You can't do that in a Constitutional Republic.
Support FR
Posted on 08/19/2013 4:13:09 PM PDT by raptor22
First Amendment: An Oklahoma constitutional amendment barring the state's courts from weighing or using Shariah law was struck down in federal court. How can a law written to protect the Constitution be unconstitutional?
Only in the parallel universe of judicial activists in which U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange resides can a law barring a particular religion's influence over court decisions be considered under the First Amendment of the Constitution as an unconstitutional establishment of competing religions.
"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, the court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights," Miles-LaGrange wrote in her decision.
That individual would be Muneer Awad, a Muslim and U.S. citizen who once was executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and who filed a lawsuit on Nov. 4, 2010, seeking to block the Save Our State amendment that had been approved by 70% of Oklahoma voters two days earlier.
On Nov. 29, 2010, Miles-LaGranfe issued a preliminary injunction, finding that Awad had legal standing and that the amendment likely violated both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Sharia Law
Sharia law is the law of Islam. Sharia (also spelled ‘Shariah’) is cast from the Quran, the actions and words of Muhammad, and the collective reasoning and deductions of Muslim imams.
As a legal system, Islam’s Sharia law covers a wide range of subjects. The stipulations of the Sharia law, however, are unlike any other legal system in the world.
According to the Sharia law:
• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand.
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad’s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
• The list goes on.
Sharia is the national law of Saudi Arabia but has been seeping into Europe, UK, Canada and America as Islam expands, led by the Muslim Brotherhood movement.
Bookmark.
marry off her infant daughters.
have her private parts mowed off
get beaten by her husband
give up her car
be treated as an absolute chattel and animal by her husband
and then ask her what she thinks about Sharia law. If her husband allows it.
Really, what makes people do such stupid things?
Not the muslims, they’re primitive paranoid tribes.
The judge is an idiot or has been blackmailed.
There’s a lot of that going on.
Really, what makes people do such stupid things?
Not the muslims, they’re primitive paranoid tribes.
The judge is an idiot or has been blackmailed.
There’s a lot of that going on.
Read “The Harbinger.”
impeach her
Sure, just so the courts don’t allow any disgusting Christian influence.
AMEN Mama
That is the truth!
Very well said!
That's not what the judge said.
To survive strict scrutiny under Larson, [defendants] must show (1) a compelling government interest, and (2) that the amendment is ‘closely fitted’ to that compelling interest.” Regarding the “compelling state interest” element, the [Defendants] provided only one sentence on compelling interest. They simply assert that “Oklahoma certainly has a compelling interest in determining what law is applied in Oklahoma courts.”
Oklahoma’s asserted interest is a valid state concern. But this general statement alone is not sufficient to establish a compelling interest for purposes of this case. [Defendants] do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma. Given the lack of evidence of any concrete problem, any harm [defendants] seek to remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest.
So in other words it's a do-nothing amendment directed at a non-existent crisis and which solves nothing.
Since the proposed amendment only banned Sharia and international law, the laws of any other religion would have been acceptable. Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Druid, you name it could apparently be used in the courts against you.
Did you read the decision?
IBD EDITORIAL PING
There must be some unwritten law that says you can’t be a brain dead, moon bat liberal, without a hyphenated name..
The “judge” sounds like another affirmative-action, equal-opportunity loser (irrespective of the substance of her ruling).
Yes, if people don’t like the custom of adopting the name of the father the woman should just keep using her maiden name and they should flip a coin to decide whether the children will carry the name of the father or the mother, not saddle them with both. As so many have said what happens when Smith-Jones marries Brown-Blue? Do the children carry the surname Smith-Jones-Brown-Blue? What happens when Smith-Jones-Brown-Blue marries Johnson-Jensen-Wilson-Anderson? There are all kindss of surnames and combining two could result in some real killer names like Coon-Hunter, White-Black or vice-versa, Upton-Downer, Rushing-Quick, Upjohn-Peters, Brown-Dick etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.