My Photo
Name:
Location: Tallahassee, Florida, United States

Chickcomics.com welcomes all opinions from any religion or viewpoint in the common appreciation of Chick tracts. This blog, however, will highlight religious events and controversies that would be of special interest to regular Chick readers. You don't have to agree with them or each other, but if you read Chick tracts or Battlecry, you might expect these type stories to be addressed. (Sorry, no personal attacks allowed.) All main postings are from ChickComics.com writers and any responses are from the public

Monday, November 29, 2010

Ok. Law Banning Shariah Influence On Hold

An Oklahoma federal judge has put a hold on Ballot Question 755 -- aka the "Shariah law amendment" -- which forbids state courts from implementing international laws, including Islamic Shariah law. The permanent injunction will grant the judge additional time to consider issues surrounding the amendment.

Sponsors of the law pointed to a New Jersey decision in 2009. A Moroccan man raped his wife, and the judge refused to issue a restraining order because of the man's religious belief that his wife must submit to sex. The appellate court reversed the decision, but appeals are costly and time consuming. The New Jersey case is unique in this country, but in England and some other non-Muslim countries, Muslims can enter special Shariah courts to decide divorce and custody cases if both parties agree.

Oklahoma federal Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange previously blocked implementation of the ballot measure, which was approved by voters in early November, in light of a lawsuit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations aiming to nullify the law. That motion passed at just over 70 percent.

The judge took today's court order as an opportunity to highlight the constitutional debate at hand.

"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out," Miles-LaGrange wrote, "the court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights."

She added that the case speaks "to the very foundation of our country, our Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country's history, the will of the 'majority' has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals." See Chick's WHO IS HE?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home