It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

READ!: Courts can be tried under Islamic law? US Courts say yes...

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Washington Post


A proposed constitutional amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions, and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange’s order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

“This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact,” Awad said. “We are also hopeful that this decision serves as a reminder to politicians wishing to score political points through fear-mongering and bigotry.”

The amendment read, in part: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

State Sen. Anthony Sykes, who led the Senate effort to get the measure on the ballot, said Tuesday he would continue to fight to lift the injunction.

“The federal appeals court in Denver attempted to silence the voice of 70 percent of Oklahoma voters,” Sykes said in a statement. “At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of by and for the judges, or of by and for the people. How far will the people let them go? This ruling is right along with legalizing abortion and forced busing of school children.”


Seriously...?

I BETTER be reading something wrong in here.

I didn't go to school for law... please... someone who knows more about this than I do feel free to chime in and tell me that I am wrong.

Question #1)

What the F### does religious or international law serve in our state courts in the first place?

-and-

Question #2)

Why the HELL do courts keep telling states that vote SEVENTY PERCENT to pass a law to piss-off, that their votes don't count anymore.

This is even worse than the federal/state war over medical marijuana...

I can understand the SCOTUS telling Oklahoma to go to hell if they were trying to pass a law that banned the worship of Islam. But that is not what is happening. Oklahoma is simply saying that they only want to use United State and Oklahoma laws in their courts.

------------------------

As far as I can read in any articles I have seen, the amendment would ban all influence of laws (religious or international) outside the state's or federal guidelines.

Is there something wrong with that I am missing?




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I say, fine, if they want Sharia law, then let them have it, as long as it only affects people of their own faith and no one else. Sharia Law can not be used on the rest of us, see how many people keep their faith under sharia law.

Not sure if I am making sense, but what I am trying to say is, I don't agree to sharia law, but they are playing the religion angle, so, if I am not practicing their faith I do not fall under their "sharia" jurisdiction. If anyone belongs to their faith and supports sharia, then they willingly accept the sharia law, if and when they get "in trouble" then they have to face the consequences of pushing for sharia.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
First of all, HERE is why this is unconstitutional.

The amendment was discriminatory. It calls out a particular religion and discriminates. It's pretty clear.

On 70% of the people voting for this, read my signature link. This is EXACTLY why I don't want Ron Paul to become president. He has a states rights mentality that would leave too many issues to the states and the majority in that state could pass laws to oppress the minority.

Would you be in favor of a state voting to USE Sharia law? What if Michigan voted and 60% of them voted to use Sharia Law instead of Christian Law... Are you going to support that majority? What if your state did it?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Well if this is the case, what is stopping the rest of us from forming our own 'religious' laws to be able to do what we please?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
Question #1)

What the F### does religious or international law serve in our state courts in the first place?


If I'm a Muslim wife and my husband and I are having an issue, we can go to the court to settle it. Remember, some people are VERY tied to their religion and believe that it is the governing authority. Why shouldn't they have access to it?

It's not like courts are going to use Sharia Law unless the participants ASK them to. That's how it works.

It's kind of like this: If you and your wife were having a dispute and you went to a pastor to resolve it. Only you want his advice to be binding, so you appoint him your legal adviser and authority... That's really all Sharia Law in the US is. Muslims use the Sharia court to settle personal and private disputes.



Question #2)

Why the HELL do courts keep telling states that vote SEVENTY PERCENT to pass a law to piss-off, that their votes don't count anymore.


Read my signature. Majority Rules is NOT our way of government. There are rights that cannot be violated by laws, no matter HOW many vote for it.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Would you be in favor of a state voting to USE Sharia law? What if Michigan voted and 60% of them voted to use Sharia Law instead of Christian Law...


This county had better NOT be using Christian law any more than Sharia law. Both are forbidden by the US Constitution. This is a SECULAR nation.

This court made the right decision... Also, note that the decision is that the petitioner has the right to challenge the OK law...



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
This county had better NOT be using Christian law any more than Sharia law. Both are forbidden by the US Constitution. This is a SECULAR nation.


But whether right or wrong, I believe some of our laws ARE based on religion:
Gay marriage bans
Abortion bans/restrictions
Drug laws
Pornography laws

And more are clawing at the gate all the time:
Sanctity of Life laws
Marriage sanctity laws


Also, note that the decision is that the petitioner has the right to challenge the OK law...


Absolutely! This guy is exercising his first amendment right in two ways and people are complaining about it?

:shk:



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

But whether right or wrong, I believe some of our laws ARE based on religion:
Gay marriage bans
Abortion bans/restrictions
Drug laws
Pornography laws

And more are clawing at the gate all the time:
Sanctity of Life laws
Marriage sanctity laws


Emphasis added. And yeah, don't even get me started on that nonsense...




Absolutely! This guy is exercising his first amendment right in two ways and people are complaining about it?

:shk:


Well, this IS the US post-Bush... remember that our freedoms are precious, but only the ones we agree with. The freedoms of people we fear or don't like don't count.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by toolstarr
Well if this is the case, what is stopping the rest of us from forming our own 'religious' laws to be able to do what we please?


Because it is not.
The OP has been lied to.
Couldn't resist noting the irony there.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I heard Newt Gingrich call marriage a Sacrament the other day.
That sounds pretty damn specifically Catholic to me.
So apparently it is no big deal when a Republican Presidential candidate says out loud that his view of marriage laws within the US fall under the scope of it being a Catholic ritual. That was no biggy.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kafternin
I heard Newt Gingrich call marriage a Sacrament the other day.


And don't forget Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which he tries to pass EVERY session, which would DEFINE life as beginning at conception, effectively overturning Roe V Wade. It's God's work.



So apparently it is no big deal when a Republican Presidential candidate says out loud that his view of marriage laws within the US fall under the scope of it being a Catholic ritual.


Of course it's no big deal. Republicans have the people convinced that they want smaller government and more freedoms! (Unless of course we NEED the larger government to impose moral behavior onto the masses and restrict the freedoms of those "lesser" nasty groups we don't like, like Muslims, gays and women...)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
All I can see is that we've so thrown out the God of Heaven in our own culture and laws that we are at the point now that it's considered discrimination if voters passed an ammendment specifically mentioning "Sharia law" which is both a legal AND moral code of Islam.

Our western nations are being taken down from the inside. I'm saddened that people can't understand how the rejection of Our One True God in all aspects of our lives is leading to chaos and paving the path of destruction.
The moment that any of our courts accept either Sharia law or Noahide laws is the death nail for millions, because they WILL be used.

Satan doesn't wear a shiny red suit or carry a pitchfork. He changes your perception, he gets you to reject your God, he gets you to think that Biblical morality is outdated, he passes the laws he needs, and he uses us to do his work for him all in the name of "liberty, equality and justice."

There must be consistent law in the whole land. Period.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the sixth article of the U.S Consitution and the 'establishment clause of the Constitution's 1st Amendment already forbids the government from establishing a preference for one religion. Official government endorsement of sharia law, is thus already prohibited. May I add that more than 24 states have considered measures intended to restrict judges from consulting sharia law. In 2009 Mr. Yerushalmi began writing "American Laws for American Courts", a model statute that would prevent state judges from considering foreigh laws or rulings that violate constitutional rights in the United States. This law was intended to appeal not just to the growing anti-shariah movement, but also to a broader constituency that long opposed the influence of foreign laws in the United States. Early versions of the law passed in Tennessee and Louisiana 'Made no mention of shariah - which was necessary to pass muster. So the KEY Phrasing was to not mention or use the word shariah. OBama appointments. Kagan, Pro sharia(for 30 more yrs), David Heyman- asst sec for policy for DHS, and Arif Alikhan (Napolitano appted) a devout Shariah Law Muslim, Other Pro-Shariah Obama appointees include; Dalia Mogahed, Obama’s Muslim advisor who has been a firm defender of CAIR and ISNA. Both of these US groups are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Other Pro-Shariah Obama appointees include; Dr. Ahmed Zewali, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; Arif Alikhan, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development; Kareem Shora, Homeland Security Advisory Board; Harold Koh, nominee as Legal Adviser of the State Department; Dr. Vali Nasr was appointed to co-direct Obama’s foreign policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no doubt, in fact, proof abounds there is a very soft and sometimes aggresive push for shariah law to be the norm, we need only look across the pond to see it;s results. The only thing I can add is aggressive phone and letters to any and all your representatives that help gaurd (and some of those that chip away at it as well) Our Constitution. Lastly, may I encourage you to visit Conservative Action Alerts. They have a pre-made letter that will automatically send a letter to all your representatives that will support the cause and sanctity of the intent our forefathers had. If I may add Mr. Franklins response to a question posed to him, Mam, I have given you a republic, if you can keep it. There has been and continues today small and large attacks and chipping away at what we were given. It defines who we are and what we represent, and a breakaway from a King that lived by laws that kept it's people in serfdom, which in my opinion is the very act that is being reenacted by many that 'seemingly' act in office or not,,, for our good. As we are aware, their fruit, or what they produce is proof of their intent, to bring us down, one chip at a time. I salute you all that are present or past members of our military and police that do in fact or have in fact protected with all they had the security and preservation of Our Constitution. The very model every government looks to as a guide to better their country where ever they may be. Obviously, there are countries that are very much dictatorial, Oligarchical, or Monarchical. The Last of which I fear is being invoked by our current President. So as my first reply, as a fellow member of our armed forces, I beseech you, regardless of any prerequisites, in what ever manner you can, to stand against those, that have predisposed, exclusive, maniacal, or malicious intent, that in any way stands against Our Constitution, and Our Declaration of Independence. Sadly I admit there are those that are wolf's in sheeps clothing that portend to declare their Oath To The Constitution when in fact conspire to deceive, harm, and undo what our forefathers even died for, to give us. If you think not, then start please with a read the Conressional Record, Proceedings and debate of the 83d Congress, Second Session, Speech of Hon. Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota, in The House Of Representative. Wednesday, April 28, 1954. Special Thanks to American Deception and Liberty Gun Rights. I digress, though remain vigilante, and continue my hunt for the theatrics of Soros and friends. Godspeed, and may Godbless, now I go to bless God.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Of course it's no big deal. Republicans have the people convinced that they want smaller government and more freedoms! (Unless of course we NEED the larger government to impose moral behavior onto the masses and restrict the freedoms of those "lesser" nasty groups we don't like, like Muslims, gays and women...)


Well of course.

And...here in America we dont want no crazy religious laws governin us.
We is a Christian Nation and we dont need that crap!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Do these NOOBS not understand seperation of church and state?

IDOTA GAVRONE ESTUPIDA!!!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Do these NOOBS not understand seperation of church and state?

IDOTA GAVRONE ESTUPIDA!!!


OK, educate me, please. I would like to understand what you see and how it applies.
Thank you!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sacredsax
Someone correct me if I am wrong,


OK. Allowing people to use Sharia Law if they want to is not an official government endorsement of sharia law, neither is is prohibited. People use Canon law and Jewish Law all the time and no one complains... It's a matter of understanding that the US courts are NOT going to be implementing Sharia law for anyone but those who request it.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
We have this too in the UK, we also have Beth Dim courts for Jewish people. I think the US has them too.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Beth Din of America is a Beth Din (Court of Jewish Law) which serves Jews throughout the United States of America.
It was founded in 1960 and reconstituted in 1994.[1] The focus of Beth Din of America is on areas of family law, Jewish divorce and personal status, as well as adjudication of financial disputes. The Beth Din is affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) and is sponsored by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.[2]


These things basically make it easier for those of religious faith to sort out arbitrary issues, like family relationship and financial disputes.

As an atheist I can't say I like the idea of religions having seperate courts, but seeing it has little to no effect on my life and probably makes life easier all round for those involved.
edit on 11-1-2012 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's a matter of understanding that the US courts are NOT going to be implementing Sharia law for anyone but those who request it.


Well that is not going to quell any fears because the machine has worked overtime those last 10 years or so. There is another thread about a similar topic full of people that think that means a Muslim can request Sharia Law on you and have you beheaded for not converting. Seriously, I will find it for you after work.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Kafternin
 


You don't have to find it for me. I've been on this site for a few years. I know how twisted and lacking some people's understanding of the law is.
I've learned to not be surprised at some of the conclusions people make...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join