Indeed, the judge clearly has no clue what Sharia is. "Author of Okla.'s ban on Islamic law slams judge," by Sean Murphy for the Associated Press, November 30:
[...] Former state Rep. Rex Duncan says the judge is exactly the kind of "liberal activist" his legislation intends to stop. The judge issued a temporary injunction Monday, blocking the law from taking effect. More than 70 percent of voters supported adding the ban in the state constitution.Also Tuesday, the Oklahoma State Election Board voted to ask the state attorney general to appeal the court's granting of the injunction. A spokesman for the attorney general says such an appeal is "likely."
Good.
OT
Former Iran football player's mistress hanged
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8173110/Former-Iran-football-players-mistress-hanged.html
A former Iranian football player's mistress – known as a "temporary wife" – who was convicted of murdering the player's wife, has been hanged.
"Contracts with "temporary wives" are a legal way for Iranian men to have mistresses outside marriage, with the agreements lasting from between several hours to a few years."
"Wednesday's death sentence was based on the Islamic law of "qisas" – or eye for an eye retribution."
[...]
"In Iran, men are allowed up to four legal wives under Islam and any number of temporary wives. Women can only be married to one man at a time."
I am willing to bet that if it had been an Islamic initiative against, say, Catholic Canon, the judge would had no problem with it.
"Liberal activist" judge?! Bulls**t.
The proposition was badly written and Constitutionally invalid on its face. The most conservative strict-constructionist judge would have ruled exactly the same way.
I understand that the OK AG's office (Democrat) did not even appear at court to oppose the request for the injunction.
If that's the case, what are the odds that the AG's office will actually file a meaningful appeal?
APPEAL after appeal is what is necessary to honor the Will of the People.
As I wrote on an earlier thread on the Oklahoma anti-Sharia referendum's judge temporary injuction:
Judge Vicki, it is that simple. Further, as American_Exceptionalist stated, "this order is NOT a permanent injunction", but only a 'preliminary' one. It must be APPEALED with some big legal guns behind it. Whether or not Judge Viki is an "activist judge" or not should have no bearing on this appeal. It is a matter of State Rights vs. Administrative Federal Judge power, and the "We the People", if not in violation of the US Constitution, must rule legally. That is the foundational meaning of our Constitutional Democracy, and what our freedoms are made of, and protected by, why we have laws. Our First Amendment excludes both seditious and religious laws from ruling over us. Sharia is both.Judges on the slightest of opposing arguments are undermining the American people and states rights at every turn. It has happened several times in California over the past 20 years. An activist group goes up to a liberal judge in San Francisco and the vote of millions of people is overturned in a heartbeat. We saw it is Arizona with its SB1070,now we see it in Oklahoma with its strong majority vote against the horror that is Sharia law that has no business in America. Stopped by a clueless federal judge who should not even be able, or allowed to address an issue that should be left to the prerogative of states rights.
Those that object to the laws of American should immediately depart and go live in a country that has laws that they can be comfortable with...
Anyone who says that State Question 755 is unconstitutional is either unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution, or they are being dishonest.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "
Were a judge to make a ruling based on Sharia law, that would have the same effect as Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion". SQ 755 merely reinforces the prohibition already written into the First Amendment.
It is very telling that the people opposed to this law are the same ones that vehemently protest even the suggestion that judges should use Judeo-Christian principles in deciding cases.
It's unconstitutional for a courthouse to display an image of the Ten Commandments, because that establishes a state religion. But it's acceptable for a judge to make a ruling based on Sharia?
The utter hypocrisy of the left is amazing.
Not so fast there, doughNUTS -
Any judge worth her salt, in this country today, would recognize sharia law for its true construct and princilpes.
Poorly written? Perhaps, but far from "unconstitutional".
Outlined, brilliantly at CSP in the following link. Oklahoma needs this guy! :
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18588.xml
Not so fast there, Agel eSpinoS (see, I can capitalize to create a childish insult, too). I've read Yerushalmi's essay before. I'm am unimpressed by the circumlocutions he goes through to prove that some foreign law and Talmudic law are just fine, but that Sharia is, to use his word, the "bogeyman."
What about SQ755 is "constitutionally invalid"?
The worst that can be said about SQ755 is that it is superflous, since the Constitution already forbids the use of Sharia as a basis of judicial decisions.
1). 'The Boogy-Man' was simply used as an identifier. Wouldn't be my choice of words but it served its purpose... identifying the disingenuous assertions of CAIR that any opposition, to the creeping infiltration of sharia, is based on irrational fears.
3). Yerushalmi did NOT attempt to prove that other foreign/Talmudic/any law but gasp! sharia law is "fine". Rather, he stated that they should all be considered if... and only if... they do not compromise our freedom and human rights or violate/undermine the principles of the constitutional republic. Looks that would exclude sharia, based its very tenet.
3). The "circumlocutions" appeared to be his way of dumbing-it-down. Perhaps, so that even the likes of a liberal, islamosympathizer, Oklahoma judge might get it.
The U.S. Constitution, First Amendment is needlessly offensive and insulting to Muslims and their religion. The writers of that Amendment were knowledgeable about Islam and wished to cause Muslims to feel singled out and insulted because obviously what else could "establishment of religion" be referring to. The amendment is unnecessary. There was never a danger of an established religion. That was a subterfuge.
Please excuse the above typos. Oh my.
You've said something was badly written. What was badly written? The Oklahoma law or an article by a legal scholar? You switched back and forth there so swiftly I couldn't see it. How do you do it?
Great video: Three Things About Islam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w
You say "The amendment is unnecessary."
They had just escaped from the church of England, a state established religion which was Christian in name, but opposed to the truth of the bible. The amendment was necessary. There should be no state religion, but we should be free to worship as we please unless of course that includes forcing others to worship our way.
Thanks. Good concise explanation of the colonial political situation re. Church of England. Actually, ron my friend, I was being tongue-in-cheek in that posting. You can be forgiven for not instantly seeing that because most Americans are very ignorant nowadays about the historical circumstances surrounding the founding of the Republic. But, actually, it's a special interest of mine -- along with the English Civil War, the Cromwellian Protectorate, the (Oceanic) Commonwealth, the beginnings of the Enlightenment as response to these tragically violent, confusing but necessary events, like Hobbes & John Locke etc. -- All of which absolutely no one knows anything about. It never happened. Funny you should bring it up, in such a roundabout way. Have a good day.
You well expressed what I was going to write. I was going to write: Isn't the use of religious law in a secular civil court a violation of the principle of church and state?
As a Christian I can't demand to be judged according to the
teachings of Jesus, and Jews cannot demand to be judged accorfding to Judaic Law.
One law for all -- the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Law. No
exceptions.
Some of our judges, including Supreme Court, need to re-read their job descriptions.
Thank you for your reply friend. Good to here we are on the same wavelength. I've been reading quotes of the founding fathers recently, and they are so relevant to what is happening these days, but sadly the average American is ignorant of this to their own demise.
True. The founding fathers for a few years thoroughly discussed everything need to put together the USA and the first national republic in modern times. I 've only scratched the surface. They carried on conversations back and forth, much like website comment boards nowadays. They belonged to what they called "Committees of Correspondence". When they finally got around to writing the Constitution and ratifying it, they knew what they were doing. And what they discussed and argued about is, mostly, relevant to current problems, even the problems of an encroaching Islam and the Counter-Jihad. See ya next time.
This is off topic, but when I saw your name I was compelled to tell you, if you don't know yet, that the Grand Mosque of
Tours is to be built on the site of the Battle of Tours.
Did you know?
I should have said "violation of the principle of the
separation of church and state" My thinking got ahead of my
typing.
The courts are currently all over the place when it comes to comity and Islamic law, especially re family law. (Have a look at Mark Hanshaw, _Muslim and American? Straddling Islamic Law and U.S. Justice_, LFB, 2010).
As it is, the courts end up contacting university professors of Islam (even us non-Muslims), first to learn the substance of Islamic law, and then even to help them determine whether this or that point is void as against public policy.
The stories I could tell! Best interest of a child ... but (says judge), it's a Muslim child, so really it _is_ better that the abusive father gets the kids, right? I mean (says judge), it's like their religion, isn't it?
I should think that this is precisely the sort of situation that demands legislative clarification -- better, I suspect, than forcing judges to make the law.
Clarification will also be of great value to the Muslim community in the U.S., as it will help rectify the current unpredictability surrounding the court's willingness to entertain claims based on Islamic law.
Moreover, if Muslim women don't know what they can expect in the courts, they'll more and more have to have recourse to their local (medieval) imams. Getting beaten by your husband? SIster, you need to keep a cleaner house. Does he want a second wife? No prohibition in your marriage contract? Sister, your anger is against Islam. Recently divorced? No job, no skills, no money? Sister, alimony is not Islamic. (All cases from a local mosque in the last six months.)
In ten years, another local imam has not referred a single case of spousal abuse to the police. There ought to be legislation on that, too!
There HAS TO BE A WAY to get a federal judge removed from the bench. It seems highly unlikely that our forefathers and writers of the Constitution would make provisions to place a Federal Judge on the bench and not make provision for their removal when they presented a viable danger to the well being of the people and our nation. Someone, somewhere, is a lawyer with the BALLS to search our that provision of removal, of find a loophole, in order to insure that these Judges do not run amok. ARE YOU OUT THERE READING THIS??? If so, PLEASE step forward. YOU ARE NEEDED BY YOUR COUNTRY!!!
"There HAS TO BE A WAY to get a federal judge removed from the bench."
There is a way. Contact your U.S. Congressman and ask for (or demand) the immediate impeachment of Judge Miles-LaGrange.
Here is a link for contacting your Congressman:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
I strongly encourage all Americans to do this, as soon as possible.
Judge Vicki Miles LaGrange is a liberal activist. She rules that this was an invasion of first amendment rights, bull s...! Killing men & women for not following Sharia, beating women, forcing arranged marriage, supporting infidelity (for men only), lieing and deceit, (the list going on and on) breaks just about every law we have. She should be removed and disbarred along with all the other judges that construe rulings to justify their hidden legislation from the bench!!
exsgtbrown, you and those like you should go back to where you came from. If you want to practice Sharia, stay in your uncivilized countries!
Thanks Paula, @ This is off topic, but when I saw your name I was compelled to tell you, if you don't know yet, that the Grand Mosque of Tours is to be built on the site of the Battle of Tours.
Looks like the Grand Mosque of Tours is on its way to complete the Islamization of France/Eurabia, once the remaining $2 myn are found, probably from a grand cheque from Saudi Arabia. This also shows how Islam never stops rolling, like a juggernaut it keeps coming at you, even when it is mortally wounded and nearly dead.
Islam is dying, but it is too stubbornly obtuse to know it yet. It will only be a matter of time for these 'grand' mosques to turn into grand gestures of "conquest" that failed. Islam is on its way out on the world stage, and we here who know it and expose it for the hateful theo-political ideology it is, we are continuing Charles Martel's work (he turning in his grave) to put the final nails into the coffin of this monster. It will not die peacefully, but must go out spitting as much hate and vengeance it can muster, cause as much physical and moral damage it can, ensnare and enslave as many it can, especially women, cause human suffering on a global scale; and then finally roll over and die. It is only a matter of time, the lie is exposed and we know. Even with the help of Islamo-ignorant 'activist' judges, clueless politicians, and sentimental Leftist utopians, it is just end-times a coming. No worries. Let them build, it will come.
The truth is Islam will fall. The US Constitution and our First Amendment will stand. No Sharia slavery, ever.
ShortFatTexian your congressman cannot impeach than federal judge without valid ground of remove like being drunk on the bench , taken bridery money to rule than certain way.
Elitist liberal/progressives see themselves as "above" the need for religion (in effect worshiping themselves). They also think they redefine Islam as something harmless (to them) and/or something they can use to gain popularity and favor with the "Muslim world." Lenin's useful idiots made the same mistake. Ironically, Sharia law would ban the Judge from being a judge (being a woman) and from having any (legal or otherwise) authority over Muslims.
Exsgtbrown is a true AMERICAN patriot. You are barking up the wrong tree Flash.
لن استسلم