Bwaaahahahahaha!
Oklahoma SQ 755 would forbid Okla. judges from using Sharia law Islamic law
- Thread starter RugersGR8
- Start Date
- Status
Bwaaahahahahaha!
While it's true that it's a waste of time since it wouldn't happen anyway, no reason not to nip this crap in the bud, since it's already on the ballot now (the wasted time to date is now spilled milk), and (allegedly) this has happened elsewhere.
Yeah, it's pandering, but the result is a GOOD thing, if it's anything at all (more good than bad) - the courts should never use ANY religious law in their decisions. So a yes vote is the better outcome, seems to me, among two outcomes that are irrelevant and a waste of time. But it takes less than one second to check the yes box rather than abstain.
I'm an atheist / budding Buddhist, and pretty much dislike all organized religion. But I have a deep hatred, as do many others, of Islam, for good good, very good reasons (obviously). At least Christianity has been (fairly) innocuous since the 1600s & 1700s, aside from the occasional abortion clinic bomber and pushing prohibition on us, and the WOSD - ok, well, on second thought, not *that* innocuous -- but relative to the Taliban and such, 1000 times more palatable than Islam - hundreds of times less total magnitude of misery and suffering is spread by Christianity than by Islam.
All the above applies to the Islamic law part of it. I'm not commenting on the international law part of it - still self-educating on that one.
Go HERE to read the state questions for yourself, before you go vote.
Yeah, it's pandering, but the result is a GOOD thing, if it's anything at all (more good than bad) - the courts should never use ANY religious law in their decisions. So a yes vote is the better outcome, seems to me, among two outcomes that are irrelevant and a waste of time. But it takes less than one second to check the yes box rather than abstain.
I'm an atheist / budding Buddhist, and pretty much dislike all organized religion. But I have a deep hatred, as do many others, of Islam, for good good, very good reasons (obviously). At least Christianity has been (fairly) innocuous since the 1600s & 1700s, aside from the occasional abortion clinic bomber and pushing prohibition on us, and the WOSD - ok, well, on second thought, not *that* innocuous -- but relative to the Taliban and such, 1000 times more palatable than Islam - hundreds of times less total magnitude of misery and suffering is spread by Christianity than by Islam.
All the above applies to the Islamic law part of it. I'm not commenting on the international law part of it - still self-educating on that one.
Go HERE to read the state questions for yourself, before you go vote.
Rick:
Your example is not really accurate. If we needed to pass a state law everytime a judge made a bad decision, we'd be at the ballot box every day. Judges mess up. It happens.
Hobbes is exactly correct. This state question is nothing more that a tactic to drive voters to the pollls. It has no relevance here in Oklahoma. It appeals to our natural bigotry towards Muslims.
Your example is not really accurate. If we needed to pass a state law everytime a judge made a bad decision, we'd be at the ballot box every day. Judges mess up. It happens.
Hobbes is exactly correct. This state question is nothing more that a tactic to drive voters to the pollls. It has no relevance here in Oklahoma. It appeals to our natural bigotry towards Muslims.
I'm sorry, I don't understand why this would be a bad thing.
Would this not also cover International laws passed by the UN, like the ones they want to pass in regards to firearms ownership?
Yes it does.
Oh, and in related news, laws that make rape illegal also appeal to our natural bigotry against rape and rapists.
Ahhh, ye olde' "perfect is the enemy of good" fallacy of logic in disguise. Interesting. Yeah, we can't fix all our problems, so why try fixing any of them? It's hopeless. The ballot question is ridiculous ONLY because it doesn't ALSO include all other religions, including first and foremost Christianity, which would have been a really really good thing to vote for. But a ho-hum law that is 0.000001% good is still better than a no law that is 0.00000001% good, when the really really good law is not an option on the voter ballot. Unless you're Muslim.
So, you are equating all Muslims with rapists?
Argh -- I understand (and sympathize with) some of the concerns that led to this proposed amendment to the state constitution, but the way it is drafted it is a complete cluster you-know-what.
Veggie Meat pegged it in post #4. The language of the amendment prohibits OK courts from applying or looking to foreign law even when international business parties engaged in a transaction with an Oklahoma business want to stipulate for this in the contract. Makes us look like rubes and will discourage business investment.
Here's what I think happened. I am speculating:
Rep. Duncan et al. really just wanted an amendment prohibiting the use of Sharia law. But they realized that a state law that singles out Sharia law by name for negative treatment is a slam-dunk to be struck down by a federal court as an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment freedom of religion and freedom against religious establishment.
Which is true. I am just predicting, not editorializing. This thing is dead in the water if it passes; it will be enjoined by a federal court.
In an attempt to fix it, they broadened it to international law generally, but this change has the negative side effects mentioned above. It is poor drafting.
They should have worded it more precisely -- what they are really concerned about (with some justice) is some courts' use of "customary international law" to interpret American constitutional provisions, not the use of foreign law per se.
Still, as long as it contains the explicit, negative mention of Islamic law, even a more carefully drafted prohibition on the use of international law probably wouldn't be enough to save this provision from being struck down in federal court as a religious liberty violation.
Veggie Meat pegged it in post #4. The language of the amendment prohibits OK courts from applying or looking to foreign law even when international business parties engaged in a transaction with an Oklahoma business want to stipulate for this in the contract. Makes us look like rubes and will discourage business investment.
Here's what I think happened. I am speculating:
Rep. Duncan et al. really just wanted an amendment prohibiting the use of Sharia law. But they realized that a state law that singles out Sharia law by name for negative treatment is a slam-dunk to be struck down by a federal court as an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment freedom of religion and freedom against religious establishment.
Which is true. I am just predicting, not editorializing. This thing is dead in the water if it passes; it will be enjoined by a federal court.
In an attempt to fix it, they broadened it to international law generally, but this change has the negative side effects mentioned above. It is poor drafting.
They should have worded it more precisely -- what they are really concerned about (with some justice) is some courts' use of "customary international law" to interpret American constitutional provisions, not the use of foreign law per se.
Still, as long as it contains the explicit, negative mention of Islamic law, even a more carefully drafted prohibition on the use of international law probably wouldn't be enough to save this provision from being struck down in federal court as a religious liberty violation.
No, I'm saying that ther's a GOOD REASON for normal, rational people to dislike all organized religions, and chief among them Islam, and pass laws that discourage and/or prohibit the goverment from "respecting an establishment of religion", just like the Constitution says - separation of church and state is a must. And a law respecting one particular establishment of religion (Islam) is many many times worse than one which respects a different establishment of religion (Christianity), even though the latter is still bad (since, ya know, Islamic law says stoning a person to death for adultury is A-OK, but Christian law does not, just as one example).
A judge using religious law as a basis for decision would be doing something that "respects" an establishment of religion, which is prohibited. So the law does nothing more than bolster / align with, what is already in the constitution - it just doesn't go far enough, with its silly distinction of picking out one religion. Sure that's the worst one, without a doubt, but the law should prohibit judges from using ANY religious law in making their decisions....
.....JUST LIKE there's a GOOD REASON for normal rational people to dislike and discourage and prohibit rape in our society.
You seemed to be trying to imply (to me it seems) that "appealing to" our dislike of Islam and Muslims is a *bad thing*. To the extent that you may have been trying to imply that, I'm disputing it - I say yep - this is a *good thing* if it motivates people to the polls, not a bad thing. If you were not trying to imply that, and I made an improper inference, then 'nevermiiiind' [/R. Rosannadanna]
I think the basic argument here is this: (a) Islam is a huge worldwide religion, and a growing one, (b) Most Islams are not violent, (c) but a certain percentage of Muslims are now, and will ALWAYS be violent and interested in killing non-believers, and very very adamant about making all governments church-run states - it doesn't really matter whether that percentage of violent muslims is 5% or 10% or 20% or 30% - all that matters is that SOME percent of them are the extreme violent types, (d) every time muslim spreads and grows throughout the world, the TOTAL number, on an absolute scale, of violent radical a-hole muslims increases, even if the percentage is small, given though that SOME percentage of the general muslim population is and will always be violent, (e) stopping or slowly the spread/growth of Islam is therefore 1) going to result in a reduced total number of violent, infidel-killin a-holes in the world, 2) and therefore be a good and desirable thing - in fact, I think it's absolutely critical to the survival of our world democracies as we know them, that the spread of islam be contained. Yes, it's a cancer or virus plagueing the world, no question about it. Sorry, non-violent muslims, thems are the FACTS - it would be different if you non-violent types could contain /eliminate the violent types - but the fact is that you cannot. And therefore your religion must be stopped from spreading any further throughout the world. That's my lone humble opinion anyways. I could be wrong. I'm not often accused of being P.C.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
South East OK BF Goodrich Rugged Trail T/A LT245/75R17 121/118R M+S- Latest: OK Corgi Rancher
-
-
