The State of Hawaii was only the latest to file a lawsuit to stop President Donald Trump’s temporary halt to immigration from a handful of terror-torn nations.
This week, a lawyer arguing the State of Hawaii’s position seemed to argue that Trump’s order violates America’s religious liberty laws because the Muslim outrage of honor killing is a perfectly legitimate expression of religious liberty.
At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday, the lawyer, Neal Katyal, argued that Executive Order 13780 was unconstitutional because it violates the religious liberties of Muslims.
As he discussed the problems with Trump’s order, Katyal noted that Trump could make his order better by removing some of its rhetoric, according to Breitbart News’ Raheem Kassam.
But in making his argument, Katyal seemed to insist that rhetoric against honor killings — the murder of family members, especially young girls, who supposedly violate Islamic propriety — is something that Trump should take out of his travel ban because it angers Muslims and stifles their religious liberties.
Trump’s executive order mentions honor killings one time:
To be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available the following information…
…(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called ‘‘honor killings,’’ in the United States by foreign nationals…
After discussing what he thought were the founders’ plans to regulate immigration, Katyal had another suggestion.
“Second thing the president could do,” the state’s lawyer expounded, could be “…removing some of things that the district court found led an objective observer to say that this discriminates.”
Katyal then proceeded to layout some of the things Trump could cut to make his order less volatile. One of those was the mention of honor killing.
“It could eliminate the text, which refers to honor killings,” Katyal continued. “There’s a bunch of different things that could be done. And our fundamental point to you is that presidents don’t run into Establishment Clause problems and the reason for that is this is a very limited, you know, in a really unusual case in which you have these public statements by the President.”
But for Katyal to advocate for removing honor killing, he is de facto claiming that the outrageous, inhuman action of killing your own children because they aren’t Islamic enough is a legitimate expression of the Muslim religion.
Is this the sort of Islam that liberals want brought into the United States?