OKlahoma voters reject foreign laws

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Because it specifies Sharia Law, which is a law based on the religion of Islam.

Singling out singles out a particular religion violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

It does not single out a single religion. And there is no way it violates the establishment clause which is about governments promoting religion. It is the Free Exercise clause that forbids the government from singling out religions.

An example of this is when they passed a law forbidding the slaughter of chickens for sacrificial purposes. That is unconstitutional, it was expressly to keep Santeria from practicing.

In the late 1800 the Supreme court took on Reynolds and forbid the Mormons from having more than one wife. This was not unconstitutional. Only one religion was practicing polygamy but they still said nope.

[coadie]

The religion of Islam says to kill the infidel. Under Twisp law, if they do so, we will be stopped because it is their religious belief.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

It didn't single out Islam; it mentioned Sharia Law, which is technically "international law."

Do you disagree that this law actually protects Muslims in this country from being unfairly prosecuted according to laws to which they may not want to be held accountable?

Did it ever occur to you that if courts allowed Sharia law that Muslims who fled their countries to escape Sharia law could then be unjustly persecuted in the United States?

You say it didn't single out Islam, and then in the next breath you say it mentioned Sharia Law? LOL. That is singling out Islam and you know it.

Muslims are already protected under US law.

The 1st amendment already guarantees separation of church and state, so there is no possibility of Sharia Law, Old Testament Law, or any other religious law ever taking infiltrating governmental laws.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It does not single out a single religion. And there is no way it violates the establishment clause which is about governments promoting religion. It is the Free Exercise clause that forbids the government from singling out religions.

An example of this is when they passed a law forbidding the slaughter of chickens for sacrificial purposes. That is unconstitutional, it was expressly to keep Santeria from practicing.

In the late 1800 the Supreme court took on Reynolds and forbid the Mormons from having more than one wife. This was not unconstitutional. Only one religion was practicing polygamy but they still said nope.

So you are saying it does not specify one religious law and not others?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Twisp

You say it didn't single out Islam, and then in the next breath you say it mentioned Sharia Law? LOL. That is singling out Islam and you know it.

Actually, I already said "my mistake" in an earlier post, because I didn't realize the bill specifically mentioned Sharia Law rather than just generically stating "international law." Are you reading my posts?

Muslims are already protected under US law.

The 1st amendment already guarantees separation of church and state, so there is no possibility of Sharia Law, Old Testament Law, or any other religious law ever taking infiltrating governmental laws.

They are; you're correct. So at worst, this measure is redundant, but it is NOT unconstitutional. They aren't one and the same.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Twisp

So you are saying it does not specify one religious law and not others?

You do understand that some countries use sharia law as part of their legal system right? Specifying that Sharia law cannot be used is the same as saying French statutes cannot be used.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It does not single out a single religion. And there is no way it violates the establishment clause which is about governments promoting religion. It is the Free Exercise clause that forbids the government from singling out religions.

An example of this is when they passed a law forbidding the slaughter of chickens for sacrificial purposes. That is unconstitutional, it was expressly to keep Santeria from practicing.

In the late 1800 the Supreme court took on Reynolds and forbid the Mormons from having more than one wife. This was not unconstitutional. Only one religion was practicing polygamy but they still said nope.

And yes, the establishment clause is in effect here, since it does not allow the government to establish a national religion or prefer one over the other.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Twisp

And yes, the establishment clause is in effect here, since it does not allow the government to establish a national religion or prefer one over the other.

NO NO NO. You don't get it. Establishment. say it slow. it has nothing to do with what you are saying. It is not establishing or preferring. At best it is prohibiting which is the Free Exercise clause not the Establishment clause.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Actually, I already said "my mistake" in an earlier post, because I didn't realize the bill specifically mentioned Sharia Law rather than just generically stating "international law." Are you reading my posts?



They are; you're correct. So at worst, this measure is redundant, but it is NOT unconstitutional. They aren't one and the same.

I am reading your posts. Your last post said:

"It didn't single out Islam; it mentioned Sharia Law, which is technically "international law." "

Since Sharia Law is the religious law of Islam, it was, in fact, singling out Islam.

And yes, it is unconstitutional. Singling out a specific religion, which they did in this case by by including Sharia Law specifically, goes against the 1st amendment.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Soooo, when the 1st amendment says,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"...

and you then have a law that is clearly against an establishment of religion...

you are telling me that is not in violation? LOL

It is not a religious argument.

Can't drag foreign law into Oklahoma courts by doing it under a religious argument.