They're not laughing it off in Ohio. One of the main problems with multiculturalism is that it supplants majority rule with the tyranny of the minority. And a major example of this problem has just manifested itself in Ohio when a federal judge ruled that it was O.K. for the entire Ohio prison system to force Islamic halal dietary rules on all inmates regardless of religious preference. The story was first spotted in the Greeley (CO) Gazette and is also published in the Pundit Press, but I could find no mainstream media outlets in Ohio which published the story.
Summary: Muslim prisoners jailed in Ohio prisons began complaining about the food and demanding that they be fed halal-compliant meals per Sharia law. In response, prison authorities began providing non-pork and vegetarian options for Muslims. But this did not satisfy Abdul Awkal, an inmate on death row, who filed a lawsuit in which he claimed that the prison’s failure to provide halal meals violated his religious freedoms, even though Islamic teaching says it is perfectly acceptable to eat non-halal meat if there is no halal food available. A second Muslim who is not on death row then joined the suit. Despite the possibility that providing halal meat for the thousands of Muslims in prison would bankrupt the system, prison officials, in response to the lawsuit, stopped serving pork products to everyone including atheists and those whose religion contains no such prohibition.
However, this was not the end of the story. A non-Muslim prisoner, James Rivers, then filed suit against Ohio Prison director Gary Mohr over his decision to ban pork from kitchens in all prisons under control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Rivers claimed forcing halal food upon him constituted the forced establishment of a particular religion, in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Incredibly, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Judge James S. Gwin dismissed Rivers’ case, claiming that Mohr's decision did not constitute the establishment of a particular religion because everyone eats the same food. Godfather Politics records more of Judge Gwin's reasoning. Yes, he's part right -- everyone eats the same food, but it is still the imposition of Islamic law upon all regardless of religion. It could well serve as a precedent to eventually force all prisoners to stop what they're doing five times a day and observe absolute silence so that Muslim prisoners can pray to their god.
-- Read the 11-page ruling HERE.
Former Navy Chaplain Dr. Gordon Klingenschmitt, who runs The Pray In Jesus Name Project, points out that Christian inmates now 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." Klingenschmitt is encouraging believers to sign his online petition urging Congress to pass HR973 in order to stop activist judges from enforcing sharia law in American courts.
Note that Alaska Congressman Don Young is NOT one of the 87 co-sponsors, while Ron Paul is a co-sponsor.
The Bottom Line: It might be tempting to blow it off, since they are only "prisoners" and should take what's coming. But that's exactly what ZOG wants you to think. You see, ZOG (once defined as "Zionist Occupational Government", but now used to describe the entire American power structure) customarily uses marginal or unpopular constituencies to beta-test more intrusive and invasive laws, counting on the public to cheer them on because the targeted constituencies are unpopular. Then, after the camel gets its nose in the tent, it goes after the rest of society. Note how the sex offender registry was soon joined by a no-fly list. Note how TSA has graduated from checking passengers at airports to conducting random vehicle searches on interstate highways. Note how criminal asset forfeiture soon metastasized into civil asset forfeiture. And always, ZOG will play the security and safety cards to scare Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public into going along with it. The bottom line: What is done to prisoners today will serve as a pretext to do it to the rest of us tomorrow.
Public Reaction: Discussed on Free Republic and Stormfront. Some of the more pertinent comments posted to the various media sources:
Jon Weiss April 23rd (Godfather Politics):
Judge James S Gwin got this case WRONG. Simply by the fact that the Muslims cited their case on Islam is grounds for dismissal, and the case should have been thrown out on that alone. We have a separation of Church and state that is stringent enough for Christian symbology to be removed from the public square, but in the case of Judge Guin, the separation apparently does not go so far as to limit the influence of Islam to dictate the diet of our prison systems.
soldiermom11 April 23rd (Godfather Politics):
Why is it that the atheists and the progressives are always screaming separation of church and state unless the church is Islam and then all bets are off. Then we have to kneel down and bow to their every demand?
Dan in NH April 23rd (Godfather Politics):
The Muslims have sued and that's why they bend over backwards to cater to them. During Ramadan they have to be fed before sunrise and after sunset so they have to make special arrangements to open the chow hall early and have it also open late. This isn't the only group; now they've had to provide for vegans. I worked at a prison and they had to setup a special kitchen that's only used to prepare vegan meals. I don't know what's next.
Gary Rumain April 27th, 2012 12:09 am (Greeley Gazette):
What disgusting dhimmitude! Both Gary Mohr and the judge should be lynched for treason.
Chris April 27th, 2012 3:45 pm (Greeley Gazette):
The Islamic goal of subverting the U.S. legal system was documented in a religious ruling (or fatwah) distributed in 2008 by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, which stated among other things: 1) Authority to legislate rests with Allah alone; 2) a Muslim judge must do everything in his power to enact laws that allow the Muslims to practice their Sharia; 3) Muslim judges are not permitted to take this job except to serve Islam and Muslims; 4) Muslims must judge by the rulings of Sharia as much as possible even if by ruse; 5) a Muslim on a jury could be successful in co-opting some of the other jury members to agree with him on the ruling, whereby the Islamic ruling gains a majority of the votes; 6) it is required for a Muslim to be hostile to courts which rule by man-made law and to dislike them; and 7) if you are wronged and demand your rights guaranteed by Sharia , you have no recourse but to go to man-made courts as long as you have hatred in your heart for the courts. (Source: http://www.translatingjihad.com/2012/03/assembly-of-muslim-jurists-of-america.html