Oklahoma votes to end long honored tradition of using Sharia Law

Yep, good thing they were proactive - the .4% of Oklahoma's population that is Muslim is expanding so rapidly they might make up a whole 1% someday! :sarc:

I agree, you should be ashamed. Such blatant lack of understanding or tolerance is deplorable.

That's a scary precedent to set up. I'm sure Spartan1 would be screaming if they passed a law to ignore Christian traditions in court cases.

That's a scary precedent to set up. I'm sure Spartan1 would be screaming if they passed a law to ignore Christian traditions in court cases.

I am definitely not screaming about anything. I just thought it was rather funny.

I mean, this vote has absolutely ZERO practical purpose. Nothing is going to change in the state of Oklahoma because of this vote.

I am definitely not screaming about anything. I just thought it was rather funny.

I mean, this vote has absolutely ZERO practical purpose. Nothing is going to change in the state of Oklahoma because of this vote.

So why bring up a non-issue?

So why bring up a non-issue?

Can you spell T-R-O-L-L?

Can you spell T-R-O-L-L?

Yes, my school was located in a heavily Democrat area.

So why bring up a non-issue?

The law itself is a non-issue. I say that because it doesn't change anything.

The issue is that real lawmakers who really make our laws thought this was necessary in the state. I've always just ignored the nut-job radicals on both both sides who spew their ignorant BS. But these are the REAL LAWMAKERS doing this.

The law itself is a non-issue. I say that because it doesn't change anything.

The issue is that real lawmakers who really make our laws thought this was necessary in the state. I've always just ignored the nut-job radicals on both both sides who spew their ignorant BS. But these are the REAL LAWMAKERS doing this.

I wouldn't sweat it, someone will want to apply Sharia law to a divorce or custody case and it'll go to the Supreme Court where they'll overturn it based on religious freedom.

More money wasted by 'fiscal conservatives'.

Why does the title of this thread say "long honored tradition" when this has NEVER been used, nor could be.:roll:

The bad news is according to attorneys and the article this came from:

For months, legal experts had lambasted the initiative as biased toward a religion and potentially harmful to local businesses that engage in commerce with international companies. It also presents potential constitutional law problems, experts say. Is Oklahoma's state constitution now in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "?
??There has never been a previous case in the state in which Sharia law was applied, said Rick Tepker, the first member of the University of Oklahoma School of Law faculty to try a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tepker called the passage of the measure "a mess" with implications unknown until a case that challenges it arises.
"Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don't cry," he said. "I would like to ?see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/law-professor-ban-on-sharia-law-a-mess/

Why does the title of this thread say "long honored tradition" when this has NEVER been used, nor could be.:roll:

There has never been a previous case in the state in which Sharia law was applied, said Rick Tepker,

" he said. "I would like to ?see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin."

Well, the title of the article is supposed to be a joke. Obviously Sharia law has never been used in Oklahoma and likely never will be. That is what makes this ballot initiative so stupid.

As to the articles claim about judges using the ten commandments to decide cases, I have never heard of that happening and it would surely be unconstitutional if a court did.

The type of law courts use to decide cases is federal, state, local and case law. Maybe common law, but i'm not really enough of an expert to speak on that. Maybe someone can correct me.

This is why it's being discussed.

"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."

New Jersey Family Judge Accepts 'Sharia Defense' to Excuse Spousal Rape - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

I find the whole thing ignorant and stupid.

There are many things one's "culture or religion" may say are acceptable that are specifically illegal under our laws.

As usual, no new law needed, just some common sense and enforcement of existing laws.

Which is why the appellate court swiftly reversed that judge's decision.

This is why it's being discussed.




New Jersey Family Judge Accepts 'Sharia Defense' to Excuse Spousal Rape - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

From the comments section of the link:

The judge's ruling involved a restraining order that the woman requested after the couple was divorced. The argument involving Sharia Law was that the ex-husband felt justified in assaulting her while they were married, but was not likely to assault her again after they were divorced. It had to do with the risk of further assaults -- nothing at all to do with excusing the actual assaults that had occurred while they were married (for which the ex-husband still faced charges).

King James Bible: The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. ...


An appellate court soon reversed Judge Charles' decision, but the idea that any American judge, no matter who appointed him, would actually rule that Sharia law was a defense for committing a felony should be grounds for impeachment.

And this is the one of the reasons for separation of religious beliefs from law.

Upon further reading it seems this judge based his decision on to deny a restraining order for the divorced couple:

"The trial judge got it right. A restraining order is not a punishment for past behavior, but designed to prevent future behavior. Since Defendant believed that in his religion he has the right to rape his wife, he did not violate his religious beliefs by doing so. However, now that he is divorced, it would violate his religious beliefs. Thus, the judge found that past conduct pre-divorce is not an indicator of future behavior.
I do not support rape on religious or other grounds. But the trial judge?s ruling did not say that a man can rape his wife if his religion allows it. The judge merely considered the Defendant?s religious beliefs in trying to predict future behavior to decide whether a restraining order is necessary."

This is why it's being discussed.




New Jersey Family Judge Accepts 'Sharia Defense' to Excuse Spousal Rape - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Did you take the Fox News journalism course?

Did you take the Fox News journalism course?

What's your point? :idontno: I just provided a link to the story that started the discussion.

What's your point? :idontno: I just provided a link to the story that started the discussion.

Really? You might want to go back and double check that.

Actually, this is very interesting in the point about spousal rape as it is considered a lesser charge if they are married.


In 1993, North Carolina became the last state to remove the spousal exemption. However, as of 1999, 33 of 50 states regard spousal rape as a lesser crime [Bergen, 1999]. The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault or battery.

Really? You might want to go back and double check that.

Is this not the case that sparked the initiative in Oklahoma? If i'm wrong, then spit it out. My understanding is that the case in New Jersey is why it was being discussed and voted on in Oklahoma. :idontno:

The link that was posted is an opinion piece and the judge did not rule in favor of the husband. He ruled against giving the ex-wife a restraining order, which a higher court overturned and granted her. This was not about the rape or non-consensual sex case, nor was the actual rape case based or ruled on ones religious beliefs that I can find.:idontno:

The level of partial and non-truth in today's media is really starting to piss me off.

Yet another discriminatory kerfuffle and a waste of taxpayer money because reporting the ACTUAL story is apparently too much trouble (or does not get ratings).

I disagree with the judge's anthropological analysis (as did the appellate court), but I find no danger of Sharia Law being adopted - especially since the ex-husband still faces charges for what he did during their marriage.

You have to look further than the US. I'm not going to post any links as I don't want to add to the thread. Go google "honor killings England London Sharia law" and get an eyeful of the issues that Europe is dealing with. This is the issue that they are trying to nip in the bud.

The level of partial and non-truth in today's media is really starting to piss me off.

Yet another discriminatory kerfuffle and a waste of taxpayer money because reporting the ACTUAL story is apparently too much trouble (or does not get ratings).

I disagree with the judge's anthropological analysis (as did the appellate court), but I find no danger of Sharia Law being adopted - especially since the ex-husband still faces charges for what he did during their marriage.

I agree, since the article doesn't mention children then he should have been nice and liberal with the restraining order. Whenever I hear about someone's restraining order being denied it drives me nuts. It's like the judge saying that he can gauge your level of fear and you don't have enough to warrant any kind of protection.

While I understand that in some cases restraining orders are obtained fraudulently for harassment I feel like it's better to be safe than sorry.

I understand, but if it is illegal in the US, it is illegal in the US.

Unless we change or repeal OUR laws or decide to change how we enforce the law, it is a non-issue.

Most of Sharia Law is very similar to laws based on the Bible - so keep ALL religious arguments out and we'll be just fine.

Then we should really banish Jewish law, Amish law and any other religious law in the bud...since none of them trump Federal and State statues. I am totally against the rape, murder or abuse of anyone, but this is being made into something that it was not and we are entering a slippery slope since most all of our laws are based on religious tenets, IMHO.