A Win for Freedom! Hooray!

A win for religious freedom and a blow striking down the efforts of the Un-American Islamophobes who would prefer to force the nation to be a Christian theocracy.  The religious right is our own version of the Taliban in significant respects, including those like Gingrich who do not recognize us as a secular society made up of many religions and agnosticism and atheism. 

The people who pursue and support legislation like this would in reality desecrate our freedom far more seriously than measures like gun regulation.  The same is true of those who would limit voting privileges by requiring ID where there is no significant instance of voter fraud, particularly of the kind where someone votes twice, or misrepresents who they are to do so.  The same Un-American assault on freedom applies to those who promulgate the Arizona-pioneered 'papers please' legislation.

Despite offending the right wing extremists among us, the courts upheld our freedom. It is the efforts by the right wingers that are most seriously eroding our freedom in this country, to try to appease their rampant paranoia.  I look forward to seeing more of these decisions.

Maybe some of the gun nuts should consider a conversion, joining instead of fighting Sharia law.  Then they could claim religious privilege under Sharia law to justify their firearm fetishes!

Federal court deals blow to anti-Shariah efforts

By Kari Huus, msnbc.com.

In a decision that Muslim legal advocates celebrated as a major win, a federal appeals court on Tuesday agreed with a lower court that blocked an Oklahoma law that would have barred state courts from considering or using Shariah law — the Islamic code of conduct.
The law would likely dampen similar legislation proposed in at least 20 U.S. states over the last couple of years, said Noah Feldman, professor of law at Harvard University.
The decision “should have a good, positive, desirable chilling effect,” said Feldman. “It should tell people in those jurisdictions that (similar laws) almost all will be judged unconstitutional.”
In the November 2010 election, Oklahomans voted overwhelmingly for referendum SQ 755 — described by its author, Rep. Rex Duncan, as “a preemptive strike against Sharia Law coming to Oklahoma.”
The amendment stated that: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."
Muslim challenged law
A lawsuit filed two days after the election by Oklahoma resident Muneer Awad, a Muslim, charged that the law violated his First Amendment rights. In addition to stigmatizing him and other Muslims, Awad argued, the amendment would invalidate his last will and testament, which made reference to Islamic writings.
A federal judge in Oklahoma agreed that the amendment was most likely unconstitutional and granted a permanent injunction preventing its implementation until a final determination could be made.
On Tuesday, a judge for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colo., agreed with the lower court and upheld the injunction — rejecting an appeal by the state of Oklahoma.
“Because the amendment discriminates among religions, it is 'suspect,'" the higher court ruled, "and 'we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality.’”
The case returns to Oklahoma for a final determination, but the circuit court decision was met with enthusiasm by Muslim civil rights advocates.
“The decision today is an extremely strong signal that the Oklahoma anti-Muslim amendment will be stricken,” said Gadeir Abbas, staff attorney for the Council on American Islamic Relations, who wrote the lawsuit.
“It’s not as if the 10th circuit is a bastion of left-wing activism,” he said. “This is coming from a very conservative court … It is unequivocal that there are really serious, very clear violations of the constitution that this amendment poses.”
Problem doesn't exist, lawyer saysAlthough Islam’s detractors suggest that “creeping sharia,” left unchecked, will undermine U.S. freedoms, Feldman says that these laws play on fears of a problem that does not exist.
“The Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of every state -- that is 51 constitutions -- already make it illegal to implement Islamic law,” said Feldman. “Just as Jewish law can’t be the law of the United States, and canon law can’t be the law of the United States, shariah law can’t be the law of the United States.”
“It’s like a law that says we absolutely ban alligators on the South Pole,” he said.
On one hand, the court can consider the Islamic passage referred to by plaintiff Awad in his last will and testament, as a means of ascertaining his wishes.
On the other hand, if his wishes somehow run afoul of U.S. laws — regardless of his personal wishes — then the court will rule them a violation of law.
The final disposition of the case remains uncertain, but this decision strongly suggests the Oklahoma law ultimately will be defeated.
Most lawyers will see the 10th Circuit Court ruling as a “dog bites man story, not the other way around” Feldman said, showing that “the constitution works the way it is supposed to.”