godfather Politics:
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Judge James S Guin [James S. Gwin -See below --Ed.]dismissed Rivers’ case. In his decision to throw out the case, Guin wrote,
“Plaintiff asserts that this…violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, subjects him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment, denies him substantive and procedural due process, and denies him Equal Protection.”
“While the removal of pork from prison meals may benefit Muslim as well as Jewish inmates, it also creates a meal that can be eaten by all inmates regardless of faith.”
“[Nor would] a reasonable person … conclude that the menu change endorsed the Muslim faith. The choice is neutral to religion. Several faiths prohibit the consumption of pork…”
“Several” not hardly, the judge stretched the truth til it broke. Only TWO prohibit pork –Islam and Judaism.
Does anyone think for one second, that if Christian doctrine demanded that Christians eat pork, the judge would have enforced pork on the Muslim prisoners??
On a related side note: There is no judge by the name of James S. Guin on the United States District Court Northern District Of Ohio’s website (http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/home/judges/). The closest one is a James Gwin. Small wonder, since on the complaint; Rivers vs Mohr the Judges name is written as; James S. Gwin.