Muslims fight Oklahoma anti-sharia amendment

OK, boys and girls, some of you say this would never happen, well read on.

An Islamic critic and terrorism expert is not surprised that a radical pro-terrorist organization would try to use the courts to usurp the will of Oklahomans who want no part of sharia law.

Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order to block the state's constitutional amendment that prohibits courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.

That move prevents the state election board from certifying the results of the November 2 general election, in which the amendment was approved by over 70 percent of voters. The order will remain in effect until a November 22 hearing on a requested preliminary injunction, which was issued in a lawsuit filed by the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1228092

Some body needs to tell the okies that there is no bag limit on these assholes.

:thumbsup:

Thanks for posting this Outdoor. I've been posting about this off and on for a few months and usually get shot down by others saying these are just the "radicals". If it can happen in OK it WILL happen everywhere. Where's the NOW gang and the gay rights groups? Where are you???

[youtube:3k0w9kmk][/youtube:3k0w9kmk]



[youtube:3k0w9kmk][/youtube:3k0w9kmk]

This is a good argument for separation of church & state.

The Supreme Court held that enacting laws that target specific religions are unconstitutional back in 1993 and violate the 1st Amendment. Why do the bozos in OK think that it is now permissible to target Islamic practices? Further, courts are only allowed to apply civil law, not religious laws. Courts do not apply Catholic law, Jewish law, or Sharia law, only civil law.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supreme Court held that enacting laws that target specific religions are unconstitutional back in 1993 and violate the 1st Amendment. Why do the bozos in OK think that it is now permissible to target Islamic practices? Further, courts are only allowed to apply civil law, not religious laws. Courts do not apply Catholic law, Jewish law, or Sharia law, only civil law.

Don't be so ignorant. The Okies said that the civil law applies to everyone and no religion gets a free pass because of separation of religion and state. The Okies said if a religion violates civil law, the civil law prevails and religious law takes as back seat.

Scruffy wrote: This is a good argument for separation of church & state.

Yeah right! Explain that to a Muslim. I can see it now.

Scruffy: "Excuse Mr. Muslim man, we have a little thing called separation of church and state in the US."
Mr. Muslim Man: "Not any more, you can pledge your allegiance to Muhammad or I will separate your head from your torso, how's that for separate of church and state?"
Scruffy: "I love Muhammad"
Mr. Muslim Man: "Good, cause I didn't want to have to take your wife."

I wonder how many Americans would vote for Islam as a state religion on the promise of not taxing them? Will history repeat itself?

major bean wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supreme Court held that enacting laws that target specific religions are unconstitutional back in 1993 and violate the 1st Amendment. Why do the bozos in OK think that it is now permissible to target Islamic practices? Further, courts are only allowed to apply civil law, not religious laws. Courts do not apply Catholic law, Jewish law, or Sharia law, only civil law.

Don't be so ignorant. The Okies said that the civil law applies to everyone and no religion gets a free pass because of separation of religion and state. The Okies said if a religion violates civil law, the civil law prevails and religious law takes as back seat.

Perhaps you should work to correct your ignorance before you attack others. The Oklahoma referendum was specific to Sharia or International law. I have no idea where you came up with "if a religion violates civil law, the civil law prevails and religious law takes as back seat". That simply was not the law passed by Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma law as passed was:

"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. "

It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law

And your point is............?