I think the message to observant Muslims is that Oklahomans do not want
Muslim religious law in Oklahoma. That might well be seen as offensive by such
Muslims, and it may well violate the First Amendment, but it is a somewhat
different message from that Muslims aren't wanted in the state (just as the
message "we don't want Christian precepts considered by secular courts" is a
different message from "observant Christians not wanted here"). Among other
things, many critics of Sharia law argue -- quite sincerely, I suspect -- that
most of the victims of the unsound features of Sharia law are themselves
Muslims.
But in any event, the question remains: Does plaintiff, under existing
standing doctrine, have standing to challenge the law, whatever message the law
may send? I'm skeptical that this is so.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of ste...@ajc.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:32 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law"
>
> It is no doubt possible for lawyers to read the amendment in ways that
> reduce its legal significance so that it is immune or near immune to
> challenge.but this is to distort the sociological meaning of the amendment
> whose plain message is observant muslims are not wanted here.Allowing
> states or cities ( as in catholic league) to announce that a particular
> religion
> or doctrine is unwelcome is not a development to be welcomed or for that
> matter tolerated by theories of standing that ignore real and intended
> injuries .
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu>
> Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:20:41
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
> Subject: RE: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law"
>
> I agree; and I take it that nothing in the Oklahoma amendment
> would invalidate such a contract enforced according to neutral principles of
> law, either.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:11 PM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > Subject: RE: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law"
> >
> >
> > An analogy would be a religious wedding contract that a court enforces (or
> > doesn't) according to neutral principles of law. The fact that there are
> > also
> > religious elements in the text of the contract (e.g. a quotation from sacred
> > text, invocation of a deity) does not invalidate it. Some of the mahr cases
> > have worked out that way.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-
> > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> > [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:45 PM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > Subject: RE: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law"
> >
> > Well, if indeed the theory is that the court is not really
> > deciding
> > what Sharia law calls for, but just what the testator wanted, then I agree
> > there might not be a First Amendment problem - but then I'm not sure
> that
> > the amendment would ban the consideration of such testimony. On the
> > other hand, if the court tries to figure out what the testator wanted by
> > determining what Sharia law calls for, then the amendment would bar
> such
> > a consideration, but so would the First Amendment.
> >
> > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:40 PM
> > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject: Re: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law"
> >
> > I agree there is a potential problem with a court interpreting Sharia law
> and
> > he would do better to revise his will, BUT if the question in will
> > interpretation is what he intended, I would think his intent is a fact
> > question, and there could be testimony regarding what he believed, not
> > what Muslims should believe. That would get around the prohibition on
> > judicial determination of religious beliefs.
> >
> > Marci
> >
> > In a message dated 11/10/2010 2:38:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > vol...@law.ucla.edu writes:
> > The second is the they-can't-probate-my-will theory; but the problem
> > with that, I think, is that a secular court already can't try to interpret
> > Sharia
> > law - or Mosaic law or the Bible or any other religious authority - in
> > interpreting a will, deed, or contract. So again the plaintiff is
> > suffering no
> > tangible harm from the existence of the law, it seems to me.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.
> > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
> people
> > can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
> forward
> > the messages to others.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people
> can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward
> the messages to others.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people
> can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward
> the messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
