Oklahoma and Sharia

[Hayabusa Rider]

I find this whole charade quite funny.

But still, its diificult to separate law from religion since both are somewhat based on humans getting along with humans.

But somehow, in the USA just the word Sharia sends many into a case of the screaming hebigebies, yet when equally primitive christian biblical principles are used to promote laws against teaching anything but the biblical version of human origin and the like, its as American as apple pie.

Its a giant holier than thee double standard we pretend not to have.

Want to show us that parallel Baptist court system?

Oh, you pulled that bolded part out of your butt, didn't you? Show us where there was a law enacted, or a serious attempt to ban the teaching of evolution in schools and substitute Creationism. I don't mean one nutjob who sometime in the last twenty years has effectively been laughed out, because I'm sure someone has tried to make Martians illegal aliens.

Go for it.

 

[HomerJS]

Thank You for this. It's nice (and useful!) to read the actual documents rather than depend on the rantings of people with agendas.

I think the rantings are justified since the right is continuing to foment anti-Islamic sentiment. Just another example of brainwashing the simple minded. Replace Sharia with Christian Gingrich and Fox News would have a cow.


STATE QUESTION NO. 755
LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 355
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.....

 

[Scotteq]

I think the rantings are justified since the right is continuing to foment anti-Islamic sentiment. Just another example of brainwashing the simple minded. Replace Sharia with Christian Gingrich and Fox News would have a cow.
.....

Thanks for agreeing with me that one should read actual documents before offering an opinion. No thanks for the attempt to read your personal politics into the issue. The proposed law, as written, is political hack~ery; and if the good people of Oklahoma decide to pass it, I will enjoy watching it get challenged and shot down after the fact as unconstitutional - since it's specifically written against a particular religion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I will enjoy watching it get challenged and shot down after the fact as unconstitutional - since it's specifically written against a particular religion.

Perhaps, but it doesn't prohibit the practice of religion, rather a religion inserting itself into government directly. If they wanted to have a law explicitly banning parallel religious courts, I'd be fine with that.

Something I think is being missed. There are two sets of reactionaries in all this. There are those who are overtly against anything Islamic, but there are those who support silencing anything negative. Remember for all the claims that Juan Williams was fired because of policy, policy was enforced because of his "unacceptable words". If people bothered to listen to the interview, it was clear that Williams was saying that despite his emotional reaction when boarding a plane, that was not grounds for persecution. In fact he came out in support of the Islamic community in general.

For that he was hung. The concern is who will be next?

 

[werepossum]

This is a retarded non-issue. Nobody is using Sharia law in the United States.

Please have someone read the article and explain it to you. The family court in New Jersey WAS using Sharia law, excusing the man's serial raping of his wife on the grounds that under his Muslim faith (i.e. Sharia law) he was perfectly within his rights to take her against her wishes.

 

[ichy]

Please have someone read the article and explain it to you. The family court in New Jersey WAS using Sharia law, excusing the man's serial raping of his wife on the grounds that under his Muslim faith (i.e. Sharia law) he was perfectly within his rights to take her against her wishes.

And that decision was quickly smacked down by an appellate court.

 

[Scotteq]

Perhaps, but it doesn't prohibit the practice of religion, rather a religion inserting itself into government directly. If they wanted to have a law explicitly banning parallel religious courts, I'd be fine with that.

I see your point: I'm of the mindset, though, that if the (Government of Oklahoma in this case) sees fit to write a law against the insertion of Religious and 'Other Than United States' entities' laws being considered in US courts, then it should be written as a Blanket policy and applicable to all.

Why? Because you know the instant that gets signed, some jackass is going to come back trying to get his way because something could be allowed under Halakh, which isn't specifically barred. That's the problem with being specific: It's possible to argue that because the law omits something else, then that something else is allowable.


This is why I consider the proposed law, as written, is Political Hackery. Because if the goal was simply to prevent the Courts in Oklahoma from using laws other than that of OK and the USA, then it should be written to say exactly/only that. I believe in this case, a Lawyer would call the usage of the words 'International' and (especially!) 'Sharia' to be prejudicial. And that a more generic approach would be proper. (..if a Lawyer is reading this - I'd be very interested in your opinion)

****

Regarding smacking people down for their opinions - Spot On.

 

[Mursilis]

Please have someone read the article and explain it to you. The family court in New Jersey WAS using Sharia law, excusing the man's serial raping of his wife on the grounds that under his Muslim faith (i.e. Sharia law) he was perfectly within his rights to take her against her wishes.

The sad thing is, the man wasn't breaking civil law in many states until recently; for a number of years, plenty of states did not recognize marital rape.

 

[Mursilis]

Want to show us that parallel Baptist court system?

Actually, thinking about it, there already is one (or more?) parallel religious court(-like) systems in the US. I'm remembering all those Kennedy family divorces, in which they applied for annulments from the Catholic Church. Those decisions are before a tribunal of clergy, and feature hearings, affidavits, and other quasi-legalistic features. Of course, a ruling of a Catholic tribunal is legally binding on the parties only so much as they wish it to be - a person may still legally marry if their prior marriage was terminated via a legal divorce, regardless of whether the annulment was granted by the Catholic Church.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course, a ruling of a Catholic tribunal is legally binding on the parties only so much as they wish it to be - a person may still legally marry if their prior marriage was terminated via a legal divorce, regardless of whether the annulment was granted by the Catholic Church.

Correct and that's the difference. It's a matter of church, not state law. You can be kicked out of your country club, a church, or whatever if you don't follow the rules. Giving it a legal standing? That would be as dumb as a mud fence.

 

[Mursilis]

This is why I consider the proposed law, as written, is Political Hackery. Because if the goal was simply to prevent the Courts in Oklahoma from using laws other than that of OK and the USA, then it should be written to say exactly/only that. I believe in this case, a Lawyer would call the usage of the words 'International' and (especially!) 'Sharia' to be prejudicial. And that a more generic approach would be proper. (..if a Lawyer is reading this - I'd be very interested in your opinion)

"International" is pretty generic, so I can't see the Supremes having a problem with that. In that respect, the proposed modification is merely stating the obvious. As for "Sharia", I can see your point about specifying against only a single religion, but it's impossible to know if the Supremes would consider that to be worthy of their lofty review. You'd have a hard time showing actual harm.

 

[Scotteq]

Actually, thinking about it, there already is one (or more?) parallel religious court(-like) systems in the US. I'm remembering all those Kennedy family divorces, in which they applied for annulments from the Catholic Church. Those decisions are before a tribunal of clergy, and feature hearings, affidavits, and other quasi-legalistic features. Of course, a ruling of a Catholic tribunal is legally binding on the parties only so much as they wish it to be - a person may still legally marry if their prior marriage was terminated via a legal divorce, regardless of whether the annulment was granted by the Catholic Church.

I'd have to check - but as you point out, I don't believe that's illegal in many localities, as long as all of the participating parties agree to it. So one's Church authorities, or one's Organization/Club can arbitrate/mediate disputes between members. I don't have a problem with this, so long as whatever decisions made don't otherwise violate public laws. So - for example - I don't believe that stuff like Arranged Marriages for Underaged Kids (which some religiions still practice) should be allowed. Because doing so violates US State and Federal law. OTOH, if your Mullah/Rebbe/Priest can mediate a dispute on behalf of members of his church - and thereby keep the whole mess out of an actual court - then all the better. Indeed, you could easily argue that your Mullah/Rebbe/Priest has a duty to encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes, and mediate if/when asked.


The difference here is a decision by a State or Federal court is binding: You can be arrested by the police and and thrown in Jail for violating or ignoring a court order. Decisions facilitated outside of an actual Courtroom do not carry such penalty. Meaning the State will not prosecute you for violating an agreement your Mullah/Rebbe/Priest mediated.

 

[Scotteq]

"International" is pretty generic, so I can't see the Supremes having a problem with that. In that respect, the proposed modification is merely stating the obvious. As for "Sharia", I can see your point about specifying against only a single religion, but it's impossible to know if the Supremes would consider that to be worthy of their lofty review. You'd have a hard time showing actual harm.

We're pretty much on the same page here. I don't think it would get to the SCOTUS, though. I'd expect the good people of Oklahoma to resolve the issue in their State courts. i.e. at a State District/Appelate/Supreme Court level, rather than Federal.

 

[Painman]

You're still discussing this pile of horseshit topic? OMFG.

 

[Mursilis]

I'd have to check - but as you point out, I don't believe that's illegal in many localities, as long as all of the participating parties agree to it.

It's not illegal anywhere, because it has no binding legal effect. I can convene the Supreme Court of Me, find you in gross violation of any number of laws, and sentence you to wear a propellar hat for 30 days. In response, you could tell me to get bent, and go on your merry way. Nothing illegal with any of that.

 

[Mursilis]

We're pretty much on the same page here. I don't think it would get to the SCOTUS, though. I'd expect the good people of Oklahoma to resolve the issue in their State courts. i.e. at a State District/Appelate/Supreme Court level, rather than Federal.

State Constitutional issues go to the Supremes all the time if they infringe (or allegedly infringe) on pre-existing federal or U.S. Constitutional rights. State Constitutions may grant additional rights to state residents, but may not infringe on any rights the residents already have under federal law.

 

[Scotteq]

It's not illegal anywhere, because it has no binding legal effect. I can convene the Supreme Court of Me, find you in gross violation of any number of laws, and sentence you to wear a propellar hat for 30 days. In response, you could tell me to get bent, and go on your merry way. Nothing illegal with any of that.

You mean... Like participating in P&N conversations??






...does the propeller hat have a motor?? D:

 

[her209]

Wouldn't the legislature telling the courts how to do their job be in violation of separation of powers?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wouldn't the legislature telling the courts how to do their job be in violation of separation of powers?

No it wouldn't. They couldn't tell the courts to rule a certain way, but they can restrict what they can and cannot do within certain limits. An example would be criminal sentencing guidelines. Conversely, the courts routinely tell others what they must do based on Constitutional or legal precedents. They have told legislatures they must fund certain programs or strike down regs and laws.

 

[her209]

No it wouldn't. They couldn't tell the courts to rule a certain way, but they can restrict what they can and cannot do within certain limits. An example would be criminal sentencing guidelines. Conversely, the courts routinely tell others what they must do based on Constitutional or legal precedents. They have told legislatures they must fund certain programs or strike down regs and laws.

Criminal sentencing is set by legislature because they drafted the legislation to make the act criminal. Alternatively, a court could theoretically find a punishment set by legislature to be excessive, cruel, and/or unusual punishment and strike it from law.

If judges are telling the legislature it must fund certain programs, there's probably legal mandate to do so. For example, in California, there's a legal mandate that K-12 funding must make up a minimum level of spending based on a set of tests. If the CA legislatures says, "Screw you!" then they can be taken to court for now following law and can be forced to do so.

As for striking down regs and laws, that's one of the reasons why they exist.

 

[ElFenix]

what if you had a contract and the conflict of laws resolved to using the substantive law of, say, japan. you can't do that in oklahoma if this thing passes.

 

[piasabird]

Just kill all sharia law issues.

I was just thinking that some mormon groups could use sharia law because under sharia law they could have multiple wives.

 

[Scotteq]

Just kill all sharia law issues.

I was just thinking that some mormon groups could use sharia law because under sharia law they could have multiple wives.

Why would they, when they already do that under Mormon rules?

 

[piasabird]

I am a mormon and polygamy is illegal. All who are practicing polygamy are breaking the law. The real problem is that states have allowed certain groups to break the law. Polygamy has always been treated by the Federal Government as a States Rights Issue. We really need to make marriage fall under federal law so it can be regulated accross all state lines equally.

There are many social problems caused by polygamy.

 

[Scotteq]

I am a mormon and polygamy is illegal. All who are practicing polygamy are breaking the law. The real problem is that states have allowed certain groups to break the law. Polygamy has always been treated by the Federal Government as a States Rights Issue. We really need to make marriage fall under federal law so it can be regulated accross all state lines equally.

There are many social problems caused by polygamy.

I stand Corrected, sir.