[Hodar]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Source

It's right there, by making a law prohibiting a religous law, they have "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The court did it's job. I don't like it; but they made the correct decision.

[Olog-hai]

No actually: the court's ruling was in respect of an establishment of religion, and even worse putting Shari'a over the Constitution.

Back when the Constitution was written though, the word "religion" did not include Mohammedanism; when Washington said that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to the newly-founded US government, and when John Adams said the US Constitution was meant "only for a moral and religious people", guess what they were talking about?

[Qbert]

"It's right there, by making a law prohibiting a religous law, they have "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The court did it's job. I don't like it; but they made the correct decision."

It's a tad bit more complex than that.

[muawiyah]

Sharia Law IS NOT a religion. It is a body of what amount to court cases annotated to various Hadiths (events involving or sayings of the prophet and his followers).

Islam has to do with the delivery of the Koran to Allah's prophet ~ named Mohammad.

The First amendment deals with SPEECH and with RELIGIOUS SPEECH both.

There's a reason for that. It is because they can be different.

The Shariah Law does not recognize the validity of another law system. The First amendment is part of an alien law system.

So, you want to run back through that one with me ~ this case involved Shariah, not Islam.

[An American!]

Sorry but I think you are mistaken, but this was an Amendment, not a congressional passed law. Big difference. It was a State law. Your quote states, “Congress shall make no law”.

Need to remember something in all of this, This Constitution is is the framework whereby the People of the United States, through elected representatives, have established the delegated powers and limitations of the United States government with respect to the citizens, the states, and all those within the United States.

Hmmm...seems to me that 70% of Oklahoma people said this should be a change...not sure where a Denver judge gets off telling them they can’t.

The courts are using their ‘powers’ given to them by the people, to overrule the people...a confrontation is looming I fear.

[RinaseaofDs]

If you consider Islam a religion, this is a debatable issue in the courts.

Islam, however, is a system of government and NOT a religion.

Currently, Islam infringes on religious and political freedom because our society and courts look at Islam as EXCLUSIVELY a religion.

Islam is a system of government, first and foremost, and it should be considered as such FIRST, and then as a religion second.

There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for Sharia law. Nothing.

This ruling is an end run around an Amendment.

We simply refuse to learn ANYTHING from history when it pertains to Islam. They are either at your throat, or under your heel. Never are they at the table with you.

[Adder]

I disagree: they have now said that religious law can in fact be used to determine US or state law. Its the same as saying that the Talmud can be used to decide laws. Or that a payday loan rate is too high because it violates sharia.

No....they did not get it right: there is nothing in the law that prevents the plaintiff from excercising or practicng sharia in his own circumstance. Now, however, anyone and everyone can be judged in light of sharia. Let ‘em try.

[kralcmot]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Congress did not make the Oklahoma Law, so how is it unconstitutional?