Campaign launched against anti-Sharia law bill

[danarhea]

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Last year Oklahoma voters passed a State Question that blocked any use of Islamic or Sharia law in Oklahoma courts. State Question 755 was ruled unconstitutional and unnecessary by the US District Court.

But now a new effort to prevent state courts in Oklahoma from using foreign law is underway and this time, an effort is forming to fight it.

Muslims in Oklahoma are pissed, and are going to fight the law. But that doesn't matter. The bill, as proposed in Oklahoma is blatantly unconstitutional. Let me explain:

1) The wording of the bill, in it's present form, would exclude ALL religious law from being followed. That means Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant too. Many, many contracts are made which some of the terms are guided by religious law. All these contracts would become null and void, which means that the First Amendment rights of people of ALL religions would be violated, per the establishment clause.

2) OK, so remove the provisions that apply to all religions, other than Islam, and the law apply to Islam only. Cool? Nope. That isn't cool either, as this would be favor the establishment of some religions over others, which also violates the First Amendment.

3) But, if we allow Sharia law, wouldn't Muslims begin stoning to death adulterers, and those who speak out against Islam? Of course not. There are already laws against that. Let me add that Jews practice Jewish law extensively, and you don't see Jews holding public executions of people who violate God's law, do you? Of course not.

This is why the bill moving through Oklahoma is nothing but a bugagoo, based on nothing but fear tactics. Reasonable people can allow the laws of the various religions to have an impact on the daily lives of those who follow those religions, just as long as it is Constitutional. That, my friends, is the key to the whole thing. As Thomas Jefferson once said:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

In the spirit of Jefferson, let us all pray that the people in Oklahoma put down their pitch forks.

Article is here.

 

[MaggieD]

Muslims in Oklahoma are pissed, and are going to fight the law. But that doesn't matter. The bill, as proposed in Oklahoma is blatantly unconstitutional. Let me explain:

1) The wording of the bill, in it's present form, would exclude ALL religious law from being followed. That means Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant too. Many, many contracts are made which some of the terms are guided by religious law. All these contracts would become null and void, which means that the First Amendment rights of people of ALL religions would be violated, per the establishment clause.

2) OK, so remove the provisions that apply to all religions, other than Islam, and the law apply to Islam only. Cool? Nope. That isn't cool either, as this would be favor the establishment of some religions over others, which also violates the First Amendment.

3) But, if we allow Sharia law, wouldn't Muslims begin stoning to death adulterers, and those who speak out against Islam? Of course not. There are already laws against that. Let me add that Jews practice Jewish law extensively, and you don't see Jews holding public executions of people who violate God's law, do you? Of course not.

This is why the bill moving through Oklahoma is nothing but a bugagoo, based on nothing but fear tactics. Reasonable people can allow the laws of the various religions to have an impact on the daily lives of those who follow those religions, just as long as it is Constitutional. That, my friends, is the key to the whole thing. As Thomas Jefferson once said:



In the spirit of Jefferson, let us all pray that the people in Oklahoma put down their pitch forks.

Article is here.

I don't understand. Why don't they just include every religion saying that any religious laws that conflict with statutes on the books are illegal? Isn't that what they're really trying to do?

 

[danarhea]

I don't understand. Why don't they just include every religion saying that any religious laws that conflict with statutes on the books are illegal? Isn't that what they're really trying to do?

If it were just that, it would be OK, but it isn't because Oklahoma went too far. A similar law was shot down last year in Oklahoma because it violated the establishment clause. As long as what religions do are constitutional, they cannot be touched. That means Islam, as well as Christian, Jewish, and all other religions.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

As the aforementioned infidel, I am grateful to the courts for their protection from this unwarranted infringement of my religious rights as an American citizen. I hope and I pray that the courts continue to display such wisdom.

 

[SheWolf]

Muslims in Oklahoma are pissed, and are going to fight the law. But that doesn't matter. The bill, as proposed in Oklahoma is blatantly unconstitutional. Let me explain:

1) The wording of the bill, in it's present form, would exclude ALL religious law from being followed. That means Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant too. Many, many contracts are made which some of the terms are guided by religious law. All these contracts would become null and void, which means that the First Amendment rights of people of ALL religions would be violated, per the establishment clause.

2) OK, so remove the provisions that apply to all religions, other than Islam, and the law apply to Islam only. Cool? Nope. That isn't cool either, as this would be favor the establishment of some religions over others, which also violates the First Amendment.

3) But, if we allow Sharia law, wouldn't Muslims begin stoning to death adulterers, and those who speak out against Islam? Of course not. There are already laws against that. Let me add that Jews practice Jewish law extensively, and you don't see Jews holding public executions of people who violate God's law, do you? Of course not.

This is why the bill moving through Oklahoma is nothing but a bugagoo, based on nothing but fear tactics. Reasonable people can allow the laws of the various religions to have an impact on the daily lives of those who follow those religions, just as long as it is Constitutional. That, my friends, is the key to the whole thing. As Thomas Jefferson once said:



In the spirit of Jefferson, let us all pray that the people in Oklahoma put down their pitch forks.

Article is here.

I like when you create a thread. You usually throw in a little smart@ss comment like that. :2razz:

 

[SheWolf]

I tried to not acknowledge when OK did this... They did it when the GOP was attacking the NYC Mosque, and there was a rise in Mosque fires and violence. I thought it was just a way for them to shore up votes from the fearful, ignorant, and racists in their districts..

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

If I am not mistaken the law makes following any aspect of a religous law illegal

Not eating pork because of a religious law, illegal
Not working on saturday or sunday due to religion illlegal
Religous laws stating it is a requirement to pray a certain numbe of times illegal

 

[X Factor]

Let's talk about religious tolerance. Was it France that recently banned the burkha? I thought that was a really interesting debate. Without having a dog in that fight, I could see both sides. On one hand, religious expression is being stifled (and for that reason such a ban wouldn't fly in the US), on the other, the burka is seen as a sign of oppression of women. So, what interest is more important? Should oppression be tolerated in the name of religious freedom?

Using a more extreme example, there are those that strongly believe that female circumcision (or genital mutilation depending on your POV) is important to keep a girl from having pre-marital sex. From their perspective (arguing it as best as I can understand it), sure it's painful, but what's a few hours of pain in this lifetime when compared to potentially protecting her eternal soul? On the other hand, our laws would likely see it as child abuse, especially if practiced the way it is in certain countries. So, what prevails here? Religious freedom or protecting a child?

 

[Councilman]

What we need to pray for is that Oklahoma gets the wording right and in doing so set the bar for all States to follow.

As a Nation we cannot be having laws on the books that say it's okay to stone your daughter to death because she kissed her boy friend at a high school dance. Or murder your wife because you feel she dishonored you some how.

Sharia law is the definition of evil and must be stopped before it gets started.

 

[Degreez]

What we need to pray for is that Oklahoma gets the wording right and in doing so set the bar for all States to follow.

As a Nation we cannot be having laws on the books that say it's okay to stone your daughter to death because she kissed her boy friend at a high school dance. Or murder your wife because you feel she dishonored you some how.

Sharia law is the definition of evil and must be stopped before it gets started.

We won't be having those types of laws...

What Oklahoma is trying to do is stop courts from using foreign laws for precendent in certain cases. These are cases like Islamic/Jewish marriages and contracts. There's absolutely no point to the bill except fear tactics. This bill would stop Orthodox Jews from resolving contractual disputes with each other using Talmudic law. Nothing about using Talmudic or Sharia law in arbitration would allow for federal and state laws to be bypassed (ie - sanctioning murder).

 

[TheBook]

What we need to pray for is that Oklahoma gets the wording right and in doing so set the bar for all States to follow.

As a Nation we cannot be having laws on the books that say it's okay to stone your daughter to death because she kissed her boy friend at a high school dance. Or murder your wife because you feel she dishonored you some how.

Sharia law is the definition of evil and must be stopped before it gets started.

You do understand the complete disconnect from reality the idea of stoning someone made legal because one minority religious group wasn't persecuted requires, right?

Is there really anything vaguely resembling a slight possibility of a majority of law-makers being extreme muslims in this country?

I'd be more concerned about a group of extremist christians making stoning gays legal than this. But neither is anywhere close to plausible. This sort of law is purely symbolic "nationalism" at its worst.

 

[Serenity]

let's not forget there are already constitutional laws that would prevent using other than American laws to make decisions in American courts.

 

[PeteEU]

Sharia law is the definition of evil and must be stopped before it gets started.

HAHAH, Sharia Law has been used in the US since the first muslims arrived. A bit late to stop it before it gets started..

I would say more but that would get me banned

 

[X Factor]

HAHAH, Sharia Law has been used in the US since the first muslims arrived. A bit late to stop it before it gets started..

I would say more but that would get me banned

Then, by all means, go on...

 

[Redress]

1) The wording of the bill, in it's present form, would exclude ALL religious law from being followed. That means Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant too. Many, many contracts are made which some of the terms are guided by religious law. All these contracts would become null and void, which means that the First Amendment rights of people of ALL religions would be violated, per the establishment clause.

Could some one show me some examples of these contracts? I am not saying they don't exist(I trust Dan, so if he says they do, they probably do), but have never heard of this before and I find myself at a loss to envision such a contract.

 

[PeteEU]

Could some one show me some examples of these contracts? I am not saying they don't exist(I trust Dan, so if he says they do, they probably do), but have never heard of this before and I find myself at a loss to envision such a contract.

Anything done after Jewish religious law for example. Jewish divorce, contracts between two Jews where the contract conditions are based on Jewish religious law. Any arbitration agreements done by Rabbis You can substitute Jew and Jewish with Muslim and Islam. All are in principle legal contracts under US law and European law as long as they do not conflict with standing laws on the subjects. Like it or not the US and Europe have freedoms which include the ability to make any sort of contract within the boundaries of law (as in no excessive interest rates or conditions).

The use of "religious" law/rules by all religions have been done for centuries and are all fully legal. Not to mention quite a large part of standing law is based on religious law/rules... murder, rape, incest, stealing ..

 

[Renae]

For a different perspective, because this thread needs it.

In what might be filed under "Who would have thought it to be so?" Oklahoma may have been at the political forefront by addressing a ban on the use of Sharia law in courts of the state. Sharia, or Shariah, is Islamic law.
At the time, November 2010, the proposed law on the ballot seemed pointless to many Oklahoma residents. After all, Oklahoma's constitution already spelled out which laws were to be upheld. Still, the proposal to ban Sharia law from being used to decide matters of law passed successfully. Many people thought Oklahoma's conservatism had gone too far.
But Newsmax.com reports a judge in Tampa, Fla., has ordered that a lawsuit against the Islamic Education Center of Tampa must be decided using Ecclesiastical Islamic Law. The mosque's attorney has filed an appeal with the Second District Court of Appeals over Judge Richard Nielsen's decision. The mosque is advocating the use of secular law in this secular situation.

Oklahoma's Sharia Law Ban Not so Far Off Mark - Yahoo! News

 

[Deuce]

What we need to pray for is that Oklahoma gets the wording right and in doing so set the bar for all States to follow.

As a Nation we cannot be having laws on the books that say it's okay to stone your daughter to death because she kissed her boy friend at a high school dance. Or murder your wife because you feel she dishonored you some how.

Sharia law is the definition of evil and must be stopped before it gets started.

Wow. Fear really will convince people of anything.

 

[SheWolf]

Let's talk about religious tolerance. Was it France that recently banned the burkha? I thought that was a really interesting debate. Without having a dog in that fight, I could see both sides. On one hand, religious expression is being stifled (and for that reason such a ban wouldn't fly in the US), on the other, the burka is seen as a sign of oppression of women. So, what interest is more important? Should oppression be tolerated in the name of religious freedom?

Using a more extreme example, there are those that strongly believe that female circumcision (or genital mutilation depending on your POV) is important to keep a girl from having pre-marital sex. From their perspective (arguing it as best as I can understand it), sure it's painful, but what's a few hours of pain in this lifetime when compared to potentially protecting her eternal soul? On the other hand, our laws would likely see it as child abuse, especially if practiced the way it is in certain countries. So, what prevails here? Religious freedom or protecting a child?

There is also the argument that burkas empower women... Some women chose to wear them, and I understand they feel it's liberating because they go about their business and don't feel they are judged based on their looks, or held to a standard or image of an ideal woman... :shrug:

If it's their choice, then there is nothing wrong with it...

 

[SheWolf]

What we need to pray for is that Oklahoma gets the wording right and in doing so set the bar for all States to follow.

As a Nation we cannot be having laws on the books that say it's okay to stone your daughter to death because she kissed her boy friend at a high school dance. Or murder your wife because you feel she dishonored you some how.

Sharia law is the definition of evil and must be stopped before it gets started.

It's already illegal to stone your daughter to death... I expect you think Mosaic Law is equally as evil

 

[SheWolf]

HAHAH, Sharia Law has been used in the US since the first muslims arrived. A bit late to stop it before it gets started..

I would say more but that would get me banned

What Sharia Law means depends on the person.... Some people don't understand that. They hear "Sharia Law" and they freak out... I call that ignorance.

 

[MaggieD]

Muslims in Oklahoma are pissed, and are going to fight the law. But that doesn't matter. The bill, as proposed in Oklahoma is blatantly unconstitutional. Let me explain:

1) The wording of the bill, in it's present form, would exclude ALL religious law from being followed. That means Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant too. Many, many contracts are made which some of the terms are guided by religious law. All these contracts would become null and void, which means that the First Amendment rights of people of ALL religions would be violated, per the establishment clause.

Contracts don't become null and void unless provisions violate U.S. law. Two people can agree to anything, and cite any reason for doing so, as long as the contract doesn't include something illegal. People sign away their rights all the time in contracts. An example would be a 'confidentiality agreement' -- which, it could be said, violates our right to free speech.

2) OK, so remove the provisions that apply to all religions, other than Islam, and the law apply to Islam only. Cool? Nope. That isn't cool either, as this would be favor the establishment of some religions over others, which also violates the First Amendment.

Why would one not apply it to all religions?

3) But, if we allow Sharia law, wouldn't Muslims begin stoning to death adulterers, and those who speak out against Islam? Of course not. There are already laws against that. Let me add that Jews practice Jewish law extensively, and you don't see Jews holding public executions of people who violate God's law, do you? Of course not.

Right. An example of why this law is unnecessary.

This is why the bill moving through Oklahoma is nothing but a bugagoo, based on nothing but fear tactics. Reasonable people can allow the laws of the various religions to have an impact on the daily lives of those who follow those religions, just as long as it is Constitutional. That, my friends, is the key to the whole thing.

Exactly right. Based on nothing but fear. Reeeedickalus. Dead on.

 

[Gardener]

There is also the argument that burkas empower women... Some women chose to wear them, and I understand they feel it's liberating because they go about their business and don't feel they are judged based on their looks, or held to a standard or image of an ideal woman... :shrug:

If it's their choice, then there is nothing wrong with it...

and house slaves in the nineteenth century often talked of satisfaction with their lot. That made them slaves no less, just as the women who have embraced their second-class status are nevertheless empowering the very misogynistic culture that makes them second class.

 

[Utility Man]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't read anything about.........

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 53rd Legislature (2011)

HOUSE BILL 1552 By: Kern

AS INTRODUCED

An Act relating to foreign law; stating legislative findings pertaining to certain rights and privileges; defining term; declaring certain rulings and decisions to be in violation of public policy; making certain rulings and decisions void and unenforceable; declaring certain contracts and contractual provisions to be in violation of public policy; making certain contracts and contractual provisions void and unenforceable; requiring denial of certain motions relating to venue; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 20 of Title 12, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. The Legislature fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the United States or Oklahoma Constitution.
B. As used in this section, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, rule, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.
C. Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.
D. A contract, or contractual provision if capable of segregation from the contract as a whole, which provides for the choice of a law, legal code or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the law, legal code or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.
E. A contract, or contractual provision if capable of segregation from the contract as a whole, which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any law, legal code or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.
F. If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions of the nonclaimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied.

SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2011.
​

The ballot title that voters saw on their ballot read:

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

Shall the proposal be approved?

For the proposal

Yes: __________

Against the proposal

No: __________

As someone mentioned earlier this had little to do with the law and more to do with scoring votes and inciting hate/fear.

 

[SheWolf]

and house slaves in the nineteenth century often talked of satisfaction with their lot. That made them slaves no less, just as the women who have embraced their second-class status are nevertheless empowering the very misogynistic culture that makes them second class.

Being forced to wear a burka is not the same as choosing. The fact that some nuns and Muslim women prefer to hide themselves is evidence that they enjoy being free from sexist institutions in society. That does not mean that they enjoy experiencing sexism.

On the other hand, religious preference, freedom, and self determination also plays a role. Many argue that religious institutions are sexist... so perhaps that is at the heart of this issue. Most religions teach women to hide, cover their body, their hair, etc. so they don't promote lust in men. Taking this further you'll find people blame females whom are raped, for their rape. I have no knowledge of religious texts telling men how to act or behave towards women to not promote lust in themselves.

Simply making women take of a burka is not going to change their status in society...