• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?

Is Oklahoma Sharia Ban Constitutional?


  • Total voters
    25
Not if that person wants the court to ignore the law and instead apply things on the basis Sharia.

Can you please cite a case where this has happened in the U.S.? Please note, you must cite a case where U.S. law was completely ignored in favour of Sharia Law.
 
Can you please cite a case where this has happened in the U.S.? Please note, you must cite a case where U.S. law was completely ignored in favour of Sharia Law.

Sure. There was a case in NJ where a judge dismissed a rape charge against a man because Sharia law requires a wife always to submit to her husband. Therefore, the court said, the man had no criminal intent, even though she refused him. Never mind that actual NJ law says otherwise.

Look, all you had to do was read up on this OK law and how it got introduced, because it's all right there. A little due diligence isn't too much to ask.
 
Sure. There was a case in NJ where a judge dismissed a rape charge against a man because Sharia law requires a wife always to submit to her husband. Therefore, the court said, the man had no criminal intent, even though she refused him. Never mind that actual NJ law says otherwise.

Link?

Look, all you had to do was read up on this OK law and how it got introduced, because it's all right there. A little due diligence isn't too much to ask.

I am just asking you for information, no need to get defensive.
 
Both freedom of/from religion and freedom of speech MUST BE limited..
Our courts must realize this...its common sense....
And our law-makers need to get on the stick and write laws to protect the decent people from the scum and the wealthy.
 
If you don't want to provide evidence, ok.

Look, check it out or don't. I couldn't care less. But the choice is simply this -- you can go on refusing to find out if you have all the facts, or you can learn something. Has nothing to do with winning points in debate. If you want to know, find out. If not, no sweat for me. :shrug:
 
Look, check it out or don't. I couldn't care less. But the choice is simply this -- you can go on refusing to find out if you have all the facts, or you can learn something. Has nothing to do with winning points in debate. If you want to know, find out. If not, no sweat for me. :shrug:

You told me a story about NJ and I am asking you to show me where you got your information from. I'm not saying I do or don't believe you. If you don't want to participate then I guess the conversation is over.
 
Sure. There was a case in NJ where a judge dismissed a rape charge against a man because Sharia law requires a wife always to submit to her husband. Therefore, the court said, the man had no criminal intent, even though she refused him. Never mind that actual NJ law says otherwise.
This case proves that our judicial system worked exactly the way it's intended to work, because in the end NJ law won.
 
This case proves that our judicial system worked exactly the way it's intended to work, because in the end NJ law won.

I like scallops.
 
I don't know what repressed backwater you live in, but the "7 deadly sins" have always been legal here. (Though the left is trying to outlaw certain of them, like gluttony.)

And you dont understand the idea of "principle". By banning "international law" without describing what it is in very large detail, the idiots have banned any law made outside the borders of the US. This could easily include the US constitution, since it was not made inside the borders of the US, but that of the British colonies. It also could easily include any law that had inspiration in the Bible... you know murder laws and those ...

If anything you are the one living in a repressed backwater that singles out minorities out of ignorance and stupidity... that is a clear sign of repression and being in a backwater..
 
And you dont understand the idea of "principle". By banning "international law" without describing what it is in very large detail, the idiots have banned any law made outside the borders of the US. This could easily include the US constitution, since it was not made inside the borders of the US, but that of the British colonies.

:rofl

You think the US Constitution was written before the Revolution?

Oh, Pete. You ARE a riot. Particularly when you're so arrogant about things you don't have a clue about.

:lamo

Not that you've even read this OK provision, or you'd know how doubly stupid this assertion is.


It also could easily include any law that had inspiration in the Bible... you know murder laws and those ...

And the stupid pile-on continues. It didn't prohibit "inspiration." It prohibited the use of actual law.


If anything you are the one living in a repressed backwater that singles out minorities out of ignorance and stupidity... that is a clear sign of repression and being in a backwater..

Yeah. You read a headline, think you know what's going on, and then make idiotic assertions about the "7 deadly sins" being "legal" . . . "now."

What a joke.
 
Honestly, the right wing southerners has been reduced to voting on nationalist policies on impulse. In Oklahoma, if you put up a vote forbidding the practice of Islam, it would pass. Any rights that aren't white, Christian, or domestic are pretty much up for vote at this point.

And the people of Oklahoma are totally wrong ? Or the people of America ?
NO
News flash - we are NOT a nation of perfect people.
And religion and law do NOT mix...this is what the problem is..
Islam, and many others, must learn that there is such a thing as sensitivity.
 
No judge is trying to implement sharia law in Oklahoma.

No judge is trying to use sharia law as a binding precedent in Oklahoma.

The use of sharia law would, at most be limited to instances where it would provide some clarification to someone's wishes.

This is fear-mongering preying upon the people through mis-information.

There is no chance of sharia law being implemented in the US. There is no judge who could make a ruling based on sharia law that was in any way in contradiction with existing US laws.
The fear of the stealth implementation of sharia law is ridiculous and absurd.

Shame on the people who promote this very, very silly idea as a real thing.

Every time I have looked into these allegations, they have been baseless and exaggerated.
The fnords are getting to people.
 
Omfg! Omfg! Omfg!

Equal protection under the law.

Are you really unaware that women's testimony is not worth that of a man under sharia?

Oh yeah, that's a real threat.
If Oklahoma hadn't passed this ban, this totally would be the case in Oklahoma. I know cause I read it on the intrawebz.
OMFG! OMFG! OMFG!

Also, I heard that in OK they're erecting a Mohammedan statue depicting the slaughter of unbelievers. Also they were going to pass a law requiring Sunday schools and VBSs to teach Islam.
And, what's more the Mohamedans are kidnapping our women for their harims.
OMFG! OMFG! OMFG!
 
Sure. There was a case in NJ where a judge dismissed a rape charge against a man because Sharia law requires a wife always to submit to her husband. Therefore, the court said, the man had no criminal intent, even though she refused him. Never mind that actual NJ law says otherwise.

Look, all you had to do was read up on this OK law and how it got introduced, because it's all right there. A little due diligence isn't too much to ask.
This is not true. The judge based his decision on a flawed interpretation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution and a misunderstanding of how mens rea works. Sharia law was not cited a some sort of a binding precedent. It was only cited by the judge as evidence of the man's mental state in re mens rea.

Fear mongers made the case out to be something that it is not.
 
Link?



I am just asking you for information, no need to get defensive.
The actual document is hard to find. the court that over turned the appeal said that:
"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA.
We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."​
From this it seems that, in this case the issue was a poor interpretation of the 1st amendment rather than use of Sharia law as precedent.



I think that the idea that is being railed against here is abhorrent. However, I do not think that the idea that we oppose is the same thing as what is actual in existence.

Powered by Google Docs
 
And you dont understand the idea of "principle". By banning "international law" without describing what it is in very large detail, the idiots have banned any law made outside the borders of the US. This could easily include the US constitution, since it was not made inside the borders of the US, but that of the British colonies. It also could easily include any law that had inspiration in the Bible... you know murder laws and those ...

If anything you are the one living in a repressed backwater that singles out minorities out of ignorance and stupidity... that is a clear sign of repression and being in a backwater..

Depending on how precisely you mark it, the revolution started either in 1775 or 1776. It ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.

The discussions about revising the Articles of Confederation which ultimately led us to the debates which resulted in our Constitution didn't start until 1786.

The Constitution was drafted, debated, and ratified on American soil.

Also, Article VI of the Constitution pretty clearly denies Oklahoma the authority to ban "international law," much less the Constitution itself. ;)
 
This is not true. The judge based his decision on a flawed interpretation of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution and a misunderstanding of how mens rea works. Sharia law was not cited a some sort of a binding precedent. It was only cited by the judge as evidence of the man's mental state in re mens rea.

Fear mongers made the case out to be something that it is not.

I described what he ruled accurately.
 
I described what he ruled accurately.
If what you say is true, it's worth noting that the appeals court that overturned it failed to note what you noted. Instead, the appeals court said something quite otherwise. As I noted, the appeals court cited a faulty interpretation of the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment. That court failed to describe the situation in terms that as are consistent with your description.
"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA."​

What basis is there for accepting your description instead of the appeals court description?
 
Honestly, the right wing southerners has been reduced to voting on nationalist policies on impulse. In Oklahoma, if you put up a vote forbidding the practice of Islam, it would pass. Any rights that aren't white, Christian, or domestic are pretty much up for vote at this point.

That didn't take long.
 
If what you say is true, it's worth noting that the appeals court that overturned it failed to note what you noted. Instead, the appeals court said something quite otherwise. As I noted, the appeals court cited a faulty interpretation of the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment. That court failed to describe the situation in terms that as are consistent with your description.
"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA."​


What basis is there for accepting your description instead of the appeals court description?


Look at what I said he ruled:

Therefore, the court said, the man had no criminal intent, even though she refused him.
 
No judge is trying to implement sharia law in Oklahoma.

No judge is trying to use sharia law as a binding precedent in Oklahoma.

No one claimed there was.
 
Back
Top Bottom