Whose law?

The media reports that the Florida chapter of a group called the United American Committee has paid to have billboards posted with the words, "Sharia law is hate."

Their aim is to get Americans thinking about the Islamic system of law that does not recognize any separation between church and state. Sharia law is already accepted as an alternative form of legal process in Canada for Muslims living there, and some British Muslims are lobbying to have it incorporated into British law, too.

The UAC says it wants Americans to be thinking now about what might happen if Sharia law were to be proposed as an alternative legal process in this country.

The head of the Florida chapter rightly notes that Sharia is incompatible with the ideology set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

The group's use of the word "hate" has generated controversy, with some calling it too extreme a word. Again the UAC is unapologetic in its choice.

Florida UAC director Alan Kornman is quoted in an article appearing on WorldNetDaily's website as saying, "For those people calling me hateful, then they would have to condone child marriages, amputations for stealing and death for apostates to name only a few punishments attached to Sharia law. If my critics condone this type of activity under any circumstances, then it is they who are hateful towards anyone who is non-Muslim and should look into their own mirror before crying hate speech," he said.

Should sharia law ever be allowed to exist side by side in America as a legitimate means of adjudication? Not unless Congress is willing and ready to dismantle our constitutionally-based system of justice.

The folks in D.C. often have their heads stuck in darn and unmentionable places, but I am fairly certain even they wouldn't want their lives ruled by a system that penalizes adulterers with stoning or lashing and punishes thieves by amputation.

Who'd be left on Capitol Hill?