Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oklahoma bans Sharia from courts, CAIR files lawsuit

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_%22Sharia_Law_Amendment%22,_State_Question_755_%282010%29

I don't have the full context surrounding this. But apparently Oklahoma passed an amendment to their state constitution that banned the courts from using international or Sharia law to decide cases. A sort of preemptive strike against the possibility of Sharia law coming to the US.

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

Representative Rex Duncan was the chief author of the bill, and stated that Sharia law was a "cancer" in the United Kingdom because those courts enforced shariah. Duncan stated, "SQ 755 will constitute a pre-emptive strike against Shariah law coming to Oklahoma." Duncan also added, "While Oklahoma is still able to defend itself against this sort of hideous invasion, we should do so."

In response to this, two days later (November 4th), the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) filed a lawsuit against the amendment.

We say: NO. Oklahoma couldn’t miss out on the Islamophobia in America. If passed, SQ 755 would outlaw the use of Sharia Law in state courts. The idea that these courts use or could use Sharia is ridiculous, and the measure implies Oklahoma’s Muslims are all extremists trying to subvert U.S. laws. Let’s not marginalize the state’s Muslim population.

[Emphasis mine.]

As far as I'm concerned, there is no morally acceptable reason to oppose this amendment. If the courts would never use Sharia law, making this amendment redundant, it would be a harmless redundancy. I question the motives of the people who are fighting so hard to overturn it.

Edited by Amaroq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong, Greebo. The SCOTUS and state Supreme Courts should properly only consider the Constitution and American judicial precedence in rendering decisions. Damn international law. We came here to get away from those a-holes, not to be like them.

You are unaware, I take it, that our system of law is the intellectual heir to English Law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But a vast improvement over the same.

Why look to an inferior model?

Some of it isn't any better than the old model...

But all I'm saying is that *where* no precedent exists already, or in cases involving international matters, knowing what international law says can be useful. I'm by no means suggesting we subjugate ourselves TO it, but that it can be worth being aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what "international law" they're referring to. They most certainly can't outlaw treaties and agreements the federal government commits to. As per Article Six of the Const., those supersede local legislation.

As for the Sharia thing, they're most definitely not allowed to single out a single religion, in their legislation. That's an obvious violation of the First Amendment. They could of course ban all religions from consideration, but that would for instance also involve banning the Christian definition of marriage, and giving the "activist" judges they so dread another excellent tool in support of gay marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could of course ban all religions from consideration,

I would love that, and simultaneously it would deal with a hell of a lot of today's problems, but that won't ever happen in Christian America.

But apparently Oklahoma passed an amendment to their state constitution that banned the courts from using international or Sharia law to decide cases. A sort of preemptive strike against the possibility of Sharia law coming to the US.

This is more or less what I have been expecting. This is one of many reasons why I think the idea of Sharia law getting a real foothold here is absurd and deals more in sensationalism than real analysis of the causes and conditions that effect such. Europe is, without question, having its problems, but Europe is much different than the U.S. in many key ways that are important to this issue, that people don't realize/never think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love that, and simultaneously it would deal with a hell of a lot of today's problems, but that won't ever happen in Christian America.

This is more or less what I have been expecting. This is one of many reasons why I think the idea of Sharia law getting a real foothold here is absurd and deals more in sensationalism than real analysis of the causes and conditions that effect such. Europe is, without question, having its problems, but Europe is much different than the U.S. in many key ways that are important to this issue, that people don't realize/never think about.

I agree that there is a fair amount of hysteria but I think the attitude of "it can't happen to us, it can't happen here" is even more dangerous.

You say that the US is unique in many ways that would prevent what is happening all over Europe from happening here. 30 years ago I would have agreed.

But we have a presidential administration in place that wants to end American exceptionalism entirely. The whole goal of this admin is to erase all that was unique about the US. When that is done and we subjugate ourselves to international law- what then?

What I find most bizzare is that fearmongering about what those horrible extremist Christians might do is still completely acceptable. But bring up the slow creeping influence of Islam in our culture and suddenly one is irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are more likely to face christian extremism in law than islamic extremism, no matter who our President is, this is just a fact of our cultural heritage and how our folkways have developed. Read Albion's Seed.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are unaware, I take it, that our system of law is the intellectual heir to English Law?

I'm well aware that our system derived from English common law. We have, however, constitutional protections not afforded the British.

I see no value in looking to the court decisions of other countries, as their systems differ from ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm well aware that our system derived from English common law. We have, however, constitutional protections not afforded the British.

I see no value in looking to the court decisions of other countries, as their systems differ from ours.

You cannot conceive that a court case may come up where no precedent exists in the US, but one exists elsewhere, and the precedent doesn't violate our own laws? Or you cannot see any possible value that our Judges may find in seeing what other courts have done, even if those other courts rulings aren't binding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are more likely to face christian extremism in law than islamic extremism, no matter who our President is, this is just a fact of our cultural heritage and how our folkways have developed. Read Albion's Seed.

Our system was set up in such a way as to prevent Theocracy. Any law which may be passed that contains any hint of Christian extremism (whatever that means) would be struck down as violating the First Amendment.

I don't see this Amendment as being unconstitutional because it codifies that religious law will not be considered when rendering a decision. There was already a case in which a judge ruled that a Muslim man was within his rights to rape his wife because of his cultural and religious beliefs. That was overturned, rightly, by a higher court. Muslims will not pose a threat to our culture until their numbers increase, as they have in Europe, due to their liberal immigration policies.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support their petition too. Am I a subversive?

If the shoe fits.

As a do-gooder who is actually being very foolish, here is a shoe that fits better. From Wikipedia: Useful idiot

In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication is that though the person in question naïvely thinks themselves an ally of the Soviets or other ideologies, they are actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used. The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.

"Useful idiot" is often used as a pejorative term for those who are seen to unwittingly support a malign cause through their 'naive' attempts to be a force for good. For example, the term has been used by some commentators to describe people the commentators believe are effectively supporting Islamic terrorism, often by favouring an approach based on appeasement. For example, Anthony Browne wrote in the United Kingdom newspaper, The Times:[4]

"Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots. ”

A 2010 BBC radio documentary lists among useful idiots of Stalin several prominent British writers including H. G. Wells and Doris Lessing, the Irish writer George Bernard Shaw, and the American journalist Walter Duranty and the singer Paul Robeson.[5]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how are Sharia courts different in principle than the Orthodox Jewish ones?

I don't know, but the regular civil code is the only law of the land to be enforced by the state. Men who beat their wives or daughters near to death should get hauled off to jail without any religious excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, but the regular civil code is the only law of the land to be enforced by the state. Men who beat their wives or daughters near to death should get hauled off to jail without any religious excuses.

It's not true that throwing this referendum out would mean men will get to beat their wives or daughters without being punished, in Oklahoma. What are you basing that claim on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, but the regular civil code is the only law of the land to be enforced by the state. Men who beat their wives or daughters near to death should get hauled off to jail without any religious excuses.

Added on edit:

Its a sad state of affairs when Judges in the US have to be explicitly told not to consult the Koran in the judicial process.

Edited by JayR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...