Federal court blocks Oklahoma ban on Sharia

  • Thread starter Thread starter News Feed
  • Start date Start date
N

News Feed

Guest
A federal appeals court has blocked an Oklahoma voter-approved measure barring state judges from considering Islamic and international law in their decisions.

1oeRTEGAW2s


Continue reading...
 
we have real problems... sharia law isnt one of them

More and more US schools have police patrolling the corridors. Pupils are being arrested for throwing paper planes and failing to pick up crumbs from the canteen floor. Why is the state criminalising normal childhood behaviour?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools?newsfeed=true

Male-police-officers-supe-007.jpg


love the uniforms... they look like inmates already...
 
theonestonecutter said:
we have real problems... sharia law isnt one of them

More and more US schools have police patrolling the corridors. Pupils are being arrested for throwing paper planes and failing to pick up crumbs from the canteen floor. Why is the state criminalising normal childhood behaviour?
Click to expand...


The government pays good money for every American incarcerated. A school is not so much a place of learning but a gold mine. If you can get people arrested early then they are more likely to become permanently involved in the justice system and a finding of guilt is the sound of gilt.

What we need is more jury trials with juries who understand their civic duty to find people not guilty who are charged with unjust laws.
 
too bad in the us its illegal to explain to prospective jurors about their rights to nullify
 
theonestonecutter said:
too bad in the us its illegal to explain to prospective jurors about their rights to nullify
Click to expand...
That doesn't seem likely - since everyone is a prospective juror, unless prospective applies to the immediate short term such as when a person has been called to present himself for selection - and even then, it might come under tampering only if it were influence directly relating to the case by a person who had a stake in the outcome.

Do you have a reference for the above because it sounds like something is getting stretched.
 
redrumloa said:
Oh dear...
Click to expand...
There are already alternate court systems you can go to in America. Say that you would rather be tried in a rabbinical court, for e.g.

http://www.bethdin.org/

But if you read the article, the problem the court had with it was that it discriminated against ONE religion and that has the Jews worried - because for the initiative to be legal it would have to be applied to all religions equally.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
That doesn't seem likely - since everyone is a prospective juror, unless prospective applies to the immediate short term such as when a person has been called to present himself for selection - and even then, it might come under tampering only if it were influence directly relating to the case by a person who had a stake in the outcome.

Do you have a reference for the above because it sounds like something is getting stretched.
Click to expand...

i was told by both the state and local court that i could not stand out on the sidewalk (not even across the street) of the courthouse and hand out jury nullification literature to people as they are going into court or i would be arrested. it is also against state laws for judges to mention to juries during instruction of their right to nullify.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
But if you read the article, the problem the court had with it was that it discriminated against ONE religion and that has the Jews worried - because for the initiative to be legal it would have to be applied to all religions equally.
Click to expand...
And it certainly should. There should only be one law for everyone, dividing people up along religious lines seems like a terrible idea.
 
Glaucus said:
And it certainly should. There should only be one law for everyone, dividing people up along religious lines seems like a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

And there is - more or less. However, law is just a rule set and courts are just umpires. If you play a sport then you agree to the rules (including penalties for rule breaking) and the referees or umpires make calls on rule breeches and players abide by the rulings. If you don't like the ruling then you can appeal on up the chain of the governing body and if you are still unsatisfied then you can move to provincial/state law if that helps or federal law - but that's where it ends. The Supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of disputes (including deciding that it has no jurisdiction since no federal law has been broken - in which case you must abide by the ruling of the sporting association).

Similarly in civil disputes there is no requirement to go to court to settle the dispute. You can settle it by other means (so long as the other means do not violate the state or federal law - but for a prosecution to occur under the higher law someone would have to find out). Disputing parties are at liberty to make use of another venue to decide the case. You see a lot of agreements that state that disputes shall be settled in such-and-such a jurisdiction and if you make a civil agreement to the rules of dispute resolution then you are bound by the resolution.

I could make a contract with someone and have in that contract a dispute settlement that requires disputes to be settled by a sharia court or a rabbinical court just as I could agree to have the dispute settled by a professional association and provided that nothing happened in the dispute that violates a higher law I would likely be bound by the decision.

If you were part of a registered society then you must abide by its bylaws and sanctions. You could appeal to a court if you felt that you were sanctioned illegally but if not the courts will often back enforcement of the bylaws.
 
theonestonecutter said:
i was told by both the state and local court that i could not stand out on the sidewalk (not even across the street) of the courthouse and hand out jury nullification literature to people as they are going into court or i would be arrested. it is also against state laws for judges to mention to juries during instruction of their right to nullify.
Click to expand...

That I can believe. The judge works for the law and is paid by the law and his loyalty should be to the law therefore it makes sense that he would be barred from mentioning jury nullification. The Jury, on the other hand, works for the citizens and hopefully for justice.

As to being arrested for leafleting outside the courthouse I can understand how they might be able to read some law or other to make you get arrested but with what would they charge you - that's what I want to know. Since you are at or near the courthouse and there is a pretty good chance that there is a case being tried at any time and perhaps with a jury then there is a high chance that your activities could influence a specific trial or your leaflet may end up in the hands of a juror. This could be seen as obstruction of justice or jury tampering.

How would the law treat you if, instead, you were leafleting at high schools and colleges instead?
 
Understood, but this article was about state judges taking sharia law into account. I think if you're in a state court, only state laws should apply without outside considerations.

We should also note that Sharia law is a bit loaded. From where it originates, it's used not just for domestic disputes, but for all legal disputes, including criminal. What you're talking about is a small subset of sharia law. What that subset is needs to be very clearly defined, if at all possible.
 
Glaucus said:
Understood, but this article was about state judges taking sharia law into account. I think if you're in a state court, only state laws should apply without outside considerations.

We should also note that Sharia law is a bit loaded. From where it originates, it's used not just for domestic disputes, but for all legal disputes, including criminal. What you're talking about is a small subset of sharia law. What that subset is needs to be very clearly defined, if at all possible.
Click to expand...

you know tho, im perfectly okay with them taking some matters of religious law into consideration when they are involved in certain legal situations. if a kid wanted to wear a jesus rocks t shirt lets say, or some goof wants to genuflect for jesus everytime he makes a touchdown, or even if a husband and wife, married by a church are getting a divorce. im ok with some religions using drugs as a practice of faith, the dispensing of wine to minors by others. i wouldnt dream of banning any of that even tho i dont believe in any of it myself. i wouldnt want the swat team stormtrooping the church and arresting the priests because state law clearly prohibits providing alcohol in any form, selling or gifting, to minors... people need to learn how to be more reasonable. the whole sharia nonsense was a red meat bait trap for the easily emotionally manipulated.
 
theonestonecutter said:
you know tho, im perfectly okay with them taking some matters of religious law into consideration when they are involved in certain legal situations. if a kid wanted to wear a jesus rocks t shirt lets say, or some goof wants to genuflect for jesus everytime he makes a touchdown, or even if a husband and wife, married by a church are getting a divorce. im ok with some religions using drugs as a practice of faith, the dispensing of wine to minors by others. i wouldnt dream of banning any of that even tho i dont believe in any of it myself. i wouldnt want the swat team stormtrooping the church and arresting the priests because state law clearly prohibits providing alcohol in any form, selling or gifting, to minors... people need to learn how to be more reasonable. the whole sharia nonsense was a red meat bait trap for the easily emotionally manipulated.
Click to expand...

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!
 
I'm against using Sharia Law. That being said the government law is unable to discriminate against a single religion. That'd be against the Establishment Clause. They need to rewrite the law to state any religious laws cannot be considered and only the laws on the books of the USA. Afterall would you like 'Koresian' rules to surplant the other rules? Or should we go around stoning disobedient children. Of course not. A law exempting religious laws from legal considerations would treat all religions equally would be supportive of the Establishment Clause as it would not judge one religion against another but treat them all the same. Clearly we do not want Judges or Juries inserting their faith into decisions but making those decisions based upon laws of our nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top