Oklahoma Judge Sides With CAIR and Blocks Sharia ban!

In this disappointing but not surprising update to the elected Sharia ban in Oklahoma Courts, we see that Judge Miles-LaGrange has gone against the will of the people. As she has blocked the certification of the Sharia ban. This is a preliminary injunction, until a final decision is made on the lawsuit. But for now, she just handed Islam a victory.

Here is what the judge had to say.

“This order addresses issues that go to the very foundation of our country, our (U.S.) 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, an occurrence which our founders foresaw and provided for through the Bill of Rights…

“Having carefully reviewed the briefs on this issue, and having heard the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the Court finds plaintiff has made a strong showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim asserting a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

“As set forth above, plaintiff has shown that the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Sharia Law (plaintiff’s faith) and, thus, is not facially neutral.

“Additionally, as set forth above, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown that there is a reasonable probability that the amendment would prevent plaintiff’s will from being fully probated by a state court in Oklahoma because it incorporates by reference specific elements of the Islamic prophetic traditions.

“Further, plaintiff has presented evidence that there is a reasonable probability that Muslims, including plaintiff, will be unable to bring actions in Oklahoma state courts for violations of the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and for violations of their rights under the United States Constitution if those violations are based upon their religion.

“Finally, the Court finds that defendants have presented no evidence which would show that the amendment is justified by any compelling interest or is narrowly tailored.”

This is a perfect example of how Muslims use our freedoms against us, and this also shows us that the US Constitution will not protect us from Islam. Unfortunately it actually enables it.

Of course the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), was thrilled.

“We applaud today’s ruling and welcome the opportunity it offers to demonstrate that Oklahoma’s Muslim community simply seeks to enjoy the civil and religious rights guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution,” said Awad.

As I have been saying, our laws are not cut out to fight the internal threat of Islam, and if there are not some major changes in them, we will eventually lose this war.

Link to Article

Comments

comments

45 comments for “Oklahoma Judge Sides With CAIR and Blocks Sharia ban!

  1. Thomas Carney
    November 29, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill, and others have warned of the depravity of Islam… and have been ignored.

    • Tonto
      November 29, 2010 at 2:58 pm

      Absolutely correct…..and there is a way to correct that depravity. Send them back to where they came from and ban islam in the USA. That may not be “PC” or even Constitutional, but it sure makes sense and is the right thing to do. I don’t want that insanity here!

  2. Twana Blevins
    November 29, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange
    U.S. Courthouse
    200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
    Rm 3301 (Third Floor), Courtroom 301 (Third Floor)
    Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5400
    Chambers Fax: 405-609-5413

    • admin
      November 29, 2010 at 3:21 pm

      If anyone calls there, please speak in a respectable manner.

      Thanks Twana!

  3. November 29, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    This makes me sick to my stumoch. 🙁

    • SAMBO
      June 23, 2011 at 5:41 pm

      your spelling of the english language makes me want to vomit as well…

  4. November 29, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    You guys are a few years behind us, but hopefully you will see the light and not take their b/s. Good luck, I fear it’s too late for good ol England!

    • admin
      November 29, 2010 at 4:15 pm

      Hi mate,

      As of now we are heading down the same road as the UK. Obama is our Labour Party.

      Good luck over there!

  5. damien
    November 29, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    Admin,

    The constitution would actually protect us from Islam if judges would stop misinterpreting it. From what I understand there was nothing in the Law that would actually forbid Muslims from voluntarily living according to Sharia, as long as they don’t violate anyone’s rights in doing so, it just wouldn’t let the courts consider Sharia.

    Also you say that the constitution enables the stealth Jihad. Well there’s an old saying. The constitution is not a suicide pack. We can make exceptions if our survival as a nation depends on it. Also the founders would find the idea of an absolute right to freedom of religion absurd. They would not believe that a right to say sacrifice virgins to the volcano god exists. You’re right to swing your fist ends where my face begins.

    • admin
      November 29, 2010 at 5:16 pm

      I agree, the Founding Fathers would not have let Islam takeover in the name of freedom of religion.

    • admin
      November 29, 2010 at 5:23 pm

      America had an early warning about Islam. It should have been banned during the Barbary Coast Wars.

      • Damien
        November 29, 2010 at 6:30 pm

        Admin,

        I don’t see how we could just ban it out right without violating our fundamental values. We can’t just go around imprisoning people for their beliefs, even if they are morally abhorrent. We don’t even ban belief systems that the overwhelming majority of us rightfully see as evil, such as Nazism. The founding fathers would have had a hard time justifying banning Islam, even given what they knew about it. Once you ban one belief system, even for a good reason, it becomes much harder not to justify not banning others. How do you ban thoughts without becoming totalitarian?

        Personally I’m glad that not all Muslims live according to what their holy text tells them to do. I can find some liberal, secular Muslims out there. But that fact just makes banning the religion out right, even harder to justify.

        We don’t need to ban Islam. We just need to get most Americans to understand the nature of the threat, and than we can do things like put strict limits on immigration from Muslim countries (at least until they voluntarily give up jihad and sharia) and kick out Muslim immigrants who demand sharia and or won’t live by our laws. Educating our fellow non Muslims will do a lot of good. The knowledge alone will also make it much easier to resist their demands.

        Another thing we can and should do is get people to appreciate just how special the west is. Our values are not universal. As John Kenneth Press, the author of Culturism has said, “diversity is real”

        • admin
          November 29, 2010 at 7:00 pm

          Hi,

          I didn’t say to ban it now. Although I am all for a law which bans Sharia. My point was that the Founding Fathers knew what Islam was about, and they still allowed to be practiced here. For what, to show known enemies that we will tolerate them? What they did was the equivalent of Jews inviting a bunch of Nazis into Israel. They made a huge mistake.

          No disrespect intended, but they are not going to stop with their Sharia push. Why should we allow to come here at all? Look at the small percentages they are in European countries, and look at the damage they are doing to Western Civilization.

          You are right knowledge is key is key, but there will always be far too many people that will accommodate them. That is one of the reasons we need to end their immigration.

          • damien
            November 29, 2010 at 7:13 pm

            Admin,

            The founding fathers probably realized how difficult it would be to squire an outright ban of Islam with the idea that people have a right to freedom of religion and freedom of conscious.

            I know that Muslims won’t stop with their sharia push any time soon, that’s why we’ve got to keep resisting them and at the very least put very strict limits on Muslim immigration.

            I’m all for a constitutional amendment specifically banning sharia ban, and I would hope that other free societies would do the same.

            By the way, have you read Culturism?

          • admin
            November 29, 2010 at 7:17 pm

            Damien,

            No I have not read. What does is basically say?

          • damien
            November 29, 2010 at 7:27 pm

            Admin,

            Its a critique of Multiculturalism by John Press. He talks about how our belief in Multiculturalism and universalism endangers the west and he specifically mentions how our unwillingness to defend our historic and unique values make us vulnerable to those that would destroy us, such as Muslim fundamentalists. I don’t entirely agree with what he has to say, but he has some good ideas on how we could fight Islamic encroachment.

            He also has a Culturism blog where he goes by the user name Culturist John.

          • admin
            November 29, 2010 at 7:33 pm

            Sounds like something I might have to pick up, thanks.

            You probably saw this already, but if not….

            (Reuters) – Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society has “utterly failed,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday, adding fuel to a debate over immigration and Islam polarizing her conservative camp.

            http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69F1K320101016

          • damien
            November 29, 2010 at 7:49 pm

            Admin,

            Yes I did, in fact John Press wrote about it on his blog.

            Angela Merkel Rejects Multiculturalism Nearly Embraces Culturism
            http://culturismnews.blogspot.com/2010/11/angela-merkel-rejects-multiculturalism.html

            Thanks anyway through.

            He also has a youtube channel if you are interested.
            http://www.youtube.com/user/CulturistJohn

    • Molly
      November 30, 2010 at 7:42 am

      The judge is really not the problem. The Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmonson sent two incompetent attorney to defend the people. If you want to complain he is the problem. The attorneys did not prepare for the case, had no witnesses and had you been there, you would have been embarrassed. The attorney didn’t even know where to stand to present the case. Drew Edmonson is the one who obviously wanted the amendment defeated. This is not over.

      • eib
        November 30, 2010 at 8:08 am

        We need
        1. good attorneys and
        2. good attorneys to consult with good historians.

  6. November 29, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Good point — Western freedoms in the hands of autocrats are potent weapons.

    This has to end. It won’t, of course, until we reverse DC’s suicidal immigration policies.

    • damien
      November 29, 2010 at 5:28 pm

      Old Rebel,

      I agree. We really need to change our immigration laws and we won’t have to violate the constitution to do that.

      • admin
        November 29, 2010 at 7:03 pm

        Unfortunately I don’t see anyone in our current government, who is even thinking about doing this. Most of them are still living in the “moderate” Muslims are coming to the rescue fantasy. It is not happening.

  7. John
    November 29, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    Sharia law is part if Islam, something no muslim, who supports this lawsuit can deny. Therefore it means all supporters believe that women and children are subject to the will of the male responsible for them. This includes allowing him to beat them or worse for violating their religious beliefs. This is in direct conflict with our legal system and cannot be considered by any court in America when ruling on a case involving a muslim. With all that said why would any Judge side with this suit and approve an injunction?

    • Hajar Logan
      November 30, 2010 at 6:54 am

      WRONG! We respect and live by all American laws that do not contradict individual rights granted us by the Constitution of the United States!

      • eib
        November 30, 2010 at 8:11 am

        How can an American law contradict the individual rights granted by the Constitution?
        Sharia is a law code.
        Islam is a society.
        These are not individuals.
        The individual has rights.
        The community does not.
        The association does not.
        Even the nation, ultimately, does not.
        As an individual, you have the right to not be governed by a medieval law code.
        To ban Sharia is to protect your rights.
        Sharia has no right to exist in this country. It is not an individual.
        It represents nothing but God– and not everyone in America believes in God.
        Unless, of course, you can force us all to submit and believe in God.

        • eib
          November 30, 2010 at 8:11 am

          And that would be . . . unconstitutional.
          The Supreme Court determines if laws are constitutional.
          So let this case go all the way up there.

      • admin
        November 30, 2010 at 8:33 am

        You are not the spokesperson for Muslims in America, and Muslims clearly use the freedoms of America against America. Just like you do here, as you try to whitewash Islam.

        • eib
          November 30, 2010 at 10:56 am

          Very important point. Islam has no hierarchy, and therefore has no spokespeople at all.

      • November 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm

        That is as to when you’re numbers are big enough to overthrow the kuffar system and take over. Isn’t that right, arselifter?

  8. Johnny Blade
    November 29, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    “Further, plaintiff has presented evidence that there is a reasonable probability that Muslims, including plaintiff, will be unable to bring actions in Oklahoma state courts for violations of the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and for violations of their rights under the United States Constitution if those violations are based upon their religion.” <<<<< is there ANY religion with this power? I thought it had to be an issue of law in a courtroom.

  9. debrobeaudean
    November 30, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Over at weaselzippers there is an article about Odinga having police arrest all homosexuals, now that sharia has been written into the new constitution Obama so wanted the Kenyan people to pass…
    When are we going to be told that sharia is already written into the unread bills passed into law the past 22 months?? when are the fools who supported this deceitful stealth jihadist named Obama going to lose their freedom or their lives to sharia?

    • Hajar Logan
      November 30, 2010 at 6:58 am

      there is no stealth jihad.

      • eib
        November 30, 2010 at 8:12 am

        Our primary aim is this:
        the only people we want getting stoned in this country are marijuana smokers.

      • admin
        November 30, 2010 at 8:31 am

        Here is the deal, if you continue to make statements with no proof behind them I will ban you. Your word means nothing here.

      • November 30, 2010 at 12:53 pm

        I hope Chris bans you, arselifter.

  10. debrobeaudean
    November 30, 2010 at 5:52 am

    If Oregon allowed sharia, would the attempted bomber be in any trouble??? sharia allows for the killing of all non muslims… I guess he would have had to set the bomb off at call to prayer to be sure no muslims would be killed.. since under sharia no one could refuse the call to prayer… will someone PLEASE inform these activist judges what sharia law IS???? NO separation of church and state for starters…

    • Hajar Logan
      November 30, 2010 at 6:57 am

      You see this is where the premise of this site does not make any sense. Sharia does not allow Muslims to live in other countries and threaten their very existence.

      • eib
        November 30, 2010 at 8:14 am

        But they do threaten the existence of the West.
        Western Civilization.
        Western Culture.
        These things are not Islam, and will never be.
        You have not read Thucydides.
        You have not read Erasmus.
        You have not studied the Wars of Religion.
        Islam can never be separated from the state. And therefore, cannot exist in a society where religion and state, God and the state, are constitutionally separate.

      • admin
        November 30, 2010 at 8:32 am

        Prove it, and it really does not matter. Because Muslims use the laws of non-Islamic countries to slowly takeover. This can be seen across the West.

      • November 30, 2010 at 12:51 pm

        More damned taqyyia. It’s about Al-Hijra and you know it!!

  11. Pingback: The Moral Liberal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *