Oklahoma voters face question on Islamic law, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 1-11-2010 @ 12:53 AM by TheAmused

www.cnn.com...

Oklahoma voters are considering an unusual question that will appear on their ballots this Tuesday: whether Islamic law can be used in considering cases in state court.
The question is the doing of State Rep. Rex Duncan. The Republican is the main author of State Question 755, also known as the "Save our State" constitutional amendment, one of 11 questions on the state ballot.
The question might seem a befuddling one for a ballot in the heartland, but it stems from a New Jersey legal case in which a Muslim woman went to a family court asking for a restraining order against her spouse claiming he had raped her repeatedly. The judge ruled against her, saying that her husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties.
The decision was later overruled by an appellate court, but the case sparked a firestorm. Duncan secured support for the proposal on the state's Senate side from fellow Republican Anthony Sykes, who co-authored the measure.

Now i thought we had separation of church and state...
How are muslim better than any other religion?
I Don;t even think this is legal.

edit on 1-11-2010 by TheAmused because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 01:00 AM by neo96

reply to post by TheAmused

no religion law trumps us law

us law is the supreme law of the land the alpha and omega

the end.

people will scream freedom of religion well in this case the public welfare should trump for safety issues

then again congress shall make no law abridging religious freedom that works both ways no religion shall abridge the us constitution or its laws.

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 01:03 AM by TheAmused

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by TheAmused

no religion law trumps us law

us law is the supreme law of the land the alpha and omega

the end.

people will scream freedom of religion well in this case the public welfare should trump for safety issues

then again congress shall make no law abridging religious freedom that works both ways no religion shall abridge the us constitution or its laws.

I know they won't.
But where do they get of attempting to do this?
I meen after 9/11 and all these radical muslim's running around.
To me the is like trying to beat us at our own game..from with in.
And the person who brought this law to even be voted on should be thrown out of office so fast it makes his head spin.
But then again..maybe this is a democratic plant story to sway vote's ....that would make sense to.
they need Oklahoma ...hmmmm
makes me wonder now.

edit on 1-11-2010 by TheAmused because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 01:15 AM by neo96

reply to post by TheAmused

further research

the proposal came from :

rex duncan representative
lewis moore representative
anthony sykes

all republicans and this proposal isn't voted on the people of the state of oklahoma will decide its fate.

ballotpedia.org...

the following links gives the make up on the state level but it doesnt show how many democrats either voted for or against it.

ballotpedia.org...

there are precidents for its need consider the judicial ruling in new jersey when the verdict of a man raping his wife and beating her the judge ruled in the beginning that he had the right to do so but was quickly overturned but that women could have died between the rulings.

there is some need for this but then again the way i see it as a specific religion is getting special treatment when no others get the benefits that are given to one.

edit on 1-11-2010 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 01:18 AM by Ferris.Bueller.II

What Duncan is trying to do is to place a roadblock to the kowtowing the U.S. has been doing towards the Islamic religion, which is exactly what happened in the New Jersey case. It appears members of the Islamic faith when they don't get their way and threaten violence are allotted more leniency when it comes to legal matters than other citizens of our country and others. Now if you do live in Oklahoma and support enforcing Sharia law in their state court system, then vote in support of the measure. If not then vote against it. I have a feeling Duncan expects it not to pass, and send a message that Sharia law is not to be used in the state courts. But with Arizona and California as recent examples, the people's voice matters little if the agenda of TPTB is disturbed by what they say.

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 12:29 PM by saltheart foamfollower

Question OP, is that judge still a judge? If he is, I would begin a campaign on getting him thrown off the bench.

You should find a little information on that judge and post it.

So the first judge said that rape in a marriage is fine. WOW.

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 12:34 PM by Aeons

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Only if you BELIEVE that rape is your right in marriage. If you believe it REAL HARD, then it is okay.

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 12:34 PM by getreadyalready

There is a whole thread about the "rape in a marriage" issue. Yes the Judge is still a Judge, and marriage is a contract. It isn't entirely a religious issue, it is a contractual issue. It is also an issue of what constitutes rape. It is easy to abhor violent forcible rape, but it isn't so easy to condemn a husband using the threat of divorce as a means to coerce......I myself have probably been guilty of that.

So, the issue in Oklahoma seems like a good bill....we certainly do not ever want Sharia law taking hold in the US, and it has no basis anywhere, and Oklahoma seems like a good starting point,

but, on the other topic, please review the other thread, there is a lot more to it than that headline grabbing "rape" word. It is a complicated issue.

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 12:45 PM by okbmd

It will never fly in Oklahoma .

Ain't gonna happen .

Been here thirty-some-odd years , trust me , it won't happen .

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 12:52 PM by Aeons

reply to post by getreadyalready

Truly, in many cultures marriage is merely a contract.

I know women who are contractual wives, and do not consider their husband a "spouse." Just some guy they have to sleep with because they are under contract to do so, and if they try to break that contract they'll get killed by some member of their family or his family. Often by being sent "home" where it is easier to get away with it.

Contracts which contravene Human Rights legislation are null and void.

So if the contract issue is his defense, hers could be that her contract was null and void from the start.

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 01:02 PM by getreadyalready

Originally posted by okbmd
It will never fly in Oklahoma .

Ain't gonna happen .

Been here thirty-some-odd years , trust me , it won't happen .

I think you misunderstand. The bill is to prevent it from happening, so the bill WILL happen. Assuming it is written in plain language and people don't misunderstand the intent. The bill is to prevent the Sharia law, or any religious custom from superseding the law.

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 01:07 PM by getreadyalready

reply to post by Aeons

I am not trying to be a fan of rape in any context.

However, I feel it is a very slippery slope. Suppose every disgruntled spouse decides as part of a divorce hearing or a custody battle to suddenly play the rape card. They could claim that over the course of a 10 year marriage they were raped repeatedly. Sometimes it was induced by alcohol and they were unable to consent, sometimes it was coercion or a "guilt trip." Sometimes it could have been considered "forcible" because they were half asleep and their husband persisted until he got what he wanted without any clear consent.

How will any man ever be able to defend against such accusations? There has to be an "implied consent" from a spouse absent any direct rebuttal at the time of the incident. If she clearly says, "No, leave me alone." Then that is one thing, but to come back at some point and show a repetitive offense by every gray area of the law is a very scary thing!

People should be free to do things with their spouse that they would not do with a stranger. Alcohol is a clear example. I would never have sex with a fall-down drunk stranger, but I might do it with my wife, because I know I have her consent.....at least I think I know.....but what if 10 years from now she decides there were a dozen instances where I didn't haver her consent?

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 01:28 PM by okbmd

reply to post by getreadyalready

You are correct , misunderstanding on my part .

Thanks for clearing that up .