![]() |
Oklahoma ban the ten commandments?
Okay, so the title is slightly suggestive and misleading. Or is it? Seems that banning Sharia Law in Oklahoma, just to deal with the terrifying prospect of over 1200 muslims in the entire state (man the life boats!), is more of a mess than the idiot law makers anticipated.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03...ia-law-a-mess/ Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Oklahoma ban the ten commandments?
We should give Oklahoma back to the Indians.
|
Re: Oklahoma ban the ten commandments?
Immigrant and Muslim hate are the only prejudices left that are acceptable and en vogue. My belief is mankind will always drift first and foremost toward racial prejudices as the easiest way to define "us" and "them." It's our inherent xenophobia. So, the rest of society really has to ban together and collectively work to stomp this kind of stuff out.
It worked with prejudice against blacks. It only took about 150 years, but it finally became so unfashionable to be prejudice against blacks that to admit any hint of it is political and career suicide these days. |
Re: Oklahoma ban the ten commandments?
Quote:
Admittedly, I think the the chance of Sharia law being used to determine a case is extremely remote in Oklahoma. Also, the judge didn't technically apply Sharia law, he just ruled the defendant was "acting in accordance with his beliefs". Well, if that's the case, the I should be allowed to kill any witches I meet since my belief states I should not suffer a witch to live. I realize judges do try to take the personal and religious beliefs of defendants into consideration, but religious beliefs still should NOT override federal law. I would be morecomfortable if the OK Amendment stated OK Courts shall not apply any religious laws in the rendering of decisions in the courtroom. That would prohibit cases like the one in NJ while still following both the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment.</font> |
Re: Oklahoma ban the ten commandments?
Quote:
|
Re: Oklahoma ban the ten commandments?
That would have to be a very difficult decision for any person that may have pledged allegiance to a nation & also to god.
If you had pledged an allegiance to a nation you would expect that you would have to adhere to the law of the nation. If you had pledged allegiance to a nation under god you would expect to have to adhere to the law of god or certainly hope that the nations law & gods law are the same. It does beg the question. Which god? |
Re: Oklahoma ban the ten commandments?
NY Times Editorial
Intolerance and the Law in Oklahoma For a few days this month, it was illegal in Oklahoma for a state judge to base a court decision on Islamic religious law or consider any form of international law. It was a manufactured problem; the issue has never come up in the state’s courts. But more than 70 percent of voters in Oklahoma still approved a state constitutional amendment to that effect, apparently persuaded by anti-Islamic activists, and a few cynical politicians, that Oklahoma was about to be brought under Islam’s heel. After Muslim groups challenged the constitutionality of the “Save Our State Amendment,” a federal district judge issued a temporary restraining order. Last Monday, the judge, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, held a hearing to determine whether to issue a preliminary injunction against the measure, and said she would make a decision by the end of November. A federal injunction is warranted to save Oklahoma from its pernicious folly and to prevent other states from following the same path. Islam-bashing for political gain was a chilling feature of this year’s campaign. The proposed Islamic center and mosque in downtown Manhattan was publicly announced last year, but no one paid much attention until activists began loudly denouncing it in the middle of the midterm election campaign. Right-wing groups then made commercials attacking several Democratic candidates for respecting the First Amendment and saying they had no problems with the project. Islamic law, known as Shariah, is no threat to our legal system and is not in force anywhere in the United States except within a religious community, in the same manner as Jewish Halakhic law or Catholic canon law. Nonetheless, supporters of the amendment raised absurd fears that it could entangle the American courts at any minute. Rex Duncan, a Republican state representative and the author of the ballot measure, told The Los Angeles Times that Oklahoma does not yet have that problem. “But why wait until it’s in the courts?” he asked. He has also said that Muslims want to take away American liberties and freedom. It is fear-mongering, of course, and all too successful. As James McKinley Jr. recently reported in The Times, the issue helped drive the high Republican turnout at the polls in Oklahoma. That, combined with the national Republican wave, helped give the party veto-proof control of the Legislature and a Republican governor for the first time. Now Republicans in several other states are talking about similar measures. Muslim leaders in Oklahoma say they are getting more hate mail. It’s bad enough that in its hatred the state amendment singles out a religion’s law for condemnation, in violation of the nation’s Constitution. Or that it forbids a longstanding practice of mentioning the laws of other nations in a legal ruling. It is not even clear what the implications might be if the courts allowed this measure. Would private contracts or wills drawn up under religious law, a common practice, be unenforceable, or only those drawn up by Muslims? Could a judge refer to the Bible in a ruling, but not the Koran? How about the Book of Mormon or the teachings of Confucius? The voters of Oklahoma were badly misled by demagogues into passing a profoundly un-American measure. Now it is up to the federal courts to prevent the hatred from spreading further. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved