On Nov. 2, 2010, 70 percent of Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment to their state to bar courts from considering or using Shariah law.
It seemed like a sensible thing to do. Who in their right mind, besides a Muslim who didn’t respect America’s own system of jurisprudence, would want to see Saudi-style laws used in this country or in the state of Oklahoma?
It also seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing for Oklahoma voters to weigh in on. After all, their constitution is their business. If they want to rewrite it or amend it, it would seem to be their right.
Yet, last week, another activist federal judge, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, decided she knew better than the people of Oklahoma who had spoken so overwhelmingly in an election.
She found the law in violation of the First Amendment.
Now let me remind you of what the First Amendment actually says. It’s an amendment very near and dear to my heart because it codifies free speech, freedom of the press and religious freedom. Here it is in its entirety: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Do you see anything in there that would suggest Saudi-style Shariah law that inhibits the liberty of women and mandates mutilation punishments for petty crimes and gives Muslims greater freedom than non-Muslims and promotes polygamy should be practiced or observed or honored in U.S. courtrooms?
In fact, just the opposite is true.
This judge claimed the popular vote in Oklahoma was in violation of the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment, which prohibits the imposition of a particular religion by giving it state preference. But what the judge is suggesting is that Oklahoma must consider Shariah law in its courtrooms.
This is insanity. It’s un-American. It’s turning the Constitution on its head.
In America we govern ourselves with our own laws – not oppressive ideas brought here by foreigners. There are plenty of places to live in the world if you want to live under Shariah law. There is only one America.
Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, why is a federal judge even involved in deciding what the people of Oklahoma do with their Constitution? America is supposed to be a nation governed by the rule of law and the will of the people. The laws are supposed to be made by the legislative branch of government. The states are supposed to be sovereign republics and commonwealths, their political destiny in the hands of the people of those states.
Far too often, these days, we are seeing activist federal judges, most of whom are merely political appointees, unelected and unaccountable, overturning the will of the people and perverting the clear meaning of the Constitution in doing so.
It happened in California where the people did something as simple as define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. That was successfully overturned by one homosexual federal judge who should have recused himself as a self-interested party. I don’t know what motivates Ms. Mile-LaGrange, but I would suggest to her that if she likes Shariah law, she ought to move to Saudi Arabia. What is she doing in America? Does she want wife-beaters to get off because women are second-class citizens under Shariah? Does she want Muslims treated preferentially in U.S. courtrooms? Would she like to see thieves’ hands chopped off? Would she like to see beheading become the preferred form of punishment for capital crimes?
Or maybe she’s just one of those America-hating legal activists dreaming of sowing confusion and chaos through the land and disempowering the populace.
I doubt she will give me an interview. But I would welcome the opportunity – especially as the descendant of people who fled the Muslim Middle East for freedom here in America.
One more thing: These radical activist judges are always preaching “separation of church and state” to keep the Ten Commandments out of schools. They preach against teaching abstinence because it’s a religious idea founded in Judaism and Christianity. They use this self-same “establishment clause” to do it – keeping anything that smacks of biblical ideas out of government education.
Now the shoe is on the other foot with Islam crying foul, and the same judges are caving like the Twin Towers.
Maybe it’s time for us to call for separation of mosque and state.