Arguments to take place in Oklahoma over ban on Islamic law in courts - Polidicks

[QUOTE](CNN) -- A federal judge will hear arguments Monday on a temporary restraining order against an Oklahoma referendum that would ban the use of Islamic religious law in state courts. Oklahoma voters approved the amendment during the November elections by a 7-3 ratio. But the Council on American-Islamic Relations challenged the measure as a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order November 8 that will keep state election officials from certifying that vote. "What this amendment is going to do is officially disfavor and condemn the Muslim community as being a threat to Oklahoma," Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR's Oklahoma chapter and the lead plaintiff in the suit, said earlier this month. In addition, he said, the amendment would invalidate private documents, such as wills, that are written in compliance with Muslim law. The amendment would require Oklahoma courts to "rely on federal and state law when deciding cases" and "forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. In bringing suit, CAIR argued that the amendment violates both the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. Awad has said the amendment passed "under a campaign of fearmongering" about Islam. The entire U.S. Muslim population is about 2.4 million -- less than 1 percent of the country, according to a 2009 survey by the nonprofit Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. But supporters said a New Jersey case, in which a judge refused to grant a restraining order against a Muslim man whose wife accused him of raping her repeatedly, made it necessary for Oklahoma to take action to keep Islamic law from being imposed there. The New Jersey decision, in which the family court judge found the husband was abiding by his Muslim beliefs regarding spousal duties, was overruled by an appellate court. But in automated phone messages in support of the amendment, former CIA Director and Oklahoma native James Woolsey warned that there was a "major campaign in Europe to impose Sharia law" and that Islamic law "is beginning to be cited in a few U.S courts."[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/22/oklahoma.islamic.law/index.html?hpt=T2[/url]

but religious law is not logical therefore you should not use it you just don't have religious law in secular countries, and preferably, just don't have it in any country

How about we all just stop believing in stupid crazy shit and start working on creating Vacuumorphs?

It's already starting. Sooner than I expected :(

Possibly the stupidest piece of legislation in recent history. There has never, and will never, be the looming threat of "sharia law" on the state of Oklahoma. Not to mention the fact that most of our legal system is based on English common law, and the fact that courts often have to consider international disputes between a company in OK and outside of america. Apparently you can't take the law of the country it's in into consideration. I think this sums it up best and most hilariously: [quote]What a relief! With Osama Bin Laden poised to become the next chief justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahomans reacted in the nick of time to make sure Islamic law, Shariah doesn't become the basis of the state's legal code. This is a major defeat for the Muslim majority that runs Tulsa. On the other side of the world, voters in Yemen voted to prevent English common law from becoming the law of that land. Thank God that Oklahomans put an end to this insanity. There's already one state, Louisiana, that does not follow English common law. If another state had abandoned the English common law basis of our legal system, there would have been chaos nationally in the legal system. It would have been just a matter of time before Nebraska adopted the Confucian code for Cornhuskers to use to settle disputes in that state. With a thriving economy and full employment in their state, Oklahomans could afford to experiment with their legal system. But few states have that luxury.[/quote] Source: Dispatches from the Culture Wars

While there is no threat of sharia law anywhere in the US, the first amendment does very clearly state that Islamic religious law, or any religious law, has no place in the court. I wholeheartedly agree with that referendum, whether there was any threat to the first amendment or not.

[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;26222218]While there is no threat of sharia law anywhere in the US, the first amendment does very clearly state that Islamic religious law, or any religious law, has no place in the court. I wholeheartedly agree with that referendum, whether there was any threat to the first amendment or not.[/QUOTE] I believe it would apply differently to Civil/Tort courts, rather than criminal. Perhaps it's just informal Civil courts i'm thinking of, not sure if religious law and matters have been applied in inter-personal disputes mediated by a court before.

Was about to say this is already covered by the 1st amendment making this law redundant. (And pointless)

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26222231]I believe it would apply differently to Civil/Tort courts, rather than criminal. Perhaps it's just informal Civil courts i'm thinking of, not sure if religious law and matters have been applied in inter-personal disputes mediated by a court before.[/QUOTE] It has no place anywhere a court is involved. If two neighbours want to settle their shit with sharia law outside of the court and won't be breaking any existing laws by doing so, fine.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26222231]I believe it would apply differently to Civil/Tort courts, rather than criminal. Perhaps it's just informal Civil courts i'm thinking of, not sure if religious law and matters have been applied in inter-personal disputes mediated by a court before.[/QUOTE] I think that's UK only.

Why is this even being debated? They're coming to your country, they should adapt to YOUR legal system, not the other way round! You don't see me moving to a shariah land and demanding to use our legal system. Besides, haven't these people heard of the first amendment?

[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;26222243]It has no place anywhere a court is involved. If two neighbours want to settle their shit with sharia law outside of the court and won't be breaking any existing laws by doing so, fine.[/QUOTE] I agree, i'm just not sure if it's prohibited or not due to it not being federal courts. [QUOTE=starpluck;26222245]I think that's UK only.[/QUOTE] Possibly, haven't heard of any instances in the US

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26222249]Why is this even being debated? They're coming to your country, they should adapt to YOUR legal system, not the other way round! You don't see me moving to a shariah land and demanding to use our legal system.[/QUOTE] Except when you invade "shariah land" and put your own guys in charge

There was really no threat about Sharia in the U.S. which is why I believe the below statement is true. [quote]Awad has said the amendment passed "under a campaign of fearmongering" about Islam. [/quote]

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26222249]Why is this even being debated? They're coming to your country, they should adapt to YOUR legal system, not the other way round! You don't see me moving to a shariah land and demanding to use our legal system. Besides, haven't these people heard of the first amendment?[/QUOTE] No, if you can vote then you have every right to vote for what represents you, regardless of tradition or where you're from.

Britain has a problem with underground Sharia law courts that over ride the current legal system, too Muslims the Sharia law is Gods law and that must be the real judgement system - they'd naturally not want to follow any other system. Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. I don't like courts that are moulded around religious and moral believes dating back thousand of years ago.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;26222374]No, if you can vote then you have every right to vote for what represents you, regardless of tradition or where you're from.[/QUOTE] Except that the Shariah is a religion-based law and thus accepting it goes against the first amendment.

[QUOTE=Vasili;26222398]Britain has a problem with underground Sharia law courts that over ride the current legal system, too Muslims the Sharia law is Gods law and that must be the real judgement system - they'd naturally not want to follow any other system. Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. I don't like courts that are moulded around religious and moral believes dating back thousand of years ago.[/QUOTE] Is it literally half? Like if you had 3 women testify over 1 man it would override it? What about 2 women vs. 1 man? [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26222478]Except that the Shariah is a religion-based law and thus accepting it goes against the first amendment.[/QUOTE] I made a generalized statement hardly related to Sharia Law.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;26222482] I made a generalized statement hardly related to Sharia Law.[/QUOTE] This is the shariah law we're talking about, don't blame me for thinking you're referring to that.

[quote=Thick H. Fuck]"What this amendment is going to do is officially disfavor and condemn the Muslim community as being a threat to Oklahoma"[/quote] No, you fuckwad, it very accurately, paints Islamic Law as a threat to the court system because it's simply fucking archaic. You shut your whore mouth. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - UberMensch))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26222549]This is the shariah law we're talking about, don't blame me for thinking you're referring to that.[/QUOTE] I was clarifying what I said because it is understandable why you would think that.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;26222642]I was clarifying what I said because it is understandable why you would think that.[/QUOTE] Fact is, what they're trying to do is futile since combining religion and government is not allowed in the US of A. Which is what I was talking about in the first place.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26222121]With a thriving economy and full employment in their state, Oklahomans could afford to experiment with their legal system. But few states have that luxury.[/QUOTE]Oklahoma has the money to mess around with the legal system, but it has no money for schooling and the abysmal state of infrastructure, mainly the roads?

Communism is best religion :colbert:

[QUOTE=L0LIMB0RED;26223092]Oklahoma has the money to mess around with the legal system, but it has no money for schooling and the abysmal state of infrastructure, mainly the roads?[/QUOTE] Oh here Jeremy, it's me Colton, I'm in comp class right now :smug:

all this talk of banning Muslim shit is really starting to worry me a bit

We might as well re-instate the Vatican.

[QUOTE=IStanI;26224546]We might as well re-instate the Vatican.[/QUOTE] America is more Protestant than Roman Catholic.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26224574]America is more Protestant than Roman Catholic.[/QUOTE] Witch Hunts 2: Islamic Boogaloo

I am against Sharia law, not because "HURR DURR THEM BROWN MOOSLEMS BE TAKIN OVER OUAH COUNTRY!", but because [b]any[/b] kind of Religious law is a dumb idea. Although there really isn't a "threat" of Sharia law gaining dominance in the midwest or anywhere in the States for that matter, the fact is that the law is based on religious teaching that as we all know, don't always have rules that are relevant to modern culture and aren't always fair. A System of Justice is based on JUSTICE, not a piece of thousand-something year old parchment. [editline]22nd November 2010[/editline] Wow, I can really ramble. I'm just passionate about secularism