Oklahoma vs Islamic law

[joshh]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/muslim-sues-oklahoma-anti-shariah-ballot-measure/

http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=13447359

Thoughts?

[Danny]

Trollio olio.

[Bill 84 318i]

I don't know what "courts aren't allowed to take international law into consideration" means. Just don't know enough about the legal process, but it seems to me this is a no-brainer.

As for Islamic law, or Sharia, it absolutely shouldn't be taken into consideration in a court of law (just like any other religion's "laws" outside what's in the legal books). So why on earth is there a rule to block it? Were they doing it in the first place? That court in NJ was totally wrong in its ruling.

I don't know what these 85 Sharia Courts in Britain are; gotta look into that.

[Massive Lee]

"The Islamic community in Oklahoma has complained about the past actions of the state legislature, including a proposal to forbid Muslim women from wearing head garments in driver's license photos and refusing to accept a Koran from a Muslim advisory council at an official state ceremony."

There are two subjects discussed here. And there are some precedents in other countries. Liberty of religion vs legal obligations. If state/federal laws require to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, then claiming your turban doesn't fit the helmet and that therefore you shouldn't wear a helmet because of your religion, didn't pass in Canada. There's no breach of right to religion. Your religion simply forbids you to ride bikes. Period. When it comes to identification and wearing a veil, a hat, a burka. Again, same principle. If you don't comply to the law, then you religion impedes you into having access to a driving licence, or to vote as visual disclosure is required for indentifying a voter. This later case was also judged in Canada. Fuck out the burka, you are free to wear one, but also required to remove it when needed.

BTW - Islamic law. What Islamic law? Since when we cut hands when somebody steals, as is required in the Bible, or Koran?. Separation of church and state. 1st ammendment anyone?

If city council is Catholic (BTW why should it be religiously-biased?) and requires to pledge on a Bible, then a Muslim shall be allowed to pledge on a Koran. If it doesn't suit the city council, then they should make it non-religiously biased.

[Bill 84 318i]

"The Islamic community in Oklahoma has complained about the past actions of the state legislature, including a proposal to forbid Muslim women from wearing head garments in driver's license photos and refusing to accept a Koran from a Muslim advisory council at an official state ceremony."

There are two subjects discussed here. And there are some precedents in other countries. Liberty of religion vs legal obligations. If state/federal laws require to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, then claiming your turban doesn't fit the helmet and that therefore you shouldn't wear a helmet because of your religion, didn't pass in Canada. There's no breach of right to religion. Your religion simply forbids you to ride bikes. Period. When it comes to identification and wearing a veil, a hat, a burka. Again, same principle. If you don't comply to the law, then you religion impedes you into having access to a driving licence, or to vote as visual disclosure is required for indentifying a voter. This later case was also judged in Canada. Fuck out the burka, you are free to wear one, but also required to remove it when needed.

If city council is Catholic (BTW why should it be religiously-biased?) and requires to pledge on a Bible, then a Muslim shall be allowed to pledge on a Koran. If it doesn't suit the city council, then they should make it non-religiously biased.

I agree with this, but it was a small part of the OP's original question.

Proponents of the Oklahoma ballot measure say the possibility of Shariah law coming to American isn't remote, pointing to Britain, where at least 85 Shariah courts are operating.

This is kind of misleading. While I don't necessarily agree with it, it's not as "OMG" as dropping it as the last sentence in an article implies. These types of courts (and there are Jewish equivalents that have been in existence for hundreds of years in the UK) are allowed under the Arbitration Act of 1996. Both parties in a case must agree to have their case settled in these courts, but once it is, it's legally binding. As for the oversight (are Sharia laws consistent and documented, etc), I'd be interested to find that out. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4749183.ece

[z31maniac]

I'm sure the scared country-bumpkins that inhabit this state somehow think it would eventually "creep" into the normal legal system.

Which I can't imagine could possibly happen.

[mar1t1me]

I agree the possibility of Sharia courts spreading throughout the US is remote. However, this is why government needs to be very clearly secular, or at least clearly non-denominational. Laws should be based on what is in the best interests of society as a whole, not on what small groups desire.

While I don't believe the threat from Islam is in outright terrorist acts, I do believe that accommodating religions who do not share the same values as society as a whole is a huge mistake. I can't imagine that were an American woman in Iraq told that she would have to cover her head in order to obtain a driver's license, outrage would ensue. Nor should it in this country when an ID is obtained. An "I'm sorry, but the law states you must remove your head covering for your photo ID. You are within your rights to refuse, however, our responsibility to society dictates you don't receive a license". Even camouflage-covered rednecks know to take their hats off when at the DMV!

And a separate court? No way! We wouldn't consider a Christian cultist desire to burn an adulterer at the stake as being legitimate, nor do we condone Mormon extremist polygamy. Why in the world would we allow ANY religion to operate "courts of law" that do not answer directly to the state and the best interests of ALL the citizens therein?

Finally, laws should not single out particular religions, such as the ill-considered OK legislation, but instead should be uniformly applied to all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation. A small price to pay for the good of all.

[Massive Lee]

^^^^Oklahoma indeed made a huge mistake by creating a law that was singling out one religion, instead of simply applying the current law. Oklahama deserves to get sued and lose. Rednecks.

[joshh]

I can't imagine having Sheria courts and trying to work our own laws at the same time that we've worked so hard to make fair.
The Koran does not cover Sheria law as far as I know. How does the guy argue this is part of his religion?

[z31maniac]

Lee is correct, it only singled out Islam.

"Just two days after Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure banning state courts from considering Islamic or international law when ruling on cases, a local Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit saying the measure is unconstitutional."

I'm also curious how he claims that by not allowing Sharia courts violates his 1st Amendment rights.

He's just some low-level grunt trying to get some face time in the hopes he will move up the ranks.

[mrsleeve]

I'm sure the scared country-bumpkins that inhabit this state somehow think it would eventually "creep" into the normal legal system.

Which I can't imagine could possibly happen.

I guess no one here has ever heard of Harold Koh, One of the senior lawyers in the state deparment appointed by BHO.


He's and avid transnationalist and big proponent of bringing that ideology into the US court system.

Now Shiria law into the US system, thats a bit of a stretch, unless its in a place like Derborn or hamtramick, where the prayer whistles go off several times a day. But regardless it needs to be kept outta the us court system.

And I cant believe I am gonna say this but I agree with lee