| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Appeal sought in US Sharia case |
| 2010-12-02 |
| [Al Jazeera] The Oklahoma State Election Board has voted to ask the attorney general to appeal a court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction on a ban preventing the use of Sharia and other international laws in the state. The vote comes after the state legislator who wrote the proposal on Tuesday lashed out at the judge who blocked it, calling her a "liberal, activist judge". Rex Duncan, a former Republican state representative, criticised US district judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange's ruling this week to grant a preliminary injunction, preventing the state from certifying the results of the November 2 election. More than 70 per cent of voters approved State Question 755 (the "Save Our State Amendment"), which would place the Islamic (Sharia) law ban into the state constitution. The question proposed to preemptively ban "considering or using" international law and Sharia. Duncan said "one would surmise that her [judge's] sympathies were with the plaintiff". "But hers won't be the final order on the matter," he added. The legislator has charged that Mohammedan rights groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations ... the Moslem Brüderbund's American arm ... (CAIR) want to hijack the US legal system. The plaintiff, Muneer Awad, is a Mohammedan living in Oklahoma who claims the proposed ban is unconstitutional. Along with the CAIR in Oklahoma, Awad sued to block the law from taking effect. He argues the ban on Islamic law likely would affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #2 It is of my humble opinion this amendment is not anti-muslim, anti-amish, anti-anything. It is the confirmation that state and federal application of death taxes, or any tax and/or law, takes priority over religious or cultural considerations. What a person does afterwards is then left up to the person or organization. It includes estate planning, the ability to add interest to back taxes, to prevention of UN waterway control and taxes, the whole shabang. What you do not realize dipwad is by winning this case, you will create the need for people to register their religion in order to receive proper recognition. That means you must declare which religious center you belong to, and must sign in every visit in order to prove you are not evading the state's/federal mandate by law to intrude on your estate planning. You want exemption to plan your estate according to your belief without government interference then work to abolish estate taxes. There have been outside the legal system arbitration since forever, but once a law has been broken it is government's mandate to investigate and process equally unto all. You want a religious verdict stating a woman should not drive there is no law against that, muslim or amish, so long as the woman agrees. Now, if that woman lodges a complaint with the authorities stating she is being forced to stay in the house or whatnot then it is the authoriy's responsibility to investigate kidnapping, unlawful detainment, whatever local regs are. To not do so errodes that authority, errodes the people's trust in those lawfully ordaned to perform the job of law and order, which creates discontent, which creates jealousy and/or resentment, which makes people pissed at individuals like you, ya shitwad. My take on it at least, any legal or OK people if I'm wrong on details please correct me. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2010-12-02 12:37 |
| #1 A native of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Miles-LaGrange, received a certificate from the University of Ghana in Accra, Ghana, West Africa in 1973, and graduated cum laude from Vassar College in 1974. She then received her J.D. from Howard University in Washington, DC in 1977. There, she was an editor of The Howard Law Journal. Why does this sound vaguely familiar? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-12-02 08:41 |