What do you think about a Court in Oklahoma decision that we can't ban enforcement of Sharia law?

I believe all 4 judges involved should be impeached.

That decision was an impeachable offense since they failed to live up to the their oath of office.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/oklah...

Ridiculous,The United Staes law IS the “supreme law of the land,”With no exceptions.

The specifics of what’s in Sharia law are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether Sharia is the most wonderful, mild and reasonable set of humanitarian recommendations ever devised, or if it’s an oppressive medieval framework for a nightmarish theocracy — or something in between. All of that is off-topic. Why? Because in the United States of America, only U.S. law governs. Period. You can’t violate a U.S. law and then offer up as a legal excuse, “Well, in Mongolia what I did is perfectly legal!” You’d be convicted, while the jury laughed.

Article VI of the Constitution, better known as the Supremacy Clause, states:

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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“Supreme law of the land” nails it down pretty well. I don’t see anything in there about exceptions made for religious law — do you?

As an Orthodox Christian and knowing the history of how the muslims brutally murdered so many due not being muslims, i find it very sad that some answers here say the opposite. There are also some cases of sharia law in the U.S. so to say it could never happen is just crazy and blind. We cannot set back and allow what has happened to other countries happen here. With the president we have now moving us into a European type society, this will allow other more drastic changes to take place. I feel we have only seen the beginning. Pray, Pray Pray

I think many things are at an extreme ... JiHad (or holy war) ... shouldn't be geared towards others but should have been considered a war to remain holy and wholesome themselves ... I consider alot of people have mistranlated scripture for what should have been to better a generation, rather than as a reason to cause a form of racism against religion ...

If islamics want to follow sharia law, their scripture also speaks of commandments, and though shalt not covet ... that would include convert ... If they would be considered that if you leave one religion for another ... then what's the cause for them to convert and consider that hypcracy???

The National Geographics world atlas explains ... all three religions really stemmed from the same cradle ... so other than population control ... what's the reason for religious wars ??? I know they're devestation ... but really, can't sunstantiate their reasonings behind the claims ...

I may be catholic at heart ... but Sinbad is nothing without Allah's influences ...

Would we really consider a country were appreciating each other rather than against each other, but considered acceptable??? Would they want segregation of all that is beautiful? Muslims not being able to watch the Passion of Christ or the holy Grail ... or Christians not being allowed to enjoy Sinbad ... riduculous ...

Dude just get your facts straight. Islam does not accept or promote the forced conversions and people who are forced to become Muslims are not considered Muslim.

Muslims Ruled India for 800 years with full power but still there are more Hindus, Sikh and other minorities more than Muslims.

Jews and Christians had been living in Arab countries peacefully Since the Muslims rule established in those countries. They Problem between Muslims and Jews because of Israel was created, promoted and supported by western countries like, British, United States and their partners. Otherwise before that Jews lived in Arab countries, Ottoman Empire, still living in Iran Peacefully.

This information is from Wikipedia. Anyone can search and check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_relig...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Isla...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Judaism

There were two main problems with the law. First that it unconstitutionally singled out one type of law on the basis of religion, that's a constitutional no-no. The second they didn't have to reach since the first was enough to invalidate it, is that US courts have to apply different laws frequently and to stop them from doing so would have dire effects on administering justice. This was definitely the right decision.

TLS, that is not how foreign law is used in the US. Suppose, for example, I have a widget making business and fly to a country that uses sharia law where I enter in to a contract for supplies to be shipped to the US. Then I come home and the company with whom I contracted delivers one load of supplies but then breaches and I sue them in federal court. The first thing the court has to determine ( after jurisdictional issues) is if the contract is valid to do so they must employ the law that governed the signing. They will have to apply sharia law to see if it was a valid contract ab initio. Suppose I adopted a child there and when I get home the child is recognized by one of its relatives here who sues to get it and argues that the home country had no right to give her to me ( called a collateral attack), the court must apply the law of the country the act took place in to determine its validity. Then in that shirea country I buy a ticket to take a cruise on a ship flagged in a third country, am injured aboard by one of the crew while in port in a fourth country, and negligently treated by the ships doctor while in international waters? Depending on the exact circumstances, the court may have to apply different law for each instance.

The supreme law of the land means just that, but courts have to deal with the interactions people have in many lands and must apply the applicable law.

By allowing sharia law even if it is only used for Muslims means that Muslims will be Stoning to death Muslim Adulterers and killing there own muslims that Apostate from the faith. ETC

Is AMERICA going to allow this in there country?

If so its SICK!!

Blessings to all. As long as they keep that law for the own people, i don't think it will bothers us, i just hoping for the best for the American people since an American cannot go over to their country and set our own rules, we will never make it over there alive. just saying.

"Since Islam teaches jihad against all non-Muslims and the obligation to force conversions upon non-believers, Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists..."

Did you get your education in 19th century England? Wait, people knew better even back then. So, just what have you been accepting as the truth? And from whom? I can't believe you say such ignorant things when you have access to the internet.

The law was meaningless; it has no practical effect. Sharia (calling it Sharia law is wrong, as "Sharia" means law... you're calling it "law law," which is just further evidence of your ignorance) is not an enforceable because it is not and cannot be a recognized source of law in the United States that could preempt ordinary sources of law (Constitution, codes, regulations, case law). Consequently, banning the "enforcement" of Sharia would have absolutely no practical effect. You *MAY* have some circumstances where a contract between people stipulates that disputes would be settled by Islamic traditions; that could be given effect, but ONLY IF the religious rules applied do not go against public policy (i.e. directly contravene existing secular statutory or common law).

Further, because it targets a specific religion it also goes directly against the Establishment Clause. I don't understand how this is hard for you to grasp.