Christianity…Is Unconstitutional

Those of you who follow news and politics on a national level are aware that the state of Oklahoma put on November’s ballot State Question 755 for consideration by the citizens of Oklahoma.  The measure passed with overwhelming support, 70.08% in favor of amending the state constitution.  The ballot read as follows:

This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.

International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.

Shall the proposal be approved?

The amendment which was set to take effect, has been prevented by U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange after a lawsuit filed by the Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR) who claim the amendment is unconstitutional.

I am not sure how CAIR is able to bring such a complaint for consideration.  What I mean by this is, I do not see how it can be unconstitutional to explicitly state only U.S. federal, and Oklahoma state laws may be considered in any legal case in the state.  This controversy comes on the heels of a New Jersey judge allowing Sharia law to be considered when a New Jersey judge refused a restraining order to a woman who was raped by her husband after she refused sex with him.  Under Sharia law the husband is permitted to demand sex at any time which the wife is forbidden to refuse.  The decision was appealed and rightly reversed upon review.  The original judge, in support for refusing the restraining order reasoned as follows:

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.

This is exactly the problem the legislature and citizens of Oklahoma are seeking to avoid.  Activist judges venturing outside the parameters of the scope of the law of the land.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor proposed a similar intention when she praised support for the idea that American judges should take into consideration international laws when rendering certain decisions.

What is shocking (well, not really) is that the Oklahoma judge is considering the injunction in favor of potentially allowing the Islamic law to be given weight by judges; but simple displays of Judeo-Christian imagery and text is routinely declared unconstitutional.  Ironically, in June of 2009, a federal court ruled unconstitutional the display of the Ten Commandments at an Oklahoma courthouse.  Apparently a Judeo-Christian display is bad; Islamic Sharia law is good.

It would seem a bias is at play in the American judiciary.  While the U.S. Supreme Court will regularly uphold recognition of Judeo-Christian imagery, it seems to be the lone exception save a sporadic instance of support by a lower court.  Political correctness has leaked into the judiciary.  What could possibly be the driving motivation to consider allowing specific religious law to govern a state court?  It is beyond even my grasp that a judge would entertain the idea that a law other than the enacted state and federal statutes and ordinances to be legally binding.  Perhaps these judges who rule unfavorably to Christianity are trying to send a message, Christianity is unconstitutional.  It might come to pass that the Oklahoma amendment will survive the challenge, if not I can see nothing good coming from this.