Oklahoma's Sharia/Int'l law ban may actually...

[Hoss]

....have implications for restrictions to the interpretation of the Ten Commandments as well.

Ain't that just a kick in the teeth to all those EEEEE-van-jellicals out there!

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/law-professor-ban-on-sharia-law-a-mess/

[dbacks fan]

So Oklahoma passes a law that does not allow the use of Sharia Law, which goes against the federal law that Sharia law can be enforced in the name of international trade. Sounds like Arizona is no longer lonely in passing a law that interferes with federal, and in this case, international law. It's begining to look like the two states are going to wind up going before the US Supreme Court.

So has Al Sharpton made a statement about this yet?

As I understand it from what I have read, Federal Trade laws allow the negotiation between US companies and foriegn companies when they enter into a trade/contractual agreement as to which countries laws will be used in the negotiation and disputes that may arise between the two parties. If I understand that correctly, if a US company enters into an agreement with a country that abides by Sharia, and it is agreed that the foriegn country's law will bind the contract in it's enforcement, then by federal trade laws which superceed state law may have opened the door to allow it.

[dbacks fan]

Here are two stories of men defending their muslim beliefs and faith, one who's wife sought a restraining order and was denied after she claimed that she was raped by her ex-husband, and a 20 year old woman who was run down and killed by her father for dishonoring the family by becoming too westernised.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/

http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/2010/02/19/20100219honor-killing.html

Read the articles, I am not proclaiming that courts in the US are using Sharia Law, but there are people that are.

[Ed W]

Let's remember that the decision to deny that restraining order was overturned on appeal only 3 days later, something the original story omitted.  And the father who killed his daughter for being too Westernized will likely spend the rest of his life in prison.  While religion was used as justification for both these crimes, the perpetrators were not absolved of responsibility for them. 

Similarly, anti-abortion extremists use their religious beliefs to justify bombing clinics and shooting medical staff.  Yet we don't hear of demands to forbid the use of Biblical principles in our courts.  We don't have state referendums on whether our courts should include basic Judeo-Christian tenets as underpinning for our laws. 

[cynical]

The problem with these types of laws is that finding a plaintiff with standing to sue in federal court will be very difficult.  The very issue that makes the anti-Sharia law so laughable makes it unlikely to be overturned in federal court.

Standing is a concept derived from Art. III of the U.S. Constitution.  The limitation of the federal courts to "cases and controversies" was intended to keep them out of merely hypothetical disputes.  To have standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show:

1.  Actual injury or harm;
2.  A causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the harm; and
3.  The existence of a remedy enforceable by the court.

In this situation, even though it represents Muslim-Americans, CAIR cannot simply say that it or its members are harmed because the law discriminates against Muslims.  The plaintiff must show that he/she/it attempted to enforce Sharia law in state court in Oklahoma and was harmed in being denied enforcement.  It is not impossible to find a plaintiff who can make such a showing.  It is highly unlikely that such a plaintiff will be found in Oklahoma, even in the business/commercial context mentioned earlier.

Many, many attempts at challenging state law in federal court fail because of lack of standing to sue.

Another example being litigated now is the Arizona law giving taxpayers a tax credit to offset donations to private religious schools' scholarship funds.  Whatever the merits of the case are, the requirement that the plaintiffs demonstrate harm is a significant impediment to staying in court long enough to reach the merits.  The only thing that makes this a live issue in the Arizona case is that the Supreme Court carved out a special rule to enable taxpayers to challenge state aid to religious organizations.  But in the Arizona case, no one can show that a single penny of their taxes were paid to a religious organization.  The issue was argued to the Supreme Court last week and is under advisement. 

That bastion of secular humanism, the Obama Justice Department, sided with the State of Arizona in arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had failed to show that any tax money actually paid was redirected to religious school scholarships.  My prediction is that the Supremes will rule that the plaintiffs lack standing.  End of lawsuit.

[Red Arrow]

That bastion of secular humanism, the Obama Justice Department, sided with the State of Arizona in arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had failed to show that any tax money actually paid was redirected to religious school scholarships. 

A tax credit or deduction allows the donor to personally specify where some of the money he/she would have paid in taxes went instead of the tax agency.  The fact that the middle man (tax agency) didn't handle the money may make it legally not tax money but I believe a reasonable person can see the case that it really is tax money.

(This will ruffle a few feathers.)
Perhaps we should eliminate tax deductions for all charitable giving.  Give because of your generosity, not because you get to redirect what would have been tax money to your favorite cause.  Every dollar that someone reduces tax revenue by giving to their favorite place, requires others to make up that revenue.  Nearly the first thing charities that phone solicit mention is that any gift is tax deductible.  That's really only true if you itemize your deductions.  If you are "unfortunate" enough to not have a house mortgage or be rich enough to tithe to your religious organization above the amount required to itemize your deductions,  donations you make do come out of your pocket.

[pmcalk]

The problem with these types of laws is that finding a plaintiff with standing to sue in federal court will be very difficult.  The very issue that makes the anti-Sharia law so laughable makes it unlikely to be overturned in federal court.

Standing is a concept derived from Art. III of the U.S. Constitution.  The limitation of the federal courts to "cases and controversies" was intended to keep them out of merely hypothetical disputes.  To have standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show:

1.  Actual injury or harm;
2.  A causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the harm; and
3.  The existence of a remedy enforceable by the court.

In this situation, even though it represents Muslim-Americans, CAIR cannot simply say that it or its members are harmed because the law discriminates against Muslims.  The plaintiff must show that he/she/it attempted to enforce Sharia law in state court in Oklahoma and was harmed in being denied enforcement.  It is not impossible to find a plaintiff who can make such a showing.  It is highly unlikely that such a plaintiff will be found in Oklahoma, even in the business/commercial context mentioned earlier.

Many, many attempts at challenging state law in federal court fail because of lack of standing to sue.

Another example being litigated now is the Arizona law giving taxpayers a tax credit to offset donations to private religious schools' scholarship funds.  Whatever the merits of the case are, the requirement that the plaintiffs demonstrate harm is a significant impediment to staying in court long enough to reach the merits.  The only thing that makes this a live issue in the Arizona case is that the Supreme Court carved out a special rule to enable taxpayers to challenge state aid to religious organizations.  But in the Arizona case, no one can show that a single penny of their taxes were paid to a religious organization.  The issue was argued to the Supreme Court last week and is under advisement. 

That bastion of secular humanism, the Obama Justice Department, sided with the State of Arizona in arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had failed to show that any tax money actually paid was redirected to religious school scholarships.  My prediction is that the Supremes will rule that the plaintiffs lack standing.  End of lawsuit.

However, in cases of direct, overt discrimination, the courts are much more likely to find harm, and not dismiss a case.  Take for example Moore vs. US Dept of Agriculture:

We add to Bentley's reasoning only the observation that granting a dismissal for lack of standing in this case has particularly pernicious ramifications. Where there are allegations of direct, overt racial discrimination, as were made here, a court should think long and hard before dismissing a case for lack of "justiciability." The badge of inequality and stigmatization conferred by racial discrimination is a cognizable harm in and of itself providing grounds for standing. Flanagan v. Aaron E. Henry Community Center, 876 F.2d 1231, 1236 (5th Cir.1989); Woods-Drake v. Lundy, 667 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir.1982); Gore v. Turner, 563 F.2d 159, 164 (5th Cir.1977)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7860621063083307868&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[heironymouspasparagus]

Which pretty much still means the state question was just another ignorant thing we do to make ourselves look stupid to the rest of the country - as well as the world!

[guido911]

This debate is about to end. OU students are apparently going to weigh in:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20101116_18_0_NORMAN888452

Why is this freakin "news"? What, Oklahoma's Weekly Reader kids not available for comment?

[JeffM]

This debate is about to end. OU students are apparently going to weigh in:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20101116_18_0_NORMAN888452

Why is this freakin "news"? What, Oklahoma's Weekly Reader kids not available for comment?

Actually, I'd rather read the comments of Weekly Reader kids than anything YOU have to say..... and I'd much rather read the opinions of our future college educated generation over the rightwing partisan lies and hackery characteristic of this little forum.... and KRMG.... 

[heironymouspasparagus]

HEY!!! I ain't no right wing lackey!  (Not a left wing lackey, either!)  So not everyone here is a KRMG stooge!

I AM a lifetime member of the NRA who believes in a kinder, gentler, machine-gun hand!

[guido911]

HEY!!! I ain't no right wing lackey!  (Not a left wing lackey, either!)  So not everyone here is a KRMG stooge!

Um, do you know who you are responding to? Grain of salt-type stuff.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's just another one of those random "sparkler" threads I throw up once in a while.  Something to make some sparks and send a little bit of light into the dark corners.

Now, the nuke post is serious.  And true.

[JeffM]

Um, do you know who you are responding to? Grain of salt-type stuff.

 

[Townsend]

Santorum wants to impose 'Judeo-Christian Sharia'

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/obeidallah-santorum-sharia/index.html?npt=NP1

There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me.

"Santorum One" pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare.

Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not.

Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.

Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, "Santorum Two" was out there telling anyone who would listen.

He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."

On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."

"Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum."

Yes, that means exactly what you think it does: Santorum believes that each and every one of our government's laws must match God's law, warning that "as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation." I'm not exactly sure what "agitation" means in this context, but I think it's a code word for something much worse than acid reflux.

And as an aside, when Santorum says "God," he means "not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." So, if your god differs from Rick's, your god's views will be ignored, just like the father is on "Keeping Up with the Kardashians."

Some of you might be asking: How far will "Santorum Two" take this? It's not like he's going to base public policy decisions on Bible passages, right?

Well, here's what Santorum had to say just last week when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change."

Santorum could not be more unambiguous: His policy decisions will be based on "biblical truths," and as he noted, these "truths" will not change regardless of whether public opinion has evolved since the time the Bible was written thousands of years ago.

Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum.

One of the great ironies is that Santorum has been a leader in sounding alarm bells that Muslims want to impose Islamic law -- called Sharia law -- upon non-Muslims in America. While Santorum fails to offer even a scintilla of credible evidence to support this claim, he continually warns about the "creeping" influence of Muslim law.

Santorum's fundamental problem with Sharia law is that it's "not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code."

Consequently, under the Sharia system, the civil laws of the land must comport with God's law. Now, where did I hear about someone wanting to impose only laws that agree with God's law in America?

So, what type of nation might the United States be under Rick Santorum's Sharia law?

1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist's child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months.

2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declared that not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos.

3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal.

4. No porn! I'm not kidding. Santorum signed "The Marriage Vow" pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president.

To me, "Santorum Two" truly poses an existential threat to the separation of church and state, one of the bedrock principles of our nation since its inception. Not only did Thomas Jefferson speak of the need to create "a wall of separation between church and state," so did Santorum's idol, Ronald Reagan, who succinctly stated, "church and state are, and must remain, separate."

While there may be millions of Americans who in their heart agree with the views of "Santorum Two," it is my hope they will reject any attempts to move America closer to a becoming the Afghanistan of the Western Hemisphere.