You cannot write fiction this good. (Oklahoma)

Oklahoma passes a measure stating that international law or Sharia (Muslim) Law cannot be considered in any court case. The response by members of the Muslim community-SUE. If I did not know earlier about this, I would have thought it an Onion article.

Link-www.newsok.com...

Snippet-

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

Republican Rex Duncan, the sponsor of the measure, called it a "pre-emptive strike" designed to close the door on activist judges "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law."

Members of the Muslim community called the question an attack on Islam and some of them said they are prepared to file a lawsuit challenging the measure.

Other relevant links-
www.politico.com...
swampland.blogs.time.com...
newsok.com...


Now, what I find so hilarious about this. What is the lawyer going to argue? I would love to see the initial paperwork, what is it going to say, "We think Sharia law should be used in courts". I mean come on, this is FUNNNNNNYY!

Seems to me a decent enough measure, keeps you fear mongers who think that Muslims are all out to get you feeling safe, I don't understand what you have against this ruling.

What is it? Do you want Sharia Law to be used in Courts so you can point and go "AHA! LOOK! MUSLIM TERRISTS!"?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Wow. I almost fell out of my seat there. Seroiusly?

MOTF!

Good!

No religious regulations should be considered in court cases.

it passed? wow didn't think think it would

but then again oklahoma is now the only state to have such a measure.


the judge in new jersey brought this one up with that rape and beating of his wife

first ruling judge ruled in favor of the husband between the second ruling saying hell no she could of died.

i don't know how this could be argued freedom of religion?

us law is the supreme law of the land and people expout freedom of religion and seperation of church and state(even tho the exact phrasing doesn't exist) well it works both ways.

congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion.

so the constitution favors oklahoma here. it bans the establishment of sharia law and since the ban in ok bans sharia they have no case.

Call me when they actually do sue. Both sides have a weak argument.

The idea that Sharia law is actually a threat to the American judicial system is laughable, at best.

I keep forgetting I'm on a conspiracy site, I'll just take my reality to another thread, sorry.

reply to post by neo96

it passed? wow didn't think think it would

You didn't know this was going to pass in Oklahoma??

reply to post by links234


Yeah, our courts never attempt to listen to international law, OH WAIT some idiot judges do.

Yeah, our courts never allow friends of the court briefs from other countries, OH WAIT some idiot judges do.

Yeah, our courts never refer to religious doctrine, OH WAIT some idiot judges do.

Yeah, some people never get the point, OH WAIT................

reply to post by Misoir


i knew about it but i didn't think it had a snowballs chance in hell of passing

second like is just as shocked as me

oklahoma may be red but its not that red

reply to post by neo96


I think 34% vote for Obama in 2008 and every county going Republican by at least 15% is pretty Republican.

reply to post by Misoir


see the proof is right there 34% voted for obama

no card carrying republican would ever vote for obama

The measure seems rather reasonable to me. State and local courts should not rule based on laws not of that state or the U.S. It is essentially saying that the judge does not have the authority to cite France's laws, U.N. ordinances, religious laws/teachings, etc. I'm not sure if the legislation specifically mentions Sharia law... but to specifically mention it would be rather silly, in my opinion, and invite controversy where there really is none.

No other law but State/local and national laws belong in a court of law within the U.S. You can't flog your wife and say it is legal in your religious beliefs because she gave you a funny look. You're in America, under American laws.

I don't really see the controversy. Sharia law can't be used anymore than Mormon or Abrahamic law by a state judge. If the Islamic community takes offense to that, then I suppose I will have to draw some cartoons of Mohamed - like I have to put up with comics demeaning my religious and political figures of affiliation. That burning sensation in the pit of your stomach - that's called equal opportunity.

I am surprised no heavy bible thumpers showed up yet saying what an outrage this is, since in their eyes the US is founded from christians to be a theocracy :p

Good for oklahoma though, although it is just restating the obvious to me. Then again our court system does seem to need the obvious stated over and over lmao.

There was a case in New Jersey where a woman was raped by her husband, who happened to be muslim, and she wanted a restraining order. The judge ruled that he was just practicing his religion, and refused to issue the order.

The only purpose of the bill was to prevent that kind of nonsense.

reply to post by TKDRL


Me being an Oklahoman, its no surprise to me it passed(no I didn't vote). There are way to many Christian Southern Baptist holy rollers around these parts to not let it pass. Most believe that any other type of religion is wrong religion. I've heard it preached all my life. Small minded fearing people make and vote on these laws.

Well, you didn't come knocking on my door as I asked you to (maybe I need to be more specific in the future), so here it is for you;

Muslim files federal lawsuit challenging new Oklahoma amendment on Sharia law

Now, just in case you get waaay ahead of yourself, here's the argument:

He said he filed his lawsuit in U.S. District Court to challenge the lawsuit because it singles out one religious tradition and is designed to stigmatize Muslims.

Make the measure apply to every religion. I believe there's some court precedence on requiring that sort of thing.

Oh and that New Jersey judge? His ruling was immediately appealed and overruled then he resigned.

Stupid, divisive, fear-mongering law. Making Ah-mur-uhka proud Oklahoma, way to go.

reply to post by links234


You are dead on links....the justice should be applied equally across the board according to any religious doctrine, except that which does not conflict with Constitutional law be held to the same standards.

The reason I include conflict against the Constitution, is because under the 9th Amendment, we retain the rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. If I retained that it was a right for me to sacrifice an animal, in my own home, under pretenses that my faith guides me to do so, it should be held as such in the face of the State and the Federal Government.

Now say my religious doctrine tells me its okay to stone my child because they spit on the sidewalk, then yes, that doctrine should never be able to be held as valid law as it violates the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.