Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: circlecity
Nobody tried to “ban Islam”, rather they banned a theocratic legal and political system (Sharia law). How in the world could that conflict with the first amendment?

I can't say for certain, having not seen whatever actual order was handed down, but at the very least, I believe there would be a problem with the fact that the law bans only *a* theocratic legal system.

It doesn't restrict judges' use or implementation of papal law, or Jewish law, or Bahai law, or Hindu law. Judges can still rely on any of those varieties of religious law. Rather, it singles out just one particular type of religious law, Islamic law, and then says that Oklahoma courts have to treat that religious law different from any and all other religious law.

And that definitely puts it in conflict with the First Amendment.

165 posted on 11/08/2010 3:38:47 PM PST by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: LorenC

If you get a chance, look up the state question—actually it does ban others by way of stating “or any other foreign” laws, or similar words. It does point out Sharia, but not exclusively.


168 posted on 11/08/2010 3:44:54 PM PST by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

To: LorenC
"It doesn't restrict judges' use or implementation of papal law, or Jewish law, or Bahai law, or Hindu law. Judges can still rely on any of those varieties of religious law. Rather, it singles out just one particular type of religious law, Islamic law, and then says that Oklahoma courts have to treat that religious law different from any and all other religious law."

I disagree. What is banned is the Legal/political construct apart from its acknowedged origin. That it appeals to a certain religious group is incidental. And specific prohibition of this certain construct does not imply approval of any other given political construct whether it appeals to Jews, Hindus or whoever. Those can be dealt with in the future or on a case by case basis. (The English/American legal system and how it functions is unmistakeably similar to the Jewish study and practice of Talmudic/Torah law. That one was modeled after the other is undeniable) That our original constitutional political construct appealed immensely to Christians is of no moment in this regard either. The sharia legal construct, whether despite of or because of its theological foundation conflicts with much of the constitution itself and I see no plausible way banning the same could be said to conflict with the language or intent of the US constitution. Granted, a liberal can find anything unconstitutional if it conflicts with their political objectives. (which is, in itself, unconstitutional)

188 posted on 11/08/2010 6:14:19 PM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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