Europe is a different matter. The English Constitution isn't written down and can be changed by Parliament. That can't happen here.
This really is a big to-do over nothing.
“This really is a big to-do over nothing.”
Okay. What about civil law? Contract law determines its own parameters on how civil courts rule - such law is constantly in flux. I read recently that a plaintiff wanted to settle his contract dispute via Sharia law. Didn’t see any follow-up, but that is a definite camel-humper nose in the tent.
With due respect, folks like you often can’t see the slow insidious movements that our Republic can’t recognize until it’s too late to turn the tide. Think liberalism/socialism encroachment and how long they have been inching along to this point. If you need further proof, look at Europe and their extreme political correctness towards all things Islam, not mention bankrupt well-fare states that could possibly make 2008 look like a boom market.
Just stand by...we may not have the camel nose as yet, but definitely smelling the breath...
I don’t understand the court’s reasoning. They say the law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Leaving aside the not-insignificant fact that this law was not made by the Congress, but rather by the OK legislature, exactly which religion is established by the law? Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Obviously no religion is established by this law.
So maybe the court’s problem is really with the Free Exercise clause:
“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
If so, then they are equating the practice of sharia with the free exercise of Islam. And that would be a real can of worms to open.
Right, except here, the U.S. Constitution is written down and can be changed by SCOTUS on a whim.