Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

Appeals Court Upholds Sharia in Oklahoma

January 12, 2012 by  

Appeals Court Upholds Sharia in Oklahoma

A Federal appeals court decided Tuesday that an amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its Constitutionality.

According to CBS News, the Denver-based court upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange’s order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.

Part of the amendment read: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law, arguing that the amendment violated his First Amendment rights. He said the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death.

“When the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad’s in having his constitutional rights protected,” the court said.

Filed Under: Courts, Liberty News, Staff Reports
Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Appeals Court Upholds Sharia in Oklahoma”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • James

    The purpose of organized religions is to make sure they are employed officiating over rituals, not to make a better person. Islam makes sure their religious officials are employed even more so by having them officiate over law issues as well. If you want a better person, figure it out away from organized religions.

    • James

      While I didn’t write the two above comments, I don’t necessarily disagree with them.

  • James

    And it’s amazing you can go to Mauritius in the middle of the Indian ocean and they have a law saying English is the official language, but if a state in the United States tries that here the courts will probably knock it down and the Federal Government will probably sue you. It just goes to show how crazy things are. I’ve never liked the Supreme Court deferring to foreign laws and precedents because those laws are often generated in countries that are counter to our cultural norms.

  • Brad R

    I believe evryone is missing the big picture although I agree that Sharia law should not trump our laws. Note that the actual ruling referenced international law also. One more step to the new world order and the surrender of U.S. sovereignty to everyone but the U.S.

    • 45caliber

      Sadly, a couple of new Supreme Court justices have already stated that we should take foreign law into account on their decisions.

  • JC & the boys

    When did the people of Oklahoma lose their right to pass an ammendment to their State Constitution which prohibits anything they desire to prohibit? The courts and judges only become involved at trial when an action is brought in an agrieved charge which tests the validity or legality of the ammendment for the case or charge at question. Judges have no right to overturn the will of the people just because they don’t like what the majority of the people have decreed by majority vote in a constitutional ammendment. This may or may not be a good ammendment, but nevertheless it has been passed by 70% of the people of Oklahoma and is not a judicial issue until some claim or charge is made in a grievance or case.

    • TML

      “When did the people of Oklahoma lose their right to pass an ammendment to their State Constitution which prohibits anything they desire to prohibit?”

      When it violates the United States Constitution, that’s when.

    • ohoh

      It’s one of the unfortunate consequences of the 14th Amendment that stripped states of fundamental rights formerly protected under the 10th Amendment. Just one of the big steps in the progressive dismantling of the U.S. Constitution that favored federal power at the expense of state and individual rights. This perversion and the legal mutations that followed usurped the Founders’ intended system of federalism and is now the false ideology taught and celebrated in public education and the corrupt foundation supporting arrogant, destructive progressives everywhere.

    • James

      JC, Oklahoma didn’t lose its right to amend their constitution. But if they honor that federal court decision, they have acquiesced to federal control of their state. They should ignore that decision and proceed as though it never happened. A federal judge was just testing the conviction of that State.
      In general, state constitutions prohibit meddling with religion, just as the First Amendment prohibits Congress from doing it. But, there is no reason why Oklahoma can’t declare itself a Christian State and outrlaw other religions.

  • Thor

    Some folks posting here seem to be a bit confused about the place and influence of Sharia Law in American jurisprudence. Topping the list is the person posting under the moniker ‘Flashy.’ The fact is that law of any kind seems to be confusing to such types. First, there is some confusion over the relationship between the issue of free speech and religious practice, both addressed by the 1st Amendment. The amendment says simply (and exclusively) the Federal government shall neither abridge free speech nor endorse a religion. When it comes to influencing morality in law, secularists like Flashy want Christianity to be silent; but, when it comes to free speech, Sharia Law may make itself heard in court as some kind of sacred influence. The motivation for this ideology is yet to be determined, but it should be pointed out that there are only two sources of Sharia Law—the Quran and the Sunnah—both exclusively religious in nature. How then can a rational person justify the influence of Sharia in American jurisprudence and exclude Christian principles—particularly when American jurisprudence has two historic sources—Judeo-Christian morality (the basis for the British common law system) and Florentine law. It can mean only one thing: Flashy (and those of that ilk) are using the wrong organs and orifices to communicate their ideology—gut and sphincter rather than brain and blow hole. Sharia Law has a remedy for that, by the way…the guilty are buried up to their solar plexus and stoned.

  • Arch

    The best analogy for sharia law is the KKK or the mafia. The Klan enforced a form of fundamentalist Christian law. Catholics, Jews, blacks, Asians an Latinos were second class. Cross the KKK and you would not wind up in court; your home or your business would catch fire. Refuse to take the advice of a Don and something bad would happen.

    Oklahoma will ban sharia law one way or the other.

  • Kilgore Trout

    It’s been a few months since I have taken any time to read comments on this site and I see nothing has changed. The level of cognitive thought is at a third grade level where the most repeated admonishment is “if you don’t like this country – leave.” A tip of the hat to Flashy for attempting to illuminate the uneducated masses, for there seem to be many here. Those who would believe in American Exceptionalism gives them the right to rape and pillage the world as they see fit. One can only imagine that if Christ was born into the world today he would be labeled a terrorist for sure.

    • Sirian

      Then am I to assume that your intellectual level is at the 4th grade level? Being it as it may then may I ask why did you trouble yourself with posting anything? Is you 4th grade, superior intellect, satisfied or are you still seeking an additional “Participation Award Certificate”? Have a good day.

  • robert

    Hey, if you don’t like our constitutional laws then go back to wherever you came from and if you are a citizen of our country and don’t like our laws then go to whatever country suits your ideology and views. When you are in the majority and have your laws in place then I can make my choice to live with them or leave myself. Until then, live with it knothead.

    • Robert Smith

      Why not put the “Malius Malificarum” back on the Judge’s desk?

      That’s christian, isn’t it?

      Rob

      • 45caliber

        I love the way you and other libs quote things that have been dropped and forgotten years ago. Why not bring back the Inquisition while you are at it? You’d be one of the first burnt. But then, it was done away with because it didn’t allow freedom, wasn’t it. Further, what about the Crusades? Those happened about 8 hundred years before American was ever founded. Are you going to blame us for those too?

        Besides, both had nothing to do with religion. It was all about greed.

      • TML

        “Besides, both had nothing to do with religion.”

        The inquisitions and the Crusades had nothing to do with religion? You really need to do more research. It had everything to do with religion.

  • Gringo Infidel

    Another activist judge legislating from the bench and pandering to a corrosive minority.

    NULLIFICATION

  • 45caliber

    Church law – of any sort – is not offically to be used in any court. It is to be codified by some legislature (state or federal) and then signed into law by the executive officer (governor or President). Then – and only then – can it be enforced or decided upon.

    What this judge is basically saying is that any law that banns a law that is NOT decided upon in such a manner is illegal. He is stating that foreign laws MUST be enforced here too.

    Frankly, that not only means that Sharia law can be used in court here but also any law passed by any country in the world. For instance, in Hitler’s Germany, the law stated that all Jews were to be arrested and executed simply because they were Jews. Under Sharia law, anyone who worships a different religion can be killed.

    Are we supposed to obey those laws here now due to this judge’s stupid decision?

    • Flashy

      i read the ruling. He doesn’t state a foreign law or a religious based law must be considered. He is stating this one doesn’t pass the Constitutionality test.

      • 45caliber

        And what Constitutional text did she use?

  • 45caliber

    I’m curious.

    Back about fifteen years ago the organization called Patriots discovered a law passed in the late 1700′s to stop judges from misusing their power.

    If you felt that your rights under the Constitution were violated by a judge – any judge except the Supreme Court – you were to write a letter to the judge demanding that he either prove that your rights were not violated or that he restore your rights. You took it to the County Clerk where the judge was along with an extra copy. The County Clerk would then send the letter to the judge.

    If he did not respond within 30 days, you returned to the County Clerk. If they had not received anything from the judge either, you take a statement to that affect from the County Clerk, along with his copy of your letter to the sheriff.

    The sheriff was then required, by law, to collect $100,000 dollars (in 1700′s dollars) from the judge and deliver it to you. The law even spelled out in what order the sherrif was to seize the money/property. The ONLY thing exempted from seizure was his wedding ring.

    Note a couple of things here. There is NO going to court to sue the judge. Nor is the judge allowed to go to court to avoid it. He satisfies your question or he pays. Period.

    When they discovered this law fifteen years ago, it was still in affect. It was used against a judge in Houston who had violated a man’s rights to speedy trial by trying to force the man to be late for a trial date so he could find him guilty. The judge “retired”.

    I wonder if this law is still in existence…

    • Flashy

      I did a search for that case. none found. Care to let someone know where to locate it?

      otherwise, it’s a fable.

  • Ray

    Activist Judges that are about using their power to shape America into what they think it ought to be should be removed from the bench and in some cases where they have obviously trashed the intent of the people expressed by the petition process they should lose all rights to ever participate in the judicial system again. Probably the most glaring is the issue of homosexuality, which they have used their judicial authority to impose on the citizenry even though the issue has been rejected in every case when the people spoke out.

    • Flashy

      Just because a subject doesn’t gain a majority of approval, does not mean it isn’t protected under our Consitution. Failed Social Studies in elementary school did ya ?

  • http://www.personalliberty.com/news/paul-holding-strong-leading-into-first-primary/?eiid= William L collins

    if they don’t want to abide by our laws move back to there country because if we where in there country we have to abide by there laws this goes to show you that we have to many judges that beleve in the coran and Islamic laws not the laws of the people of the people by the people or of the freedoms of the people thats why we need to vote for ron paul and start take our country back thats one of the change Obama promised we will come under the rule of the Islamic LAW and not under the laws of the consitition or the bill of rights freedoms of the people for the people now if you want to come under Islamic Law vote Obama but if you don’t vote for RON PAUL

    • Robert Smith

      What would Ron Paul think of someone lying for him? Posted: “thats one of the change Obama promised we will come under the rule of the Islamic LAW ”

      Show us ONE quote from Obama indicating that Islamic law should prevail.

      ONE

      Or quit lying. Isn’t that one of the big christian commandments?

      Rob

      • libertytrain

        “lying” must be the word that replaced your endless use of “acorns” – you sure get on a kick with a single word….

  • John Adams

    In a democratic society, in which there is a conscious, diligent attempt to maintain a clear separation between the “laws” of religion, (that is, any and ALL religions), and the laws of the state, there should ideally be very little if no interplay between them.

    However, even if we disregard the fact that the secular laws of the land and the various rules or “laws” of religious observance – their interpretation, and the eventual decisions that flow from them – are the product of human processes, and hence prone to subjective influence, sub- and unconscious bias, and a host of other “random effects” (e.g. media influence, political pressure) that might lead to an intermingling or “hybridization” of rationales for rendering secular legal decisions, we must always remember that the origin of all law is grounded in the notion of social control, and most typically the prevention of behavior that makes social interaction unpredictable or dangerous. That is why we punish criminals who disrupt the social fabric, and promote the timely filing of tax forms and regulatory documentation – through legislation that encourages cooperation and sanctions refusal and/or disobedience.

    It is sheer foolishness to think that the 10 commandments of Moses are not reflected in the laws of most democratic nations. To say that we have adopted these out of convenience, and expanded upon them “ad nauseum” may or may not be true. The essential fact is, those commandments would serve us well as the basis for law, regardless of whether they were developed by ancient Egyptians, Romans, Hindus, Buddists, or Muslims for that matter, purely because they give us the fundamental tools by which we can control social behavior and install fairness and predictibility in our relations with others.

    I believe that placing the question of whether or not sharia law should or shuold not be considered by the courts in a plebiscite or referendum was pure political poppycock, designed to give the citizens of Oklahoma a chance to express their displeasure with the slow, relentless infusion of Islam into American society generally.

    The return of a 70 percent acknowledgement is some evidence (but not perhaps overwhelming) that Americans do NOT wish to see their secular culture overrun by religious intolerance; not in their courts, on their streets, or in their homes. This view is bolstered by points made by various writers above: How do women fare under sharia? What appeal mechanism is there when a Muslim cleric says “Yes” or “No”? Is there any consideration of secular law inherent in the decisions of such clerics in America?

    Whether this is so or not, we must stand fast by the Constitution, and whenever two points within this august charter are brought into conflict with each other, our judges must hammer out decisions – and publish them for all the world to see – that respect both individual and collective rights and freedoms, to the best of their ability. This is never an easy task, but I believe we must continue to have faith that, despite their human failings and inextricable biases (such as I have described above), they will largely attempt to render decisions that are modelled on the spirit of the law, regardless of which references, religious or otherwise, are employed as they wrestle with these difficult cases.

    And finally, I take comfort from knowing that it is still impossible for any person to rise to the position of court judge (though not, perhaps, justice of the peace) in this country without achieving a significant degree of secular education in U.S. law, and the higher the position, the longer the tenure in this form of education. This alone prevents the undermining and corruption of secular principles by evangelists and religious fanatics of any stripe. Our system is still working, and vigilance will see that it is ever so!

    • Robert Smith

      Claimed: “It is sheer foolishness to think that the 10 commandments of Moses are not reflected in the laws of most democratic nations.”

      Really… I’m not gonna let ANY government tell me to to forsake any gods but that one brutal christian one.

      Honoring mommy and daddy? Sometimes that’s just a bad idea.

      Laws are a social contract among those in this nation.

      What’s “christian” about 55mph?

      What’s “christian” about deravatives?

      What’s “christian” about a marriage lisense?

      In America even atheists can marry.

      Rob

      • TML

        “Claimed: “It is sheer foolishness to think that the 10 commandments of Moses are not reflected in the laws of most democratic nations.””

        I find it ridiculously ignorant when people claim this, considering the very first Amendment calls for a separation of church and state… or at the very least is in complete opposition to the first commandment. Frankly, the ONLY commandments that are actual laws concern murder and stealing.

        Graven images, taking the lords name in vain, honoring father and mother, adultery, and all the rest have no reflection in the laws of this country.

  • CP

    This is a case that, regardless of any lower court decisions, would be forced to the Supreme Court, simply because of the areas it covers. It sounds simple, but you get to looking into the legal ramifications of a decision going either direction, and it will HAVE to be decided at the highest levels. As things are going now, it may take an amendment to the US constitution to actually allow or prevent Sharia law’s implementation.

    • Flashy

      It won’t even come close to a SCOTUS issue.

      Name one part of Sharia law that either isn’t already codified or outright illegeal. Those that aren’t, if they were codified, would they be unConsitutional as their own act? So add in those which are not already in law, cite those that are objectionable yet allowed under our Consitution. Go ahead…knock yourself out. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to find any …

  • Gary

    What is being missed by some here is that this is not a religous issue in OK it is a law issue. If we wanted sharia law to be our governing force here our founders would have put it in place in the beginning.Though the muslims of the world muddy the water between the two and force people of that faith to live by it. If you don’t like the laws that this country was founded upon than you have choices pick one that does not infringe on my or anybody elses rights.

    • 45caliber

      Gary:

      ” He said the ban on Islamic law would likely affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death.”

      What the issue is about is not what the law says. It is about their desire to use their Islamic laws to override our laws.

      We do not have religious laws in our country – period. Our laws were written by legislatures and signed into law by executives of government. Most of our original laws were codified “common law” as recognized in most countries of the world. Such things as “you can’t murder people”, “you can’t steal”, etc. Those are not actually religious laws. If you tried to go to court and quotes some church law, regardless of the religion, you’d get laughed at.

      We have laws that allow a person to live as they wish – as long as they don’t try to infringe on someone’s else’s freedom. The problem is that Sharia law DOES infringe on other’s freedom. For instance, it is illegal here to murder your wife or children because of “honor”. It is illegal to physically abuse your wife and children – regardless of what Sharia law states. And you can write a will to leave your possessions to anything you desire already.

      That is the real problem that this person and others like him don’t like. They want EVERYONE to live under their religious laws and do not want or intend to allow people to have the freedom to live otherwise.

      The people of OK did NOT pass a law that forbade him to live under his religious laws – it simply forbade using those religious laws in a court of law to justify actions that are illegal under our existing laws. And it forbade him forcing others to live the way he wanted others to live.

      • Sirian

        Very well said 45, very well said. It is very upsetting to many that we Okies aren’t quite as ignorant as they have been led to believe.

      • Robert Smith

        stated: “We do not have religious laws in our country – period. ”

        Really…

        “It’s a baaaaaabeeeeeeee” aint religious?

        Gays marrying ain’t an “abomination?”

        Assisted suicide…

        Take religion out of the opposition and guess what! No viable opposition.

        Rob

      • 45caliber

        No, a baby is NOT religious. And as I said elsewhere here, homosexuality is not banned because of religion so much as it is due to health reasons like Aids (which is now ignored as a hazard). So go elsewhere to complain.

  • http://norman@cates-family.com Norman F.

    This is what I call an “Ego Decision”. That is where a judge is confronted with a case that is so simple and direct that the decision will be little noted if he makes the most obvious and lawful decision.
    But, if he makes the decision that is opposite to reason and common sense, he may become famous as the appeal goes, eventually, to the Supreme Court as the (place name here) decision. Whether he, eventually, wins or loses, all future law books will have his decision published and his name prominently displayed.

    • Sirian

      This happens all the time out of the 9th. Unfortunately Norman, it has grown way out of proportion nationwide. What’s so troubling about it though is that too many people don’t recognize it for what it is. That’s another problem, a very sizable problem indeed.

  • Brian

    The ide that foreign or religious law has any bearing on our courts is treason.

    • Flashy

      Where was that suggested?

  • Ted Crawford

    Robert Smith
    By what authority do you declare Christianity “foreign to U.S. Law and the Constitution”? This assurtion of yours is delusional at best, and this is comming from a Diest! I hold no belief in the Judeao (sp?) Christian God!

    • Flashy

      Ummm..care to name some ‘christian law’ which is aceptable based solely upon the religous holding? Can’t…BECAUSE IT IS FOREIGN TO THE BASIS FOR OUR LEGAL SYSTEM

      • Ted Crawford

        Well Flashy we might want to look to the Founders for some guidence.
        “we have no Government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is inadaquate for the government of any others” John Adams
        “We’ve staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of Government, far from it! We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God” James Madison

      • Flashy

        OK…you cited personal views of two who were engaged in the drafting of the Constitution. Care to show how that and a buck 28 means anything to what the Constitution states?

        Think it through. pretend you are living in 1790 or thereabouts. And madison etc stated the above. If you disagreed, that was your right. And it did not mean either was in the Constitution. I mean, that’s why there was so much negotiation and the document barely made it through the debate and various votes. You’re going to be thinking it was a darn good thing such wasn’t in the Constitution finally adopted. Especially if you are a Quaker, or Amish, or Catholic, etc (I believe there were some adherents to the referenced. I don’t believe there was a jewish representative though I may well be wrong on that)

        now…flash to today. Pres. Obama states health care is a Right. Ya gonna cite his statements as “proof’ it is?

        THINK

      • Robert Smith

        Flashy declared: “Can’t…BECAUSE IT IS FOREIGN TO THE BASIS FOR OUR LEGAL SYSTEM”

        Religion is NOT an issue in our government. It’s that simple.

        I can’t help but wonder why the extreme right wing wants to disregard the WE THE PEOPLE.

        WE THE PEOPLE.

        Don’t ever forget it.

        Those right wing christians who want to lie about our founding fathers and their intent need to be reminded of WE THE PEOPLE.

        Rob

    • wireline

      Whoo, another product of revisionist/progressive edukation in the public “fool” system. Go try this in Iran Rob and tell them how bad it is living under Islamic religion when you get there. Now there is a country that mixes their law and religion. If you want to argue apples and oranges.

      • Robert Smith

        The “aples and organges” in America are: WE THE PEOPLE.

        To claim otherwise relative to our Constitution is an outright lie.

        It’s that simple. It’s what the Founding Fathers stated.

        Rob

    • wireline

      Ted has someone been trying to force you to follow Christian-Judeo beliefs?

      You are kind of confusing me here with your point. Have you not be free to believe or not believe as you see fit, no matter how delusional those beliefs might be. On the whole I mean, as long as it doesn’t intefer with the beliefs of others to practice or not practice their religion.

      • Ted Crawford

        I’ll allow another Founder to answer for me “It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason as to administer medication to the dead” Thomas Jefferson

      • Robert Smith

        wireline asks: “Ted has someone been trying to force you to follow Christian-Judeo beliefs?”

        Let’s see…

        Prayer in schools.

        “Intelligent Design” in science classes.

        Abstinance only sex education.

        Usurping the founding fathers and claiming they wanted America to be christian and forgetting “We the PEOPLE.”

        The Boy Scouts were declared to be a religion so they could discriminate against atheists and gays.

        Rob

  • Sirian

    This will undoubtedly end up in the Supreme Court. There is to much obvious evidence that allowing Sharia law to be subversively installed for a specific sect of people has grown way beyond its supposed limited boundaries since. The problems that it has incurred in the UK and elsewhere threatens on a daily basis the livelihood of so many. The people of Oklahoma overwhelmingly voted this down yet but a few – one in particular – thinks otherwise and prefers to twist the meaning of our Constitution so as to favor something that will in reality benefit none. Our country was and is founded on Judeo-Christian principles and laws yet another religious course of action is supposedly better? Stand back people, if this is fully allowed by the SCOTUS, we might as well pack it in for anything else. LOCK & LOAD.

    • Flashy

      It will never make it to the SCOTUS. It is so obviously unconsitutional that there are few others which were more blatantly unconsitutional.

      Jeesh … that anyone even holds the concept this is a consitutional allowable law is halfway looney tunes and definitely a cnadidiate for a position in the American Taliban.

      One cannot be more anti-American than in thinking this is a good law discriminating against a religion.

      You don’t like some of the concepts? Then name the specifially and ban them one by one. I believe there is a prohibition against the extremes of Sharia law, as there are against some of the punishments prescribed by the Catholic and Protestant beliefs. I mean, last i heard stoning is not an acceptable metod of execution …

      • Sirian

        You obviously don’t live in Oklahoma Flashy. Go get your popcorn, scratch your ass and have a good day.

      • wireline

        I wonder where he got his edukation?(sic) on purpose, he apparently doesn’t like our system of law or the freedom we have under it

      • Flashy

        Could not be more wrong. I enjoy our system. that’s why I state anyone who thinks this ruling does not protect them is a fool, ignorant, or has ulterior motives of destroying the freedoms which I enjoy.

      • s c

        Effy, join the military. Volunteer for Afghanistan or wherever lives are being lost. Without a doubt, people like you will be the root cause for a revival of fragging – or other methods. YOU have serious problems between your ears (and I’m being POLITE).

  • http://norman@cates-family.com Norman F.

    What are you people thinking?
    Lets have Sharia law in our courts, and while we are about it lets have Russian, German, French, Chinese, UN, and any other that comes to mind!

    Oh, and lets go to any Muslim country and demand to be tried under US law. See how far you get with that!

    • Cincinnatus

      You make a good point. I would like to see all of these liberal woman in the US go to Saudi Arabia and protest for woman’s rights. Then I want to see all of these atheists go over to Yemen and spout their rhetoric. What they don’t realize that every country that allows sharia law in its boarders is collapsing from within.

  • Pat Livingston

    I agree that Muslims have the right to practice any religious beliefs they may choose, but their Sharia law does not apply to anybody else in this country, we have already established a Constitution and States have established, written and passed laws that apply in each State for all its citizens which have nothing to do with any religion whatsoever !

    • Flashy

      Ummm….not only that it’s all based upon fear and hate led by a few fanatic christians representing an American Taliban…but what if the voters had pushed through an amendment stating no ruling shall be based soely upon any belief derived from the bible? Such as faith healers refusing to have medical treatment for therr kids, one of whom died for lack of medical treatment, presenting as a defense their religious beliefs ?

      Would that be subject to being made illegal as a defense against manslaughter?

    • SweetOlBob

      As I previously stated, shariah law does not apply to even them if it is in contrast or conflict with any local laws. Under local laws you aare not allowed to beat your wife. You are not allowed to cut off hands or feet of adjudged criminals. You are not allowed to kill your children if you think they have dishonored you. You are not allowed to have multiple wives. You are not allowed to use little boys for pleasure.—— And you are not allowed to be judged solely by any other laws except those of the state you reside in.

      • independent thinker

        I believe the following post by another (Dennis48e ?) sums it up quite well.

        ““The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.””

        Since the courts cannot ignore international or sharia law if the defendent includes that law as part of his defence the court MUST consider said international/sharia law in its ruling. Whether it has happened in Oklahoma before or not is not tha point but rather the law is preventative medicine so to speak.

  • wireline

    Excellent Supreme Court case in the making here. They got it wrong,(as usual) Sharia “LAW” does not trump U.S. “LAW” or the “LAWS” of Oklahoma. Hopefully honesty and sanity will still prevail once this case goes to the SCOTUS. At least for some of them on the SCOTUS. This is a case about law not religion, his religous views are not violated. He is free to practice his religion in the U.S. What he is not free to do is inflict us all with their Sharia law, a law that is foreign to U.S. Law and the Constitution.
    People better wake up to what is happening here. There are some people trying to undermine our country and our system of law.

    • Robert Smith

      Hey wireline, I like what you say! “This is a case about law not religion, his religous views are not violated. He is free to practice his religion in the U.S. What he is not free to do is inflict us all with their Sharia law, a law that is foreign to U.S. Law and the Constitution.”

      Let’s try it just a little differently though…

      This is a case about law not religion, his religous views are not violated. He is free to practice his religion in the U.S. What he is not free to do is inflict us all with their christian law, a law that is foreign to U.S. Law and the Constitution.

      Rob

      • wireline

        Rob sorry to break it to you, but the founders who wrote the Constitution and the start of our U.S. Law, were religious and they were Christian for the most part. The law they gave us has served us well for the most part for over 200 years. Otherwise, you and I could not even have this debate about the rightness or wrongness of it. Isn’t that wonderful? The thing they debated in their time was, there was to be no religious test to hold public office. It was a big issue for them in their time. Protestants didn’t want Catholics to rule over them as they had already done in Europe.
        and likewise Catholics really didn’t want to live under a government that was going to be run by only Protestants. Did you get much “American” history when you were in the grade schools? World history? I am going to say you may be a product of the modern public “skool” system. With their revisionist history books. If you even got that much.

      • Flashy

        So the part of the First Amendment to the Constitution pertaining to seperation of church and State doesn’t really have any basis to exist unless it only pertains to “christians”? That’s your point?

        If the voters of Oklahoma next decided that they want to add “Juiac Law’, or say “Baptist mores” …that would be OK?

        Was there any basis, any case, and instance in Oklahoma where Sharia law or intrnational law was being used to assert any right or privilege?

        BTW..if an airliner goes down over Oklahoma…is it your position that International Agreements covering liability etc are not valid and that any time an airline flies over Oklahoma only the state law governs?

        Bad law, correct ruling.

      • Ted Crawford

        Flashy
        The clause “seperation of Church and State” appears neither in the first amendment nor ,in deed anywhere in the Constitution!
        First Clause, First Amendment “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
        The often abused sentence “,,,a wall of seperation between Church and State” appears no where in any Organic Document! It was part of a private correspondance between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association. He was simply assuring them that their religious rights were not granted by the Government but rather just as the Declaration of Independence had stated they were unalienable!

      • wireline

        Flashy, man are you hitting on the bong again? You need to lay off that stuff man, it really isn’t good for you, you know. It leads to muddled thinking

      • Sirian

        Ted & wireline,
        Flashy could’t possibly understand the 1st Amendment since he has without question found his bong more valuable. That’s why I told him further down to simply get his popcorn, scratch his ass and have a good day. More than likely he will hit his bong again as desert. Think so? Yep, more than likely. . . :)

      • Flashy

        Congress shall make no law prohibting the establishment of religion, or the free excercise thereof….

        OK…

        The amendment violates both parts … plainly.

        By singling out a particular religious dogma for banning by name, the State has given a stamp of disapproval on a religion. The State has now said it’s OK if the court wants to base a ruling in part on Hare Krishna law, but not on Islamic law. It doesn’t prohibit an act…it prohibits a certain specific religious dogma.

        It does prohibit the excercise of religion.

        Now…you want to ban an act? Hey, I’m all for banning beheadings. Right there with you. Same with stoning someone to death for playing with the neighbors wife. Not a problem.

        Good ruling. bad Law.

      • Robert Smith

        sirian says: “More than likely he will hit his bong again as desert. ”

        That would be a preference of the Rostifarians who are DENIED the practice of their sacraments relating to pot.

        Yet the christians get their drug of choice, alcohol, in their ritualized, actually ACTUAL (it’s that transsubstanciation thing where the bread and wine are ACTUALLY the body and blood of their savior) canabalism.

        Sure looks like religious discrimination to me.

        How’s ’bout that peyote and the American Indians? Denying them their religious drug of choice too, huh?

        Yup, sure looks like christian bigotry to me.

        Rob

      • Cincinnatus

        Rob’s degree in European Art History only taught him to hate America and expect to get everything for free.

      • Robert Smith

        Why are you lying about what degree I may have?

        Isn’t one of them there christian commandment things about lying?

        I haven’t posted what my degree is in.

        Rob

      • libertytrain

        “lying” – another favorite word of robs – how predictable he’s become.

      • Lastmanstanding

        wireline…you have to remember,these guys like barry believe “the constitution is a living, breathing document.”

        Soon we’ll see how it all shakes out

      • SweetOlBob

        I don’t believe anyone here is arguing abot the practice of religion. What is wrong here is that an individual or group of individuals living in a self governing location or State do not have the right to be judged by any other laws but the laws of that State.
        A person claiming a muslim must follow the laws of the state and country in which they reside and not demand that other laws apply to them only and that they are not required to follow any law but their own. The court decision was blatantly wrong.

      • Jimmy

        absolutely correct ‘Bob. We voted 70% said no other law except the constitution. The US constitution and OKs constitution NOT any other. How #@%#*&^ hard is that to understand!!! Thats how things get done we vote, majorities win. Don’t like it,leave this fine country we will not miss any of you.

      • NC

        Jimmy, if state majorities win how long would slavery have continued in the southern states? That is the exact reason we have a 14th amendment. The 13th amendment gave the freed slaves full protection under the Constitution but the various states started passing Jim Crow laws to limit their Constitutional rights. The 14th amendment was added to provide that no state law (even one with a 70% OR MORE majority) CANNOT INFRINGE ON A US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. All religions under under the 1st amendment are free from Federal lawa and therefore free from state laws per the 14th that pertain to it as a religion!

  • Robert Smith

    Posted: “Part of the amendment read: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

    I don’t want the courts considering that brutal version or right wing christian law that insists that kids be killed for mouthing off, cheeseburgers are an abomination, or same sex couples are offensive to their god.

    In America where our Constitution bans establishing a state religion why do so many avocate that their religion rule those of us who aren’t part of it?

    Rob

    Rob

    • wireline

      rob i don’t know where you live nor do I need to, but you don’t feel like you have been free to practice your religion or not to practice your religion as you see fit??? You sound like you are in rebellion to the whole Constitution and U.S. Law as it now stands. Does it really upset you that much? Has someone been violating your rights to practice not practice? specifically

      • Flashy

        “Has someone been violating your rights to practice not practice? specifically”

        Oklahoma tried.

      • Robert Smith

        WFrom wireline: “Has someone been violating your rights to practice not practice? specifically…”

        Not mine because I’m not the focus around here. Here is an excellent example.

        Wicca has been attacked by some in our military. One can look at the Washington Post for some of the opening up of our military to other religions at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/june99/wicca08.htm

        BTW, you can also see the vicious opposition to Wicca by then Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.)

        It was only relatively recently that Wicca religious symbols were allowed in Arlington Cemetary.

        Rob

      • libertytrain

        recently or not, they are available for members of the military. http://www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp

    • Cincinnatus

      Rob,

      Wow – you need to double the dose because your current meds are not working.

      >>>kids be killed for mouthing off
      Well under sharia law honor killings of females is expectable – it take it this is what you are talking about. muslims killing woman because they let someone see their ankle or read a book.

      >>>>cheeseburgers are an abomination
      Seems to me the cities and states that are banning food are the most liberals states and cities like San Francisco or New York. Seems to me the blubbery royal concubine in the white house is the one that is banning food. Have you read anywhere that Wyoming wants to ban burgers? Seems your liberal losers are the ones telling people what to eat.

      Get a clue because you liberal arts degree doesn’t make you smart.

      • Ted Crawford

        Very true Cincinnatus! Led by Michelle, I’m not a mad black woman, despite the hugh preponderance of evidence to the contrary, Obama!

      • Flashy

        OK..so make a prohibition aginst those acts. what’s the problem? Why must a religion be specifically singled out carte blanche? So you would say a court ruling based upon Krishna law is OK? How about Wiccan law? Shall we just go down the line ?

    • wireline

      After further reflection on your unhsppiness with U.S. Law Rob, maybe the U.S. isn’t a good fit for you. Maybe try Iran with their Islamic Republic and see how that works for you see how “FREE” you would be living under their system of “LAW” If you think it is really so awful here in the U.S., there really are a number of other countries you could try maybe more to your liking. Some of us, well most of us kind of like what the forefathers gave us. You sound as if you may be chaffing under our system of laws.

    • 45caliber

      Rob:

      I actually don’t know of a single law that is a copy of the Christian religious laws. Including the homosexual law. Our original laws are basically copies of “common law”. Most recent laws are corporate laws. The anti-homosexual laws (which are mostly repealed) were set up due to health concerns – and probably still should be due to Aids. And I know of NO law that advocates murdering children (unless you are referring to the court decision to allow abortion – which I doubt if you are). That is a law (actually a court decision rather than a law) most of us wish to change.

  • Flashy

    Excellent ruling by the courts to protect our Rights against knee jerk hysteria of a mob led nd urged on by fanatics attempting to mandate their own narrow dogmatic beliefs over the People.

    Excellent ruling tossing out a bad law.

    • Robert Smith

      Hi Flashy,

      You post: “urged on by fanatics attempting to mandate their own narrow dogmatic beliefs over the People.”

      I couldn’t agree more!

      That “It’s a baaaabbbbbeeeeee” is a favorite of religious fanatics.

      That “Same sex couples are an abomination” is another favorite of religious fanitics.

      Reefer madness… That’s just fanatics.

      Rob

      • Tom W.

        Rob, have you ever thought about how hypocritical it is of the GLBT community to want the rights to gay marriage? Marriage is a biblical mandate, their vile life style is as anti-biblical as you can get. I have no problem with what consenting adults do behind closed doors as long as it is with other consenting adults, that’s between them and God. But when they start whining that they should have SPECIAL rights thay only apply to them, and want to teach my children that their abominatable life style shouldn’t be considered vile when God’s Word clearly states, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” – Romans 1:26-32
        It doesn’t get much plainer than that! No wonder they hate God’s Word so much. It calls them out for exactly what they are. And you sir, I know nothing of your sexual preference, would allow laws to come into this country’s system that would call for their BRUTAL execution?! You are either the worst kind of hypocrite or just plain ignorant! Probably the latter!!!

      • Tom W.

        For Your Own Good
        January 13, 2012
        “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’” — Genesis 2:18
        According to the most recent statistics, about half of marriages in the United States end in divorce. And these statistics hold true even among those who consider themselves religiously committed and Bible-believing. Clearly something is missing when it comes to keeping our marriage vows alive and well. In thinking about marriage, a good place to start is with God’s perspective. Certainly in the Jewish faith, marriage is one of the most sacred institutions. That comes from our understanding of marriage as being ordained by God from the very beginning. In fact, when you look at the first two chapters of Genesis, God considers each act of creation as “good” — from the sea to the birds, from the sun and moon, to the entire animal kingdom. It’s all good. But when it comes to creating human beings to fill the earth, God deems His creation “very good.” Nevertheless, after God gives Adam a beautiful place to live and delicious food to eat, God recognizes that something is not good — “It is not good for the man to be alone.” At first, God brings Adam every type of animal and bird as companions. But this isn’t good enough. So God creates woman as the very best partner for man. And when Adam sees her, he totally agrees! As the Bible says, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). You see, marriage was given as a gift from God to Adam and Eve, and indeed, to all future mankind. Marriage was not just an institution brought about by an ancient society for convenience’s sake. It was ordained by God. For through marriage, we are able to fulfill our biblical obligation to procreate and fill the earth. Marriage represents the biblical ideal for man and woman — providing for a source of love, intimacy, comfort, security, and companionship.
        But, as we all recognize, strong and successful marriages are not easily achieved. One thing we can do to strengthen and protect our marriage is to include God as part of that bond. As Jewish literature suggests, God Himself helps in the selection of mates and then dwells amidst married couples who share a common devotion to Him.
        If you have been given the gift of marriage, consider how you might strengthen and protect it by inviting God to be part of your union. With prayers for shalom, peace,
        Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
        President

      • Glynn A.

        Even though no less frightening today than it has ever been, none of this is new to me. I have studied and researched Islam for forty years and am more convinced now than ever that ISLAM spelled backwards is MALSI, another off beat, tongue-in-cheek reference to satan; among his many other titles. This whole idea of turning piracy into a religion was the brainchild of a renegade camel herder who happened to marry into money and used it, and a paranoid vision to turn his otherwise dead in the water future into a mega empire, worth untold millions. Of all the world’s 1.2 billion muslims, savvy old Muhammad was the only one with brains. There hasn’t been one of his intellectual and cunning brilliance since.

      • sunshineIQ

        This is America. We have constitutional law here. Just who are the imperialists?

    • wireline

      You apparently do not understand the subject at all, but think you do. At least that is what I am hoping here.
      You do not really want Sharia law for the people of the U.S. or Oklahoma for that matter. It is really dangerous to even consider their law as a law Americans want to live under. NO WAY!!! A very foreign concept to our Constitution and U.S. LAW.

      • Flashy

        Was it ever considered? Was it ever proposed? So some fear and hate idea of discrimination, hyped from some nonsense, is enough to intrude upon the First Amednment and break down that wall of religious beliefs being protected?

        how bout if the amendment stated no ruling shall be based up “Christian” law? Oh wait…that’s different right? How so?

      • Ray

        You sound like a guy who has something together. It is common knowledge, at least to the founding Fathers that this nation, I’m speaking of America, was founded on Christian principles,not islamic or any other religious principle, and your disagreement or disparaging remarks towards Christianity doesn’t change the facts on iota. Any court in the USA that would cause any citizen of America to be subject to any other law should be removed from the judicial system.

      • Flashy

        Where does this ruling cause that? What is allowed now that this court has ruled as it did? Please be specific. In all seriousness…

      • cat lover

        I agree, Ray. And this overturning of the Oklahoma law is just another insidious encroachment on our Constitutional Law. This has happened in so many areas of our Government and our laws. That being said, if these Muslims want Sharia law, let it apply to them. No other Americans of any other religions should be held to the Sharia law. Let the Muslims kill and maim each other under their law. Maybe they will do themselves all in and we will be rid of them from the USA.

      • Robert Smith

        From cat lover: “No other Americans of any other religions should be held to the Sharia law. ”

        No other Americans of any other religions should be held to the christian law.

        IOW, America is a melting pot and NO religion should force its beliefs upon other Americans.

        Rob

      • Genn

        US Constitution is set up to protect the rights of people, Sharia law does not…this is the problem. Get it!

      • eddie47d

        There is no Sharia Law anywhere in the USA. There is no Sharia Law in Oklahoma and hadn’t been. The voters were bamboozled into voting for something that didn’t exist in the first place. Fear dictated the vote not common sense or decency.

      • Rick Johnson

        to eddie47d

        Clearly you have not gotten your fact straight. The State of Florida recently used Sharia law to determine the outcome of a law suit. In NJ a court ruled that a man did not rape his wife because Sharia law says a woman cannot deny her husband sex. Your claim that Sharia law is not in the US is very false.

      • Tom W.

        What about the rights of the Muslim wife or daughter? As a citizen of the US should they be a victim to the ‘justice’ of their husband or father? No one group should have special rights under the laws of this country! Religious, social or other wise. If a person commits a crime against a gay person, should their penalty be more severe for that crime than if their victim would’ve been straight? If a Muslim is caught stealing from another Muslim, are we as a judicial system going to allow the perpitrator’s hand to be severed? As the Brits would say, POPPYCOCK!!! One of the greatest things about our judicial system, when administered accordingly, is that we are all equal! Gay, stright, male, female, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Baptist, atheist, agnostic, wealthy,(And I agree this point needs some work) or poor. We are all to be treated equally and fairly if administered righteously. Are there abuses and miscarriages? Yes and we as a people should work to correct them whenever they occur!
        I believe that this is just an underhanded ploy by the far left in this country to furthur the gay agenda. God help them, as us all, if Sharia gets it’s nose under the tent! And I truly believe that it already has!!!!

      • Alex Frazier

        Flashy, you don’t understand the precedent they are setting. If American courts are forced to consider Sharia law over United States law, it opens a can of worms that eventually makes a case for muslims to be allowed, under an alleged first amendment privilege, to stone young women who are found to be wanton.

        Take a look at this. It’s a 17 year old girl who was stoned to death for falling in love with someone from a different sect:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouNwX3-ucOg

        This is what Sharia law promotes. You’ll also find videos on the hanging of two boys, aged 15 and 17, for being gay, a 19 year old young woman stoned to death for entering a beauty pageant, and a 16 year old girl hanged for being immoral, though not because she behaved wantonly, but because she was raped.

        Do NOT defend Sharia law. It has no place in the United States. If they want to freely practice their non-violent religious customs like the wearing of the burka, that’s fine, but the Constitution should NOT be used as a tool to implement foreign relious law under the guise of religious freedom.

        Furthermore, the Constitution expressly forbids Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion in the first amendment. The States are prohibited from making or enforcing any law that abridges the privileges of the citizens of the United States. The courts do not create the laws. They only enforce the Constitution and the laws that are made in pursuance of the Constitution.

        There is no viable case here for consideration of Sharia law in a judicial proceeding before a United States court. There is only a case to consider Sharia law if someone is discriminating against a muslim for exercising their freedom of religion in any of their non-violent religious customs.

      • Flashy

        As to those acts you cited…correct me if I err, but aren;t those acts illegal nowadays? And stating it would be allowed as a religious argument….ummm…the bible is replete with instanes of snuffing someone for a “sin”, I do not believe we allow that either.

        As to your First Amendment argument, I answered that is a later post.

      • independent thinker

        If muslim beliefs (shiria law) must be followed in court decisions concerning muslims then then Christian beliefs MUST be followed when considering cases concerning Christians.

      • Flashy

        Here here ! Let’s bring back stoning ! Someone will make a fortune selling tickets to watch !

      • Robert Smith

        From Flashy: “Let’s bring back stoning !”

        Not to be confused with getting stoned, I presume.

        Rob

      • Flashy

        I dunno..half the TPers i meet seem to be somewhat slow upstairs. Ya think they’re practicing christians and taking a newer interpretation of the Bible?

      • Alex Frazier

        Flashy, whether or not the mentioned acts from my last post are illegal misses the point I made. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not Sharia law. If you allow consideration of a foreign law in matters of United States law, then you open a can of worms that could lead to civil rights issues in the distant future.

        Whether or not people were “snuffed” for sin in the Bible is irrelevant. We don’t enforce Christian law either, except where judges overstep their authority.

        And I really don’t know why you keep referring to Christians. It is the Jewish faith that believed in stoning under the law of Moses. Christians are under the law of faith. The New Testament does not teach stoning. It teaches mercy.

      • http://na. Robert Bradfield

        Hi, its that South African again.

        Flashy, No country in the world can function with two versions of law, in your case a constitutional republic and the other a law that removes the rights of people for whatever reason. If a person enters a new country then the laws of that country has to be followed and respected. If one is not happy with the laws, then one is always welcome to go to a country where you are happy with their laws. Sharia laws are one of those legal systems where women are treated as property, men are portrayed as almighty and whatever else is condenmed to death. No free person should only have those choices. Muslims choose to move to your country, if they are not happy, then there are other places where they can go to that will support them. Freedom of speach also implies freedom of choice and I can not see anyone threatening Muslims to stay in your country, I might be wrong but I doubt it.

        I am a Christian, that believes that Jesus Christ, came to this world to do atonement for my sins. What ever laws are enacted in the world has as its basic principle the Judaism ten commandments and the summary of the law that Jesus gave when asked which of the laws where the most important. That says that we are free to choose where we reside and if you differ from the general populace on spesific principles that you can move.

      • cat lover

        Well said, Robert. Let’s take this a step further. If the occupy people and all those who want socialist government have a problem with US laws and customs, I think they should check out other countries that accommodate their desires and lifestyles and move to those countries! That includes Barry and MO. They should go to and Arab country such as Iran or Saudi or other country and live under Islam/Sharia and dictatorial government. BO and MO should leave our government and laws and Free American way of life alone. AND STOP SPENDING MY TAXES ON LAVISH VACATIONS. I haven’t had one in years because I can’t afford it! Yes I’m envious. I’ll admit it.

      • Flashy

        I’m still asking. What part of Sharia law is objectionable that isn’t already covered by an existing codified law? The entire argument is foolish unless one thinks that any act discussed in a religious dogmatic view is allowed. Then we should not have prohibitions against stoning and other forms of maiming and death as discussed in the bible. Or maybe we should allow sex with young vrgins under the age of say ….i dunno …. 12 since i’m sure there’s a religion calling for it under their mores.

        To toss this law out is wise. to argue it should remain is foolishness.

      • Alex Frazier

        The part of Sharia law that is objectionable is the part that infringes on the rights of individuals living under that system. This is the United States. People are supposed to be free here.

      • Kenneth

        Be careful who you talk about and how you talk about them because you may end where you don’t want to be. You can rebel against “Christian” law all you want but that is not really what or who your rebelling against. There is someone behind those laws that set them in place for the protection of mankind. There is also someone out there who is angry because he got thrown out of God’s prescence and will do everything he can to destroy the crowning jewel of God,s creation, mankind.

      • Flashy

        Reading ken’s response, and y’all still think there’s no American Taliban?

      • bono

        The founding father’s had foresight enough to demand in our constitution the freedom of religion that so many craved upon venturing to come to America, why now should someone be driven so hard to encrouch upon the rights of one religion to be free as any other.
        We have our own legal-justice system in this country, no one religious belief should be thrust upon anyone. And, no one religious law should be forced upon another. The court was correct in siding with the constitution.

      • Rebecca Fahlin

        Flashy, Did you know that under Sharia Law it is illegal to be a
        non-Muslim punishable by death? Now, do you really want Sharia law in this country?
        I doubt it!

      • Jean

        Hi Rebecca! I think under Sharia you are killed not for BEING of some other faith but rather for BECOMING another faith by conversion from Islam. Now, aren’t you relieved to learn they are so tolerant??

      • joe1cr

        Boy old Newt sure was right with his statement of replacing these
        federal judges.U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange’s is out of order.
        The Constitution vests Congress
        with the power to create and abolish all federal courts, with the sole
        exception of the Supreme Court. Congress even has the power, as Congressman
        Steve King of Iowa frequently notes, to “reduce the Supreme Court to nothing
        more than Chief Justice Roberts sitting at a card table with a candle.”
        During the administration of Thomas Jefferson, the legislative and executive
        branches worked together to abolish over half of all federal judgeships(18 of
        35). While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and
        one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances, those who
        care about the rule of law can be relied upon to consider whatever
        constitutionally permissibly tools they can find to fight federal judges and
        courts exceeding their powers.? It is one of many possibilities to check
        and balance the judiciary.? Other constitutional options, including impeachment,
        are better suited in most circumstances to check and balance the judiciary.

      • Flashy

        So because the court ruled on an obviously unconstituional law, one that you support…toss the court out? Wow…hokayyyyy let’s all hold hands and celebrate Joe’s support for a dictatorship

      • Buster the Anatolian

        OH, then you support the right for a Christian group to picket right in front of an abortion clinic. You support the right of any Christian group to refuse to allow a homosexual to join. You support the right of a Christian property owner to refuse to rent/sell to a homosexual couple.

      • Flashy

        Buster…as far as #1, if the safety of those ustilizing the clinic is ensured and the protestors stay off of private property, yes. I don’t agree with thier views, but if #1 and 2 are covered, it is their Right.

        #2 … yes.

        #3 Nope. They are holding it for rent to the public.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        You as an individual own it you should have the right to rent it to whomever you want or refuse to rent to anyone you are opposed to renting to because of your religious beliefs. If it is corporate owned property you would have a legimitate argument but if said property is owned by an individual or religious group then they should have final say on who rents it based on their religious beliefs especially under this court ruling.

    • Cincinnatus

      Flashy – you haven’t a clue. The ‘narrow dogmatic beliefs’ you refer to is the current legal system. Turn off MSNBC, unsubscribe from the white house talking point, do a little research and then come back and talk to us like an educated adult.

      • wireline

        Flashy is trying to confuse Islamic Law and Islamic religion and mix the two together. It takes a clear mind to see the difference and not what the mainstream media tells him it is. Confusing for some I suppose, but hopefully not for all. I don’t think Flashy really wants a system of law similar to what the Islamic Republic of Iran has. There are a few people even in Iran that would love to have the religious freedoms that we have here in the U.S., to practice the reigion of their own choice. Openly without fear of reprisals or even DEATH. But it will be very hard for Flashy to relate to it, never having had to live under an extreme example of religious repression like the Islamic Republic of Iran has. He is free to spout off here in the U.S., but there are many countries where he would not be so free to do that. Enjoy it while it still free Flashy. Be careful what you wish for, if Sharia law should become our accepted law of the land you will not be nearly as free as you are now. If you chaff now under our system of law, it can be worse, much worse.

      • Sirian

        Very well said wireline, very well said.

      • fedup

        Very well said wireline. AS to rob smiths comment on the whole “same sex marriage” issue. It isn’t even mentioned in muslim countries! If you are found to be gay in their culture, they don’t say anything, they just stone you to death, you are considered an abomination to this earth, unclean. Thats the problem today, too much freedom and NO common sense. Whats sad is people like Flashy and Smithy will be the first to get their asses handed to them if the current admin. gets its way. Hitler and Stalin let the masses chant similar b.s. until they had complete power, then they wiped out unions, gays, and whole religious sectors, oh, and if you didn’t “Yes Suh” and kiss their asses when they were around, getting shot in the head or experimented on was the “consequence”, Hitler didn’t like to use the word “punishment”, he thought it sounded too severe.

      • libertytrain

        I think it’s also interesting how flashman and rob are so quick to denounce the Christians, and harass them about some of some of the Christians beliefs yet, I am extremely doubtful that these same two folks would venture onto a predominantly Muslim site and criticize for their antigay, anti woman stances – They have no courage, only critiques -

      • Robert Smith

        Posted: “I am extremely doubtful…”

        Believe! Can’t you feel the warmth?

        Believe that those who hate the extremist right wing version of brutal christanity as posted around here by the likes of samurai and his ilk are ALSO opposing the other brutal religions.

        Simply because the brutalities of some christians is pointed out doesn’t mean that others of brutality aren’t cited also.

        Brutality and oppression are opposed by me from whatever direction it comes from.

        Rob

        Rob

      • libertytrain

        You should post some of the Muslim websites you voice your protests on – enlighten us.

      • Flashy

        if there was a part of Sharia law..or Chrisitian Law for that matter…that violated the Constitution, that law would be tossed out.

        Under this ruling, I’m much much safer from Sharia law, Christian law etc..and vastly more secure against the American Taliban.

        Here is one for you. Name one law under Sharia..or international law…that is either not covered under current law or would be unconsitutional if legislated or used as basis for a ruling.

        Go ahead…knock yourself out.

        Then, after the light bulb comes on…you can ask the pertinent question ” Hmmm…then what was the real reason this atrocity really proposed for?”

      • Arch

        There is a difference between allowing religious freedom and recognizing a super-national set of laws. Catholics and Protestants used to burn each other at the stake. We do not allow it. Religious sects practice of arranging marriages for 14 year old girls, lands their leaders in prison. The Hindus used to practice Sati – burning widows on their husband’s funeral pyre – until the British outlawed it.

        Muslim extremists believe that religious leaders’ interpretation of the Koran supersede civil and criminal codes. An imam in Yemen can rule that an army doctor is within his rights to kill US Army soldiers. Is that acceptable? An prominent doctor in Orchard Park was being divorced by his wife so he killed her with an axe. It that okay? Should we force women to have their genitals mutilated? Is wife beating permissible? Is killing a non-muslim in jihad and making his wife and children sex slaves an approved course of action? Should residents in a muslim neighborhood in Lackawanna NY prohibit the use of a public soccer field by non-muslims? Sharia law is not about putting down a prayer rug five times a day.

        The First Amendment prohibits the Federal government from adopting a state religion or interfering with the free practice thereof. The founding fathers were protecting the right of individuals to worship the God of their choice (or not).

      • Flashy

        All those acts you cited are illegal. They are not legal simply because of some dogmatic creed. Same is if Christians can’t stone to death the guy who’s sleeping with their wife.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “All those acts you cited are illegal. They are not legal simply because of some dogmatic creed. Same is if Christians can’t stone to death the guy who’s sleeping with their wife.”

        Flashy pants. When you rule that international/sharia law must be considered is US court cases then you allow the ignoring of US law in favor of international/sharia law. In other words “those acts” would be legal in the particular case if the accused claimed sharia law applied because of his religious beliefs.

      • Flashy

        Where did the ruling state Sharia or international law “must’ be considered?

      • hitthedeck

        flashy-we don’t need any more laws in America-it’s complicated enough already. With all the loopholes and cost of legislation the system is overloaded. We don’t two courts. Can’t you use common sense to see that the two cannot exist side by side? Sharia law has a number issue that stresses no other laws shall be recognized. Get a Koran and read up on a religion that recognizes no nation, no constitution or people. They only answer to one entity and that is Mohammad.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        The ruling said international/sharia law could not be excluded from the decision therefore if a person claimed them as part of their reason for their actions they MUST be considered as the applicable law under this judges ruling.

      • Alex Frazier

        Muslims are exempted from certain forms of security checks at airports, the women in particular, because of Sharia law.

        Muslim women are exempt from prohibitions on having your face covered in certain situations, because of Sharia law.

        The bathroom stalls in the mosques have no doors so the women can be supervised as needed, violating their individual rights to privacy, due to Sharia law.

        There are plenty of instances where unacceptable behavior or an unequal protection of the law are made possible through United States recognition of Sharia law under the guise of religious freedom, but without consideration of the individual freedoms or the security of our country.

      • Rick Johnson

        I wonder if this court ruling would apply to bigamy. Since at one time the Mormon religion allowed a man to have more than one wife. But the state stepped in and denied them their religious law. All that needs to be done is to rewrite the law to remove the specific mention of islam and insert ANY law other than the local state or federal law.

      • Alex Frazier

        Even that should be unnecessary. The Constitution itself says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that all judges must abide by it, regardless of any state laws or constitutions.

      • NC

        Alex, you just stated your own safeguard that Sharia law will never be applied in the state courts and US Courts if it infringes on the US Constitutional rights of any person entitled to them;
        The decision concerning the Oklahoma statute only HELD that you couldn’t BAN a religious belief, especially a specific religion, be it Jewish, Christian or what ever.That’s why we have the referencein the 1st amendment! You know, the same Constitution that has a second amendment!
        This case was not about someone trying to appy Sharia law it was about someone wanting to BAN it. Trying to apply it is whole different legal matter.

    • SweetOlBob

      Flashy:
      Sir: Banning any international law that conflicts or negates laws duly voted on and passed by citizens of a self governing State is not a “knee jerk” reaction. It is self protection by those citizens against foreign influences that would destroy locally adopted laws.
      And the allowing of foreign laws and especially the savage and barbaric shariah law to trump any State passed law is not “knee jerk”, it is simply jerk.

      • Flashy

        OK…can you honestly cite any international law that this would directly apply to and was a problenm requiring a state consitutional amendment?

    • s c

      F, how much are you paid to act like a homegrown traitor? Please feel free to move to a country where utter stupidity and a hatred for everyone around you are seen as character traits. Seriously, seek help. Did you ever know the difference between destroying a country and helping it?

      • Flashy

        yeah…darn good thing I and the vast majority are like me, are around. You jokers would have it in ashes if left unfettered…

    • TML

      I agree.
      It seems strange to me that some people here don’t get it. Or perhaps they are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

      The point they seem to be missing is that a law isn’t needed in order to keep “Sharia Law” from being applicable in the American government, per 1st Amendment. Sharia Law is based on religous moral values, thus no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. And the second part of that is that no law shall be made prohibiting the free excersise of religion. So long as such excersise does not violate the equal rights of others. Therefore, to pass such a law as the one cited in this article would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

      So it seems strange to me that some people here would want to see that happen.

      As Kennedy once said, “there is little value in opposing a closed society, if we immitate its arbitrary restrictions”. In other words, what value is it to oppose Sharia Law if you violate your own constitution in order to do it.

      • Robert

        Shari Law is the Legal System of the Government of Islam. The Koran is the Constitution of the Government of Islam. Muslim is what the Citizens of the Government of Islam call themselves. Islam is a foreign enemy Government that has as its objective World domination. It requires all its citizens to obey its laws and to convert or kill everyone who does not fully accept Islam and obey its rules without question. The Government of Islam has infiltrated all three branches of our Federal Government. Islam is using our laws to “fundamentally change America” through “trojan horse” infiltration. When we allow American Judges to illegally inject the Judicial Systam of the foreign enemy Government of Islam into American Judicial decisions we will soon be destroyed.

      • TML

        Judges are already not allowed to do that, especially when it concerns religious moral values. An added law, which violates the 1st Amendment, is not necessary. How can you cite all of that to support a law which violates the constitution on a baseless fear that America would be destroyed, when enacting such a law which directly opposes our constitution would further destroy America, just as the Patriot Act and National Defense Act have done? Enacting a law that violates the Constitution for any reason, may actually hasten your fears to come true. Because if you can do it, so can they.

        “There is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions [Constitution] do not survive with it” – John F Kennedy

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “Judges are already not allowed to do that, especially when it concerns religious moral values.”

        Then you would agree this judges decision allowing just that is wrong.

      • TML

        If any judge makes a ruling which opposes the Constitution he or she should be removed from office. This why I applaude the Appeals court Judge for blocking the sought after Amendment.

      • Dennis48e

        There judge has ruled that international/sharia law can superceed US and State laws therefore he is favoring one religion over the US constitution. In light of that his ruling is what is unconstitutional.

      • TML

        Dennis said, “There judge has ruled that international/sharia law can superceed US and State laws”

        I have seen no such report of a judge in an American court ruling as you say, nor can I find one.

        But I do find the following in the CBS article linked to the one above…

        “The court also noted that the backers of the amendment admitted they did not know of any instance when an Oklahoma court applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other countries.”

        Therefore, you are wrong

      • Dennis48e

        ““The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.””

        Since the courts cannot ignore international or sharia law if the defendent includes that law as part of his defence the court MUST consider said international/sharia law in its ruling. Whether it has happened in Oklahoma before or not is not tha point but rather the law is preventative medicine so to speak.

      • TML

        “Since the courts cannot ignore international or sharia law if the defendent includes that law as part of his defence the court MUST consider said international/sharia law in its ruling.”

        That is not true… if we accepted that then it would be like saying court must consider Christianity and the Bible if someone were to kill another person, and said, “God told me to do it” while referencing the bible. Blocking the Amendment because it is unconstitutional does NOT, by default, say that such international or Sharia Law ‘must’ be considered. Get a clue people

        “Whether it has happened in Oklahoma before or not is not tha point but rather the law is preventative medicine so to speak.”

        Much like preemptive war which has chipped away at our liberties as well, right? So the fact that there has been not a single instance of a court applying Sharia Law, or used the legal precepts of other countries… you think such fact is negligible? Get off your Crusader mind set people.

      • Robert Smith

        From Robert: “Islam is using our laws to “fundamentally change America” through “trojan horse” infiltration.”

        I watched the extreme right christians do that to the NRA, school boards (Dover, PA, is an example of that), and governments to get their agenda.

        Fortunately true and loyal Americans stopped them.

        Rob

    • Matt

      Sharia and International Law usurp Constitutional and English Common Law. I can’t believe rational, liberty lovers would support such vile usurpation of our laws and the will of the people of Oklahoma. How can 70 percent of the people of Oklahoma have their wills overturned by the Federal government? This is just another example of judicial activism and usurpation of the 10th Amendment. Our Republic worked well in Oklahoma on the issue of this law, but the feds have decided to kill our Republic once again. How can one be in support of this? How can one be in the support of the death of English Common Law and the death of our Constitution having universal supremacy over International and Sharia Law? I for one find this another step in a set of legal precedence that have destroyed our rule of law and English Common Law. We are in no way a Muslim nation based on Sharia Law or the Code of Hammurabi, and I would like to use the entire continent of Europe as an example of allowing Sharia Law to intermingle and usurp law of European countries. Most European governments regret allowing Sharia Law.

      • NC

        Matt, there is a difference between a court ruling, which the court did, that a state cannot BAN a set of rules by a religion, per the 1st amendement, and ruling ,which this court DID NOT, that any court in that state has to ever apply it in any case.
        If any occassion ever arises where a party in a suit in Oklahoma SEEKS to apply sharia law the court must decide if it even applies or if the application violates the civil rights of any party entitled to them under OUR CONSTITUTION! SHARIA LAW CANNOT NEVER SUPERCEDE OUR LAW TO INFRINGE on the civil rights of those entitled to that protection. No state can make any law or take any action that takes away any right you have under the Federal Constitution! SEE the 14th amendment!

    • BHUDDA

      There is presidence of the Supreme court going against the Mormons on pluralsie in the 19 th centry as the court then concluded that plualsie was a minority veiw and should not be allowed even in Utah . The government won’t define marriage but will alow a law to by pace our fondation of laws as discribed by the Constitution in the name of discrimanation.Our country and courts are based on a MAJORITY rule as is the Supreme Court rulings .

    • Bob in Florida

      We need to be careful whether we’re discussing ‘Law’ or ‘Religion’.

      The Oklahoma Appeals Court was ruling (I hope)on a matter of what law applies in the United States. The freedom of people to choose what religion (if any) they choose to practice was not the issue.

      One can be free to practice the religion of their choice but still be subject to the laws of the United States.

      The problem occurs when a group does not differentiate (as we do in the United States) between religion, government, and law.

      In the United States the system (as established in the Constitution) does differentiate among these functions. If you wish to live under a system that controls Religion/Government/Law/Religion go some where where that is the system. Do not try to create that here.

blog comments powered by Disqus

All Categories

Bottom