Replies

"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)

Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the “Lemon Test”.

First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a neutral or non-religious purpose.

Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.