Oklahoma SQ 755 would forbid Okla. judges from using Sharia law — Islamic law

[vvvvvvv]

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.

...

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.

I agree that the Sharia Law part is a good result. However, the measure was worded very poorly and, as I have pointed out repeatedly over the last several months, has very broad ramifications that I am hoping were not intended by the parties who support it.

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, this would theoretically cover those international laws that are adopted by treaty, but that will most definitely land in federal court. That is a federal and not a state issue.

Argh -- I understand (and sympathize with) 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.

They should have worded it more carefully -- what they are really concerned about (with some justice, I think) is the 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.

What should have been done was drafting a measure that prohibited "cultural defenses" and "cultural traditions" from being used in Oklahoma courts. For example, Latinos have in the past tried to use a cultural defense of "a man striking his woman without causing permanent harm" in the past in California, but it even failed there.

Prohibiting cultural defenses in the courts would have been broad enough to not trigger a First Amendment violation and would have served the same purpose without singling out a particular religion.

However, most people would have to have "cultural defense" explained to them, and most of the sheep equate "Sharia" as "bad" and "no Sharia" as "good".

SQ755 is political posturing and pandering to xenophobia, plain and simple.

 

[JB Books]

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*, not a bad thing.

It scares me you do not believe that it is a bad thing to appeal to the base emotion of bigotry. What's next laws against Jews because they are greedy? Laws against Blacks because they are lazy? Laws against Hispanics....well, I guess we already have those. How far do we take it?

I am not baiting you, and I am not playing the "race card." Stereotyping people based on religion or ethnic background goes against the core values of what it is to be an American. We are supposed to be better than that. That's what we accuse our enemies of doing.

Of course Sharia law should NEVER be used in the United States, but neither should Southern Baptist law (and our Legislature sure seems to try that every session).

 

[Profreedomokie]

I don't find this a joke or waste of time like some do. Every country that the Muslims have taken over starts with them getting their people elected to public office and slowly getting Shaira law worked into the host country's legal system. Who's that guy in our most important public office again? I read one article about Sharia law being used in a court case in New Jersey. I think later it was overturned .The point is they are starting to get it used in our country. We didn't need a state law to protect us from having to buy health insurance required by the feds before did we? Do you think the Brits ever thought they would have Sharia law along side their legal system like they do now? I say stop it now,don't wait until it is too late and then bitch about it.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

has very broad ramifications that I am hoping were not intended by the parties who support it.

Well, VM, THAT alone may very well be plenty reason enough to vote against it, and I thank you for pointing that out. I will read it thoroughly before voting. I abstain from long convoluted state questions unless I've read them beforehand. I will keep this in mind and if it's overbroad / poorly written, etc., then I will vote against it, to be sure. I was spouting off (which I guess I shouldn't have) just based on what it *appears* to say at first glance. No doubt that I'll read it carefully before voting, and if i don't, then abstain. I really hope others do likewise on ALL S.Q.'s, always. The devil is in the details!

 

[vvvvvvv]

I say stop it now,don't wait until it is too late and then bitch about it.

The real question is are you willing to give up freedom of negotiating contracts internationally or choosing to have a wedding in an exotic location for the perceived security from religious laws?

 

[Glocktogo]

It scares me you do not believe that it is a bad thing to appeal to the base emotion of bigotry. What's next laws against Jews because they are greedy? Laws against Blacks because they are lazy? Laws against Hispanics....well, I guess we already have those. How far do we take it?

I am not baiting you, and I am not playing the "race card." Stereotyping people based on religion or ethnic background goes against the core values of what it is to be an American. We are supposed to be better than that. That's what we accuse our enemies of doing.

Of course Sharia law should NEVER be used in the United States, but neither should Southern Baptist law (and our Legislature sure seems to try that every session).

I'm a little more open minded about this. it's not necessarily bigotry to disagree with another culture's way of life. It's simply a value judgement based on one's own beliefs. It would be one thing to make it illegal to be (insert ethnicity here) and quite another to make the social norms of a foreign culture illegal. Let's face it, I doubt there were many Sharia Law practicing Muslims participating in the land rush.

That person then has to decide whether to remain under the new laws, or leave for greener pastures (think Alec Baldwin here). I would never be so bold as to tell an individual that they were not welcome. However, I would have no qualms telling them to check their abberant customs at the door, just as they would expect me to do in their native land. When in Rome as they say.

 

[SoonerBorn]

The real question is are you willing to give up freedom of negotiating contracts internationally or choosing to have a wedding in an exotic location for the perceived security from religious laws?

+1 people. Stop being so obtuse....

http://www.hulu.com/watch/72489/family-guy-being-obtuse

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

It scares me you do not believe that it is a bad thing to appeal to the base emotion of bigotry. What's next laws against Jews because they are greedy?

Sir, you shouldn't be scared, because you are confusing the relatively unimportant issue of "appealing" to voters based on bigotry, with the very very very important issue of, ya know, *actual concrete substance of the measure proposed*, and whether it's good or bad. A little trickery if you want to call it that, isn't all bad if the result is good policy, carefully construed and carried out. Such trickery/bigotry would be very very bad if the actual policy measure proposed is itself a bad measure to society, or would have the unintended consequences mentioned. Again, this one may be bad / poorly worded, with unintended consequences. But if it's NOT, then it could be viewed as .... at least it's a START toward additional strengthening of the separation of church and state.

I do however, see your point, of voting no as a protest to the distinction within, among religions. I cannot say that that is a wrong point of view. It really should not distinguish among any religion. But the answer is yeah, if Jews start trying to push their religion onto government as Muslims do (but Jews don't), and/or if Jews start having a certain small but hard core percentage of their members who are hellbent on killing American infidels for not being muslim (as Muslims do but Jews don't), then hell yes, we should pass laws showing a bias against Judaism. Or at least I think that's what I think. Right now. I could be wrong. Besides, greed is good (ask Gordon Gecko). Killing people because they disagree with your religion and practice other religions AND at the same time, trying to make your religion take over all world governments is BAD. Good. Versus. Bad. Distinction. All-important.

 

[JB Books]

And we don't need to pass laws about it.

My problem with this is the fact it is being used to appeal to the worst in us.

For all the disdain about "sheeple" around here, some folks sure let themselves be led.

I'm a little more open minded about this. it's not necessarily bigotry to disagree with another culture's way of life. It's simply a value judgement based on one's own beliefs. It would be one thing to make it illegal to be (insert ethnicity here) and quite another to make the social norms of a foreign culture illegal. Let's face it, I doubt there were many Sharia Law practicing Muslims participating in the land rush.

That person then has to decide whether to remain under the new laws, or leave for greener pastures (think Alec Baldwin here). I would never be so bold as to tell an individual that they were not welcome. However, I would have no qualms telling them to check their abberant customs at the door, just as they would expect me to do in their native land. When in Rome as they say.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Well, VM, THAT alone may very well be plenty reason enough to vote against it, and I thank you for pointing that out. I will read it thoroughly before voting. I abstain from long convoluted state questions unless I've read them beforehand. I will keep this in mind and if it's overbroad / poorly written, etc., then I will vote against it, to be sure. I was spouting off (which I guess I shouldn't have) just based on what it *appears* to say at first glance. No doubt that I'll read it carefully before voting, and if i don't, then abstain. I really hope others do likewise on ALL S.Q.'s, always. The devil is in the details!

I'm actually doing a series of blog posts explaining my position on each state question through next week. I'm doing one a day (keeps traffic up and ad impressions up, lol), so at the end of next week I will put up a post that links to all of them. I don't expect people to agree with me on all of them, but I do try to provide an explanation of how I arrived at my decision and what should have been different, if anything, for me to have arrived at a different conclusion.