Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Sharia

It's not really a surprise. From what I have heard, pretty much the only people who really thought the amendment was constitutional were the people who created it.

It was considered a pre-emptive move. I believe it went along with a law about using international court precedents.

We live in an age of activists judges creating their own laws and doing strange things. States are already passing extra laws about gay "marriage". It is already usually against the law, but not in a way that could keep a judge from over ruling. It is not surprising to see politicians and citizens concerned and even supporting laws like these.

SpiritualAntiseptic said:

We live in an age of activists judges creating their own laws and doing strange things.

Click to expand...

You mean judges that disagree with the people who proposed the law.

That does seem like a legitimate point. It doesn't say "religious law" in general but picks one specific religious group. Probably because the people that fought for it would never agree to a law that prevented Christian religious ideology and precedents from effecting judges decisions. It's not so much about separation of Church and state in general as it is separation of another persons church from state. The "wrong" religion.

SpiritualAntiseptic said:

It was considered a pre-emptive move. I believe it went along with a law about using international court precedents.

We live in an age of activists judges creating their own laws and doing strange things. States are already passing extra laws about gay "marriage". It is already usually against the law, but not in a way that could keep a judge from over ruling. It is not surprising to see politicians and citizens concerned and even supporting laws like these.

Click to expand...

Judges can only decide if a law is constitutional or not. They have exactly zero ability to create a law.

Why do feel like this is wasting the court's time?

What do you expect? Its Oklahoma.

Belk said:

Judges can only decide if a law is constitutional or not. They have exactly zero ability to create a law.

Click to expand...

Outside of using their influence to manipulate legislators through various means of coersion. And inversely, legislators have no ability to interpret laws, but, can still use their influence to coerce justices.

Hold it guys.

You're saying pictures and words describing religious law aren't permitted to determine law -- but religious law can't be prohibited -- but law should be explicitly stated and predictable ("lex rex") to rule over men.

This is not consistent. The only thing that appears to be missing under Oklahoma's law is a reference to dogmatic law from other sources, such as the Vatican, Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies of other religions.

"religious law" would generally include all of those items.

The idea that this hasn't been attempted in the United States is not true, so the federal judgment is unduly narrow.

In fact, legislatures are allowed (even encouraged) to write precluding laws -- it's the judiciary that has to cite precedent, not the legislature.

And the part about international law being inapplicable in Oklahoma is equally unconstitutional. The constitution specifically empowers the federal state to conduct diplomacy and sign international treaties on the behalf of the entire USA. And international law follows directly from international treaties.

drjean said:

We do have rules to prevent sharia law, however, muslims are pushing for it, and have had US judges abide by it.

Click to expand...

Could you do me a favor and point out these cases to me?
I'm not calling you a liar but I'm thinking you got something mixed up.

As far as I'm aware, only one group has requested the use of Sharia law in America. The Blackwater company, in a stunning move of hypocrisy.

funny Application of Sharia Law by Blackwater.3gp - YouTube

drjean said:

We do have rules to prevent sharia law, however, muslims are pushing for it, and have had US judges abide by it. That's plain wrong---and scary. Oklahoma merely wanted to prevent any issues in the future. Muslims are locating in small towns and becoming the majority and voting in their own people...to change the laws and our Country as a whole. (I won't say all muslims, but all good muslims who follow the q'oran.) This has been their verballly stated goal (or one of them). Sharia law is not purely a religious law, but Islamism is their form of government. Westerners don't generally realize this.

Click to expand...

Wait. If Sharia law is not a purely religious law, then why is it that pushing for it is something that characterizes someone being one of "all good muslims who follow the q'oran." Am I missing something in your line of reasoning?

trunks2k said:

No, the issue is more complicated than that. First of all, IIRC the law specifically referenced Sharia law. That alone makes it unconstitutional. If it broadly applied to all religious laws, then the decision would be more complicated.

Click to expand...

The amendment referred to it as a specific example, to avoid anyone saying it wasn't meant.

trunks2k said:

Second of all, the issue comes into play specifically in regards to civil matters where the parties agree to abide by a given religious law in a dispute or contract (essentially agreeing to arbitration). It's not as uncommon as you'd think, and sharia law is used by some muslims in regards to certain civil issues. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many strong supporters of separation of church and state who don't think that people shouldn't be allowed to agree to arbitration under their own religious laws. The law in question would allow, say, Jews or Catholics to agree to use their own religious laws in certain civil issues but wouldn't allow Muslims to do the same. As an example in this particular case, the plaintiff argued that the law in question would prevent the courts from probating his will since it contained references to Sharia law, but if the will contained references to Jewish law the courts could probate it.

Click to expand...

Both are state entanglement in religious matters, and the judiciary shouldn't be examining a case based on such. Such contracts should be referred to another source of judicial determination of such matters, or they're incomplete contracts.

I can refer you to the courts of many denominations who do precisely that for religious law.

trunks2k said:

In every case I've heard of where people have said something akin to "This judge made a ruling based on sharia law!!!!!!!!!!" it's been a civil issue where the parties agreed to abide by sharia law, but one party didn't like the outcome and sued but the judge says "you agreed to arbitrate using sharia law, and nothing about the resulting judgment is not consistent with that. Sorry, you're SOL".

Click to expand...

I believe it's the prohibition against involuntary servitude that should apply to any such contract. However, the contract would be voided if it slipped into involuntary servitude -- regardless of what the contract states. Sharia's no exception. In fact only treaty obligations are an exception.

And btw, enslavement's not an SOL issue. Its amendment is worded differently, and it's protection of individual from individual.

It's always the arbitration of rights that this comes down to, isn't it.

One wonders how the court would introduce the rights of man if not from international law, but that's another issue. I don't like the OK amendment. I see what it's trying to deal with.

I don't believe in singling out one religion, but I also don't think there should be any special legislative treatment for any religion either.

DaisyDay said:

From CNN:

Click to expand...

I support this bill, but prefer it not limit itself to any foreign laws. I don't see the reason to limit it.
If a judge would use one group of laws, why not another?

Why is Sharia law different then Italian laws, or Catholic laws.

Only U.S. laws/rulings should be used to make decisions.

I can see this being overturned for descrimination and it doesn't need to be descriminatory.

I have heard of people opposing Sharia law implimentation, if they follow procedures to have laws passed, I don't see that we can make limitations specific to origin. Laws are made by the people of our lands, so if the people want the laws, they will be passed if enough people support it.