A federal judge stopped short of declaring Oklahoma voters a bunch of dumbasses, but she did rule that their attempt to outlaw Sharia law is unconstitutional, according to the Daily Oklahoman.
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a 15-page ruling throwing out the state constitutional amendment. On Nov. 2, Oklahoma voters approved the amendment that would have prohibited state courts from considering or using Sharia law despite the fact that state courts had never used – nor had plans to use — Sharia law. The constitutional amendment passed with more than 70 percent of the vote.
Sharia is Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of Muhammed. It includes the Ten Commandments — so the amendment effectively made the Ten Commandments illegal in Oklahoma.
Miles-LaGrange wrote in her opinion, “This order addresses issues that go to the very foundation of our country, our Constitution, and particularly, the Bill of Rights.”
Supporters of the law said it was a defense against such practices as marital rape. However, state laws already make such practices illegal.
Muneer Awad, the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, filed suit against the amendment claiming it violated his freedom of religion.
Aren’t pre-emptive strikes usually attacks?
And wasn’t the only terrorist attack that has taken place in Oklahoma — the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building — carried out by a couple of Christian guys?
Yes, Oklahoma already has laws prohibiting spoucil rape, child rape, domestic violence & mutilation, polygamy, slavery, etc. But to allow Sharia law to have it’s way in any courtroom would allow exceptions for the Muslim/Islamic community. Therefore, they can not be prosecuted for the same things we are sending other people to prison for. Am I right?
Sorry, you are not right. Courts in the United States rule based on federal, state and local law. You cannot go into a court and claim that because you are Christian, you want the rules of your religion to trump state laws.
If that were true, then I could get married because Judaism recognizes same-sex marriage. I could go to court and claim that my religion trumps the laws written by bigots in Texas. While my religion would still recognize the marriage, the state would not.
Then how did that Muslim in the other state get away with spoucel rape? He claimed he was only practicing his religion and they let him go. Just trying to understand.
Victoria, one man and one judge do not represent the judicial system of the United States. Aside from that bad logic, the appellate court reversed the decision, noting the judge who deemed what happened as “okay” was mistaken in his decision.
That said, banning a religion is unconstitutional. Banning the laws that are contained within a religion is not. Probably a good thing, too, considering some of the punishments the Abrahamic religions condone and suggest.
This law is pointless because we already have separation of church and state. This law was specifically designed to say “F-U” to Muslims. I bet, if we banned inbred mouth breathers from voting, laws like this would never exist. Those Oklahomos are an embarrassment to this country.
To those have said: we already have separation of church and state… Oh really ? In MI public funds are used for muslims foot baths and we have muslims on federal payroll, just for being muslim. Mosques have been given the right to brainwash young ladies into thinking they are objects and must cover their hair and more. In fact, islam has been given the right to teach discrimination ! It should outlawed as child abuse.
John, what Muslims are on the payroll just for being Muslim? For advising on terrorist motives and tactics to Homeland Security? Maybe. For doing nothing and just being Muslim? This isn’t Fox News. No one here is buying that scare tactic spin.
Sharia law has made its way to England recently as an alternative in certain civil matters. How did this happen? The answer is that there weren’t well enough defined laws prohibiting it. I suspect Representative Rex Duncan, who authored the amendment, is merely “preempting” the possibility that Sharia Law would ever come to Oklahoma as an alternative to existing courts, even to resolve matters between Muslims.
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
And this is not England and the Magna Carta isn’t our constitution. U.S., state and local law trump religious law in the United States. Lots of laws preempt law as written in the Bible. You cannot stone a child to death because that child is disrespectful despite that Biblical law that says you should, for example. You are allowed to make images that depict God despite that being one of the top ten admonitions. If there is something that Sharia law allows that isn’t clearly protected by Oklahoma law, then the dumb asses in Oklahoma need to protect that.
Hey, here’s a BIG one that Oklahoma doesn’t protect – the rights of gays and lesbians. Seeing the despicable way gays and lesbians are treated under Sharia law, maybe the bigots who voted for this law should look in the mirror and realize that Sharia law actually reflects exactly how they treat the LGBT community and they should STOP IT and change those bigoted laws.