tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post1510872182608385342..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: Anti-Shariah might be Anti-AmericanBrantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-31649680262126513172011-09-14T13:54:50.797-04:002011-09-14T13:54:50.797-04:00I agree with Ashley's comment. One cannot use...I agree with Ashley's comment. One cannot use religion as a safe haven in committing acts that fundamentally oppose our US constitution. I am not saying that the majority of Shariah law is in direct opposition to the US constitution, however there are definitely gray areas. In those areas, the US law must rule. Where as it is sometimes required by orthodox Mormons to practice polygamy, with the consequences "for such failure and refusal would be damnation in the life to come," the US Supreme Court ruled that it is in fact illegal to do so.Mike HJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11417347838046982060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-85855379448299561252011-09-13T14:05:30.214-04:002011-09-13T14:05:30.214-04:00I disagree with this post. Firstly regarding the m...I disagree with this post. Firstly regarding the marriage quibble, US law does not recognize religious marriages – that is why we have a Justice of the Peace. To recognize Sharia law in US courts would privilege a specific religious doctrine over others, thus violating the establishment clause and equal justice under the law. To ban Sharia law would not violate the free exercise of Muslims. Simply put, Sharia law could not defend actions such as, killing gays and mutilating and killing one’s wife. Just like other rights, rights are limited when they begin to harm the property and lives of others. Sharia law would provide inequalities of the law and would allow a defense for physically harming others.Ashley Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06602445737202899360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-76102275155356026112011-09-13T13:04:14.582-04:002011-09-13T13:04:14.582-04:00I agree that this man has his freedom to practice ...I agree that this man has his freedom to practice under the First Amendment and I agree with Zoey in that the state cannot defy the federal government. Prior to 1947, the ability for states to construct their own constitutions regarding religion was problematic. Although this man may be seen as a threat to many, this nation’s constitution is framed to defend the minority. If a majority rules, they cannot trump the constitutional rights of their opposition (let alone prevent them from even practicing, as in this situation), regardless of their religious affiliation.BryceShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978573437545812091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-51623328877780492482011-09-12T20:52:24.930-04:002011-09-12T20:52:24.930-04:00I agree with Callie that passing an amendment rest...I agree with Callie that passing an amendment restricting Islamic law is completely unconstitutional. While not explicity saying this, in my opinion, by passing this law, the State of Oklahoma is essentially saying they do not want Islamic citizens, nor approve of their religious views. By not being accepting of their laws, they are not only taking away their right to free exercise, but also their freedom to live as they wish in Oklahoma. Like Zoey said, this will ultimately prevent Islams from coming to live in Oklahoma as well. In this case, majority can not overrule the minority.Jean Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17692565128874834141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-13792234415625238692011-09-12T11:54:02.221-04:002011-09-12T11:54:02.221-04:00The voting rights of these people are important, b...The voting rights of these people are important, but States are not allowed to create law in complete opposition to our Country's constitution. In addition, this law could affect citizens who did not have the opportunity to vote on it. This amendment would nullify marital law if writen under Islamic religious guidelines. This would affect non-Oklamhoma citizens who in the future would need to move to the State for a variety of circumstances. This law far outreaches those who vote in it's favor. Furthermore, even if Nationwide there was a majority, I completely agree that this law, prohibiting the consideration of Islamic law, is unconstitutional. The free exercise clause ensures that simple majority rule cannot outweigh a minority's rights.Zoey Goldnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09540700689253341380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-14897346187639446712011-09-12T11:22:45.270-04:002011-09-12T11:22:45.270-04:00I agree with Callie that this amendment restrictin...I agree with Callie that this amendment restricting Islamic law unconstitutionally restricts a specific religion. As Everson and Lukumi Babalu Aye discuss, laws which treat religions differently are typically unconstitutional. The law in question is one such law, for it singles out Islam as different from other religions. While the right to vote is certainly vital, arguing that this right allows for the creation of unjust laws is inappropriate. Were this the case, the argument could be made that, because the majority voted for it, a Holocaust would be constitutional, a clearly terrifying precedent.Harry R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14904234636407712910noreply@blogger.com