Oklahoma: Opposing sharia is "discriminatory and unnecessary?"

To hell in a handbasket:

This ruling has come because of Leftist judges who don’t know anything about Sharia and have swallowed the smooth deceptions of Islamic supremacist groups like Hamas-linked CAIR, but it can also be attributed to the fact that the laws themselves have not been focused properly. Americans want to outlaw the elements of Sharia that interfere with Constitutionally protected freedoms, not Islam as an individual religious practice, but in response, Islamic supremacists claim that Muslim religious freedom will be infringed upon.

Porky’s got it right:

The point has to be made that these anti-Sharia measures are aimed at political Islam, an authoritarian ideology at variance with the Constitution in numerous particulars — notably, in its denial of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims. But unfortunately, even many of the proponents of these measures are unable to make this case effectively.

“Court Upholds Ruling Blocking Oklahoma Sharia and International Law Ban,” from the ACLU, January 10 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

DENVER, CO – A federal appeals court today unanimously upheld a ruling that blocked implementation of a discriminatory and unnecessary Oklahoma state constitutional amendment that would have prohibited state courts from considering what is broadly described as Islamic “Sharia law” and “international law.”

The court concluded that by singling out Islam for unfavorable treatment in state courts, the law likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court rejected the state’s argument that the constitutional amendment was necessary to protect against improper application of Sharia law, explaining:

“Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted . . . that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) challenged the amendment on behalf of Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter.

“As the court recognized, this amendment did nothing more than target one faith for official condemnation,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Even the state admits that there has never been any problem with Oklahoma courts wrongly applying religious law. The so-called ‘Save Our State Amendment’ was a solution in search of a problem, and a blatantly discriminatory solution at that.”

“No one in Oklahoma deserves to be treated like a second-class citizen,” said Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. “This proposed amendment was an affront to the Constitution and everything it stands for.”…