CAIR: Following The Constitution Is Unconstitutional

Still believe in democracy? As it turns out, your vote doesn't count. In fact, if you don't like the outcome of an election, all you have to do is file a law suit and have a judge refuse to certify the vote. Such is the case in Oklahoma, where 70.08% of the population who voted answered "yes" on State Question 755. The proposed amendment to the state constitution would forbid judges from considering international law or Sharia law when deciding cases. Why was this amendment so important to the voters? Are people in Oklahoma just a bunch of backward, bigoted hicks? Muneer Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma says, "yes," and he took the measure to court. In his view, it is unconstitutional to force judges to stick to the constitution. He believes the whole thing was put together to foster "Islamophobia." What are we so afraid of? Well, how about S.D. versus M.J.R. in the New Jersey Superior Court? An American judge actually ruled that a man was not guilty of raping his seventeen year-old wife, not because he didn't rape her, but because he was following Sharia Law. The ruling was overturned in appellate court, but the idea that the judge even took that into consideration is horrid. OK State Question 755 was intended to be a firewall, to keep judges from ruling that it's acceptable to beat your wife or stone a homosexual to death based on religious belief. The amendment does not say you can't be a practicing Muslim, nor does it forbid the election or appointment of Muslim judges. All it says is, "stick the constitution." We don't care what the laws are in Poland, Somalia, China, or Iran. This is Oklahoma. Muneer Awad thinks 70% of Oklahoma voters are just bigots, that we're just scared. Well, honestly, there are aspects of Sharia that are pretty scary. I'm not to keen on international law, either, for that matter. Should we toss out our Second Amendment right to bear arms because the English do not have such a guarantee? I say no, and 695,567 other Oklahomans agreed with me. Use international law to decide on treaties, not on whether or not a civil or state measure should pass. As to the matter of religious intolerance, let me remind you again that this is not a First Amendment issue. Oklahoma is not trying to institute a "state religion." If anything, the voters are upholding the so-called "separation of church and state." Whether or not you agree with the amendment, however, the people voted, the amendment passed, and that should be it. Moreover, activist judges should not be allowed to refuse to certify the vote simply because they don't like the outcome. Certify the vote! Then decide on whether you think an amendment to the constitution does not follow the constitution. Now I know there are enough people out there who, no matter what reasoning I give for voting yes on SQ:755, are going to yell, "Bigot! Racist! Islamophobe! Hate Monger!" Really? Is that all you've got? What if the vote had gone the other way, and someone sued in order to deny the will of the voters? Majority Rule, not Judicial Fiat. Otherwise, what is the point of a vote in the first place? Why even bother defending democracy?

I robbed the photo above from http://www.hollywoodandfine.com/reviews/?p=1102

If you care to read it, you can find Oklahoma State Question: 755 here:
https://www.sos.ok.gov/gov/proposed_questions.aspx

Special note to Liberals: Please, do not start in with me on the whole "separation of church and state is in the First Amendment" garbage. That phrase does not exist in the Bill of Rights. I defy you to find it. Do not quote Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, it is irrelevant. I said "so-called separation of church and state," and I meant it. The nation was founded on freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, and I still believe in the Judeo-Christian foundation of our laws and rights. But even if such a thing did exist in our constitution, you should be agreeing with me on this. So give it a rest.