Posted on 11/29/2010 1:41:32 PM PST by Islaminaction
In this disappointing but not surprising update to the elected Sharia ban in Oklahoma Courts, we see that Judge Miles-LaGrange has gone against the will of the people. As she has blocked the certification of the Sharia ban. This is a preliminary injunction, until a final decision is made on the lawsuit. But for now, she just handed Islam a victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at loganswarning.com ...
This must be appealed. If the sovereign states cannot direct that the courts look only to domestic law and not consider foreign law, including Sharia, which has no basis in American jurisprudence, then our laws have absolutely no meaning and some animist blood ritual from Angola or an edict from a council of Celtic druids or any fanciful nonsense can be used as a basis to interpret (read: create) American law. Imagine how confused you have to be as a judge, how ‘in the forest’ you have to be not to be able to comprehend that a state need only rely on the laws duly adopted by American legislatures. It’s the essence of sovereignty. This is madness.
Damned Amish. These whiteys are going to ruin our country.
For those who would prefer to see the actual ruling, rather than a hypertensive whine about it, Poke Here.
A vile, corrupt political hack in judge’s robes.
This is a time when conservatives are supposed to be uniting, but you think it is more important to attack me. Good work.
Since you say I am throwing a “hissy fit”, why don’t you explain to the readers what they are supposed to like about this ruling?
Thank you.
This is a time when conservatives ought to be using their minds. All it takes is to read the actual decision, to realize that you're using something other than your mind to write that crap.
Since you say I am throwing a “hissy fit”, why don’t you explain to the readers what they are supposed to like about this ruling?
Well, for one thing, the fact that it's correctly interpreting the Constitution. But hey -- you're not worried about the Constitution for Muslims, are you?
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3910
What we don’t need in the US...
The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It imposes no such restrictions on the States. Where in the Constitution do you see a restriction that prevents the citizens of Minnesota from doing this?
The First Amend. has been incorporated (Wrongly) onto the States. Original intent is long gone, destroyed by the oligarchy designed to protect original intent in the first place (In the Founders’ visions).
‘Brutus’ was spot on in Anti-Federalist #XIV-XV.Until Mr. KKK, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black's court along with the early "progressive era", decisions like United States v. Cruikshank were the norm and followed original intent. Racists and "progressives", are driving this country towards ruin.
But how is this a first amendment issue? Freedom of religion has never been interpreted to extend to forcing others to comply with your religion. It would be nonsensical.
Ah, I see. You're telling us that the First Amendment doesn't apply if a state doesn't want it to apply.
Indeed, I do see.
If you actually read the decision itself (you'll see a handy link, provided above), you'll understand that Miss Logan is simply having another of his attacks of the vapors.
Among other things, the decision states (and CAIR argued in the first place) that Sharia does not have force of law and cannot supercede any law -- it's considered and meant to be treated as a religious tradition.
And, of course, the Constitution says more than you quoted: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
As for the "free exercise" clause, the decision noted an example regarding the traditional formulation of Muslim wills, which are written in accordance with Muslim tradition (and therefore Sharia law). Although the form and content of such wills is perfectly legal, this law would prevent them from being probated by the courts. That represents a violation of the "free exercise" clause.
And of course, none of the folks screaming about this injunction, ever seem to see the larger implications of such a stupid, stupid law. If a law could be passed regarding one religion, it's only a matter of time before it got applied to other religions.
If the court can make decisions based on Sharia law, couldn't they decide to base their decisions on Mosaic law just as well, and simply disregard civil law whenever it might suit them?
Your condescesion doesn't change the fact that the subject of that passage is still "Congress", and everything after it applies only to Congress.
Saved for later. Thank you for ping.
My condescension is warranted, apparently:
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Sorry.
Your language is so Christian like, and your opinion of me means nothing. Why do you continually stand up for a religion that allows pedophilia and rape?
What do you stand up for a religion that has murdered and persecuted and endless number of Christians?
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and Muslims use the Constitution against the country to slowly take it down from within.
BTW, take a look at this site, conservatives here are clearly against Islam. Sorry to disappoint you.
Muslim immigration brings major problems into non-Islamic countries, yet I do not see any elected official talking about ending it, except for Geert Wilders.
Oh look, more insults to me. Lose the obsession with me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.