PDA

View Full Version : Federal Appeals court rules against ban on Sharia law



BonMallari
01-10-2012, 09:50 PM
the 10th circuit ruled against a VOTER approved ban on sharia law

the appeal was brought about by the ACLU


if this doesnt make your blood boil it should...if you dont think that there is a lot more at stake in this Presidential election, then you have your head buried in the sand

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/appeals-court-rules-okla-ban-on-sharia-law-unconstitutional/1?csp=34news

Gerry Clinchy
01-11-2012, 01:12 PM
Did the Court have a choice? I'd think that the issue would have to come up on a case-by-case basis, i.e. as some instances where the Muslim father feels he is mandated to kill his daughter due to a rape or adultery. Our U.S. law is supposed to be the law of the land, not the religious law, when it interferes with someone else's personal liberty.

We might well allow a Roman Catholic parent to interfere with an abortion for their daughter. A court of law might only intervene if the daughter's life was at risk by following the religious dictum.

The proposed law should not have made reference to a legal system that was based on a religion, thereby implying an infringement of religious liberty; but merely re-asserted the US law being the only standard of practice. I don't know a whole lot about Sharia law, but certainly some aspects of it should coincide with US law?

road kill
01-11-2012, 01:17 PM
Did the Court have a choice? I'd think that the issue would have to come up on a case-by-case basis, i.e. as some instances where the Muslim father feels he is mandated to kill his daughter due to a rape or adultery. Our U.S. law is supposed to be the law of the land, not the religious law, when it interferes with someone else's personal liberty.

We might well allow a Roman Catholic parent to interfere with an abortion for their daughter. A court of law might only intervene if the daughter's life was at risk by following the religious dictum.

The proposed law should not have made reference to a legal system that was based on a religion, thereby implying an infringement of religious liberty; but merely re-asserted the US law being the only standard of practice. I don't know a whole lot about Sharia law, but certainly some aspects of it should coincide with US law?

The ACLU HATES the America our forefathers built and people like me believe in.

RK

Franco
01-11-2012, 01:43 PM
Well, there is only one candidate that believes that this should be an issue resolved by the state and not the Feds or the courts!

BonMallari
01-11-2012, 02:38 PM
Well, there is only one candidate that believes that this should be an issue resolved by the state and not the Feds or the courts!

it was resolved by the state, 70% voted for the law, but the person who challenged the law had the backing of the ACLU

as to your claim that ONLY one candidate believes that the issue be resolved on the state matter, is a bit disingenuous...just because its part of his platform doesnt mean it doesnt concern other candidates. many of the other candidates have expressed their opinion on social issues and side with the state over federal mandate, which in reality is at the core of the healthcare debate

Buzz
01-11-2012, 03:33 PM
I don't think any religion should be the basis for any court decision, period.

That being said, I think that anyone worried that we're in danger the constitution and our laws being usurped by Sharia Law are paranoid at best.

BonMallari
01-11-2012, 03:47 PM
I don't think any religion should be the basis for any court decision, period.

That being said, I think that anyone worried that we're in danger the constitution and our laws being usurped by Sharia Law are paranoid at best.


well Buzz in case you havent noticed ,the Constitution is under constant attack, and at the heart of it is the freedom of speech,how else do the pornographers get to display their stuff on the street, or how does Westboro get to protest at military funerals..the fact that Sharia law is being discussed in OUR court system is a warning on the erosion of our society as we knew it, look the other way and pretend it doesnt exist

ARay11
01-11-2012, 04:25 PM
wow. if 70% of people vote FOR something doesnt that mean anything?

In America, we think religion is in church, not in the Capital building.

Islamics feel Religion is Law.

I don't want Religion to be Law. So, I would vote to ban Sharia Law (Religious Law) Right?

So, what rights are the ACLU protecting? The right to live by Religious Laws and not governmental laws?

Eric Johnson
01-11-2012, 04:54 PM
The proposed amendment was poorly worded. Had they merely said something to the effect that "OK courts will be bound only by Federal, State of OK, and local judicial decisions, and decisions of other State Courts if applicable....", they very possibly would have won.

The issue was that in saying "no Sharia law" they were selecting (discriminating) on the basis of religion.

This makes the issue ripe for a replay in the OK legislature. If the legislature uses this decision to write the bill, we'll probably have a winner.

Eric

Buzz
01-11-2012, 05:00 PM
wow. if 70% of people vote FOR something doesnt that mean anything?

In America, we think religion is in church, not in the Capital building.

Islamics feel Religion is Law.

I don't want Religion to be Law. So, I would vote to ban Sharia Law (Religious Law) Right?

So, what rights are the ACLU protecting? The right to live by Religious Laws and not governmental laws?

This is the argument:


VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction in this case. The court properly concluded that Mr. Awad has standing to assert his Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims. SQ755 specifically identifies and singles out “Sharia Law,” and by extension, Mr. Awad as a Muslim, for disfavorable treatment in the State’s judiciary and other adjudicatory bodies. By barring state courts from “look[ing] to” or “considering or using Sharia Law,” the “Save Our State Amendment” imposes on Muslims a special disability not faced by persons of any other faith. Under the amendment, Muslims seeking relief from a state court will have to ensure that their claims, defenses, evidence, and legal arguments are scrubbed of all references to Islamic law and beliefs. Otherwise, courts will be unable to adjudicate their disputes or perform routine judicial functions, such as probating wills.
Under SQ755, Mr. Awad’s last will and testament, which was properly executed in accordance with the laws of Oklahoma, will likely be rendered unenforceable in whole or in part because it incorporates instructions based on his Islamic faith. This injury alone is sufficient to confer standing for Mr. Awad’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims. Mr. Awad’s Establishment Clause claim is also supported by another harm suffered as a result of SQ755: injury attendant to official governmental condemnation of his faith,
18
Appellate Case: 10-6273 Document: 01018637144 Date Filed: 05/09/2011 Page: 34
rendering him an outsider in his own political community. Mr. Awad will suffer these injuries immediately upon SQ755’s certification, and thus his claims are ripe for adjudication.
The District Court also properly held that Mr. Awad satisfies each requirement for a preliminary injunction. He is likely to succeed on the merits of both claims. Because SQ755 is neither neutral nor generally applicable but closes courts to one and only one religion, it is subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause. Defendants have offered no evidence of a compelling interest. Indeed, it is undisputed that Oklahoma state courts have not improperly applied or enforced Sharia law. Nor have Defendants offered any evidence that SQ755 is narrowly tailored to deal with this phantom threat of Sharia law. On the contrary, SQ755 broadly defines “Sharia Law” as all Islamic religious practice and belief, and then bars state courts from referring to or considering it when rendering decisions. Accordingly, Mr. Awad is likely to prevail on his Free Exercise claim.
Mr. Awad is also likely to prevail on his Establishment Clause claim because SQ755 has the effect of inhibiting religion by conditioning Mr. Awad’s reliance upon a valid will on his removal of all Islamic terms from the will.
The amendment also violates Mr. Awad’s Establishment Clause rights by condemning his faith as a threat to Oklahoma, thereby causing him to become an outcast within his home state. In addition, SQ755 is motivated by an improper anti-Muslim purpose and would result in impermissible entanglement with the Islamic faith.
19
Appellate Case: 10-6273 Document: 01018637144 Date Filed: 05/09/2011 Page: 35
Mr. Awad meets the remaining requirements for a preliminary injunction. The deprivation of First Amendment rights that he will suffer under SQ755 constitutes an irreparable injury. That injury outweighs the interest of voters in seeing SQ755 — at best, a preemptive measure that does not address any past or current problem in Oklahoma — immediately effectuated. Finally, the injunction is necessary to protect the public interest because, in addition to violating Mr. Awad’s religious freedom rights, SQ755 will likely have other significant and adverse policy and legal implications.


The document is here:

http://www.cair.com/9865207-Appellee-Respondent.pdf

I guess since he is Muslim, we should not care if he can have his last will and testament executed in the event of his death. If he wanted his rights protected under the US Constitution, he would get with the program and join one of those "American" religions.

I think it's "funny" how a political group so hung up on "the Founders" and The Constitution have so much hate for a group (the ALCU) whose sole purpose for existing is to protect constitutional rights. It isn't comfortable defending rights you don't agree with, but freedom isn't free, or easy...

Eric, I agree with you!

ARay11
01-11-2012, 05:01 PM
The proposed amendment was poorly worded. Had they merely said something to the effect that "OK courts will be bound only by Federal, State of OK, and local judicial decisions, and decisions of other State Courts if applicable....", they very possibly would have won.

The issue was that in saying "no Sharia law" they were selecting (discriminating) on the basis of religion.

This makes the issue ripe for a replay in the OK legislature. If the legislature uses this decision to write the bill, we'll probably have a winner.

Eric

We cannot eliminate their law because their law is their religion and we cant discriminate on the basis of religion. This is incredibly frightening.

Gerry Clinchy
01-11-2012, 06:05 PM
We cannot eliminate their law because their law is their religion and we cant discriminate on the basis of religion. This is incredibly frightening.

When their law would conflict with Fed, State or local laws, I would think that would be the issue.

If a Christian's will made reference to some religious dictum, it could only be enforced as long as it did not conflict with prevailing law in the jurisdiction. No difference for any other religion.




Well, there is only one candidate that believes that this should be an issue resolved by the state and not the Feds or the courts!

Freedom of religion is a guarantee of the Constitution. Don't think that any state can make a law that is counter to rights granted in the Constitution. Will gladly defer to anyone who is more knowledgeable on Con Law than I am.

charly_t
01-11-2012, 10:09 PM
The proposed amendment was poorly worded. Had they merely said something to the effect that "OK courts will be bound only by Federal, State of OK, and local judicial decisions, and decisions of other State Courts if applicable....", they very possibly would have won.

The issue was that in saying "no Sharia law" they were selecting (discriminating) on the basis of religion.

This makes the issue ripe for a replay in the OK legislature. If the legislature uses this decision to write the bill, we'll probably have a winner.

Eric

Okie here. I wish that I could say our people down at the capitol have sense enough to do this but I fear they don't. My thoughts don't matter though as most of us in Oklahoma have found out. Money is heard very well down there.

cotts135
01-12-2012, 07:45 PM
well Buzz in case you havent noticed ,the Constitution is under constant attack, and at the heart of it is the freedom of speech,how else do the pornographers get to display their stuff on the street, or how does Westboro get to protest at military funerals..the fact that Sharia law is being discussed in OUR court system is a warning on the erosion of our society as we knew it, look the other way and pretend it doesnt exist

Apparantly freedom of speech to you means only things that you approve of. I don't like Westboro church protesting military funerals anymore than I like the fact you can burn an American flag, I just chose to view those that encourage or behave that way as lacking some filaments that light the bulb, certainly not any erosion of our society. I would be more concerned with how the 4th amendmend has been eroded.

BonMallari
01-12-2012, 08:33 PM
Apparantly freedom of speech to you means only things that you approve of. I don't like Westboro church protesting military funerals anymore than I like the fact you can burn an American flag, I just chose to view those that encourage or behave that way as lacking some filaments that light the bulb, certainly not any erosion of our society. I would be more concerned with how the 4th amendmend has been eroded.

How do you infer that, I do realize that freedom of speech cuts both ways,I dont approve of censorship, because I am smart enough to decide which adult content I wish to view and which I can do without...what I have a problem with is the courts striking down a law that was ovewhelmingly voted on by the people