Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
...So now it is unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments or a cross in a courtroom or any public space, but it is also unconstitutional to bar islamic sharia "law." Both edicts flow from the supposed constitutional requirement not to marginalize...someone, whom I'm not quite sure.
If sharia is a religious concept, then I don't see why it shouldn't be excluded from courtrooms just as our Christian symbols are. Isn't forcing its inclusion the "establishment of religion?" Don't Christians, Jews and atheists have the right to say in a democracy that they prefer not to be judged under the harsh and unfair doctrine of sharia law?
And if it isn't religion but is law, then why doesn't the state of Oklahoma have the right to define what is and isn't the governing legal standard? If Oklahoma voted that the law of France would not be applied, is that also a violation of the Constitution? Or do the french now have less rights than muslims?
It's all very baffling, at least from a legal perspective. Viewed through the perverse lens of PC world however, it makes perfect sense. Muslims have somehow achieved PC nirvana, ie recognition as an officially protected PC class, right up there with blacks, illegal immigrants and gays. The rest of us must now cater to their every demand, no matter how outrageous. It's the law or what passes for the law these days.
I'm with him.
