The rulling by Vicki Miles-LeGrange, a federal judge in Oklahoma who has rescinded the vote by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters to ban Sharia law in that state, should be a wake-up call to all Americans.
LeGrange is known for her liberal rulings, but this one is truly off the mark. Recognizing the law of any religion over the constitutional laws of the U.S. is wrong on any level. What’s next? If we allow one religion’s laws, will we also have to have Baptist law, Methodist law, Catholic law, Buddhist law, Shinto law, etc. Why just Muslim law? Is there a real move by the Obama administration to instill Sharia law into the U.S. judicial system? Is this yet another example of reaching out to the Muslim world by Obama? Unless I woke up in the twilight zone, I think this is still America, where we have established constitutionally-inspired rule of law. But that law is no Sharia or Muslim law. If Americans allow Sharia law, even if it only applies to Muslims, we will be following Islamic strategy whereby we have allowed the nose of the camel to come into the tent.
This is America. If you come into our country and become a citizen, you must abide by our laws — not your country of origin or religion laws. Do you think that Saudi Arabia or Indonesia would allow the use of Baptist law when trying an American in their country who happens to be a Baptist?
Dan Watson, Gilbert
—
Letters policy: Click here to submit a letter. Please be brief (no more than 300 words) and type or print name, address, city and phone number for verification. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.Your chance to sound off: E-mail Vent submissions to vent@evtrib.com
Dale Whiting posted at 4:20 am on Sat, Nov 13, 2010.
Dan, you miss the point entirely. No court in this country looks to the laws of other countries except for those whom our founding fathers drew upon. And very seldom have US courts looked back that far. The notion is that where our sense of jurisprudence was Engish [and to a much lesser extent, Frence], only those problems not faced squarely in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the various State Constitutions and the various Federal and State statutes, and finally prior court decisions [i.e. common law] does any court look to England.
There never has been, is not now and never will be any need for a law to forbid looking at Shira Law. First, Shira Law was not, is not and never will be in our history of common law. You can't rewrite history.
Second, since Shira Law is based on a combination of tribal law from the Arabian Peninsula and religious proclamations from Muslim Clerics, it has no place under the "establishment clause." [I assume you know about that clause. You seem informed.]
Your entire piece is so misinformed and tripping with Islamophobia that you should be ashamed of yourself.
Rich, don't you agree?
Rich posted at 9:33 am on Sat, Nov 13, 2010.
In the first place "Sharia Law" isn't anymore a unified body of law than "Christian Law", which differs from "Judeo-Christian Law" and "Jewish Law". In the final analysis within our system, it is a code of conduct for Muslims, much as there are codes of conduct under any religion. Some of Sharia Law was written by a fellow the Muslims consider an important prophet, a guy named Jesus. If applied to the Muslim community alone, it's ineffectual as regards the rest of us. Unlike the evangelical Christians who seem to be demanding everybody follow their code of conduct, even if we don't agree with it, by law. That is the danger. Nobody has advocated outlawing bacon, because both Sharia and Jewish law do. But evangelical Christians have a whole set of laws that are just as absurd, but a part of our legal code.
DBA MOM posted at 11:02 am on Mon, Nov 15, 2010.
Being a woman perhaps I see things slightly differently than you men do. I am a devout catholic, I go to mass every week and am raising my children in the faith. There is nothing wrong with that. I am not saying that having your own religion is a bad thing, we do have religious freedom in this country that people died to give us. We fought for it and all citizens are entitled to that. The problem arises when your religion clashes or goes against our laws that are there for the protection of our citizens. I for one can think of no reason for one of my shildren to be beheaded because they disobey me or my husband. I would not disown them or cast them into the street should they walk up to me and say they no longer wished to be catholic. I don't care if you are white, black, blue, red, purple or polka dotted, you do not have the right to take a life for any reason. The principles we are founded on are christian. WE ARE A NATION of CHRISTIAN PEOPLE! We are one nation under god, we swear on the bible in a court of law, in GOD we trust is printed on our currency. I am not anti islamic nor do I suffer from islamaphobia. I do fear that there law is not our law. I do feel that a minority should not dictate to a majority. When my ancestors came from Europe for various reasons, religious persecution, famine or whatever, they came to this country and began to assimilate into this ocuntry. They learned the language, the upheld the flag, we have served in the military, we brought bits and pieces of our culture with us, but in the end we are AMERICANS. We know who we pay our taxes to, we used to know what to expect from our leaders. We are a strong country because of those who have come to our shores from distant lands, but they all took allegiance to AMERICA. I am sure that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and choices, but at the end of the day if you don't like our laws, customs and rules, GO HOME!
Dale Whiting posted at 9:46 am on Wed, Nov 17, 2010.
Dan,
It appears that for slightly different reasons both Rich and I agree. The attempt to prohibit US Courts from considering Shira law is non-sensical. My reasons added to Rich's reasons.
DBA Mom,
You and Dan both miss the point. And where do you come off telling those Muslims who are native to the US to "go home" where some, following Rich's understanding of Shira Law, might seek to apply it in their own lives? If you would apply Christian Fundamentalism or some Catholic version in your life, would you go home to Rome?
The point is simple. Here in OUR HOME, a home for Christians, Muslims and Jews as well as for Atheists and various other sorts, we separate Church from State. We have a fundamental sense of what makes for Right and what makes for Wrong coming from English Common Law, which occasionally gets debated by all sorts of religious fundamentalists [think Right to Life vs. Right to Choose] but we keep precise religious dogmas out of any final law making processes.
So DBA Mom, if you would like to understand this more precisely, go read the precise text of Row v. Wade. It will wake up up.
Don't you agree, Rich?
Dale Whiting posted at 9:47 am on Wed, Nov 17, 2010.
Ok, I misspelled "Sharia." I do that when I type too quickly.