Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   While they were busy saving Oklahoma from Sharia law, state legislators may have also invalidated the use of the Ten Commandments as a political tool. Hero, Follow-up tag look at each other, confused   (news.blogs.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, establishment of religion, American laws, security increase, international laws, Islamic law, state constitution, cholera, Ten Commandments  
•       •       •

20229 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2010 at 6:45 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



378 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-11-04 09:38:24 AM  

bravian: How are you going to explain that to the Jews? Who already use their own laws and procedures to police certain communities outside of local, state, and federal law?


Are you suggesting we ban kosher food?

mightybaldking: I'm not so sure about this argument. I think this falls under the "It goes without saying..." rule


When writing laws, it cannot go without saying. There's a 'sort of' method around not using the Constitution, in that they can use other court decisions that took the Constitution into effect, but it does appear they can't use it directly. It'll be interesting to see how state lawsuits deal with a challenge to the state constitution, when the state constitution prevents lawyers from considering it in their rulings.
 
2010-11-04 09:38:26 AM  
Oklahoma:
restraint.org
/Hot like a princess in another castle.
 
2010-11-04 09:39:41 AM  
sprawl15:...prevents lawyers Judges from considering it...

need more coffee
 
2010-11-04 09:39:41 AM  
The one thing they seemed to miss is that Sharia law is based on the Koran and other teaching of Mohammad and some of that is based on laws of the old testament which is of course the Jewish Torah. Can you say 10 commandments. There I thought you could.
I'm willing to bet that the first test case that comes up with this as a center point will get the law tossed out.
 
2010-11-04 09:41:08 AM  
From the Amendment:

The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.

What the actual US Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

For all their talk of protecting the Constitution, none of them have apparently heard of the Supremacy Clause IN THE F*CKING UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Hey, I wonder what the 14th Amendment to THE CONSTITUTION says...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

The stupid burns especially hot today. Why does Oklahoma hate the United States of America and its Constitution so very, very much?
 
2010-11-04 09:41:19 AM  

Barakku: You can't prosecute someone for saying "god damn it"


"Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 36 - Crimes Against Religion and Conscience
Section 904 - Title 21. Crimes and Punishments

Profane swearing consists in any use of the name of God, or Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost, either in imprecating divine vengeance upon the utterer, or any other person, or in light, trifling or irreverent speech.

Every person guilty of profane swearing is punishable by a fine of One Dollar ($1.00) for each offense."

Link
 
2010-11-04 09:41:19 AM  

I'm Masturbating Right Now: Suck it, haters.

We'll not be stoning women here.

/unless we're conquered.
//it's happened before.


Maybe CA should look into getting some of that anti-Shariah law; I understand have a lot of problems with problems with people getting stoned.
 
2010-11-04 09:41:40 AM  

t3knomanser: I'm pretty sure that Sharia law includes those same commandments. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are TOS, TNG and DS9, respectively. In TOS, the Enterprise would threaten to sterilize planets and routinely exterminate aliens that threatened its morals. TNG was the hippie expansion, where it was all about love and peace. We went from the virile, masculine Kirk to the effete Picard. And then DS9 was, "All that's sorta true, but the economics are farked and we need more war! Kill 'em all!"

//I suppose that makes Mormons Voyager?


...I love Fark so much. :')

Then what is the new movie reboot? I wanna say Scientology, but I haven't had my coffee yet so it only sounds funny to me. :D

/stuck in Oklahoma for a few more months
//missing the West Coast so much right now
 
2010-11-04 09:42:15 AM  

jso2897:
Nah. Courts will toss this piece of shiat before the ink dries.


This.

/two phrases: "establishment clause" and "Equal protection"
 
2010-11-04 09:43:44 AM  

I'm Masturbating Right Now: Suck it, haters.

We'll not be stoning women here.

/unless we're conquered.
//it's happened before.


It happened to the guys from Top Gear (new window).
 
2010-11-04 09:44:29 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Day_Old_Dutchie: Dr. Mojo PhD: As regards Sharia itself, my problem is in regards to binding arbitration like I said earlier. Muslims (Jews, Christians), should have the option to arbitrate their disputes in a pre-court environment by whatever (reasonable) rules they see fit, which includes the Koran, and the Torah, and the Bible.

The problem is that these traditional "cultural" justice systems tend to treat being a woman as a disadvantage, and would become a tool for intimidation in the matter of abuse and inheritance.

When the Ontario government tried to sneak in allowing Sharia courts and other religious-based tribunals as an "arbitration" tool in a blatant attempt at pandering, it got shot down pretty quick. And the Ontario government wisely shut down any other "religious"-based arbitration, too.

Not a great fan of our provincial government but IMHO they did the right thing there.

Citation! (new window)

Oh you wouldn't need a citation, I live in Ottawa and I remember it pretty well. They were walking a ridiculously fine line between pre-court arbitration and extrajudicial religious courts though, and its definitely an important distinction. For one, binding arbitration isn't as binding as it sounds.


Hey, another Ottawa farker! Yeah, I remember the Sharia court thing too.


"It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons."

Here's my question: First Nations tribes are legally sovereign, aren't they? What happens to them under this amendment?
 
2010-11-04 09:46:47 AM  

Jackpot777: For all their talk of protecting the Constitution, none of them have apparently heard of the Supremacy Clause IN THE F*CKING UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION


A treaty with another country isn't the same a law within another country.

sparkeyjames: The one thing they seemed to miss is that Sharia law is based on the Koran and other teaching of Mohammad and some of that is based on laws of the old testament which is of course the Jewish Torah. Can you say 10 commandments. There I thought you could.
I'm willing to bet that the first test case that comes up with this as a center point will get the law tossed out.


Want to point me to where the "10 commandments" are in the Koran or the Hadith?
 
2010-11-04 09:50:43 AM  

liam76: yakmans_dad:
So, the Oklahoma amendment repeats the 1st amendment?

No.

Making a law restpecting the establishment of a religion is not exactly the same as interpreting laws with respect to a certain religion.


Distinction w/o difference.
 
2010-11-04 09:54:28 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: gulogulo: What's this business about business in Oklahoma only being conducted in English? Are they trying to make sure no business in OK has any international relationships? Seriously, how does a red state think that's a sound business strategy?

Official business may only be conducted in English.

That's really a meh provision. They've basically declared an official language, which I think they already had.

I'm sure, like 99.99% positive, that doesn't preclude translating documents into other languages and crap like that. That would be moronic and would definitely result in a lot of legal wrangling for them.

The irony is that according to Wikipedia, Oklahoma has 25 spoken tongues in its boundaries, more than any other state. So that's kinda funny.


rights to a fair trial would supercede and official languages clause. If the defendent is Armenian and can't speak English, you better find an Armenenian translator somewhere or drop the charges.
 
2010-11-04 09:55:57 AM  

yakmans_dad: liam76: yakmans_dad:
So, the Oklahoma amendment repeats the 1st amendment?

No.

Making a law restpecting the establishment of a religion is not exactly the same as interpreting laws with respect to a certain religion.

Distinction w/o difference.


Only if you think making and interpreting laws are the same thing, they aren't.
 
2010-11-04 09:56:54 AM  

liam76: Jackpot777: For all their talk of protecting the Constitution, none of them have apparently heard of the Supremacy Clause IN THE F*CKING UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

A treaty with another country isn't the same a law within another country.

sparkeyjames: The one thing they seemed to miss is that Sharia law is based on the Koran and other teaching of Mohammad and some of that is based on laws of the old testament which is of course the Jewish Torah. Can you say 10 commandments. There I thought you could.
I'm willing to bet that the first test case that comes up with this as a center point will get the law tossed out.

Want to point me to where the "10 commandments" are in the Koran or the Hadith?


Better yet and easier. Point to me where I said in my post that they are there verbatim.
I used the term "based upon". Try again.
 
2010-11-04 09:57:29 AM  

mightybaldking:

They forgot their own constitution, thus invalidating their entire constitution and replacing it with this one paragraph. Further since this paragraph is part of the now invalid constitution Oklahoma has in essence disbanded their entire state government and reverted to being a territory.


I'm not so sure about this argument. I think this falls under the "It goes without saying..." rule


It goes with out saying until you explicitly say something else. Once you say something else then that something else goes.

I am jesting - this is a big nothing. A stupid amendment to deal with an imagined problem.

The real problem, as I understand it, is when a statute uses comparative words like "unusual", you have to compare your actions to other peoples actions to determine if it is "unusual". At the state level that means other states and at the federal level that means other countries. Then if they do that it gets the but hurt up amongst some people who say that they are replacing our law with international law.
 
2010-11-04 09:59:01 AM  

sparkeyjames: Better yet and easier. Point to me where I said in my post that they are there verbatim.
I used the term "based upon". Try again


Where is your evidence that they are based upon the "10 commandments" if they aren't in there?
 
2010-11-04 10:00:44 AM  
As an Okie, all I can say is, I'm sorry. We have, once again, embarrassed the entire country. This state is full of knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing idiots. We were the last state to allow tattoos. One of the last to ban dog fighting. We were the only state that every county voted for McCain. We just voted in Repubs for all 8 state offices. Including voting out two Dems that were doing such good jobs that the local paper, The Daily Oklahoma (the most conservative paper in the country), endorsed them for reelection.

The idiot that sponsored the bill cited the New Jersey case as the reason for the bill. He's too stupid to bother reading the case or he might have found that in the NJ case the judge that did not issue the TRO (it was not a criminal case) did not mention the words Islam, Muslim or sharia law anywhere in his decision.

I'm truly ashamed to be from Oklahoma.
 
2010-11-04 10:00:55 AM  
It's nice to know that as the economy dies during the second great republican depression they are working on the important problems.
 
2010-11-04 10:02:14 AM  
The way that this was written there is not concern that it might have wiped out the ability for indian tribes to govern themselves:

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

Dumb farks.
 
2010-11-04 10:03:46 AM  
Aren't those who vote according to their Christian beliefs, also creating a form of "Sharia" law, though not as severe? Because essentially they are creating law through voting.
 
2010-11-04 10:04:27 AM  

NightOwl2255:

I'm truly ashamed to be from Oklahoma.


Buck up. Kentucky just replaced Jim Bunning with Rand Paul.
 
2010-11-04 10:05:38 AM  

Jackpot777: The stupid burns especially hot today. Why does Oklahoma hate the United States of America and its Constitution so very, very much?


The 14th covers a completely different issue. That involves the nature of treaties the US has agreed to, and that apply to its citizens. What this amendment is concerned with is what documents the courts are allowed to reference when deciding (unclear) rulings. The Oklahoma constitutional amendment simply says that judges cannot look to the law of "other nations and cultures" (whatever the fark that means) as examples of how to analyze situations.

Example: someone files a case in court saying that restricting pot growing is a violation of the first amendment because they are a Rastafarian and use pot in their religious ceremonies. If there's no similar case in the history of the US, but there's a similar case in Canada, the judge may look at that case to see the legal opinions of the Canadian judge's ruling and see how they apply the the US's law and practices. The Oklahoma amendment prevents that.
 
2010-11-04 10:06:30 AM  
Here's something I'd like explained.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

How does that apply to what a state legislature decides? Can a state constitution establish an official religion for a particular state? It would seem to me that that wouldn't be in violation of the US Constitution at all.

Can someone explain this?
 
2010-11-04 10:06:59 AM  

arkansas: Let's see....a law separating religious law from state law is a violation of separation of church and state? That takes some mind-twisting to rationalize.

And yes, it would appear to keep the Ten Commandments out of state courts.....and now liberals will argue that this is bad?


The problem is that they specifically reference a religion.

The government has no business in religion, whether it endorses or bans the use of a sect's teachings.
 
2010-11-04 10:07:05 AM  

NightOwl2255: I'm truly ashamed to be from Oklahoma.


You shouldn't be. You sound like proof that Oklahousea turns out some decent folks.

Larry Hancock comes from OK too. You know how people are always saying that if the JFK assassination was really a conspiracy someone would have talked.

Somebody did (John Martino) and Larry wrote a book about it called "Someone Would have Talked".
 
2010-11-04 10:08:31 AM  

dukeblue219: Here's something I'd like explained.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

How does that apply to what a state legislature decides? Can a state constitution establish an official religion for a particular state? It would seem to me that that wouldn't be in violation of the US Constitution at all.

Can someone explain this?


Yes. State Laws can't go against Federal law. They can be more restrictive but they can't invalidate it.
 
2010-11-04 10:09:18 AM  

yakmans_dad: Buck up. Kentucky just replaced Jim Bunning with Rand Paul.


What's up with the way Rand Paul speaks?

That victory speech of his was pretty awkward sounding... Sounding like he was trying to give some kind of rousing populist type of speech, but I was distracted by the way he was drawing out words and the random pauses between words. Strange.
 
2010-11-04 10:10:55 AM  
Sh*t like this is the reason I don't believe conservatives when they claim to be for smaller government.
 
2010-11-04 10:11:59 AM  

keylock71: yakmans_dad: Buck up. Kentucky just replaced Jim Bunning with Rand Paul.

What's up with the way Rand Paul speaks?

That victory speech of his was pretty awkward sounding... Sounding like he was trying to give some kind of rousing populist type of speech, but I was distracted by the way he was drawing out words and the random pauses between words. Strange.


He does have an oddly robotic way of speaking.
 
2010-11-04 10:12:52 AM  

t3knomanser: Emposter: I don't see how the amendment could be interpreted as prohibiting consideration of other sources that simply agree with Sharia.

Ah, but how does one tell if that copy of the Ten Commandments is the Biblical version or the Sharia version? Especially if they're the same. "Well, I'm using the Biblical version." "You may claim such, counselor, but I believe you're using the Sharia version. Can you provide any evidence that this is admissible in court?"

Regardless, this law is insane. It's not like judges can just cite any old book in their decisions. They're already limited to using the laws on the books.


Insane indeed. Personally I'm of the opinion that the way they single out a particular religion is probably unconstitutional, and prohibiting international law from even being considered is just stupid.
 
2010-11-04 10:13:12 AM  

dukeblue219: Here's something I'd like explained.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

How does that apply to what a state legislature decides? Can a state constitution establish an official religion for a particular state? It would seem to me that that wouldn't be in violation of the US Constitution at all.

Can someone explain this?


The 14th amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

HTH.
 
2010-11-04 10:13:39 AM  

arkansas: Let's see....a law separating religious law from state law is a violation of separation of church and state? That takes some mind-twisting to rationalize.

And yes, it would appear to keep the Ten Commandments out of state courts.....and now liberals will argue that this is bad?


Because it is singling out a specific religion which is against the first amendment.

Saying "Religion can not be used to decide a law" - COnsitutional

Saying "Religion X can not be used to decide a law" - unconstitutional
 
2010-11-04 10:14:33 AM  

dukeblue219: Here's something I'd like explained.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

How does that apply to what a state legislature decides? Can a state constitution establish an official religion for a particular state? It would seem to me that that wouldn't be in violation of the US Constitution at all.

Can someone explain this?


REad the 14th amendment and the civil war.

It's called "incorporation"
 
2010-11-04 10:15:43 AM  

dukeblue219: Here's something I'd like explained.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

How does that apply to what a state legislature decides? Can a state constitution establish an official religion for a particular state? It would seem to me that that wouldn't be in violation of the US Constitution at all.

Can someone explain this?


Here is the long form explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
 
2010-11-04 10:15:44 AM  

RatOmeter: FlashHarry: WHY DON'T WE JUST ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!

Careful what you ask for. Here in Oklahoma, we have some doozies.

Check out Chapter 36 of OK statutes. We've got:

Blasphemy as a misdemeanor. As well as
Profane Swearing and
Obscene Language in a Public Place and my personal favorite,
Sabbath breaking.


This guy got convicted and sentenced to 30 days in jail for the heinous crime of saying "Mother-Farking".

Link (new window)

Great place.
 
2010-11-04 10:16:11 AM  

Freakman: While Sharia law is in no way coming to Oklahoma and the threat thereof is non-existent, I still would have voted for it. Religious laws have no place in government.



Yeah but singling out one religion, like this law does, presents a sort of favoritism toward other religions.
 
2010-11-04 10:16:23 AM  

Jackpot777: From the Amendment:

The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.

What the actual US Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

For all their talk of protecting the Constitution, none of them have apparently heard of the Supremacy Clause IN THE F*CKING UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.



Well I think the point here is that the new law prevents courts from using laws/decisions made in foreign countries to support their decisions. The constitution talks about treaties. If the US has signed a treaty, then adherence to that treaty is effectively federal law and the Oklahoma amendment says the courts can use/apply it. So there is no problem here AFAIK since federal law is still being upheld.

Unless there's something requiring the US to apply foreign laws without a treaty of some kind, anyway.

The only problem I see is the singling out of "Sharia Law" explicitly. The only way this can fly is if the wording is removed entirely or changed to apply to all theocratic laws (which would be redundant given the first amendment, but hey whatever).
=Smidge=
 
2010-11-04 10:16:31 AM  

keylock71: That victory speech of his R. Paul) was pretty awkward sounding


Listening to the repubs that broke everything and got everything wrong is kinda useless. Doncha think ?

One of the purposes of life is learn and there is much info and wisdome to assimilate in the short time we are here. It's waste to spend time listening to people you can't learn anything from.

It's really a waste to listen to people that make you more stupid.

Simpsons elucidation quote - "Not only am i NOT learning, I'm forgetting stuff i already knew"
 
2010-11-04 10:16:31 AM  

keylock71: yakmans_dad: Buck up. Kentucky just replaced Jim Bunning with Rand Paul.

What's up with the way Rand Paul speaks?.


My guess is that he's got Asperger's syndrome and he's learned about communicating with people by reading a book. Really. His whole political philosophy seems to have been derived without reference to life.
 
2010-11-04 10:17:15 AM  

dukeblue219: Here's something I'd like explained.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

How does that apply to what a state legislature decides? Can a state constitution establish an official religion for a particular state? It would seem to me that that wouldn't be in violation of the US Constitution at all.

Can someone explain this?


Seriously?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
2010-11-04 10:19:35 AM  

yakmans_dad: keylock71: yakmans_dad: Buck up. Kentucky just replaced Jim Bunning with Rand Paul.

What's up with the way Rand Paul speaks?.

My guess is that he's got Asperger's syndrome and he's learned about communicating with people by reading a book. Really. His whole political philosophy seems to have been derived without reference to life.


Isn't that pretty much libertarianism.A very "should work in theory" outlook of the world.
 
2010-11-04 10:20:30 AM  

yakmans_dad: My guess is that he's got Asperger's syndrome and he's learned about communicating with people by reading a book. Really. His whole political philosophy seems to have been derived without reference to life.


The defining characteristic of conservatives is that they know nothing about life and know lots about money.
 
2010-11-04 10:20:36 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: dukeblue219: Here's something I'd like explained.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

How does that apply to what a state legislature decides? Can a state constitution establish an official religion for a particular state? It would seem to me that that wouldn't be in violation of the US Constitution at all.

Can someone explain this?

Seriously?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Privileges and Immunities? Really? You don't wanna go withe Supremacy?
 
2010-11-04 10:22:24 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: dukeblue219: Here's something I'd like explained.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

How does that apply to what a state legislature decides? Can a state constitution establish an official religion for a particular state? It would seem to me that that wouldn't be in violation of the US Constitution at all.

Can someone explain this?

Seriously?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Dude, you're just giving them another reason to repeal the 14th amendment entirely. That thing is a bigot's nightmare.
 
2010-11-04 10:25:43 AM  

Corvus: Isn't that pretty much libertarianism.A very "should work in theory" outlook of the world.


Liberatrianism is "Lets get rid of all the big government I want to get rid of".

The ultimate "me" generation.
 
2010-11-04 10:25:50 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Seriously?


The argument COULD go deeper (derper) than that. The argument could be made that the right is simply the right to have the federal Congress not restrict (or respect) religion. In this case, the 14th would be interpreted as saying states cannot overturn the laws that Congress aren't making. In that interpretation, the first isn't the right to free speech/religion/etc., but simply the right to be free of federal level regulation of speech/religion/etc. It would mean states are free to be as tyrannical as they want.
 
2010-11-04 10:26:24 AM  

BHShaman: If you ban the adherence to laws based on religious context then a good number of local/state laws get invalidated


True. But the actual Ten Commandments are irrelevant to modern law, except stealing and killing and the killing one is highly negotiable.
 
2010-11-04 10:26:43 AM  

dukeblue219: Here's something I'd like explained.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

How does that apply to what a state legislature decides? Can a state constitution establish an official religion for a particular state? It would seem to me that that wouldn't be in violation of the US Constitution at all.

Can someone explain this?


Slight addition to what others have said. You're right that the 1st amendment only applies to the Federal Government. For the first 70-odd years of this country's existence, states could have official state religions. When the 14th amendment was ratified, however, it applied the privileges and immunities guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the states, too.
So, an attack on Okie's amendment would not be under the 1st amendment, but the 14th.
 
Displayed 50 of 378 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report