Can someone please explain....

[Wildane]

OK, I was reading an article that listed some of the hot topics on ballots across the country and came across this:

In Oklahoma, voters overwhelmingly passed three measures that had dismayed some progressive and immigrants-rights groups. One makes English the state's "common and unifying language," another requires a government-issued photo ID in order to vote, and the third prohibits state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.

So, does this mean that they are free to just ignore any mitigating factors they may be present in international or Islamic law that may pertain to the case, or just that they couldn't be any?

[Hormadrune]

Sounds like they're just making sure nobody skates for trying to stone their trampy daughter to death at the family BBQ simply because in their culture it might be ok to punish promiscuity in that manner. Oklahomans, not the EU or mullahs, determine the law in Oklahoma, would be my interpretation. They don't want foreign legal precedents used in OK courts- seems pretty reasonable really, unless I'm misreading the blurb.

[Wildane]

Originally Posted by Hormadrune

Sounds like they're just making sure nobody skates for trying to stone their trampy daughter to death at the family BBQ simply because in their culture it might be ok to punish promiscuity in that manner. Oklahomans, not the EU or mullahs, determine the law in Oklahoma, would be my interpretation. They don't want foreign legal precedents used in OK courts- seems pretty reasonable really, unless I'm misreading the blurb.

Well, when you put it like that, it makes sense. I was thinking more along the lines of civil cases, but yeah, no "honor" killings plz.

[Aolynd]

International law is not relevant to an Oklahoma court. Oklahoma citizens vote on Oklahoma law, Americans vote on American law.


Yes, this sounds so obvious that it's silly for me to even say it, much less pass a law about it. Most laws are like that: they happen after someone has done the silly and so the obvious needs to be mandated.

[Chiteng]

They are saying to all Muslims, that they have no chance in hell of encroaching on OK values, and they can stay the fuck away.
Isnt that obvious?

I applaud them for using the Democratic process

[Aolynd]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/08...ailed-respond/

follow up

A popular new law that bars Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic law, or Shariah, when deciding cases was put on hold Monday after a prominent Muslim in the state won a temporary restraining order in federal court.

Two state legislators were quick to blast the judge's ruling and the Oklahoma attorney general, who they said did not stand up to support the new law.

[Wildane]

You know, the more I think of it, the more I'm not so sure about the new law. Is following Shariah a part of the practice of Islam? If so, wouldn't that be protected by our US Constitution? Seems to be an awful slippery slope there.

[Foust Farseer]

Sharia is, technically, part of Islam. In the same way that the Ten Commandments are part of Christianity. However, not everything forbidden/banned/illegal according to Sharia is banned in the US.

Homosexuality and adultery are both punishable crimes under Sharia Law, for example.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Wildane

You know, the more I think of it, the more I'm not so sure about the new law. Is following Shariah a part of the practice of Islam? If so, wouldn't that be protected by our US Constitution? Seems to be an awful slippery slope there.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10...t-dont-bruise/

Under Shariah, it's permissible to beat your wife, as long as you don't bruise her. Well, at least in the more "enlightened" countries such as the UAE. In places like Syria, feel free to bruise her as you want.

So no, it's not protected by our Constitution when it comes into conflict with our Constitution.

[Wildane]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

So no, it's not protected by our Constitution when it comes into conflict with our Constitution.

Playing devil's advocate here: where in the Constitution does it say you can't beat your wife?

[Drysdale]

Sigh.....

[Hormadrune]

Human sacrifice is part of some religions. Doesn't mean said practice is protected.

To me this just seems like an absolute no brainer- religious law and religious courts have no place whatsoever in our legal system. It doesn't surprise me though that Muslims might feel picked on by such a specific legislation (which could be part of the problem- a more appropriate law would be prohibiting any religious elements from court).

I think what they're trying to head off is going the way that England has gone- which is to actually empower sharia courts to rule on arbitration cases (that is- both parties agree to allow a sharia court to rule in lieu of the normal justice system). I think what they've done in the UK is absolute madness, so I'm 100% behind OK on this one.

[Wildane]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Sigh.....

Well, you claim one part of the Constitution is conflicting with another, I'd like to know the part that covers spousal abuse.

[Aolynd]

Actually Wildane, I think maybe we're the ones who are confused.


Please give an example of where courts should take Shariah law into consideration over American law.


Also, would this example apply to Catholic church doctrine as well?

[Wildane]

Originally Posted by Aolynd

Actually Wildane, I think maybe we're the ones who are confused.


Please give an example of where courts should take Shariah law into consideration over American law.

Why? I'm just asking questions here.

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Sigh.....

Man, you're no fun anymore. I know the Constitution doesn't allow for you to beat your spouse, but it doesn't explicitly forbid it, so technically your comment is incorrect. Spousal abuse is covered by state law, not the Constitution. Just busting your balls a bit.

[Pafuna]

Originally Posted by Aolynd

Actually Wildane, I think maybe we're the ones who are confused.


Please give an example of where courts should take Shariah law into consideration over American law.


Also, would this example apply to Catholic church doctrine as well?

There is precedent for legal considerations for other non-U.S. laws taken into consideration. Native Americans have their established tribal courts which exercise their jurisdiction over other Native Americans. According to Wiki:

The federal government recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations" and has established a number of laws attempting to clarify the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments.

To whit, many state local and state authorities, and thus their associated judicial systems, have little power over tribal lands and the residents thereof, with notable exception of those tribes residing with Public Law 280 states. Even so,

Tribal courts maintain much criminal jurisdiction over their members, and because of the Duro Fix, over nonmember Indians regarding crime on tribal land. The Indian Civil Rights Act, however, limits tribal punishment to 6 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. Tribal Courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.

Now, admittedly, tribal law and U.S. law are both extremely complex, and I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination. But, if you follow any law, you'll know that a big part of law is precedent, and if Oklahoma, home to several native tribes, has learned anything, it's that jurisdictional questions over indigenous resolved in the courts could potentially be used in other cases, even if the odds of such a possibility are remote.

Now, does the passage of that law make sense in this context? I can see the justification, but I also have a few realistic observations - unlike the Oglala, Comanche, or any of the other tribes living in OK, Islam has never been a sovereign state. I can hardly see a citizen, naturalized or born on U.S. soil, can claim "domestic dependent state" status for Islam. Shariah law is religious law, just like the Torah or the Bible have their religious laws and edicts, but Christianity, Judaism, or Islam have never been sovereign states (and no, the Vatican doesn't count - it's a sovereign city state recognized by its land right, not its religion).

But I also see where certain customs in religious communities may be governed by religious law in this country - the custom of weddings, burials, etc. But I can't remember any case where observation of religious law trumped the legal authority of an official jurisdiction within the U.S.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Paffy

There is precedent for legal considerations for other non-U.S. laws taken into consideration. Native Americans have their established tribal courts which exercise their jurisdiction over other Native Americans. According to Wiki:

If I'm not mistaken, those were actually established via treaties with the various tribes, giving them some autonomy in exchange for their laying down their arms, and in partial (if shitty) restitution for taking their sovereign lands.

So yeah, they were sovereign states, just as you said. That probably makes a pretty big diff.

I was informed once, that the practice of Gypsies (In the US) of selling their daughters into marriage before they were of normal legal age was legal because of this exact situation. (I was dating a gypsy girl, and her father didn't like it because he stood to lose about $30K in 1980's money. We were both teen agers, and it ended with me getting my ass kicked by about a half dozen of her family and her being watched like a hawk for a couple years until she was married off to a 3rd cousin. The cops weren't interested in doing anything about it because it was their established ethnic tradition, or somesuch nonsense. Bleh)

[Aolynd]

Originally Posted by Pafuna

But I also see where certain customs in religious communities may be governed by religious law in this country - the custom of weddings, burials, etc. But I can't remember any case where observation of religious law trumped the legal authority of an official jurisdiction within the U.S.

New Jersey.

A New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.

According to the court record, the man's wife -- a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks -- alleged:

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] 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."

Charles' ruling was overturned last month by New Jersey's Appellate Court, which ruled that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."

Now as you can see, the ruling was (rightfully) overturned by the appellate court. However, Oklahoma here is taking the approach of "Stop it before it starts." Obviously there are some who feel that Shariah law SHOULD be taken into account. The people of Oklahoma feel it should not.



And since so far no one, even the OP can give an example of why it ever would be...the argument is a bit pointless.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Aolynd

New Jersey.

It's my religious belief that I can shoot bastards who do this to women. Hell, I'll bet I could even get some of you to testify that it really IS my religious belief!

[FafnerMorell]

Yes, your honor - I sincerely think that Drysdale does believe that anyone who New Jerseys some poor, unsuspecting woman deserves to be shot. Really, it's just common decency to kill anyone who would New Jersey anyone else against their will, but especially a woman or child or the elderly.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by FafnerMorell

Yes, your honor - I sincerely think that Drysdale does believe that anyone who New Jerseys some poor, unsuspecting woman deserves to be shot. Really, it's just common decency to kill anyone who would New Jersey anyone else against their will, but especially a woman or child or the elderly.

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

Happy, smartass?

[FafnerMorell]

Good thing you cleared that up - here I was thinking that to "New Jersey" someone was to put them on a MTV reality show.

[Shylodog]

Originally Posted by FafnerMorell

Yes, your honor - I sincerely think that Drysdale does believe that anyone who New Jerseys some poor, unsuspecting woman deserves to be shot. Really, it's just common decency to kill anyone who would New Jersey anyone else against their will, but especially a woman or child or the elderly.

Unless that woman is Snooki.

[Wildane]

Originally Posted by FafnerMorell

Good thing you cleared that up - here I was thinking that to "New Jersey" someone was to put them on a MTV reality show.

I think I'd rather take the beating.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Shylodog

Unless that woman is Snooki.

That little fireplug looks like she could probably hold her own.