Federal judge blocks Oklahoma Sharia law ban

[EnglishLady]

BBC News

Federal judge blocks Oklahoma Sharia law ban

A US federal judge has stopped Oklahoma putting into effect a constitutional amendment to bar courts from considering Islamic law in judgements.

Judge Vicky Miles-Lagrange granted an injunction against the certification of the results of State Question 755.

She said she needed more time to decide the merits of a complaint by a Muslim, who argued that the ban would violate his right to freedom of religion.

The ban was approved by 70% of voters in a referendum earlier this month.

Muneer Awad, the head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, filed a suit saying the amendment would affect every aspect of his life, including his will and testament.

In her ruling on Monday, Judge Miles-Lagrange said Mr Awad had shown he would have suffered an "injury, specifically, an invasion of his First Amendment rights" if the results of Question 755 were certified.

"Plaintiff has sufficiently set forth a personal stake in this action by alleging that he lives in Oklahoma, is a Muslim, that the amendment conveys an official government message of disapproval and hostility toward his religious beliefs, that sends a clear message he is an outsider, not a full member of the political community, thereby chilling his access to the government and forcing him to curtail his political and religious activities," she explained.

Mr Awad said: "We applaud today's ruling and welcome the opportunity it offers to demonstrate that Oklahoma's Muslim community simply seeks to enjoy the civil and religious rights guaranteed to all Americans."

The author of the amendment, Republican state representative Rex Duncan, has said it is not intended as an attack on Muslims, but is rather a "pre-emptive strike" preventing Sharia law being applied

 

[greg334]

Good, if it didn't target a specific religion, then it would have been alright.

 

[jjoerger]

I guess I don't understand. Why would a religous law be considered in a public court?
Does this mean I can move to Oklahoma, join a whacked out religion and then claim in court that I did whatever bad thing I am accused of doing as being protected under the first amendment as freedom of religion?

 

[chefdennis]

Okla needs to tell the Fed Court to pound sand, its a state law...screw the Fed.....

 

[greg334]

Chef,
I would agree with you but the problem is that when a religion is singled out which is an open attempt to stop a major religion.

 

[RLENT]

Okla needs to tell the Fed Court to pound sand, its a state law...screw the Fed.....

Well .... so much for the duty of the Federal Government of the United States to it's citizens to uphold the Constitution .... and ensure all citizens are equal under the law .....

 

[chefdennis]

The Okla law does not violate and Individuals right..it simply states that State Judges can not use International law or sharia law in deciding State cases...

American Thinker: The Oklahoma Sharia Ban

The Oklahoma amendment imperils no one's rights under the constitution of either Oklahoma or the United States. It says simply that Oklahoma judges will adhere to the laws of the state and of the United States and will not consider international or Sharia law when exercising their judicial authority. If, after Oklahoma enacts the amendment, a citizen feels that his rights as a United States citizen were somehow violated because the judge failed to consider the tenets of law in Libya, or misogynistic and backward Sharia law, that person could challenge the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That amendment reiterates that all Americans are citizens of both their state and of the United States and prohibits the states from taking any action that would deny U.S. citizens their rights

 

[witness23]

What a waste of taxpayers money and time. Thank God this Judge has the common sense to block this amendment. Quit letting a small group of paranoid idiots dictate the direction of this country. We have the Constitution(yeah, yeah, the Constitution doesn't mean anything to this administration, blah, blah, blah) and there is no need to have "pre-emptive" strike against "Sharia-Law".

This Republican Representive Rex Duncan knows it's BS but he knows it makes for great political fodder and plays towards the emotions of his constituents and hopes it brings him more votes come election time.

 

[Turtle]

The Okla law does not violate and Individuals right..it simply states that State Judges can not use International law or sharia law in deciding State cases...

Wrong. As I predicted when this was voted on, this will be successfully challenged in court. By naming a specific religion to be excluded to being used to decided court cases, the law literally opens the door for all other religions not named to be used for deciding cases. In a round about way, they are making a Constitutionally violating establishment of religion, albeit not by establishing one religion, but by excluding one. The effect will be to continue to add religions to the list until we're down to the only ones we are willing to allow to be established. What they should have done is include all religious dogma in their exclusion, rather than just one of them, along with the prohibition on incorporating international law (a.k.a. United Nations).

 

[LDB]

If the only thing it said was sharia law there might be a problem. It probably should have said all international laws including but not limited to sharia law. It's absolute bull that any foreign law of any sort could ever be used in any court in this nation.

 

[davekc]

It will be back. Just different language essentially meaning the same thing.

 

[RLENT]

By naming a specific religion to be excluded to being used to decided court cases, the law literally opens the door for all other religions not named to be used for deciding cases.

So it would seem.

One can only imagine the gnashing of teeth that would occur by those pushing (or agreeing with) this issue, if it were the case that say biblical Jewish or Christian law were mentioned in such an amendment .....

The resulting cries of "It's an assault on religion !" would be immediately deafening ....

In a round about way, they are making a Constitutionally violating establishment of religion, albeit not by establishing one religion, but by excluding one.

As matter of law, I don't think that the establishment issue that you raise is quite how it will go, in terms of the courts addressing the issue.

The American Thinker article, while mostly wrong on the merits of the issue, was correct in at least one respect - the challenge (and the ultimate holding that the law is indeed unconstitutional) will come as a consequence of The Equal Protection Clause of The Fourteenth Ammendment.

If anything, the only aspect of the First Amendment that I see as relevant is not the The Establishment Clause, but The Free Exercise Clause - which was deemed applicable to the States through The Fourteenth Amendment.