In yet another indication of the increasing alienation of the political elites from the popular will, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange on Monday granted a temporary restraining order blocking Oklahoma’s brand-new anti-Sharia law. Seventy percent of Oklahomans voted for the measure, but who cares? The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argued that the measure was “anti-Islam,” and that was enough to prevail in today’s multiculturalist environment. As Abraham Lincoln put it long ago, “The people…have ceased to be their own rulers.”
Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma CAIR chapter, sought the restraining order on the grounds that the law stigmatized Islam. The involvement of CAIR in the legal challenge to Oklahoma’s law ought to have raised red flags for Judge Miles-LaGrange and others involved with the case. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. In 2007 CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Two of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams’ intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
But if she knew about any of that, it made no difference to Miles-LaGrange. CAIR immediately began thumping its chest at this victory over the popular will, saying: “CAIR says the ballot measure would infringe on the constitutional rights of ordinary Oklahomans — including the right to wear religious head scarves in driver’s license photographs, choose Islamic marriage contracts, implement Islamic wills, or to be buried according to one’s religious beliefs.”
But in this CAIR was, yet again, lying. The Oklahoma law forbids lawmakers from legislating for Oklahomans as a whole using Sharia rather than American law. It does not forbid private individuals from getting married or writing wills in any way they wish. The idea of the Oklahoma Sharia ban is to prevent judges from making decisions based on a legal system that contradicts the principles of American law in numerous particulars. But as the campaign season went on and especially after the law passed, the opposition to the law grew steadily more shrill and its claims more outlandish.
The first reaction from Islamic supremacists and their Leftist allies was ridicule. Asma Uddin, editor of Altmuslimah.com and an attorney for The Becket Fund mocked the measure in the Huffington Post: “Judging by how Oklahoma voted in the recent election, one might conclude that despite its tiny Muslim population, Oklahoma was on the verge of becoming an Islamic caliphate in Middle America….Sadly, the notion of shariah, or Islam, ‘taking over’ America in a manner somewhat akin to the Seed Pods from The Return of the Body Snatchers seems to be infecting segments of the national political discourse, despite its inherent absurdity.”
Pages: 1 2
This is really starting to make me sick!!!! What is this justice thinking? How is sharia compatible with our Constitution. There is only one way to deal with this and it is a Constitutional Amendment.
While a citizen has a right to join any religion, practices and beliefs which cause mental or physical harm to that citizen violating their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the individual of individuals involved shall be charged with a federal crime to be prosecuted in the federal courts.
This should take care of sharia.
you are right but would the political race courts of the federal system prosecuted laws as evil as sharia I THINK NOT! In fact many on the inside of this system want sharia laws for many political and race reasons.
"What is this justice thinking?"
Constitutional law, most likely.
DId your little white hood slip down over your eyes and ears there? Get a little smoke in your face from that burning cross?
Constitutional law…it is the law of the land get used to it.
Constituti9onal lzaw for bids cruel and unusual punishment. If you know anything about Shari'ah law, you know that caning, stoing to death for adultery, cutting off of hands for theft, beheading for renouncing the Moon God religion, wife teating and killing all unbelievers,especiallly Jews IS Islamic law. Clearly, NOT Constitutional law. So, your unintelligent implication that a person opposed to Islamic law is KKK matches the degree of your ignorance about constitutional law and Shari'ah. Any more provcial, bubba-boy comments you want us to know about your "feelings"?
If this decision is overruled on appeal, what will be your resposne? If it critical, would it be reasonable and appropriate for a poster to respond to you thusly,
"Constitutional law…it is the law of the land get used to it"?
Doesn't this court decision establish a state religion?
Sharia law can allow lawful violence
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
It takes a LAW to establish a state anything. Judges don't make laws, but they do kick out the ones that violate our Constitution.
You have apparently failed to read this article, which contains the facts. There is no restriction of religious freedom here. It seems the judge granted the restraining order so that can in fact be reviewed for certainty. However, since the author of the article does not refer to what rationale was offered by the judge – only CAIR's – that is an assumption on my part; though it does seem a fair one.
If the Ten Commandments cannot be referred to in an opinion of the court (judges currently seem to think that they cannot – though I'm of the camp that thinks the Constitution places no such restriction) it highly unlikely a reference to Sharia would be tolerated, either. So why the law?
This is just another example of legislating something covered by existing law. It's double work and a further waste of time.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The notion that Islam is a religion is false. Islam started out initially as a religion, but after the Hijra, Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina, it morphed into something else entirely different altogether when Muhammad turned to politics and jihad, and it was that transformation from the realm of religion to the realm of politics, jihad, and eventually to conquest that set the stage for Islam to become wildly successful, as in only a short 100 years after the death of Muhammad, Islam had already conquered most of the known world. Had Islam remained a religion like it was in Mecca, it would have died in the desert of Arabia and no one would have ever heard of Islam or Muhammad.
Further, because of the doctrine of abrogation that holds when two verses of the Koran contradict each other the later verse of the Koran abrogates (cancels out) the earlier verse. Thus, all the peaceful verses of the Koran that originate from the time when Islam was a religion and the same verses the Muhammadans like to cite to fool gullible kafirs, have all been abrogated by the later violent and aggressive verses of the Koran that originate from the time when Islam was morphed into something else altogether entirely different from religion and that command Muhammadans to wage jihad against unbelievers for the spread of Islam.
Indeed, what faith-based religion requires total submission and its adherents to become a total submissive slave of Allah and his will? What faith-based religion punishes blasphemy under the pain of death? What faith-based religion punishes apostasy under the pain of death? The answer is none of them do because in stark contrast to faith-based religions Islam is not a religion. Instead, it is a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology that seeks to subjugate the world via the imposition of Sharia, and it only poses as being a religion to infiltrate the societies it intends to subjugate and subsume.
Therefore, Islam isn’t protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment of the constitution.
"Therefore, Islam isn’t protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment of the constitution. "
Does it sting to be so wrong?
“Does it sting to be so wrong?”
He’s not wrong in any way. Islam is not a religion, it’s a dangerous mental disorder. Even worse than Liberalism.
The obvious answer is no it doesn't. The laws of the land in regards to violence would still apply. Freedom of relegion does not extend to depriving others of their rights. This law is unnecessary and not worth the waste of time and effort to defend . A state relegion would be more like the government saying that the relegion of this country is christian and christian only. Get it.
It is funny to watch people talk about something without knowing the reason for the Oklahoma law in first place not to mention a little thing called "precedent law".
The Oklahoma law is a response to some rather disturbing trends in regards to Sharia in other parts of the country, such as the Judge in New Jersey that ruled that it was okay for a Muslim husband to rape his wife because it was allowed under Sharia.
This judge is ignorant of what sharia really is….a brutal system of repression, subjugation, cruelty, inhuman punishment, misogyny, discrimination and medieval dogma………but what the heck, celebrate diversity, right? AMericans are living under the spell of multicultural mega tolerance, completely unaware of the terrible dangers. ENgland, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, France and Germany are now contemplating the trouble they have invited into their countries.
Sounds a lot like Christianity especially how it was practiced not so long ago in Spain.
This is a straw man argument. Christianity does not have an Inquisition anymore, and Christians are not dragging Islamists out of mosques, beheading their babies and throwing their heads back to the mothers. But that is exactly what Islamists did to Iraqui Catholics on October 31, 2010. Islamists TODAY, stone, beat to death, dismember, give female children in marriage, etc. people in the streets ALL THE TIME. Check out http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com and http://www.truthtube.tv/index.php to see with your own eyes what Islamists are doing to people and animals.
Yours is the definition of straw man. Your justification is something that happened in Iraq. This law concerns the United States. When did this happen in the United States? (It didn't). And if it were to happen, do we have laws against it? (Of course we do).
You guys need to learn about making fact-based arguments, not emotional fallacies.
It is the left that is making emotionally charged fallacies, when they claim that all those who do not support Sharia are inherently 'racist', or when the engage painting broad brushes such as claiming that the majority of muslims worldwide do not not support Sharia, when they in fact do.
A case of sharia in New Jersey.
Sharia creeps into New Jersey courtroom – but gets short shrift on appeal
A NEW Jersey judge’s decision to refuse a restraining order sought by a young Muslim woman who had been raped and abused by her husband has been overturned on appeal.
While recognizing that the husband had engaged in sexual relations with his teenage bride against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge at the original hearing did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven.
Islam gives abusers of women a free pass
The judge ruled that the husband, who had come from Morocco to the US with his arranged-marriage bride of 17, had been acting on his Islamic beliefs:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
this judge is not ignorant of what sharia law is he is just stupid and a fool and also maybe a muslim did anyone thinks of that. and what about the fact that so many inside this country are also just stupid and would follow laws as evil as sharia.
"alienation of the political elites from the popular will"
The law itself is indicative of the alienation of the popular will from the principles this country was founded on.
"why not declare open and wholehearted allegiance to the principles of the U.S. Constitution that are in contradiction to Sharia, such as the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights of all people before the law — instead of yet again claiming victim status?"
I don't recall freedom of conscience being present in the constitution. I do remember a bit about not establishing or prohibiting the free excercise of religion. Do you remember that part?
I agree that the "martyr" card is overused by people of all religions. Christians are particularly fond of the martyrdom of their early founders. They claim "persecution" quite frequently, in my experience.
Sounds like you really love America except for that pesky Constitution thingie.
One more person who believes the Founding Fathers actually had Zen Buddhism or Islam in mind. I find it very unlikely they would have stomached Muslims. It's _we_ who are the more tolerant group.
Further, the author is surely aware of religious freedom but apparently you are not. It is about not prohibiting any individual from practicing their religion, and not establishing a STATE religion.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with people being able to do whatever they want. In your logic, a Muslim could not be arrested for killing someone in the name of Jihad. This would inhibit the expression of his religion, would it not? A group of Muslims could the stone a rape victim to death, since in their religion and its current code of law, this is legal? And an American judge in U.S. court of law, bound by the Constitution, could quote this Sharia law in dismissing the charges? Is that correct?
And as a Christian, I find you very objectionable. I have never heard _any_ Christian claim persecution or victimhood in my lifetime.
Perhaps you are from the Middle East, where they are indeed persecuted.
Thank you for your response.
I do not know what the founders had "in mind". I do know what they left for us "in writing". Am I making assumptions about their intent or are you?
No, your straw man examples are not what I'm supporting. I do not support stoning rape victims under Islamic law anymore than you support the stoning of rape victims under Biblical law (Deut. 22:21). But you, as a Christian, know that's not what the Bible is about. However, sometimes Christian beams are ignored for Muslim motes.
"I have never heard _any_ Christian claim persecution or victimhood in my lifetime." Here is at least one: http://silencingchristians.com/action_alert_landi… Is this objectionable?
Wow, straw man? You do know what the term Straw Man means, right? You are saying that Sharia Law (not a religion) should be allowed to replace American law where muslims are involved? And the straw man is the stoning of rape victims and all the other lovely things that are "lawful" under sharia because most likely they wouldnt happen anyway, and besides some of those things are found in the Old Testament anyway. Enjoy living in your dihimitude dear
Thanks for your response.
Yes. I'm well aware of what a strawman argument is. For example:
My argument: the 1st amendment prohibits laws designed to favor or disfavor particular religions.
Your strawman: I believe that Sharia law should supercede all US laws.
Do you see a difference here?
The OK law is designed to specifically target Islamic practice. It is not a law to stop stonings, beheadings, cannibalism, or jaywalkers. It is a law to stop Muslims.
We legislate against actions, not beliefs. The former is crime, the latter is censorship.
Anyone that thinks that just because we don't prohibit certain "religious practices" means we allow all "religious practices" to supercede our laws needs to do some more research on how the courts interpret the 1st amendment. Then, especially if they are against wasteful government, they need to wonder about the qualifications of elected officials who waste taxpayers' time and money inventing bogeymen like this instead of actually fixing what's actually broken in this country.
Very well stated, more eloquent than my ramblings below, albeit in harmony and playing the same tune…
And that is what is called "Winning an argument through facts and logic."
Take note, FPMers. It's been a loooong time since you've been acquainted with anything but what "feels" right.
Actually it is designed to prevent judges from exercising islamic practice. The Muslims can practice all they want….under U.S. law exclusively.
And that is what they do, and have done.
The fact that this law is designed to curtail something that has happened nowhere in the United States should clue you in–if not to the law's unconstitutionality, then to its fear-based religious bigotry.
There is also a law demanding that one must be a United States citizen to be president. But no foreign national has ever been president before.
I believe that law is constitutional.
Legally binding an ever increasingly pc bench to keep focused on US law exclusively has nothing tethering it to religious bigotry. It has everything to do with preventing legislating from the bench.
zenagenda "The OK law is designed to specifically target Islamic practice."
Actually it is designed to specifically target judges. It does not affect muslims in any way. They still get fair and speedy trial under US Constitutional Law.
"There is also a law demanding that one must be a United States citizen to be president. But no foreign national has ever been president before."
Before when? The law still applies.
Oh, you're referring to President Obama? Well, according to the Secret Service, the FBI, the CIA, Congress and the SCOTUS–he's an American citizen. Just not according to YOUR metrics, right? (he's black, funny name, lived in Indonesia…etc)
Before when? Ever! You made a point that the law being pre-emptive in nature should be a clue to it's unconstitutionality ….and some othert nonsense about religious bigotry.
Clearly there are many pre-emptive laws on the books as well as pre-emptive articles in the constitution. Like the 1st one.
If I was talking about Barrak Obama I would have said so. I was presenting a generic example of a constitutional pre-emptive law.
By the way, the judge ruled a "stay" to allow time for review. it has not been ruled unconstitutional.
I thought you were about to go down the Obama citizenship road–my apologies, and point taken. Once bitten, twice shy.
Should the people of Oklahoma, then, pass a pre-emptive law concerning alien spaceship landings? The need for it is similar to this law, which you and I both know is a political stunt. Do the proponents of this law really want to go down the road of from whence our laws derive? Or do they just want to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment in the manner of this website?
AND his personal documents are sealed. No touchie.
Im sorry, if you support sharia law then you support the straw man examples.
Also, are we to accomodate every religion that comes along that wants to change American law? Are judges goinig to have to be conversant of every religions flavor of jurisprudence? Oh ya and dont forget, every judge will have to learn everybodies language as well because we wouldnt want to offend anyone by expecting them to learn english.
Davarino,
The arguement defeated your premise. Just admit you disagree and move on.
"The OK law is designed to specifically target Islamic practice."
Actually it is designed to specifically target judges. It does not affect muslims in any way. They still get fair and speedy trial under US Constitutional Law.
good point.
No, your straw man examples are not what I'm supporting. I do not support stoning rape victims under Islamic law anymore than you support the stoning of rape victims under Biblical law (Deut. 22:21). But you, as a Christian, know that's not what the Bible is about. However, sometimes Christian beams are ignored for Muslim motes.
If anyone is guilty of posing strawman examples it is you. How many Jew and Christian rape victims have been stoned in the past thousand years? The answer is zero. However, if you search the Internet you will find plenty of videos of Muhammadan females being stoned to death.
Your problem is because you are a fanatical evangelical fundamentalist atheist trying to impose your religious beliefs on any and everyone you can, you don’t understand Christianity or Judaism, much less Islam. Hence, in the process of trying to take advantage of the violence of Islam as an excuse to vilify and demonize all religions, the only thing you are managing to do is to demonstrate how ill informed of religion you are and at the same time also demonstrate that you are incredibly mentally incompetent.
In any event, your asinine moral equivalence of Islam with Christianity is also utterly absurd because the reality is Islam isn’t a religion. Instead, it is a militant theo-political totalitarian ideology that seeks to subjugate the world via the imposition of Sharia, and it only poses as being a religion to infiltrate the societies it intends to subjugate and subsume. Thanks for playing!
Thanks for your flame.
"fanatical evangelical fundamentalist atheist trying to impose your religious beliefs on any and everyone you can, you don’t understand Christianity or Judaism, much less Islam"
Hmm, quite an interesting characterization to make, but actually I'm a Buddhist. If you read what you quoted, you'll notice that I say: "you, as a Christian, know that's not what the Bible is about". Maybe to Fred Phelps it is, but I wouldn't make this assumption about 99.9% Christians that I know.
It is usually more difficult to find fault in the mirror than it is to find fault in others. This isn't my idea; I learned it from Jesus who I paraphrased in the quoted material that you thought worth attacking.
I'm sorry for Richard Dawkins or whatever atheist you've encountered that has polarized you so much. I've met some pretty awful Christians in my life, but I wouldn't judge them all based on a few.
Are you aware of what Sharia Law did to the Buddhists that once inhabited Afghanistan? You had better find out what Sharia Law means to Buddhists who fall under it. Buddhism doesn't actually posit that a god exists, therefore under Sharia Buddhists are Mushrikun. You had better get on board with Oklahoma's law because according to Islamic texts you are not worthy of life and your life will not be tolerated under Sharia.
Cunamarra,
Although you have no idea what you are syaing, you say it with such style and conviction!
Sweeping comments, glittering generalities, are just unsupportable.
You see, in defending your generality most of you will drill right to a specific point in time, not understanding anything about it mind you, not knowing the case history leading up to it, not knowing the parties involved inthe case, not knowing the political and military realities surrounding the case, basically knowing nothing at all to support your abilityto come to the right conclusion…and in this position you will go right to an english translation of a single hadith out of context and seek to shore up your glittering generality with it and crow loudly, "See! I told you!"
No, the Quran and the Hadiths do not say what you just claimed they say. It is unsupported under the whole of Islam.
So if the voters banned human sacrifice as a form of Native American religious worship and expression, you would argue this would be a violation of the Constitution. If they had banned Mormon polygamy as a form of religious expression you would argue this would be a violation as well. So of course, I see now why you are defending Sharia Law!!! Even though this is more than just a mere religion, but an all encompassing ideology, you apparently don't care, to you it violates the Constitution! Incredible.!
Let us play a very simple game, okay?
What is murder? Hmmm? That's already illegal, isn't it?
So, to stand up like a jackass and start braying that we need to specifically outlaw the religious practice of murder by the Aztecs is, well, forgive me, but stupid, and not only that but biggotted.
It is the act itself that is legislated against, got it?
Protection of human rights, not attack on religious minorities…got your little white hood on too tight? No? Your wooden cross and gasoline ready for the "pep rally?"
The OK law had nothing to do with protection of human rights… the motive was Islamophobic and intended to stir up trouble and cause fear.
Incredible.! The subtleties that aren't even subtle that you people miss.
He is not "defending Sharia." Read the post again. He is saying this thing in Oklahoma, concocted by morons for morons, is unconstitutional. By the way, so would any court. So DID a court, of course. There's smart people on them there courts (Smart, qualified people = "elites")
1. Human sacrifice and polygamy are against our laws.
2. Has Sharia been practiced anywhere in Oklahoma in lieu of state or federal law? Has it been practiced anywhere in the United States in lieu of U.S. laws? Try to stay with me, here, and not act like the frightened little rabbits this site wants you to be. I am talking about the United States of America. Do you really think anyone seriously believes the First Amendment protects any practice of Sharia that runs contrary to our laws?
Without implementing sharia law, the muslims can not legally practice thighing a baby, child sex, beathing your wife, death for blasphemy, etc…….
All of the above and more are perfectly legal under sharia law, which is a totally direct opposition to the laws of the US.
The UK, now having allowed sharia into their country are in a mess of confusion because what is not legal in UK courts, is perfectly legal in sharia. The two sets of laws are constantly colliding. However the elites are too dumb-founded to deal with the mess and confusion they have allowed. Is it not now obivious that one set of laws has to go?
But they have not yet figured that out.
Sharia law is simply a way for Islam to hamstring the US Justice system, so that their group of paedophiles may operate legally. And beat the woman who objects.
Wrong. Sharia does not adjucate criminal law in any Western country. It doesn't even oversee criminal law in most Muslim-majority states.
Let's save the opinions, personal beliefs, philosophical thinking….
What exactly can be done? A petition, a letter, a phone call? Can anyone recommend an action?
At last, a practical question! Yes, what can we do and how do we do it? Sharia law is probably next for poor California. We must do something to stop these judges from supporting liberalism and sharia.
Well, there are these little things called "State and Federal laws" that already prevent anyone from legally following through on things like beheadings, genital mutilation, etc. Isn't that interesting?
But if you want to show the world what half the country already knows–that you don't understand the U.S. Constitution or respect existing laws because you're an emotional, bigoted basket case, go right ahead.
I don't think that you can't see-you won't see.
I see…or not. For example, one thing I don't see: the danger of Sharia trumping state law in Oklahoma.
It's a "solution" in search of a problem.
You guys should be all for global warming legislation, then, right? Unlike Sahria, there's scientific evidence for it.
A true story Jim. In the 60s I was in grade school-Cold War era. Then world-wide famine was imminent due to over-population, and bec. of global cooling there was an Ice Age coming. Add the spectre of atomic war and you can imagine the fear that can be generated, esp. in young people. The solution(s) was and is always some form of social engineering. ACT NOW!
CATASTROPHE IMMINENT!
THERE WAS/ IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THIS!
Things haven't changed. Quite an about- face in just my generation. Anyway, in regards to The possibility of Sharia law there is a precedent one can consider-Europe.
continued:
I'm not going to let someone with a social engineering agenda hold the gun of disputed science against my head to jump thru the hoop of their agenda. BUY NOW! THE PRICES WILL NEVER BE THIS LOW AGAIN! Anyway, in regards to The possibility of Sharia law there is a precedent one can consider-Europe.
The judge in this case, other liberal activist judges, and people who applaud what they do are exactly what you say people who "don't understand the U.S. Constitution or respect existing laws because you're an emotional, bigoted basket case." They need to keep their bigoted emotions out of their rulings and respect existing laws passed by voters or legislatures.
What I find interesting is the contradiction in the Muslim reaction.
Their original argument was a simple one, that the idea of Sharia coming to America was an absurdity and just another example of the fantastical paranoia of us greasy Islamophobes. Once the proposition became law however, they sued to overturn.
Typical Islamic perfidy.
The real problem with sharia is that it's a system established by a pedophilic warlord rapist named mohamat as part of his creation of the gutter cult of islam that worships the made up moon god allah, and follows the words of the terror guide the koran which was shat from the anal orfice of the previously mentioned pedophilic warlord rapist named mohamat. That's the problem.
An old proverb states that in the heavens the LORD and on the earth tbe judges, which is why it so sad to learn of a venal judge or a stupid one, like those who let off a sexual criminal whith a slap on the wrist ot those who, like the federal judge who blocked the
US Corps of Engineers from building a spillway because the enviromentalists claimed it would affect the existence of a minuscule fish, IS ONE OF THE DIRECT RESPONSIBLES (besides its stupid governor and ineffable mayor) OF THE HAVOC INFLICTED UPON NEW ORLEANS BY HURRICANE KARINA , FACT CONVENIENTLY SWEPT UNDER THE RUG BY OUR ABJECT MEDIA IN ORDER TO BLAME IT ALSO ON BUSH
So now, this other federal judge blocks the aplication of the measure voted for over 70% of the people on the issue of the SHARIA law application, which leaves hanging in the air her actual reasons for her foolish ruling…
What a shame federal judges tenures are lifelong….
And as to the Muslims in or midst I dare say like CICERO at the Roman Senate :
QUOQUE TANDEM CATILINA, ABUTERE PATIENTIA NOSTRA !!!!!!
Or is it so hard to realize that they are using our own laws and systems to bury us ???
Ya but they picked the wrong nation to screw with. We will turn this thing around and America will be great and free, and champion the cause of freedom once again.
This is appalling for a couple of reasons. A leftwing loon judge’s ruling can trump the will of 70 percent of the people and never mind the fact that Sharia is completely antithetical to the constitution, to our Judeo/Christian values, and to our freedoms protected by the constitution.
And like Spencer points out, if Muhammadans were genuinely moderate they would denounce Sharia and at the same time declare their allegiance and loyalty to America and America’s constitution. In fact, it proves that the Muhammadans involved are anything but so-called moderates.
This situation also further demonstrates that multiculturalism and diversity and the political correctness that arises out of them are extremely destructive and divisive.
In any event, the only solution is to ban and reverse Islamic immigration because the majority of Muhammadans refuse to assimilate and integrate. Indeed, they haven’t assimilated and integrated yet anywhere they have migrated to in the West. Instead, they have become subversive 5th columns without exception everywhere they have migrated.
It’s time to face up to it; the Global Jihad is the Cold War of the 21st century. In the Cold War of the 20th century, we didn’t let millions of communists immigrate to America because that would have been suicidal. Likewise, we shouldn’t let millions of Muhammadans immigrate to America because it is also suicidal.
This Judge should be impeached for clearly violating there oath.
“I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (state your title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
So any Judge (with or without this measure) that includes ‘any’ law outside the Constitution or Laws of the United States has ‘already’ violated their oath. It’s no more complicated than that. The problem is lack of people at levels, (voters, legislators, judges, executive, federal, state, local) that still believe in wisdom of the Constitution or at a minimum will at least force others to at least adhere to the same.
You guys don't get it. No court in the land would uphold this piece of crap. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Remember the Constitution? Instead of thumping it like a bible, try reading it sometime.
So requiring Judges to follow the Constitution is un-Constitutional?
You are the one that needs to do some reading. Sharia law is almost the exact polar opposite of almost every fundamental principle within the Constitution.
Next you’ll be telling laws that explicitly prevent US Judges from using the Communist Manifesto or Mien Kampfe as a basis for their rulings is also Un-Constitutional?
Brainless, simply brainless.
The very fact that we need such a law in the first place is in indication of the traitors we now have on the bench already. If the other branches of government had a back bone they would impeach any judge that dared to use any law other than the Constitution for their rulings before the echo of their gavel fade away.
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." Alexander Hamilton 1775
That is, unless you are a Native American or Mexican Native.
In that case Alexander is just like the rest of them…a hypocrite.
Native Americans would not survive Sharia either. Wanna play games with guilt? Try hiding behind women and children and using them them as shields. Try beheding an innocent journalist. Try outright genocide. You want to call these 70% in Oklahoma idiots? Go ahead. But they watch the news Ab. They know of the SOA (Soldier of Allah) who massacred 13 of our best at fort hood. And they don't like it! It's the frog in the pot being boiled to death, and they aren't going to wait for it to happen. WE DON"T WANT "HONOR" KILLINGS IN OUR NATION. WE don't care WHAT religion does it. We are not stupid as to not see the changes in Europe. DON"T TAKE US FOR FOOLS!!
If I were to emigrate to another country, I would be expected by the host country to adapt to their customs, laws, even their mode of dress. Immigrants who choose to come to America should be expected to do no less. If given the right to practice my religion in that country, I would only expect resentment by citizens of the host country if I were to then demand not just the right to practice my religion in my own home but the right to impose my religious customs, holidays and laws on my adopted country. If, as they say, they have no desire to impose Sharia Law and they believe this law is based on Islamaphobia, why would they further inflame the situation by using our legal system to oppose our laws? Do they actually believe that this will endear them to Americans ~ or do they think that this will create more Islamaphobia? I wonder which, exactly, is their aim?
Oklahoma's vote clearly demonstrates the overwhelming majority demand recognition of American heritage and culture & value of citizenship. 1. STATE ? #746 LEGISLATIVE REF# 347 affirmed by 74.34% of the voters
- requires that each person appearing to vote present a document proving their identity…………….
2. STATE ?# 751 LEGISLATIVE REF #351 affirmed by 75.54% of voters – dictates the language 2be used in taking official State action. It requires official State actions be in English. ………………………..
3. STATE ?#755, LEGISLATIVE REF#355 affirmed by 70.08% of the voters – makes courts rely on federal & state law when deciding cases, forbids courts fm considering or using international law&Sharia Law.
Oklahoma's voting citizenry is taking appropriate legal measures 2 guard against degrading value of citizenship, unifying citizenry under 1 language, protecting the integrity & privilege of voting, 1(wo)man/1 vote. Yet, these measures always offend those with nefarious ideals of justice (sedition).
Freedom enshrined in the Constitution is what makes America America.
If you don't like freedom, feel free to leave any time.
He's been listening to Obama again.
You mean like the "freedom" the taxi driver "had" to murder his two girls in cold blood (honor killings?). Sorry we don't allow that in our nation. It is clear that the American people are becoming less and less tolerant of aberant behavior trying to shield itself under the law. Do I really have to literally find a place in the Constitution that states: "Now, now, don't kill anybody" We just thought we would spell that out for you. Stop trying to play patriot. Your facade isn't working.
So then you're saying you don't agree with a constitutional democracy founded by people fleeing oppression from an authoritarian regime that did not allow freedom of worship.
Maybe you should read about the history of Rhode Island?
For reasons I don't fully understand, the judiciary has fallen away from the idea that it is the role of courts to apply and interpret law that is already made (not to make law of their own), and that interpretation of American law has traditionally been based on Anglo-Saxon principles (since that is where American law comes from) and on American customs, understandings and commonly-held standards.
Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution provides, and surely the Oklahoma Constitution contains similar language, that the jurisdiction of the courts is subject to such rules as the legislature (an elected body, representing the will of the people) may decide. If the legislature says courts can't use sharia law, that's a legitimate exercise of legislative power to limit the power of the courts to hear cases.
Just an aside: there was once a time when American courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, held that sharia law was too barbaric for American courts to follow. A system of law based on a religion is a secular function and therefore the First Amendment issue doesn't arise.
This moment is yet another of those mileposts where the old American tradition of gathering together, going down en masse to the courthouse, dragging the judge off her bench, taking her out into the public square (ungently, no doubt), tarring and feathering her, and riding her out of town on a rail ought to be finding its expression. But in these latter days we have become altogether too kind and tolerant of the idiots among us, making them our masters.
There's a really bad movie, V For Vendetta, that has one line worth remembering: "The people should not fear the government; the government should fear the people."
The French aren't Anglo Saxons, are they?
Look up the law in Louisianana it is based on Napoleonic Code.
Agreed, this may be a more effective route. A ballot measure which outlaws
polygamy, forced marriages, marriage to underaged foreign females, tax-payer funded foot wash basins, recurring electronically amplified voice messages (as in call to prayer), marital rape, regularly planned kneeling prayers which block public roads and sidewalks (offensively public Friday prayers)etc. might work. Kafir sages and bright lawyers will have to get to work !
I dissagree with you all/ I believe we should immediately switch over from the Constitution to Sharia Law. That way Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange would be caned, stuffed into a Burka (for violating modesty rules) and be forced to shut up. She also will no longer be able to be a Judge since she will have to have a male relative with her at all timee outside the home and not be able to drive. She could also be tried and stoned for Blasphomy since she is a Clinton appointee she is probably a Pagan or an atheist.. Oh and don't forget her pre-teen daughters will also be forced into marriages with 60 year olds and have 9 kids before they are 15 Just think we could also stuff Rosy O' Donnel and Joy Bayher into Burkas and make them shut up well.
All the people need is a little more evidence that it is a shame for federal judges to have and lifetime tenure. This is a problem that can quickly and easily be corrected.
If 70% of the people don't want foreign law to be applicble in the nation's or state's courtrooms, who is the judge to disagree?
Most likely, it is the judge that will cause this error to be swiftly corrected.
Thank your lucky stars we have judges that understand and interpret EXISTING LAW who are NOT subject to the whim of the people.
If 70% of the people are really too stupid to realize that existing law already effectively prohibits the (so far, totally hypothetical) application of Sharia, what does that say about the intelligence of Oklahomans and how well-informed they are about both their existing laws and what the Constitution clearly states in its First Amendment?
We should be bummed about that 70% figure, if it is anywhere near accurate. That's a lot of ignorance, right there.
The controversy was and is that they legislate from the bench. You are using the same pathetic argument that Obama uses against the electorate that disagrees with his policies.
If 70% of the people are really too stupid to realize that existing law already effectively prohibits the (so far, totally hypothetical) application of Sharia
Here. Just a little adjustment to your harangue reveals why people feel it necessary: 70% of the people realize that existing law so far already effectively prohibits the application of Sharia. So far.
So laws forbidding legal decisions based on principles alien to American law stigmatizes Islam?
I guess that laws against theft stigmatize thieves and laws against drunk driving stigmatize drunks.
Sharia is to American law what theft is to property and what careening around the road in a drunken stupor is to transportation. It is a crude and barbaric code of dominance and submission more appropriate to an S&M parlor than to a civilized society.
Practitioners of Sharia are rightfully stigmatized.
Why is it necessary for there to be laws demanding that judges follow the law?
"Why is it necessary for there to be laws demanding that judges follow the law?"
Exactly. It isn't.
This reminds me of egregious hate crimes legislation. Terrorizing and beating people up is already illegal.
IF THE FOUNDERS WERE ALIVE THIS COMMUNIST WOMAN JUDGE
WOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON AND HUNG FROM A TREE.
How much of this are you going to take, America???
YES !!!!! Get some backbone- You are commiting suicide as a nation,,SUICIDE !!-along with Englandistan,Fancsistan,Holandistan,Sweedinistan,Germanistan,
Please do not defame the Founding Fathers with your emotional idiocy.
This law is unnecessary precisely because of the Founders and their heirs. It's called "state and federal law." You cannot practice Sharia if Sharia is in violation of our existing laws. But you cannot MAKE a law targeting a specific religion–that is the FIRST AMENDMENT. Check it out sometime when you get a chance.
It should be easy to resolve. Merely say that ONLY the Constitution of the United States may be applied when deciding a case in an American court. That means that NO OTHER LAWS MAY BE APPLIED, OR EVEN CONSIDERED. Applying any other law is going against the CONSTITUTION OF THE USA.
Sometimes the obvious truth is too evident for you people…that IS the way it is. The laws in the US rule, period…well, except in matters of non-binding arbitration such as with Beth Din Courts and Sharia Courts.
Well, that IS compliance with US law, because it is a fact. Beth Din Courts, Sharia Courts, non-binding arbitration…is there a lawyer in the house?
you seem confused about how well our corrupt courts have interpreted the constitution. the supremes have great imagination, but poor judgement. i would not trust them to call a little league baseball game honestly.
We already see how crazed liberals make up laws or rights when they are judges – now imagine how Muslims will act when they are on the courts. The problem with Islam is that it is a very slow death, naive people like you will continue to hold on to the vain hope that "rule of law" will save us. Well it didn't save Molly Norris who has had to change her identity and move into hiding! The so-called law is on her side, big freaking deal! If the Muslims are willing to kill a judge who decides against them, well that judge will suddenly "see the light" and find that sharia is acceptable!
The West and all of the quaint laws are based upon the premise that the people are basically Judeo-Christian in values and world view, the law only works because the people allow it, we willingly go along. There are not enough people with guns to FORCE us all to follow the laws, and that is what Islam will use to get what they want. It will either become a full on civil war to fight off the Muslims or it will become Islamic. Islam has no place in the West, it is not compatible with our civilization or rule of law and democracy. Islam don't care about your stinking laws! Get that through your head!
Why would a justice need to read anything concerning Mohammed? How about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? What's next the writings of all founding members of all religions so we don't discriminate against ANY religious law? That's absurd. If you want to be in this country, abide by IT'S laws not international or religious laws. I can bet this would hold water in Saudi Arabia or other Sharia law countries. No, I want the American Constitution relevent in a Saudi court, try that one.
It would be really useful for everyone (especially judges and public servants) to learn about Mohammed so they can see that our civilisation is threatened by people who do not think our rules should be made by democracy – they think our rules should be made by Mohammed. Once their eyes are opened they will be less lenient to Sharia.
Why would a justice need to read anything concerning Mohammed? How about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? What's next the writings of all founding members of all religions so we don't discriminate against ANY religious law? That's absurd. If you want to be in this country, abide by IT'S laws not international or religious laws. I can bet this would hold water in Saudi Arabia or other Sharia law countries. No, I want the American Constitution relevent in a Saudi court, try that one.
I am glad we are still a constitutional democracy with seperation of Church and State.
The lines sometime blur with the radical religious elements involved in policy making (i.e. Christian Right, Zionists.) If this bill was worded properly and proposed in the right spirit of true concern about the welfare of human beings it would have come through in the language as well as the way the bill was received and there would be no issues. But hatred and Islamophobia expressed in the way he presented the bill is evidence that it was intended to cause further fear and misunderstanding.
One cannot direct legislation at a specific religious group and yet maintain the seperation of Church and State.
I would like to know where separation of church and state is written in the constitution? I haven't found that exact phrase anywhere in it. I have found the first amendment where it states 'congress shall pass no law…'. Despite how many times this has been pointed out to so many that amendment only limits the federal congress and nothing else. How hard is it to understand the beginning where it says 'congress shall pass no law…'. Oklahoma can pass this amendment even if it violated the first amendment somehow.
" 'congress shall pass no law…'. "
Bingo! Give a prize to player Philosopherking!
And to respond to your assertion that states can pass any law they like, sorry, the Constitution is the law of the land and if a state statue violates it then the law is overturned.
How does this amendment violate the constitution's first amendment when it only says the federal congress shall not pass a law regarding this issue. That means states and locals are immune from the first amendment.
The better question is where separation of church and state is found in the umma.
Just a note Abs….we are NOT a constitutional democracy. We are a REPUBLIC. and you know little of separation of church and state. Our forefathers were against any CHRISTIAN (did you get that Abs…CHRISTIAN) church from becoming the official church of the country…like the Church of England was in GB, Catholicism in Italy and France. Islam has been the SCOURGE of the Christian Church from it's inception. Islam might want to take over the world but Jesus WILL prevail.
The Supreme Court is the top law of the land, so it is the People's final voice, period.
It is the voice of the people you are hearing.
Since`when—I always thought it was the legeslature.State,and Federal..Sharia is totaly outside the US constitution of any civilized country
Yes, religious mandate is not under the law of any state, correct you are.
This is not a Supreme Court ruling, its a restraining order that will be shortly reversed, the people's final voice.
Get these stupid Women judges off the bench
AMEN-AMEN-AMEN……
just incredible that a female in a free country would be promoting islam. when the islamofascists take over, the first thing to go will be female judges. she will not have a chance to overturn her own stupidity, but plenty of chance to regret it. .
If Muslims in America wish to be ruled by Shari'a they are either American Traitors or Muslims in voilation of their Oath Of alegience to Our Constitution and should be Deported to their Country of Origin. Islam is not a Religion, and as such, deserves NO protection under our Constitution. No one can produce any Document that Shari'a even exists except in the minds of Islamists. It has no record except the Quran which is too
vague to be considered Constitutional. For any Court to rule in favor of Shari'a is to legitimize all of Islam and establish it's status as the official Religion of America.
Yes, something needs to be done about our current Crop of Activist Judges who refuse to rule according to our Constitution, the Law of the Land.
No American court has ruled in favor of Sharia. Get that through your skull. This court ruled against a law targeting a specific religion. That is in clear violation of a little document you guys love to cite, but as far as I can tell, have yet to read–the U.S. Constitution. Look into it.
No it is not targeting a specific religion. It's targeting Sharia law, not all of Islam, you dolt. Are you saying that all Muslims adhere to Sharia law and are thus savages? That would make you the bigot.
I see. It has nothing to do with Islam, then? OK. You got me! LOL
The law did not target a specific relgion. Islam is not mentioned. Muslim is not mentioned. Can you not read? It was Sharia and International law that was targeted, and prohibited in Oklahoma. Until a mindless judge came along, that is!
The problem is every time you tryto assail somone elses religious freedoms you attack the very Constitution that protects them.
Consider, any and all punishment is deliverd to the convicted by the State in this country and laws are already written to handle anything you could possibly think of that a person who "claimed a religious right to adminster punishment" on another could do.
There are already laws against these things.
Your measures and any people who propose measures in order to attack another person's religious beliefs will always fail. Period.
You have no basis or foundation under the Constitution to allow you to put your little white hood on and start burning crosses again.
The Constitution does not protect criminals. The current laws are being attacked by the judges. We need a new one so they have no excuse. We are not attacking anyones religious beliefs. The beauty of the proposed law is that the beliefs are legal – the crimes are not. No one is putting on a white hood or burning anything. We are trying to protect the innocent and vulnerable from the wicked.
The ballot measure was too vague and wide when it refered to 'Sharia law' because there are too many ideas of what is in or out of Sharia law. Instead it would be better to exhaustively list all the crimes in Sharia law which we want to stamp out. Any person doing any of the crimes or advocating any of the crimes or encouraging any of the crimes would go to prison for a long time. That way any person is allowed to keep their religion but crimes would not be allowed. We should not let anyone practice law or be a judge or public servant unless they have read the life of Muhammed and the basics of Sharia law.
(This is the original post which I deleted this by error – sorry)
Spoken like a true believer.What are their practises? The British, when they ruled India forcibly stopped the Hindu practise of suttee. Suttee was widow-burning, often by force on the deceased husband's funeral pyre. Agree with or disagree? You and your alter- ego needn't come from above and think you have some moral high ground from which you can hurl the race/bigotry bomb. Buddhists and muslim tend to look at human life as "just a drop of water in an endless sea" each in their own way. Cheap. No wonder that they both tend to breed fatalism
Abdulla,
Islam has yet to prove to me and millions of others that it is a religion. It will take a whole lot more than lifting one's butt in the air to attain true status.
Islam does not have the track record in any country in the world today that would be reassuring of it's good intentions. Rather, it is the making evil legal that is in direct opposition to all that is deemed holy. The banning of sharia may help in finding the holy.
Waterwillow,
Worshipping other than God is evil. That is the only defenition of what is "good" versus what is "evil"…if you are worshipping stones, idols, object, or persons then you are evil.
It really is black and white, you know.
Been to Turkey lately? I didn't think so….
Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency, or human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine.
Excellent defenition of religion.
Now what is evil?
What is good?
Allah is evil. JaHWeH is good!
What about that black box in Mecca? And please Abs, if you are going to continue to post, please learn how to spell.
Just went out this afternoon and bought a prayer rug-sharia law is looming in the distance
And the boogeyman is under your bed, next to the blacks, communists, Russians, Mexicans, Saddam, and Nancy Pelosi.
Be afriad!
Use spell check.
If you were smart you would get in on the ground floor of the rug sales business in the West. "A rug on every floor" could be the sales pitch. Then each target market could be fine tuned such as a sort of combo fitness mat for the health conscious. "As long as you are on the floor, get in a few stretches while you are down there with our sleek fitness prayer rug." For those first responders a mat could be marketed that folds up small enough for the gear kit but that when unfolded doubles as a bullet proof or exploding jihadi debris protection vest. The possibilities are endless.
CAIR's activist Muslims arte motivated by the core principles of Islam with the goal of converting, killing, or subjugating all non-Muslims. Unfortunately, too many American Liberals have reverted to a pre-9/11 mentality oppose any war against Muslim Jihadists, or even of a defensive war at home. We as Americans are going to have to decide to fight for their cultures, freedoms, and values or they are going to lose them. Islam the enemy of free peoples everywhere.
Wow, bigots before you said the same thing about the Irish, the Jews, the Italians, the Africans….gee, theylost every single bigotted fight they picked.
What makes you think running down the same worn track is going to lead you to any other conclusion than the obvious one?
Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome is the defenition of insanity.
Oh yes, Islam is a religion of peace, just like the Quran tells us (not). Try to answer without the bromides, and the burden is on the Muslims to cease and desist the violence they initiate, not we infidels who respond in kind. Dhimmitude is not acceptable.
Including the word Sharia in the ballot made the proposed law too vague and wide because there are too many ideas about what is in or out of Sharia. A better approach would be to exhaustively list all the crimes in Sharia which we want to stamp out and say that anyone who commits the crime for a reason of religion or advocates the crime or encourages others to do the crime for a reason of religion goes to prison for a long time. That way the beliefs are allowed but the crimes are not. The judges would not be permitted to water down the penalties.
oklahoma's small muslim population? a brief perusal of history demonstrates clearly that if you have a muslim within a thousand miles, you have a muslim problem. i am in arkansas, and i am concerned about oklahoma's muslims, to say nothing about our own. political correctness is for slaves. tolerate even one muslim, and you soon will be a slave. or a muslim. which is more appealing, chains,castration, slavery, and opression, or submission to a most evil god and veneration of his prophet, the worst criminal ever to infest the earth? i would prefer to not be forced to chose. to hell with outlawing sharia. outlaw muslims, and their stooges in the government.
Any of the crap that Sharia Law does is already ILLEGAL. Oklahoma did it to get the voters out in droves, it's an emotional issue and so many ignorant people fear what they don't know.
Ahh! You All-knowing One. Please pardon me, as i humbel myself before your intellectual majesty, kissing your intelligent shoes, that sure do also know more than me!
They, the Muslims have just caused 70 percent of the people in Oklahoma a problem, standing up in their faces, and saying, "We don't like what you're doing in your own country. We want our ways to dominate against you, even though we are a very small percentage of people".
You amazing dingbat. You just told me this wasn't about Muslims, about 6 posts up.
There are more buddhists and atheists in the U.S. then there are muslims. Is this really all you people have? This is your cause? Fighting the invisible and non-existent threat of Islam taking over the U.S.?If muslims haven't managed to take over the governments of some of the countries where they are a majority (Maldives, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Algeria all have elections and a parlamentary system)how do you think they're going to do the same in the U.S.?
Do you not have other things going in your lives instead of making paranoid rants about how muslims are going to take over America?
Do you have jobs? debt? are you pissed that we no longer produce much of anything in this country?
Have you no shame?
Too many judges legislate from the Bench, and ignore the people and the Constitution.
That resolution in Oklahoma has nothing to do against the Constitution. The same crap that was done in Arizona and California. These judges should be voted out like they did in Iowa. If we cannot vote these dictatorial judges out, then they need to be removed some other way.
It's the people, in all those cases, who ignored the Constitution.
Good luck with that judge removal.
It wouldn't be illegal under the US constitution for them to do so but most state have their own constitutions that forbid it.
Why is everyone else trying to mess with our state's laws? We Oklahomans voted on the issue and it passed by an overwhelming majority and that should be that. How is it possible for one person to usurp the will of the people? Do we no longer have state rights? I thought this was the United States a country founded by the people for the people, is this no longer a true statement? Let the law stand just as we voted on it and people stay out of our state's business.
Clearly this is a case where haste has made waste. 2 days after the election, the suit was filed, and the order was handed down 4 days later.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM152_101109_shar…
Also just as clearly, the Federal court should have determined what Sharia was before handing down the TRO (Which is ironic considering that that was one of plaintiff's [false] arguments. Of course just how it is a US court considering a religious law is consonant with the 1st Amend. remains to be seen, but then so too does just how his will would be invalidated by Ques 755.
Ultimately this could be very helpful, to those who wish to expose Islam. Although if her ruling stands it could also help Christians fight judicial activism that constrains their religion. I fail to see it standing though. Unless his will contains provisions that are in fact already illegal, his case should fail for lack of standing. Anything that is currently acceptable to American law will not be invalidated simply by recourse to claiming it's source in Sharia.
But the courts have consistently, well maybe not so consistently, held that the 14th Amendment extends Constitutional prohibitions on Congressional powers to state and local governments. And in general the states have seen fit to prohibit such things on their own.
Despite the plaintiff's argument, that is not the issue here. Courts should, as a governmental institution, not be considering religious law in deliberations, unless of course the matter at hand is about the conflict between state and religion.
The courts have done so incorrectly because it starts out with 'congress shall pass no law…'. I don't know how you can extend that to 'state shall pass no law…'. Even if courts have said otherwise states have their own courts that are independent of of the federal court system. THey can come to an different conclusion and enforce their own law if they wanted to.
The judge was trying to please someone at the top of the ladder. No doubt she was trying to please Obama.
The people have spoken! That's all that needs to be said!
If the judge refuses to follow the law, put her in jail. Even judges, especially judges, are NOT above the law.
I'm sure that Oklahoma was chosen by CAIR and their evil comrades because they found in this judge a person who would sympathize with the sick and twisted notion that it is evil white people and their racist Christianity who are against the poor Muslims and that blacks need to stand up for Islam.
That is the issue here. This woman has very likely dreamed up some story line in her head that tells her she needs to side against evil white people and so she promotes Islam.
Sick. Truly sick.
Just to clarify… this judge is a black woman.
Anyone beginning to see a pattern in this country??
Just to clarify… this judge is a black woman. Probably got the 1921 race riots on her mind or something. Gotta get back at the evil white folk… so I think I'll side with the Muslims on this one. That'll teach 'em.
Prophet Mohammad is "Lucifer" in disguise .All the satanic forces ara assimilated in Isalm .They are the best corruptors/contaminators of all the races .wherever there is Islam there is fighting ,killing ,murdering etc. It's time to stop immigration of theos demons .Open gas chambers,push pork into meat and punish all he muslims in your country for petty crimes then only they will be under control ore else all othe religions will be a minority with no rights for coming generations .This is not just a fear it will become true some day .Crush the pests before they multiply .Filter your gasoline from these oil demons.