Claire Holston

I urge you to VOTE No on this bill. This is a poor bill for the State of New Hampshire on legal and policy grounds, it is unconstitutional in the U.S. context and is harmful as a piece of legislation. It is a direct conflict with religious freedom protections and has already been found unconstitutional in other cases. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause protects the right of individuals to practice any religion, including Islam, and engage in associated rituals unless the state has a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means. The New Hampshire Constitution explicitly recognizes every individual’s “natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience,” and says no person shall be “hurt, molested, or restrained” for religious practice so long as they do not disturb the public peace. Declaring an entire religion’s legal moral tradition an “existential threat” and prohibiting “any deference” to it in governance directly targets one faith community, which implicates both the Establishment Clause (state hostility to a particular religion) and Free Exercise protections. It is Discriminatory legislative intent and effect. This overt bill politically marginalize a subset of Americans, based on upon religious affiliation, which is a violation. This resolution singles out “Sharia Law and political Islam” which is discriminatory toward one religion group, not a neutral rule applied across all religions. This is showing hostility toward Muslims which may also lead to further discrimination against others in the future. “Sharia law” is not a single unified civil code imposed in the U.S.; For Muslims it describes personal ethical and spiritual obligations (diet, prayer, charity, family conduct), not a bid to replace constitutional law. The bill collapses all of that into “existential threat.” It also imports ideology instead of fact based evidence. Passing this bill that officially brands one religious legal ethical tradition as an “existential threat” would expose the state to litigation, political backlash, and reputational harm, while doing nothing concrete to improve public safety or governance. This is not good legislation. It is discriminatory, symbolic hostility rather than principled, neutral rule making and for all of the reasons listed above, I strongly urge you to vote NO.