Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oklahoma Judge Sides With CAIR and Blocks Sharia ban!
Logan's Warning ^ | November 29Th, 2010 | Christopher Logan

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; Military/Veterans; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: blogpimpimam; islam; jihad; radicalmuslims; sharia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: Islaminaction
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 madness.
21 posted on 11/29/2010 3:33:08 PM PST by americanophile (November can't come fast enough....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Islaminaction

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.


22 posted on 11/29/2010 3:33:41 PM PST by americanophile (November can't come fast enough....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Damned Amish. These whiteys are going to ruin our country.


23 posted on 11/29/2010 3:38:46 PM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Islaminaction
Mr. Logan is prone to hissy fits.

For those who would prefer to see the actual ruling, rather than a hypertensive whine about it, Poke Here.

24 posted on 11/29/2010 3:48:14 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

A vile, corrupt political hack in judge’s robes.


25 posted on 11/29/2010 3:54:20 PM PST by Godwin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

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.


26 posted on 11/29/2010 4:06:05 PM PST by Islaminaction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Islaminaction
This is a time when conservatives are supposed to be uniting, but you think it is more important to attack me. Good work.

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?

27 posted on 11/29/2010 7:44:33 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Islaminaction; All

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3910

What we don’t need in the US...


28 posted on 11/30/2010 4:15:17 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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?

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?

29 posted on 11/30/2010 4:22:04 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“It imposes no such restrictions on the States.”

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.

30 posted on 11/30/2010 4:56:13 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
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).

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.

31 posted on 11/30/2010 6:08:11 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Read the judge's idiotic and disingenuous opinion. There is certainly a brave new world out there, and this judge is one person trying to implement that.
32 posted on 11/30/2010 6:33:28 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It imposes no such restrictions on the States.

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.

33 posted on 11/30/2010 6:59:36 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
What happens when Sharia law conflicts with the "equal protection" 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?

34 posted on 11/30/2010 7:53:07 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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."

Your condescesion doesn't change the fact that the subject of that passage is still "Congress", and everything after it applies only to Congress.

35 posted on 11/30/2010 7:57:34 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Saved for later. Thank you for ping.


36 posted on 11/30/2010 8:07:25 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (TSA -- dirtiest word in our language. [Used to be Clinton.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Your condescesion doesn't change the fact that the subject of that passage is still "Congress", and everything after it applies only to Congress.

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.

37 posted on 11/30/2010 8:08:26 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

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.


38 posted on 11/30/2010 8:11:21 AM PST by Islaminaction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BCW

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.


39 posted on 11/30/2010 8:14:08 AM PST by Islaminaction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Oh look, more insults to me. Lose the obsession with me.


40 posted on 11/30/2010 8:15:51 AM PST by Islaminaction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson