Sounds about right.

She was part of our gaming group.

Tried understanding this and well made no sense to me but yet this woman was paranoid as hell that Sharia law was coming to Oklahoma.

I asked her how does that differ from CHristians picking bible verses from Leviticus and trying to claim they are 'law'.

She had no answer.

I told her that life would be much happier if she'd stop finding 'boogiemen' in non existent issues.

Hasidic Jews that set up their own "court systems"
Allowing the FLDS to get away with the rape and abuse of children
Not getting involved in Amish communities and letting them govern themselves

We have countless communities in America that are allowed to operate their own judicial systems.

MattBaggins makes an interesting point. Can anyone distinguish these situations? (BTW I think you mean FLDS.) Thanks

"We have countless communities in America that are allowed to operate their own judicial systems..."

If and only if those "judicial systems" operate within the confines of existing American jurisprudence. for example, the individual who brought this case against the courts expressed his desire to have his goods distributed, after his death amongst his remaining relatives in accordance with Sharia law. If the OK law was instituted, his desires would have been expressly forbidden. However, as his desires do not in any way impede a pre-existing US or state law, it becomes unconstitutional to deny him his last will. (Source SPLC)

Ed: clarity

If an Amish woman is raped her attacker will not go to jail. The problem of course isn't so much that it is "legal"; local law enforcement simply turns a blind eye and pretends nothing ever goes on.

"It's their way dontcha know"

I would say a better example though would have be the Catholic Church and the molestations. I cringed when Barney Frank was asked about congress getting involved and dismissed it by saying "I'm a Jew so it wouldn't be fair for me to get involved in the Catholic churches business." It was decided that church law should trump federal law in dealing with the issue.

However, your examples are against US and /or state law, regardless of whether they get away with it or not, and regardless of whether it's "their way" or not, and regardless of whether local law enforcement turns a blind eye or not.

"I'm a Jew so it wouldn't be fair for me to get involved in the Catholic churches business." ss an editorial/statement rather than a law.

I agree with that which is why I had said "turn a blind eye". I am saying that I don't think Sharia law is any different then those other groups getting special passes. I personally think we should enforce laws equally and tell all various religious "legal systems" to take a hike. This will never happen though which is why some form of Sharia law will probably take root in small communities. it would be disingenuous to make laws targeting them though and not other groups flaunting our laws.

I think the Barney Frank comment was more than just an editorial comment as Congress did not get involved and the Catholic Church was given WAYYYYY to much leeway in investigating themselves.

"I personally think we should enforce laws equally and tell all various religious "legal systems" to take a hike."

We do-- we allow any citizen to worship as he or she likes unless that form or worship goes contrary to US and/or state law...

Unless your referring to personal and contractual agreements predicated on a religious belief that do not in fact run contrary to US and state laws-- much as in the individual who wishes his possessions to be distributed to his relatives according to Sharia law. However, I can readily understand someone who thinks that even that should be illegal-- I'd laugh at them, but I'd understand them too.

"Congress did not get involved..." Wouldn't that be a job for the law enforcement agency with appropriate jurisdiction?

contracts are not always contracts.

If a religious group runs it's own divorce courts and women are told they get nothing and the man decides what happens to the children; I don't believe such a system should be tolerated in America. Such a court should be shut down.

I still take issue with the FLDS as an example. Once every 20 or 30 years the government goes in and makes a big bruha busting up one of their communities then it's crickets for another generation. Even with evidence of child rape, molestation and abuse we hem and haw and do nothing.

If a family or other group of private individuals wants to have wills, other contracts, etc. amongst themselves according to religious beliefs, they should be allowed to do so. The government just can't control how people worship or think. If one's religious practices encroach upon another's civil rights or poses a serious violation of law (like the FLDS polygamy) then those practices should be illegal.

many parties do not have a say in the matter.

If a wife was faithful or the children are say underage; I don't care what someone has in a will even if it was written in gold and notarized by god himself.

Contracts can be null and voided if they are bogus. Women in a so called "marriage contract" in some groups have no say so I don't recognize it as a contract and neither should our courts.

For some of them like the Hasidic Jews and Amish - there are no major laws they are breaking. FLDS has that whole polygamy thing. And ultimately, outside that polygamy thing, when someone in one of these groups breaks a US law - they are held accountable.

orthodox Jewish "courts" do not give women the legal rights they are entitled to under US law.

The Amish aren't some evil cult but they are guilty of some of the same problems and their legal systems do not always follow the law of the land.

Sharia law is no different then the other groups that are allowed to operate extra-judiciously. Personally I think none of them should be allowed but I accept that people expect that religious groups receive preferential treatment.

But the Amish I wouldn't lump in those 2. I've been around them most of my life and they are pretty law abiding folks. THey just don't like modern things.

and I agree that they are law abiding good folk, but our local law enforcement let's them get away with things we wouldn't. No problem with them as a people but law is law.

"let's them get away with things we wouldn't...."

That appears to be a problem with the individual agents of law enforcement rather than any existing law, or the implication that our legal system entertains one set of rules for one set of people, and another set of rules for another set of people, (e.g., Jim Crow Laws)

but it is also an example of tacit approval. It becomes a problem of "one set of rules for me another for you", because it has been allowed to become systemic.

when it was first passed. Glad it's official.

pushing this agenda.

there wasn't really any group to do ads or advocate for a "no" vote. I thought there was no chance it would pass.
It was also bundled with a bunch of other initiatives.

The state legislature pushed a bunch of dumbass stuff because for the first time in history, the Republicans gained a majority.
Hard to believe I bet, but in 2010 was the first time that the two houses were majority Republican and the governor was also
Republican. In 2008 both houses went Republican, but we had a Democratic governor.

Unfortunately there are more people like that girl I chatted with from OK - too easily to believe in the fear that someone tells her "oooo the Muslims are coming and gonna change our laws to some obsure religious ones (oh and don't notice that we Christian fundies are doing the same thing)" then intelligent folks like you.

My mother gets like that - I tell her to turn off the damn TV, all the news is - stories to make us scared about something that really isn't that scary.

Mostly I just wanted the chance to use the term "Muhammadans" which was what my mother called Muslims.

Oklahoma is the new Iraq.

Invade! Invade! Invade!

more please

You just know it's gonna happen.

And while so many actual problems and threats get ignored.

no one seems to know the answer...

I "shari'a" won't be traveling there soon.

(annulments).

In some cases, religious law complements civil law which has its limits as far as "justice" goes.

nt

Whipping up outrage to support a "solution" to a non existent problem

using obscure verses from Leviticus to explain their hate?

The DU Court of Patriotism and Common Sense declared Oklahoma’s sharia ban nonsensical months ago. Cue the Vonage theme!


rocktivity

How long before some right wing douche tries to villify the courts as being liberal.

Being correct is besides the point it seems.

then you'll see at least one of them call "the judge" a "Liberal Socialist judge." I noticed, too, that reading comprehension still isn't a strong suit of theirs. Every one of them is ignoring the fact that the appeals court has three judges, not only one. I think they're confusing it with lower courts and don't seem to understand how the court system works at the federal level. Then again, I do have to remind myself where they get the majority of their "information"...

will attribute this to the damn liberal activist judges, and also on that Kenyan Muslin in the White House.

Although "attribute" might not be the word he'd use, since it's three syllables and all.

explosions in their brains and will be praying for a safe return to a "Christian" nation.

out there p.o.ed at the fact that they can't outlaw that weird religion they know nothing about.

These are without a doubt all god fearin Christians who handle snakes and serpents, speak in strange tongues and follow the wishes of long dead people whose high tech was a bear skin and a sharp rock.

Nothing wierd here. Move along now!

adultery...for men.


I'm about 90% serious!

The Rushheads and the Becksters have been feeding these people for a long time and they eat every word of it. Pity.

The state has no business banning Sharia law, Jewish law or Quiverfull among those persons who choose that lifestyle choice.

I mean i get that this is due to an irrational fear of sharia law based rulings but the idea isn't bad at all. I don't want any religion as basis for US court rulings.

If you want to ban something, you better be able to define it, right? Well what is sharia law? You ask Muslims in Morocco, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey and your going to get VERY different answers.

OK also had as part of this a ban on basing rulings on International law as well. Which makes all sorts of other problems.

Point being nobody is advocating OK judges start basing their rulings on Islamic Jurisprudence, nor would a Muslim judge do that. It was just a stupid law that won political points from ignorant xenophobic Republicans.

While the laws of Sharia can differ depending on region, you are going to get a similar core answer that Sharia Law is the religious law of Islam based on the Quran and Sunnah. We don't want any judges ruling based on any religious law of any religion.

how they are trained.

If a Muslim wanted to practice Islamic law based on the Qur'an and Sunnah you really think they would want to be a judge in the United States?

A law for this isn't needed because it is built in to the system. It is like passing a law that would state members of the U.S. House of Representatives can't be members of British Parliament. A non-issue.

You'll all be sorry when Oral Roberts University is surrounded by minarets and you can't get a decent Harvey Wallbanger anywhere in Oklahoma City!

This is so big... it might not just be Ra's behind this nefarious scheme... I wouldn't be surprised if C.O.B.R.A. isn't involved in it, too.

... to look like they're "doing something": A) invent a problem; B) develop a "solution"; and, most importantly... C) let corporations get more and more control by allowing real problems to go unresolved.