I noticed an article today that I'm a little confused about regarding an Oklahoma legislative decision that supposedly bans the use of Islamic “Shariah” law. The article is echoed, albeit somewhat differently (of course) by other news sources, so I'm going to post the two that I found most relevant.
The CNN article is somewhat more informative, stating that the amendment will “officially disfavor and condemn the Muslim community as being a threat to Oklahoma,” which I can somewhat agree with from the standpoint of the First Amendment. It continues, claiming that it forces “Oklahoma courts to rely on federal and state law when deciding cases and forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law.”
On the second point mentioned above, I am very pleased and wish most States would apply similar laws. No document signed or created outside the boundaries of the United States should carry any force in our legal process, nor should any religious text be utilized on it's own as if it codifies law. Each state has it's own law codes, as does the federal government, and those statutes should be the only source of legal authority in the nation.
So I agree that singling out any one religious group is almost certainly in violation of the First Amendment. That said, I think that the legislators should seriously consider returning the issue to their voters after eliminating the specific references to Islamic law. The same effect can be had without singling out any one religious text – or are they afraid that they can't be generic without having their new legal weapon aimed back at themselves???
Hmmm....
No comments:
Post a Comment