Now the Islamic takeover can continue!


"(CNN) -- A federal judge Monday blocked an amendment to Oklahoma's state constitution that would bar the use of Islamic religious law in state courts after American Muslims challenged the proposal in court.

Oklahoma voters approved the amendment in last week's elections by a 7-3 ratio. But the Council on American-Islamic Relations challenged the measure as a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order Monday morning that will keep state election officials from certifying that vote."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/...ss_igoogle_cnn


Yes, this thread is a direct response to heynow21's: http://www.pocketfives.com/f13/proud...ia-law-606443/


Still proud to be an Oklahoman?

Doubt you'll be proud when the Islamic flag flies at the State Capitol! You're all f*cked now!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Seriously? again?

hahahaha, no.

^^^^
doesn't understand anything about anything

I, for one, welcome our new Oklahoman Muslim Overlords . . . and I would like to remind them that certain, sympathetic posters here in OT would be invaluable in helping them to assert their dominanace in this sub-forum . . . furthermore . . . whats that? . . . total BS? Oh . . . well,

never mind then.

For the sake of argument, that poster could have been distinguishing from the dreaded OK Constitution

 

Originally Posted by Thatislife

So you can cut off your wife's head and all you have to say is I'm Muslim. Nice

Exactly. You guys have fun with that!

 

Originally Posted by rebelfd

Typical liberal tactic overturn the will of the people via the courts.

The US constitution *is* the will of the people.

As interrupted by a liberal lawyer/judge, yup that's the will of the people.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

I can tell you that poster thought the Amendment will be held unconstitutional under the US Constitution. He doesn't know much if anything about the OK Constitution. He said in an earlier post that it was overly broad. Amazingly similar to the argument the plaintiff is making now.

lol. Yeah, I'll grant you that you thought it might be unconstitutional. But then again, you read the law to say that Sharia law can't be referred to (considered) in any way in a court of law in OK. Given that interpretation, unconstitutional is a slam dunk

 

Originally Posted by rebelfd

Typical liberal tactic overturn the will of the people via the courts. If the 'American Muslims' = CAIR, they're unindicted co-conspirators for supporting terrorist financially, bunch of scumbags.

Given that the OK law would mean that it's the only state in the country that couldn't uphold international contracts and treaties, what would you say the point of the law would be?

Shall not consider its legal precepts (as rule of law), though, which is different than considering a person's belief in those precepts

For the layperson: This does not mean that you can claim "Muslim" to get out of criminal conduct

Come on, now, I know you know the difference between using Sharia law as the rule of law and using a person's subjective belief of the law to show a person's state of mind

And yes, you could use a person's belief that it's ok to have nonconsensual sex with your wife, if it was relevant. Just so happens that it's not relevant to any situation I can readily think of.

But really, let's not put this forth in a way that people would misunderstand and think that it could negat intent

And I would put $$$ on the fact that the SC will interpret it as being about using Sharia as the rule of law

Damn, I thought we had a meeting of the minds on the difference between using Sharia law as rule of law (e.g., because the Muslim did not consider nonconsensual sex w/ wife, he is not guilty of rape), and using the belief in Sharia law (e.g., the Muslim was held to harbor intent to stone his adultering wife based on his belief that Sharia law requires it, despite his claim that the rock slipped out of his hand).

If we can't be clear on this simple legal differentiation, we are unable to discuss it, and God help you in court

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

I get it. You read the amendment more narrowly than I do.

I read it in the most logical way. It would be absurd to say that there is a certain set of beliefs that, if relevant, are inadmissible.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

Neither one of your examples uses Sharia law as a rule of law, both examples use a person's belief in Sharia law as a basis for determining intent.

Wrong. The first example rules that the person is innocent based on what Sharia law says is acceptible. This is using Sharia law as the rule of law, which the NJ court accidently did.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

You can't be as stupid as you pretend to be, can you?

Perfect example of what I don't like about the internet. Oh well.... cum laude, Law Review, 2nd tier law school, blah blah blah. God I hate having to do that.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

You can't be as stupid as you pretend to be, can you? Part of your issue is that you want to believe something so badly that you won't let your mind open up a little.

The definition of irony

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

You never answered the question as to how court could use someone's belief in a law if the court was prohibited from considering that law in the first instance.

I'm sorry you are having trouble, really. A person's belief in the law and their state of mind can be relevant even when the court will not rule that this same law determines the outcome.

ME: I'm sorry you are having trouble, really. A person's belief in the law and their state of mind can be relevant even when the court will not rule that this same law determines the outcome.

YOU: It sure can and it can also be excluded because of other policy considerations, for example, the Oklahoma Amendment.

Please give me an example where a person's beliefs are excluded by matter of law. Not because they are irrelevant, but because it is illegal to admit this type of belief. None of your examples had anything to do with a plaintiff/defendant's belief system