Changed my mind on SQ 755

[vvvvvvv]

The international law thing is a tricky subject that I'm not qualified to weigh in on. I haven't heard an educated argument either way. I can see a case for citing decisions from other countries with similar legal systems, but my gut instinct is that it's a bad idea.

In the case of bannng all international law, yeah, there is no reason we should start allowing other countries laws in our courts. We have our own law as a country, we don't need any backseat direction from another country.

The issue is not "backseat direction". The issue is the ability of Oklahoma courts to determine if a judgment against an Oklahoma entity is valid and should be enforced pursuant to 12 O.S. § 718.1 - 12 O.S. § 729.16 and pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws.

By not allowing Oklahoma courts the ability to reference international law where appropriate, Oklahoma becomes a very unattractive place to do business internationally.

Another issue is cultural defenses other than Sharia Law. Those are more commonly used, and are somewhat successful. But because they do not ring the xenophobic bell that "Sharia" does, they go largely unnoticed.

 

[nich018]

Andrew Spiropoulos, an Oklahoma City University law professor who directs the school’s Center for the Study of State Constitutional Law and Governments, said there haven’t been problems in the past with courts ruling on cases using Sharia law and he doesn’t envision how the state question would really change the way courts are required to act.

He said situations where using Sharia law could possibly arise are in arbitration proceedings, such as divorces cases, where the parties agree to use Sharia law in making the decision. Spiropoulos said even if the state question is passed, arbitration cases could still continue because state and federal laws still provide for them. By not specifically arguing something should be decided on Sharia law, there are a lot of other ways judges could theoretically still rule on these type of cases, he said.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s Sharia law, Jewish law or whatever else you might call something,” he said. “So the real issue is that there really is no practical effect to it.”

 

[de-evoproject]

I like werewolf's way of thinking here. Precendents set in our courts should be based on the norms of our society and not some other country across the pond. Many of the Muslim countries laws are barbaric, if any of the banner waving hardcore liberals (hardcore liberal= oxymoron?) saw the way the law in some of those countries handle things i think they would change their tune.

I can see where allowing the use of international law might be useful in rare situations but in the overall scheme is seems to be more of a negative thing that would open up the door for abuse of our court system and loopholing around consequences. And i see nothing wrong with setting up a safeguard against a politico-religious system that has a large extremist following who are actively trying to impose themselves throughout the world with a certain degree of success.

If it was any other religious or political group that was pushing to "take over" and showing a fairly successful campaign, especially one that was inclined towards violence and political undermining to institute their systems and beliefs, I would be all for safe guarding against them too. I don't care who.

These groups have just gotten more sauve. They figured out the the Nazi war machine and Christian crusades will eventually fail and are moving to a war of political influence. To me its the same thing as heavily arming the borders to stave off invasion.

 

[TerryMiller]

From my understanding of Islam and Sharia law, they are basically one and the same. Under Sharia, if one converts from Islam to any other religion, the convert must be encouraged to "re-convert" back to Islam. If not, they are subject to being killed. I learned that about Islam way back in the '60's while I was stationed in Pakistan.

And, say what you want to about the "slippery slope" theory, it is already in effect in Europe in that some of those countries have allowed Sharia in what they thought were just "civil" cases. However, in some of those same countries, the police do not respond to areas where Sharia is in effect. Thus, I would say that in those areas, the slippery slope has effectively been used by the Muslims, in steps, to obtain their goal, which is to get the whole world under Sharia.
.

 

[BadgeBunny]

From my understanding of Islam and Sharia law, they are basically one and the same. Under Sharia, if one converts from Islam to any other religion, the convert must be encouraged to "re-convert" back to Islam. If not, they are subject to being killed. I learned that about Islam way back in the '60's while I was stationed in Pakistan.

And, say what you want to about the "slippery slope" theory, it is already in effect in Europe in that some of those countries have allowed Sharia in what they thought were just "civil" cases. However, in some of those same countries, the police do not respond to areas where Sharia is in effect. Thus, I would say that in those areas, the slippery slope has effectively been used by the Muslims, in steps, to obtain their goal, which is to get the whole world under Sharia.
.

This. My one experience with "immersion" into the Pakistani and Muslim culture has very much colored my thoughts about all this. The fella I dated wound up going back home (without me, I might add) and married (arranged) to a Pakistani woman. They came over here right before 9/11 ... I have always wondered if he knew something because the timing of their move was, well, nothing short of spectacular. His dad was a fairly high level national politician over there.

After being here a few years she figured out she didn't really have to take his crap ... I mean after all, societal norms over here and over there are like night and day.

Their divorce turned into a nightmare because he (of course) thought they should follow Sharia law since they were married in Pakistan. Never mind that they had been living here for the last 11 years. He had an attorney, she had an attorney, both wound up with different attorneys before it was all said and done ... kids had a guardian ad litem appointed by the court ... what a cluster ...

All this because he thinks that beating your wife and kids as a form of discipline is appropriate.

All you guys who think we ought to take the high road here and let everyone practice "religion" in their own way need a real good dose of living in that culture before you treat it like some harmless coffee-table conversation philosophy.

 

[de-evoproject]

This. My one experience with "immersion" into the Pakistani and Muslim culture has very much colored my thoughts about all this. The fella I dated wound up going back home (without me, I might add) and married (arranged) to a Pakistani woman. They came over here right before 9/11 ... I have always wondered if he knew something because the timing of their move was, well, nothing short of spectacular. His dad was a fairly high level national politician over there.

After being here a few years she figured out she didn't really have to take his crap ... I mean after all, societal norms over here and over there are like night and day.

Their divorce turned into a nightmare because he (of course) thought they should follow Sharia law since they were married in Pakistan. Never mind that they had been living here for the last 11 years. He had an attorney, she had an attorney, both wound up with different attorneys before it was all said and done ... kids had a guardian ad litem appointed by the court ... what a cluster ...

All this because he thinks that beating your wife and kids as a form of discipline is appropriate.

All you guys who think we ought to take the high road here and let everyone practice "religion" in their own way need a real good dose of living in that culture before you treat it like some harmless coffee-table conversation philosophy.

Right on, ma'am!

I hear everyone talking about "alarmist" and "feeding the fear" but the reality is this particular religion has a very large group of extremists that ARE intent on converting or conquering as much of the world as they can and are doing it with a certain degree of success. To dismiss the dangers of the hardliners of the group is to let them continue their campaign and eventually be caught unaware.

I don't hold anything against Muslims as a group, but i do understand that their is a sub group under that bigger umbrella of "Muslim" who are fairly large in number and view me as a target or enemy. I hold with the old Boy Scout motto..... Be Prepared.

 

[Rajder]

First of all lets get something clear: NO ONE IS ADVOCATING FOR SHARIA LAW!!!! Some of you guys keep talking about liberals yada yada yada. Everyone agrees that Sharia is a barbaric law and should not be allowed in our country. I'm pretty sure even the most hardcore liberals don't want sharia law in the country. What I understand from previous discussions is this:

1.) This law would accomplish absolutely nothing and is purely symbolic. Sharia law could never be used in the US anyways so this law effectively accomplishes nothing.

2.) This law could possibly hurt Oklahoma by detering businesses that operate internationally from residing in Oklahoma.

This law does nothing good, is potentially harmful to Oklahoma and is clearly written as a piece of legislation to lure conservative voters to the ballot box. I'm all for making sure sharia law stays out of Oklahoma but not at the expense of possible job opportunities for Oklahomans. If the law was worded differently so that it couldn't hurt international businesses then I don't think anyone would be against this law. You guys should stop letting your hatred of islam cloud your judgement.

 

[grizzly97]

To Werewolf and Badgebunny, RIGHT ON!!!!!! I'm voting yes 755!!!

 

[Glocktogo]

SQ 755 is simply a way to pander to people's fear of Muslims. It is a conservative play on the race card. Despite the one ruling in New Jersey which is so oft cited (and which was reversed), the likelihood of Sharia law ever having any influence in the US is extremely remote. This is even more true in Oklahoma, the buckle of the proverbial "bible belt." For all the hard core conservatives here that support this, let me admonish you all with your favorite saying, "Wake up sheeple." Right wing politicians are every bit as callous as left wingers.

Wouldn't that more correctly be the conservative play on the bigot card JB? I didn't know that Muslim was a race.

At issue to me is not the religious aspect of Islam, but the political and legal aspect. Islam is far more than a religion. While it can be a stand alone religion, in many cases it's an entire system of life. Whereas the Christian system of life relies on quoting scripture and encouraging or admonishing it's adherents to follow those precepts, Islam in many locales implements Sharia Law and compels it's adherents to follow the religious precepts as a matter of law. Where it does that it ceases to be a religion and enters the realm of a legal & political system. In those cases, it should no longer enjoy the protections established for a religion.

In dealing with Muslim groups, I believe the most important thing we can do is separate the religion from the system and make it clear that Sharia Law and any political system based on the religion is not the same as the religion itself. Thoughts?

 

[RickN]

First of all lets get something clear: NO ONE IS ADVOCATING FOR SHARIA LAW!!!! Some of you guys keep talking about liberals yada yada yada. Everyone agrees that Sharia is a barbaric law and should not be allowed in our country. I'm pretty sure even the most hardcore liberals don't want sharia law in the country. What I understand from previous discussions is this:

1.) This law would accomplish absolutely nothing and is purely symbolic. Sharia law could never be used in the US anyways so this law effectively accomplishes nothing.

2.) This law could possibly hurt Oklahoma by detering businesses that operate internationally from residing in Oklahoma.

This law does nothing good, is potentially harmful to Oklahoma and is clearly written as a piece of legislation to lure conservative voters to the ballot box. I'm all for making sure sharia law stays out of Oklahoma but not at the expense of possible job opportunities for Oklahomans. If the law was worded differently so that it couldn't hurt international businesses then I don't think anyone would be against this law. You guys should stop letting your hatred of islam cloud your judgement.

I have no hatred if Islam but have followed the creep of Islamic law in several western countries and do not want to see it here. Also the deterring business bit is BS. A ruse thrown up by lefties to help defeat the bill. You are right on one part, not even the left wants Islamic law here and if it were not for the part about banning international law many lefties would probably support this bill.

The left could care less about drawing business to Oklahoma but would love to see us burdened with international laws.

I did vote yes.