Reply With Quote"It is a cancer upon the survivability of the U[nited] K[ingdom],"
Oklahama does not want to follow the UK down the sharia road
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06...-fall-ballo%2F
Islamic law in the Sooner State? Not if they can help it.
"It is a cancer upon the survivability of the U[nited] K[ingdom],"
Serious FLA response: This proposal is ridiculous and offensive. If two parties to a civil dispute agree to submit to a religious authority for mediation (or arbitration), they have an absolute constitutional right to do so. Since there is no other place where Shariah law could possibly apply in Oklahoma, this entire measure is unconstitutional and absurd, and serves no other purpose but to encourage anti-Islam sentiment.Originally Posted by bababooey
Less serious FLA response: Sooner State? Ohhhh! I thought it was the SUNNAH State.
Last edited by Fat Lazy American; 06-08-2010 at 10:19 PM. Reason: parenthetical
It means something to me. I wonder if the christian right has swung open the doors to the co-mingling of church and state.
It is separation. Look at contractual law, it would cover this. Probably for civil law only, not criminal law.
People can agree to arbitration and make the decision binding. The only power the State has is that same with any civil case.
Oklahoma politics is just like Texas politics, it's theater. Enjoy the show but don't take it seriously.
So you're under the impression that honor killings are currently legal in Oklahoma, or may soon be, and this is a desperately needed law to redress that?
I am just wondering who will jump on the boycot Oklahoma train...
Last time I check that is not allowable under contract law. This is no different for anyone who has a prearrange arbitrator. They are only contractually bound to following the decision not criminally. Big difference in Criminal and Tort law. The state is not recognizing anything but binding arbitration. There are only civil penalties.
I agree with you, if it covered more than just civil stuff and the state could act as a agent, we would be screwed.
sharia is not UK law at the present if two people agree to settle a dispute by Klingon combat they can Jewish courts have been running for years.
if sharia and uk law conflict uk law takes precent end of.
Where the hell is Oklahama?
HAHAAA, ok +10 internets right there
/thread
But anyway, look at how the usual suspects respond...
Tossing in "anti-semitic" and "Nazi-like" at the same time...right from the playbook. Hit those buttons CAIR, hit them hard and often. Looking forward to a similiar bill being presented in Texas, just for laughs around the BBQ."This is just the flip side of the anti-Semitic coin," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Anti-Islam rhetoric is approaching "Nazi-like" levels, Hooper said.
From my understanding of it, Sharia law isn't, how shall I put this, particularly fair in its treatment of men and women? Recall that liberals would say that the death penalty is wrong if it causes just one wrongful death of an innocent person. Well, how about this formulation: Sharia law is wrong if it causes just one victimization of a woman? No doubt the feminists will be backing Oklahoma to the hilt on this one.
Oh wait..........
[QUOTE=Fat Lazy American;4996997]Serious FLA response: This proposal is ridiculous and offensive. If two parties to a civil dispute agree to submit to a religious authority for mediation (or arbitration), they have an absolute constitutional right to do so. Since there is no other place where Shariah law could possibly apply in Oklahoma, this entire measure is unconstitutional and absurd, and serves no other purpose but to encourage anti-Islam sentiment.
Two private parties could still use whatever they both agree too to settle a dispute, a mediator etc. This proposal only applies to what Judges can use to determine cases brought before state courts. So it is not unconstitutional.
Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution.
Posting Permissions
