This week in "wtf oops!" legislation: Oaklahoma

[Antithesis]

What? He's right. They're not.

thatwasthejoke.jpg

[Alleya]

What was the original point of this law? Was there some recent cases of judges citing Sharia Law and pissed some religious people off or something?

This is Oklahoma, wooz. Kings of pointless, baseless, politically driven laws. You're talking about the state that made it illegal to have an abortion for reasons of convenience, while the lawmakers readily admitted that there was absolutely no precedent, evidence, or reason to do so.

[Scritch]

13 You shall not kill/murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


All the rest dont apply at all, but i'm preeeeetty sure we have laws that are based off those things.

Uh... adultery? Some states still have laws on adultery, but they're almost never enforced, ranging from a 10$ fine to a (lol) life sentence. Even if you want to count that, its preeeeeeetty hard to claim that these laws are "based off" the 10 commandments since the first murder and theft are the two most common laws in the world.

[Meat]

have they outlawed Hammurabi's code as well?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Though this was interesting. When enacting xenophobic legislation, better be sure you word it clearly. Would this really affect commercial contracts within the state?

You can agree in a contract that another jurisdiction's law will govern. If they said another country's law would govern, I don't see why not.

Edit: I think the guy is just trying to be funny or score points with the whole 10 commandments thing b/c if you follow his logic our entire legal system would be banned in Oklahoma b/c most of it, at some point, relies on English law.

[Yuri-G]

heard about this amendment and thought it was pretty dumb but never gave it much consideration. watching it blow up like this is very amusing, I have to say.

and I really don't understand how anyone could possibly think that banning judicial interpretations based on international law would be anything but a massive headache in the law and business sectors. I hope they uphold the new amendment and Oklahoma gets fucked up the ass by losing hundreds of millions of dollars in international business. xenophobia seems a lot less attractive when it has financial consequences, doesn't it?

[Dimmauk]

I'm so glad Oklahoma is protecting the old Native American laws, and the Law of the West.

[Bingbong]

13 You shall not kill/murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

I can say with a high confidence, that even if the 10 commandments weren't considered, Murder, Theft, and Lying in a lot of forms (Fraud, Perjury, Libel, etc.) would still have been made illegal, even in Oklahoma.

loladultery

[BerenTebogo]

13 You shall not kill/murder.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


All the rest dont apply at all, but i'm preeeeetty sure we have laws that are based off those things.

Hammurabi would like a word with your uneducated ass.

have they outlawed Hammurabi's code as well?

Beat by Meat. /badumtish

[Cleveland_7795]

Just anti-muslim politics. Pick a target that reasonable people don't care enough about to fight against and that idiots think is a huge victory.

There was never a threat of judges citing Sharia Law. But politicians say, "I don't want Oklahoma to turn into one of those horrible cruel theocracies where women are forced to marry at young ages and are oppressed, etc. Therefore I propose this law banning the citation of Sharia Law in Oklahoma courts. Praise be to jeebus."
Intelligent reaction - "Wow, you're self-contradictory and possibly mildly retarded, but Sharia law never factored into our judicial system anyway so feel free to ban it."
Idiotic reaction - "Oh yeah! Fuck that theocracy shit! Not only did they blow us up on 9/11 (nevar fergit) but they also look different from us! Oh, and sometimes they use their laws to stone people! How cruel! Where is my NASCAR? I want to see whose car explodes today. Hail jeebus."
Midwestern mom reaction - *generally worried about a threat that didn't exist until they were told about it by the politician now defending them from it* *generally uninformed* *now grateful to said politician* *votevotevote*

Ignorance is bliss...

"A New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.

According to the court record, the man's wife -- a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks -- alleged:

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] 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."

[BerenTebogo]

Ignorance is bliss...

"A New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him is sounding the alarm for advocates of laws designed to ban Shariah in America.

Judge Joseph Charles, in denying the restraining order to the woman after her divorce, ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs -- and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.

According to the court record, the man's wife -- a Moroccan woman who had recently immigrated to the U.S. at the time of the attacks -- alleged:

"Defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her "this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do."

In considering the woman's plea for a restraining order after the couple divorced, Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her, but "The court believes that [defendant] 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."

ITT: The only negative ruling in the history of the courts to have been based off of religious law by a fucking moron of a judge came as a result of Shariah law. No event of this sort has ever happened, especially not in the past 20 or 30 years, as a result of a wrongful interpretation of Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, or Christian laws. None, zero, zip, absolutely nada.

Glad we cleared that up and the correct actions are being taken to ensure that these damn muslims no longer pollute our righteous society given to us by God.

[Meresgi]

Uh... adultery? Some states still have laws on adultery, but they're almost never enforced, ranging from a 10$ fine to a (lol) life sentence. Even if you want to count that, its preeeeeeetty hard to claim that these laws are "based off" the 10 commandments since the first murder and theft are the two most common laws in the world.

And now you're just splitting hairs. It's not too much of a stretch to assume the founding fathers used some laws from one of the most popular books of history. And even if its a slap on the wrist, there are some laws against adultery, doesn't matter really if the law is ever enforced or not, it still CAN be.

Hammurabi would like a word with your uneducated ass.

the 10 Commandments arent actually the basis of any laws in this country lol

They very well could be based on the Commandments I quoted, or Hammurabi's law. I'm very sorry, I did not know you were present at the founding and took part in creating laws for this country. After all, this country is hyper religious in certain areas, its again not a far stretch to think a few ideals carried over. I'm not saying God somehow invented the law of not killing people.

[Max™]

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/titleXI.jpg

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

[BerenTebogo]

And now you're just splitting hairs. It's not too much of a stretch to assume the founding fathers used some laws from one of the most popular books of history. And even if its a slap on the wrist, there are some laws against adultery, doesn't matter really if the law is ever enforced or not, it still CAN be.




They very well could be based on the Commandments I quoted, or Hammurabi's law. I'm very sorry, I did not know you were present at the founding and took part in creating laws for this country. After all, this country is hyper religious in certain areas, its again not a far stretch to think a few ideals carried over. I'm not saying God somehow invented the law of not killing people.

Look at this guy thinking that the very first written code of law, which intrinsically influenced the development of all subsequent written codes of law, isn't the basis, at a fundamental level at the very least, for the code of law found in the bible.

This guy right here, what a riot.

Also, bitches don't know about my Magna Carta.

No matter how you slice it, direct and current influences that can be applied based on the effect they had on the people alive at the time -> Magna Carta. Fundamental influences that go to the heart of human nature and stem from our deepest desires that facilitate the building of a safe and structured society -> the original source, good 'ol hambone.

The 10 commandments are an intermediary set of codes that augmented and existing set of codes and were augmented by subsequent sets of code. They exist in no way as unique or special. Even if some of the people involved in the Constitutional drafts were basing the tenements of our society on what they believed to be derived from the word of God (10 C's), they were actually no more doing such a thing than they were basing our constitution off of Shariah law, or codes of conduct that governed ancient Rome. Ignorance of the truth, or of the source, does not the source change.

[Cleveland_7795]

ITT: The only negative ruling in the history of the courts to have been based off of religious law by a fucking moron of a judge came as a result of Shariah law. No event of this sort has ever happened, especially not in the past 20 or 30 years, as a result of a wrongful interpretation of Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, or Christian laws. None, zero, zip, absolutely nada.

Glad we cleared that up and the correct actions are being taken to ensure that these damn muslims no longer pollute our righteous society given to us by God.

Simply pointing out an example of Sharia being used in US courts to refute the posters statement that it has "never happened," when in fact, it happened last year.

[BerenTebogo]

Simply pointing out an example of Sharia being used in US courts to refute the posters statement that it has "never happened," when in fact, it happened last year.

Misunderstood the point of the post then. Assumed you were justifying Girthlahoma's fear that Shariah law was taking over the US.

[Byrthnoth]

You can't ignore someone's beliefs when attempting to determine their intent, even if he is (from the sounds of it) a cawk. The judge's duty in that case was to determine if the husband presented a continuing threat to his former wife, and he decided he did not. His reasoning was that the man believed in this Shariah law stuff, but now that he was divorced would no longer present the same threat. Judges are there to judge things. That judge decided that the man genuinely did believe in that crap and either never had been (note the lack of a formal crime) or was no longer a threat. Laws like this one would just limit judicial freedom. I doubt any judge worth his/her salt would actually let him/herself be limited by them, but it's theoretically possible.

When people say "outlawing considering Shariah law" I'd hope they mean something more like, "Man arrested for raping 12 year old, claims to be married to her. Charges thrown out because he believes in Shariah law and crazy hippy judge thinks it's 'All good, man'." Not, "Couple moves to the US from one of the most fundamental Islamic nations in the world, woman waits until she's on US soil and then alleges sexual abuse. Loses case. Now an activist."

[aurik]

Regarding that odd ruling, look up the legal concept of Mens Rea, then understand that once the couple is divorced the judge had reasonable faith that a restraining order was unnecessary, and thus did not grant one. In other words, it was a sound ruling. Maybe more rulings should be made with an understanding of what is legal/illegal in foreign countries and other religions!

It's too bad so many fucking retarded people are allowed to have opinions in your country.

edit: as a side note, any follow-up on whether a lack of restraining order enabled said ex-husband to further harass/assault the woman post-divorce?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I gotta go with aurik on this one. It sounds like the Judge just used the dudes religion to determine if he acted with the requisite criminal intent which would have probably entitled her to a restraining order.

I think what might raise the whole foreign law issue, or maybe not, is if she had alleged rape and the judge tossed it out based on his religion.

[Kaelan?]

Sharia is explicitly religious, theocratic state law that's meant to operate on the level of nations. The ten commandments are more like guiding moral philosophy, operating at the level of individuals - It's not political law.While I'd love for references to both being banned out of government, I don't see how the argument that they're both foreign law holds. It's two different meanings of the word law.

Also don't see what the whining is about. The first amendment already directly translates to establishing religious law being illegal, this is just directly stating and underlining what's already there so nobody can argue around it for one particular case. The worst you could say would be that it might be a waste of time and/or resources to make the point when we're not in the same situation places like Britain are, where this might be more relevant.