What about this for separation of church and state?

[Robert]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-01-10/islamic-law-oklahoma/52485684/1

Court: Okla. ban on Islamic law unconstitutional

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) – A proposed constitutional amendment that would ban Oklahoma courts from considering international or Islamic law discriminates against religions, and a Muslim community leader has the right to challenge its constitutionality, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

    Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, said the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

The court in Denver upheld U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange's order blocking implementation of the amendment shortly after it was approved by 70% of Oklahoma voters in November 2010.

Muneer Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, sued to block the law from taking effect, arguing that the Save Our State Amendment violated his First Amendment rights.

"This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry in our society, and we are pleased that the appeals court recognized that fact," Awad said. "We are also hopeful that this decision serves as a reminder to politicians wishing to score political points through fear-mongering and bigotry."

So not only did the court say the peoples votes dont count but its ok to consider Islamic law

[Chattanooga Mark]

CAIR is basically a front group for people determined to hurt the US.

Mark

[Farther]

What part of the First Amendment do you not understand?

[Robert]

Good question farther how about that we cannot post the 10 commandments yet we can have court decisions made by Islamic law. Or better yet what part of courts trampling over a majority vote dont you understand?

[BF]

What part of the First Amendment do you not understand?

Are you saying that you're in favor of the Oklahoma courts being forced to adminster sharia law then?  Because that's what the citizens of Oklahoma voted to prevent from happening.  The lawsuit is not about Muneer Awad losing his rights, it's about forcing sharia law in Oklahoma courts and the citizens of Oklahoma losing theirs. 

[Moonshot_1]

Well, I went and read the actual amendment and I'd have to say it is written rather poorly as it does single out Sharia law. It does also say that the courts Shall Not look to other countries or cultures in their judicial decisions. But the fact they single out Sharia law does pose a question as to just what other influences maybe considered. If they take out the direct reference to Sharia Law, the amendment would still provide the desired effect as it would limit the Judiciary to what they can consider. (US constitution, Ok. Constitution, etc)

What I don't get is that this is a proposed Constitutional amendment. The argument is that it is unconstitutional.
If they approve the measure, it is, by definition, constitutional.

[Serk]

What I don't get is that this is a proposed Constitutional amendment. The argument is that it is unconstitutional.
If they approve the measure, it is, by definition, constitutional.

US Constitution trumps state constitution, that's how an amendment to a state constitution can be declared unconstitutional...

[Robert]

My complaint is this the Muslims in many places are trying to get sharia law be the one that governs them not US law. Many places including Michigan are dealing with this issue. Sharia law is religious and the courts while throwing out anything like the 10 commandments things that speak of Christian faith have said that its ok to consider Sharia law. To make the slap in the face worse there was a voter amendment so the people decided that they didn't want Sharia law yet the courts contradicting other rulings about the separation of church and state go ahead strike down the voter amendment and say the courts have to consider international and sharia law. By the way the this goes along with the recent things this president and past have signed saying the US will come in line and loose sovereignty by adopting international law. This is my complaint US citizens should be ruled by US law and if anything is going to change I am in favor of Christian law not Sharia.

[Bob E.]

Please explain to me where someone in the US is being "forced" by the government to live under Sharia Law.  Not some "I heard this one time in Michigan..." story.  But an actual documented case that can be corroborated. 

I guess I interpret the court's opinion a little differently in that they aren't saying it is ok to force someone to live under Sharia Law, but that it is actually unconstitutional to enact a law specifically targeting Sharia (or any other religion) Law.  In fact, I believe that they would also rule that anyone trying to specifically enact Sharia Law would also be unconstitutional.  That's not to say that a law couldn't be enacted that had the same intent as a specific tenet of Sharia...just like we have some laws that are similar to some of the Christian Ten Commandments.  But it would be just as unconstitutional to try and enact "Christian" Law...which is good because my neighbor's wife is HOT!!!!!...and I rather like coveting her.

(actually I made that last part up, but you get the point) 

[vanagon40]

Please explain to me where someone in the US is being "forced" by the government to live under Sharia Law.  Not some "I heard this one time in Michigan..." story.  But an actual documented case that can be corroborated. . . .

I think this is what started the whole controversy => http://www.fljud13.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Gou70XZCgII%3d&tabid=667&mid=1031

[Serk]

Please explain to me where someone in the US is being "forced" by the government to live under Sharia Law.  Not some "I heard this one time in Michigan..." story.  But an actual documented case that can be corroborated. 

Yes, it was overturned, but the fact that the initial ruling was made at all is insane, and was the impetus for the Oklahoma amendment:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/

(Short version, women divorcing her husband files for a restraining order against him for raping her and abusing her, restraining order is denied as the family law judge refers to the man's Muslim beliefs that he can do whatever he wants to to his wife under Sharia/Islamic law.)


Quote from the judge's ruling:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

[Novavalker]

 

[Jess from VA]

I see, so all you have to do is convert to Islam, marry an Islamic woman, and you can beat and rape her at will, because it's consistent with your religious beliefs.  Yes, this sounds fair.  So why did we think the Taliban were bad people again?

I'm an old school Mormon and want 37 wives (from ages 12 to 50), and that's consistent with my religious beliefs.

So I'm an adjudicated recidivist pedophile, and sexing kids is consistent with my beliefs, so what's the problem?  I'll just start a pedophile religion.  

We have history of judeo-christian criminal and common law that is well established.  If you want to live here, get used to it or go back to where you came from (or have a nice long visit with the fellows down at the penitentiary).  

[Skinhead]

The underwear bomber requested that he be tried under Sharia law, I don't think it happened, but why would he even think it was appropriate?

[Challenger]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Remember, Vote in November

[musclehead]

Good question farther how about that we cannot post the 10 commandments yet we can have court decisions made by Islamic law. Or better yet what part of courts trampling over a majority vote dont you understand?

the courts have been trampling over majority votes for years. thats how you bypass the democratic process.

[Bob E.]

According to the link provided by Vanagon, it appears that it has long ago been ruled that the US constitution allows for ecclesiastical laws of any religion (not just Islam/Sharia) to resolve disputes within a group if the parties agree.  In the case provided, both parties had previously agreed to abide by the rules of the IEC and have their case arbitrated by and Islamic judge.  It seems when the loser didn't like the ruling, he sued in "real" court. And the "real" court found that the ecclesiastical laws were agreed upon and therefore binding.

In the case that Serk referenced, this was clearly a misunderstanding by the judge in the application of the ecclesiastical laws.  He was an idiot.  While ecclesiastical laws can be binding, they cannot allow something that would be illegal by US law...such as rape and abuse.  It's not like I can become a satan worshipper and require human sacrifice and then claim that it shouldn't be illegal to murder someone due to my religious beliefs.  It is still illegal.  And as such, the ruling was correctly overturned.   This is not a case where a new law banning Sharia is appropriate, but rather some education of the judges might be required.

My opinion, based on the links provided by Serk and Vanagon, is that it appears that all of this Sharia Law stuff is alot of just ignorance of Islam and the law in general.  These particular cases have been brought to light at a time of heightened awareness of terrorism and the reactionary fear of things that are not understood or familiar.  So the ignorant public masses were convinced that the ban was required to save them from some perceived boogey-man.  But the fact is that in some cases, the US constitution does allow for all ecclesiastical laws including Christian laws.

[Willow]

... it appears that all of this Sharia Law stuff is alot of just ignorance of Islam and the law in general. 

Here's the Oklahoma amendment:

The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions.  The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.  Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.  The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.

In reading the amendment I don't find any wisdom in your description of why it wasn't needed.  As to your describing the judge as an "idiot" it appears to me this amendment was drafted specifically to avoid such judicial "idiocy".

Methinks that some are skipping down the same path the U.S. Attorney General took regarding the much publicized Arizona law.

I would agree that the amendment could have been worded just as effectively without specifically mentioning Sharia.

I see nothing in the amendment that would have interfered with the plaintiff's free practice of his religion.  My view of that judicial ruling is very similar to your reference to the judge in Serk's link.

As to ignorance of Islam and the law, let's wait a few years and revisit our assessment on those.  If it turns out that Mr. Serk's example is played out anywhere in the U.S. I'll be ready to agree that ignorance of Islam and the law is someone's issue.    

[Jess from VA]

I have no problem with a court 'considering' ecclesiastical law, if the parties agree, in a CIVIL dispute between parties.   However, ecclesiastical law has no place in US courts in CRIMINAL matters.

A requested spousal injunction against contact by an abusive, raping husband is a CIVIL matter, attached to a pending CIVIL divorce.  Denying the injunction based on Sharia law was BS nonetheless.

In my experience, civil injunctions (restraining orders) in divorce actions are a waste of time and money.  I marched a few beaten women down to the local prosecutor (often a friend) and filed a criminal assault charge, and arranged in advance for a plea agreement for the husband (with my client's consent) that he be allowed to plead guilty with a max jail sentence, to be held in abeyance during the pendency of the divorce (often a year or more), and to be entirely dismissed after the divorce, if he stayed away and did not hit her again (a great deal for him, and at no charge).  If he did it again, he went right to jail on the first charge, pursuant to his earlier plea, and we filed a second charge....... with no deals at all, and made sure he served all his time on the first charge before arraignment on the second, so sentences could not be served concurrently.  This worked very well.   None of these women had any money to speak of, and this service was provided for free.  

I do not like wife beaters........ I had women sitting in front of me beaten more severely than in any boxing match I ever observed (an eye missing on one occasion).  This is why I got out of private practice after three years.  

My father the engineer used a different approach.  After her husband beat my sister a 2d time, he drove over and told him if it happened again, he would have him killed and disposed of like Jimmy Hoffa.  And he would have (he worked with every industrial union in the Detroit area for many years).  This also solved the problem.

I am making co comment on the Oklahoma law.... I have not read the material there.  

[Skinhead]

One of the things I sometimes miss about working as a melting supervisor in an iron foundry is it was a great place to dispose of bodies should the need arise.  Changing jobs has probably saved a few lives.

[Bob E.]

Here's the Oklahoma amendment:

The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions.  The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.  Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law.  The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.

In reading the amendment I don't find any wisdom in your description of why it wasn't needed.  As to your describing the judge as an "idiot" it appears to me this amendment was drafted specifically to avoid such judicial "idiocy".

The reason I don't believe it is needed is because I believe this to be alot of hysteria over a problem that doesn't actually exist, which is why, in my first post, I asked for specific cases where it was happening. In other words, prove to me that this is an actual problem.  The problem with the Oklahoma amendment is that it contradicts itseslf in the first 2 sentences when it states that courts "...shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, ...(but) the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law."  If the US Constitution, by way of the 1st and 4th amendments (according to Vanagon's link) provides for the recognition of ecclesiastical laws (Sharia or otherwise) as binding, how can you disregard Sharia laws but still be following the Constitution?

As to the judge being an idiot, you have to remember that judges are human and are subject to making decisions that are often biased towards their own beliefs and in addition to just plain making mistakes, especially when there is little precedent or alot of gray area where some subjective interpretation is required.  This is why we have an appellate process...to get 2nd or even 3rd, 4th...etc. opinions if/when someone feels the judge may be wrong. The system worked.

[3fan4life]

The reason I don't believe it is needed is because I believe this to be alot of hysteria over a problem that doesn't actually exist,

The authors of this article would disagree:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_for_banning_sharia_law_in_america.html


Excerpts from the article:

The Qu'ran commands Muslims to change secular laws to conform to sharia, eventually establishing Islamic law worldwide.  Islamic courts want their fatwas to supersede the civil and criminal laws, untying Muslims from civil secular courts.

The possibility that Muslim-only towns and urban enclaves could be created in the U.S. seems unimaginable to most Americans, but it already is a reality.  Just travel 150 mile northwest of New York City to the woods of the western Catskills, and you will find Islamberg, a private Muslim community founded in 1980 by Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani.

Islamberg is only one of twenty to thirty Muslim-only communities and training compounds that this Pakistani group supports through Muslim affiliates in America.  This radical group has purchased land in isolated areas close to city networks and infrastructure.  Jamaat al-Fuqra now has sites in Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Pennsylvania, California, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, and Illinois, as well as Canada, Venezuela, and Trinidad.


The sharia debate in the U.S. is heating up as more and more Americans are reacting to lawyers requesting rulings based on sharia law, and local judges agreeing to make them.  This has happened in a New Jersey divorce case, a Maryland child custody case, and most recently in a Florida property case.  These cases are now a precedent for other American-Muslim communities.  In addition, according to the Center for Security Policy study that was published in May 2011, there are actually over fifty Appellate Court cases from 23 states that all involve conflicts between sharia law and American state law.


Another example of efforts to usurp the Constitution are the actions of the global Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whose main agenda is to have "hate speech" laws enforced against anyone who criticizes Islam.  And, unfortunately, there are those determined to enforce sharia on their own who attack and murder any nearby dissenters.  The Qu'ran justifies and protects these people's violence by declaring that it is blasphemous to mock or degrade any component of Islam.  According to sharia law, such activity is punishable by death.

It is this ongoing effort to shut down public criticism of Islam that presents the gravest danger to America.


The Court of Appeals is the system used to review lower court decisions and believed by some to be the stop gap against foreign law, including sharia, from entering our legal system.  However, some Islamic cases that have reached the Appellate Court for review have retained the sharia rulings even in the face of sharia's contradiction to American civil law.
 
The U.S. is heading towards dangerous territory if its citizens buy into the twisting of constitutional amendments.  Indeed, what everyone really needs is the interpretations of the laws as they are written in order to prevent the encroachment of Islamism into the court system.

The author of this NY Times Op-ed piece would agree with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/opinion/dont-fear-islamic-law-in-america.html


But then the author is Jewish.

I have to wonder about the sanity of a Jew that defends Islam.

He must truly be going through life with blinders on if he doesn't realize that Islam is the greatest threat to Judiaism since Adolf Hitler.  

Anyone remember that Ahmadinejad guy that says that the Holocaust didn't happen ?:


TEHRAN, Dec 8, 2005 -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran on Thursday expressed doubt that the Holocaust took place and suggested the Jewish state of Israel be moved to Europe.

Ahmadinejad was quoted by Iran's official IRNA news agency as saying in a news conference in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca: "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces, and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that, they condemn that person and throw them in jail.

"Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?

"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists, and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe," he said. "You offer part of Europe, and we will support it."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/ahmadinejad-holocaust-didnt-happen-but-since-it-did-move-israel-to-europe.html

In 1990 I toured a concentration camp in Germany, I have seen the gas chambers, I have seen the ovens, and it was absolutely the most sobering experience of my life.

Ahmadinejad's contention that the Holocaust never happened is not only widely accepted within the Islamic community, but it is done so with enthusiasm and glee.

This speaks volumes about the animosity that Muslims harbor for Jews.  


For those that don't see a problem with Sharia Law being applied in our courts consider this:

Until the late 1980's VA had laws in place that were often referred to as "Blue Laws".  

These laws prevented certain business' from opening on Sundays and restricted what could be sold by the ones that were allowed to open.

Blue laws were Christian based and a result of living in the "Bible Belt".


With this in mind I have two questions for those who don't perceive Sharia Law as a threat:

1. Would you want to live where what you could or could not do on a Sunday was dictated to you by the local church ?

2. Why would you even want to "chance" the possibility of having to live under Islamic law ?

    

[Bob E.]

3fan4life...just so we are clear, I'm not defending Islam.  What I am saying is that according to the info I read in the links posted by Serk and Vanagon as well as your post, I'm not totally convinced that Sharia Law is taking over America.  I'm not familiar with the cases in the Catskills of NY, but from the article you posted regarding Islamberg up there, it actually seems that is more of a compound (like the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX) rather than an actual town, city, etc.  They call it a "private muslim community".  And the US Constitution would allow that group to have and enforce ecclesiastic laws regarding it's members/participants who had previously agreed to be bound by those rules.  All of the cases I have seen have been applied voluntarily.  The problem seems to arise when the outcome has not been to the liking of the loser.  Also, per the NJ case that Serk posted, it is also clear that those ecclesiastic laws may not allow acts such as violence, abuse, murder, etc. that would otherwise be illegal.  So that would address the issue of Muslims killing those who blaspheme against Islam.

The one area I could see as a problem is in the areas of marriages/divorces and all of the related issues that come from that.  For example, I think the NC divorce case ruled that because they were married, that constituted an agreement to be bound by ecclesiastic laws within their religion.  Since Islam apparently is very slanted against women, she could potentially be forced to live with an ecclesiastical ruling when it comes to dividing up property, child custody, etc.  I don't think that is right.  So I do think that they could pass some legislation (or maybe it already exists) where the parties must agree at the time of the dispute (whatever it is) of whether to have the case heard by an ecclesiastical court/arbitor or a regular court/judge.

[98valk]

3fan4life...just so we are clear, I'm not defending Islam.  What I am saying is that according to the info I read in the links posted by Serk and Vanagon as well as your post, I'm not totally convinced that Sharia Law is taking over America. 

These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process.  These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah.  When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/

This study analyzes and discusses a total of 50 cases from 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Iowa, Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?page_id=305

[Bob E.]

CA...Like I said above, I agree that when it comes to marriages/divorces and other contracts, I can see where things can get messy.  But I'm still not convinced that the problem is Sharia laws specifically, but rather how agreements/contracts established under other sets of rules/laws (whether ecclesiastical or foreign countries) are recognized and enforced.  I didn't read all of the cases, but I did read the one from Michigan.  I chose Michigan because every time this topic comes up, Michigan is the state where all of the "anecdotal" Sharia takeover seem to be happening.  In that case, a husband and wife are married in another country, then move to USA.  Then, at some point, husband goes back home and gets a legal (according to home country) divorce from his wife (apparently without her knowledge), then returns to USA.  The question is then, are they now divorced or not? He has certification from his home country that says they are divorced. The USA court agrees, so the wife appeals to say that they are actually still married.  The funny/ironic part is this whole issue arose because she filed for divorce in the first place.

Anyways, for this case, the issue isn't a Sharia law case at all but whether a marriage and/or divorce granted in another country is recognized.  It just so happens that, in this case, the two parties were muslim.  If two people are married in another country, then come to USA, our government recognizes their marriage.  Right?  So then, if someone gets a divorce in another country, should we recognize that divorce?  I'm not sure the answer is so cut and dry.

[ComradBlack]

Please explain to me where someone in the US is being "forced" by the government to live under Sharia Law.  Not some "I heard this one time in Michigan..." story.  But an actual documented case that can be corroborated. 

Yes, it was overturned, but the fact that the initial ruling was made at all is insane, and was the impetus for the Oklahoma amendment:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/

(Short version, women divorcing her husband files for a restraining order against him for raping her and abusing her, restraining order is denied as the family law judge refers to the man's Muslim beliefs that he can do whatever he wants to to his wife under Sharia/Islamic law.)


Quote from the judge's ruling:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

Yup ... things get clear as mud when cultures clash.
Especially that Sharia crap.
The problem is that the laws conflict and are in fact in total contradiction of each other.

How to beat your wife	powered by Aeva

Of course if I ever raised a hand to my wife

The next mornin I'd wake up with a knife in my back

[Bob E.]

Quote from the judge's ruling:

This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.

Yup ... things get clear as mud when cultures clash.
Especially that Sharia crap.
The problem is that the laws conflict and are in fact in total contradiction of each other.

I agree...and so did the appellate court that overturned this judge's mistaken interpretation and application of the law.  In this case, the problem wasn't sharia law but rather the judge's ignorance of US law.

[Jess from VA]

CA...Like I said above, I agree that when it comes to marriages/divorces and other contracts, I can see where things can get messy.  But I'm still not convinced that the problem is Sharia laws specifically, but rather how agreements/contracts established under other sets of rules/laws (whether ecclesiastical or foreign countries) are recognized and enforced.  I didn't read all of the cases, but I did read the one from Michigan.  I chose Michigan because every time this topic comes up, Michigan is the state where all of the "anecdotal" Sharia takeover seem to be happening.  In that case, a husband and wife are married in another country, then move to USA.  Then, at some point, husband goes back home and gets a legal (according to home country) divorce from his wife (apparently without her knowledge), then returns to USA.  The question is then, are they now divorced or not? He has certification from his home country that says they are divorced. The USA court agrees, so the wife appeals to say that they are actually still married.  The funny/ironic part is this whole issue arose because she filed for divorce in the first place.

Anyways, for this case, the issue isn't a Sharia law case at all but whether a marriage and/or divorce granted in another country is recognized.  It just so happens that, in this case, the two parties were muslim.  If two people are married in another country, then come to USA, our government recognizes their marriage.  Right?  So then, if someone gets a divorce in another country, should we recognize that divorce?  I'm not sure the answer is so cut and dry.

The subject of Conflicts of Law is a somewhat arcane and specialized field.  I had the subject in School.  It can involve conflicting law between nations, treaties (held to be nearly on a par with the the US Const.), and Admiralty Law of the seas can be intertwined.  

But day-to-day in the US, it comes up more than you think.  More often than not it involves multiple cars and drivers and passengers traveling interstate, with various insurances and coverages, having accidents with each other.  What court(s) have jurisdiction over what parties (personal jurisdiction) and what causes of action (subject matter jurisdiction), and what law applies?  This can often also involve forum shopping, with attorneys trying to get the case from State to Federal Courts for various reasons.  Contracts and insurance policies often have fine print specifying how Conflicts issues will be decided.... always to the benefit of the drafter.

A typical Conflicts final exam question would go as follows:   (Guaranteed to twist your brain and stomach into knots when you have a few hours in one final for your whole grade for the semester)

http://www.washburnlaw.edu/faculty/concannon-j-exams/2005faconflictsexam.php

So there really is quite a bit of settled law on Conflicts questions in US Courts.  Customs, Past Practices, and Course of Performance (ie, how we have always done business in this trade, in this region) is part of Contract law, and so it is not unusual for parties to argue, where the four corners of contract are unclear, the law will presume the parties intended to act as they have traditionally acted.  This involves CIVIL matters, between private parties (or Corps).  So, in a contract business dispute between two Muslims in Detroit, it would not be unusual to hear argument on this, and not unusual for the judge to consider it............ not to be bound by it, but to consider it, along with all the other evidence.   It could as easily be a similar case between Hasidic Jews or Mennonites.  It isn't specifically religion-oriented, but it can be.

And Sharia Law is not set down in stone, it varies widely geographically in the Muslim world.  They fight amongst themselves about it all the time.  And like in the Pirates of the Caribbean,  it is not a strict code, more a set of allegedly moral guidelines to be used and interpreted by an Imam (or Capt Jack Sparrow) on a case by case basis.

However, when it comes to the nastier elements of Sharia law in husband/wife/children relations, family law, punishments, violence, female child castration, honor killings, etc, and anything to do with US criminal law, all efforts at recognizing or even considering Sahria should be fought tooth and nail....like the OK law.  

    

[3fan4life]

However, when it comes to the nastier elements of Sharia law in husband/wife/children relations, family law, punishments, violence, female child castration, honor killings, etc, and anything to do with US criminal law, all efforts at recognizing or even considering Sahria should be fought tooth and nail....like the OK law.  

Very well said my friend. 


You should be a lawyer or sumpthin'.   

[Bob E.]

CA...Like I said above, I agree that when it comes to marriages/divorces and other contracts, I can see where things can get messy.  But I'm still not convinced that the problem is Sharia laws specifically, but rather how agreements/contracts established under other sets of rules/laws (whether ecclesiastical or foreign countries) are recognized and enforced.  I didn't read all of the cases, but I did read the one from Michigan.  I chose Michigan because every time this topic comes up, Michigan is the state where all of the "anecdotal" Sharia takeover seem to be happening.  In that case, a husband and wife are married in another country, then move to USA.  Then, at some point, husband goes back home and gets a legal (according to home country) divorce from his wife (apparently without her knowledge), then returns to USA.  The question is then, are they now divorced or not? He has certification from his home country that says they are divorced. The USA court agrees, so the wife appeals to say that they are actually still married.  The funny/ironic part is this whole issue arose because she filed for divorce in the first place.

Anyways, for this case, the issue isn't a Sharia law case at all but whether a marriage and/or divorce granted in another country is recognized.  It just so happens that, in this case, the two parties were muslim.  If two people are married in another country, then come to USA, our government recognizes their marriage.  Right?  So then, if someone gets a divorce in another country, should we recognize that divorce?  I'm not sure the answer is so cut and dry.

The subject of Conflicts of Law is a somewhat arcane and specialized field.  I had the subject in School.  It can involve conflicting law between nations, treaties (held to be nearly on a par with the the US Const.), and Admiralty Law of the seas can be intertwined.  

But day-to-day in the US, it comes up more than you think.  More often than not it involves multiple cars and drivers and passengers traveling interstate, with various insurances and coverages, having accidents with each other.  What court(s) have jurisdiction over what parties (personal jurisdiction) and what causes of action (subject matter jurisdiction), and what law applies?  This can often also involve forum shopping, with attorneys trying to get the case from State to Federal Courts for various reasons.  Contracts and insurance policies often have fine print specifying how Conflicts issues will be decided.... always to the benefit of the drafter.

A typical Conflicts final exam question would go as follows:   (Guaranteed to twist your brain and stomach into knots when you have a few hours in one final for your whole grade for the semester)

http://www.washburnlaw.edu/faculty/concannon-j-exams/2005faconflictsexam.php

So there really is quite a bit of settled law on Conflicts questions in US Courts.  Customs, Past Practices, and Course of Performance (ie, how we have always done business in this trade, in this region) is part of Contract law, and so it is not unusual for parties to argue, where the four corners of contract are unclear, the law will presume the parties intended to act as they have traditionally acted.  This involves CIVIL matters, between private parties (or Corps).  So, in a contract business dispute between two Muslims in Detroit, it would not be unusual to hear argument on this, and not unusual for the judge to consider it............ not to be bound by it, but to consider it, along with all the other evidence.   It could as easily be a similar case between Hasidic Jews or Mennonites.  It isn't specifically religion-oriented, but it can be.

And Sharia Law is not set down in stone, it varies widely geographically in the Muslim world.  They fight amongst themselves about it all the time.  And like in the Pirates of the Caribbean,  it is not a strict code, more a set of allegedly moral guidelines to be used and interpreted by an Imam (or Capt Jack Sparrow) on a case by case basis.

However, when it comes to the nastier elements of Sharia law in husband/wife/children relations, family law, punishments, violence, female child castration, honor killings, etc, and anything to do with US criminal law, all efforts at recognizing or even considering Sahria should be fought tooth and nail....like the OK law.  

    

Thanks for the info, Jess...it is rather interesting to me as a non-lawyer.  I guess the question is how do you fix the situation when it comes to these gray areas, especially when it seems the arguments live in those gray areas.  I'm a civil engineer and I design bridges...my engineering mind loves to find solutions to problems, solve puzzles, etc, which is why I get interested in these sorts of riddles, even when they aren't engineering problems by nature. In civil engineering, we have professional societies that conduct seminars, conferences, etc. to keep the profession informed of issues that arise and what is being done about them so we know what to do if we run into similar problems on our projects.  For example, when the bridge in MN collapsed, the findings of the investigation regarding the cause was distributed throughout the profession with various talks through groups like American Society of Highway Engineers (ASHE) and the Association for Bridge Construction and Design (ABCD).  I assume that the law profession has similar professional societies that discuss issues like this??  Perhaps there could be some consensus developed within the profession?  But on the other hand, every case is different and subject to interpretation and argument.  So I could see where it would be difficult.  But I still come back to the thought that the problem isn't Sharia specifically, but rather the application of US law as it pertains to ecclesiastic laws (Sharia or others).  You seem to reinforce that point at the end of your 4th paragraph, even if you do have some reservations (which I agree with, by the way) about Sharia as mentioned in the 5th and 6th paragraphs.

[RoadKill]

A whole ,LONG discussion about separation of church and state and yet NO ONE has inquired why the government has to condone the marriage vows that they swore, to their own God ,in their chosen house of worship. Separation of church and state has always been half-assed IMHO!

[98valk]

A whole ,LONG discussion about separation of church and state and yet NO ONE has inquired why the government has to condone the marriage vows that they swore, to their own God ,in their chosen house of worship. Separation of church and state has always been half-assed IMHO!

separation of church and state is not in the constitution. it is from a Jefferson letter to a baptist church. If one reads the letter completely one would she how the liberals/communist/marxist have twisted Jeffersons words to meet their agenda.

[RoadKill]

A whole ,LONG discussion about separation of church and state and yet NO ONE has inquired why the government has to condone the marriage vows that they swore, to their own God ,in their chosen house of worship. Separation of church and state has always been half-assed IMHO!

separation of church and state is not in the constitution. it is from a Jefferson letter to a baptist church. If one reads the letter completely one would she how the liberals/communist/marxist have twisted Jeffersons words to meet their agenda.

Ok, so that is why it is half assed...It still is not worthy of all the time/money/effort involved in debating who has the right to do what and to whom, while another GREAT empire is about to fall. 

[Farther]

separation of church and state is not in the constitution. it is from a Jefferson letter to a baptist church. If one reads the letter completely one would she how the liberals/communist/marxist have twisted Jeffersons words to meet their agenda.

Those specific words may not be in the Constitution but it is generally accepted by most that "separation of church and state" is an accurate paraphrase of part of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  I guess everything is open to interpretation but I don't share your apparent interpretation of Jefferson's letter.  http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

[Jess from VA]

I'm a civil engineer and I design bridges.  Perhaps there could be some consensus developed within the profession?

Engineering  and math are hard sciences.  Generally there is one correct answer.  There may be several solutions (designs) that may work for the application, then costs of production and feasibility governs the decision and outcome.

There is much well settled in the law, but new things come along as society and technology evolve; then, in court litigation, two (or more) parties argue/advocate application of current law to the new facts, and judges make decisions.  It is not hard science with one correct answer.  So application of Sharia law will not be an all or nothing deal, parts may in fact be considered in certain disputes, and other parts must never be considered.  As the 'establishment of religion' clause has been interpreted over 200 years to separate church and state, we must not have Sharia law become the law of the land, and enforced by government and courts.

Most all States have continuing legal education requirements to maintain your State license to practice law, and all State Bar Associations have numerous legal specialty sections which try to keep abreast of  new and developing issues, and publish articles and journals to keep the profession up to date.  But lawyers are advocates for clients (and may take any position in their clients interests so long as it is consistent with the Codes of Professional Responsibility - legal ethics), and it is judges who decide (and split the babies in half).  And State and Fed appellate court systems to debate and refine those decisions.

But just like in politics, there are conservative and liberal interests and interpretations, and there are moneyed interests which spend to influence the outcome of these debates.   The law is said to be a living breathing thing that must evolve over time..... slowly and carefully, and ultimately faithful to the US Constitution.  This is why I believe the US Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of these issues is more important than the executive and legislative branches of Govt.  Not on a day-to-day basis, but a decade-to-decade basis.

And this is why we must not let Zero appoint any more justices to that court at all costs.  When his two appointees said the 2d Amendment did not provide an essential personal liberty to all citizens, they were liars who put their personal politics above the Constitution.  It is well settled and beyond debate that all the Bill of Rights in the first eight (or ten) amendments were intended to guarantee and protect the essential (some say God-given) personal, individual liberties; and were a required prerequisite by the first States before they agreed to submit to a new overriding Federal government.... so we didn't end up with another European (totalitarian) monarchy, who we had recently forcibly evicted from our shores. (Civics 101)  ABO in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bob E.]

And this is why we must not let Zero appoint any more justices to that court at all costs.  When his two appointees said the 2d Amendment did not provide an essential personal liberty to all citizens, they were liars who put their personal politics above the Constitution.  It is well settled and beyond debate that all the Bill of Rights in the first eight (or ten) amendments were intended to guarantee and protect the essential (some say God-given) personal, individual liberties; and were a required prerequisite by the first States before they agreed to submit to a new overriding Federal government.... so we didn't end up with another European (totalitarian) monarchy, who we had recently forcibly evicted from our shores. (Civics 101)  ABO in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jess...I was trying to avoid the politics and keep the conversation on the Sharia topic from a practical point of view.  But since you brought it up and singled out Obama's nominees, I wonder about your opinion of the rather questionable (at best) activities of conservative justices Scalia and Thomas and their relationships to folks like the Koch brothers, receiving gifts, etc. Also, given Thomas's wifes very political/activist position, do you feel he and Scalia are compromised and unable to provide unbiased opinion. Do you feel that this had any bearing on their decision regarding cases like Citizen's United that essentially had overturned nearly a century of settled law and precedent?  And if so, what is the recourse for removing lifetime appointees to the court who might be corrupted?

[Jess from VA]

I like Scalia and Thomas; they understand and follow the constitution.  If they violate their ethics requirements, there are remedies to follow. 

Though we have a problem with influence pedaling, this was a proper constitutional decision. This part of McCain–Feingold was wrong.  It was passed to keep the NRA from publishing the voting records of Congress re 2d amendment.  This information is protected free speech.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. The 5–4 decision originated in a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act in reference to its primary Senate sponsors.[2] It prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.�

[98valk]

separation of church and state is not in the constitution. it is from a Jefferson letter to a baptist church. If one reads the letter completely one would she how the liberals/communist/marxist have twisted Jeffersons words to meet their agenda.

Those specific words may not be in the Constitution but it is generally accepted by most that "separation of church and state" is an accurate paraphrase of part of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  I guess everything is open to interpretation but I don't share your apparent interpretation of Jefferson's letter.  http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123
Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8]

8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

[Farther]

CA:  We will have to agree to disagree as I think your posts of Jefferson's quotes go more to support my position than yours.