Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Judge Rules against Oklahoma law (Post #26)

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Supreme Court has ruled that states as well cannot pass laws that violate the 1st Amendment.

On Nov. 2, Okalhoma voters passed SQ755 (similar to our propositions) by a vote of 70 to 30 percent.  The slogan of "Save Our State" was used by supporters for the law which would require Oklahoma courts to "rely on federal and state law when deciding cases" and "forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

A Federal judge has issued a permanant injunction (stop) against the law that you can read about in this article.  Sharia law is used in many muslim countries and many of its aspects violate federal and state laws.  Politicians in Oklahoma are upset by the ruling and many claims are being made by both sides of the issue.  The U.S. Supreme Court could eventually hear the case.

The questions are:
Can religion currently be used as an excuse to break laws that by themselves do not discrimnate against religions? (for example: polygamy, drug use, rape)
Can states pass laws that target a particular religion?
What was the purpose of this law in Oklahoma?  Was it necessary to pass?  Are you surprised that voters passed it?
Do you believe the law violates the first amendment and why?
If the law is not a violation, what kind of precedent does it create for other states?

Post your responses by 8:00AM Friday

123 comments:

  1. Well, laws are laws, and they need to be followed. This New Jersey womans case is an unfortunate one, and the first judge presiding the case was wrong: this woman was forced in to a sexual act, therefor, it is rape. It isn't right that this religion was targeted, that sounds alot like "bullying: a religion. That's not okay. I could understand why the voters in Oklahoma passed the law: a woman was raped and the laws regarding that werent enforced, they didn't want this to happen to their citizens. But we need to abide the Constitution, and this law violated it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Olivia, states pass laws for a reason. However, they shouldnt target a specific group, but they also shouldnt grant them a double standard of the law. I was not suprised that OKLA passed this proposition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Vicente Chavez
    Mr.Sloan per.5th
    I agree with Olivia as well and I think that they shouldn't jusT target one religion. Also that if according to a religion for example rape if that is permitted in a ertain religion it still shud be a crime to do so in the United States because rape is a crime. Also I think it does violate the first amendment because it takes some of the peoples rights away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. kayla rodriguez sloan5November 30, 2010 at 11:00 PM

    i believe that laws are passed so that we have a safe and secure country to live in. if we are leniant with one group, it isnt fair. if they choose to live here and be "free" they still need to follow our laws.rape is neverrrrr acceptable so idk why religion would make it okay. i guess im not too surprised that oklahoma passed this proposition, but i am surprised that if was a huge deficit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am surprised that this law passed because it really isn't necessary. I also don't believe that one group should be targeted more than another because it does violate the first amendment. It also isn't fair if one religion can get away with certain things and another religion can't. I believe this law is not equal but, hey, it's a law and people have no choice but to follow it. 

    Mr.Sloan 
    Victor Alvarez 
    Pd5

    ReplyDelete
  6. kevin Krivda, Bauer P1
    Like everyone else, I too am not surprised this passed in oklahoma and with two republicans as represenatives. Like always, I firmly bleieve in states rights and so it should rightly be left up to Oklahoma. No religion should be singled out and religion issues are springing up in many states now (i.e Tennessee and New York). However, its the law now so it has to be followed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unfortunately, I do not see why Oklahoma had tried to passed this law with just stating no islamic, if no religion is allowed to be used within the courts or any other governmental aspect of the economy, such as promoting it or demoting it in any way, than it is just that. No single religion should be used. Who is to say that Oklahoma, being apart and somewhat representing the united states is or isnt meaning something terribly offensive towards the religion, but the truth of the matter is pin pointing them out in the first place is wrong. It having been passed disapoints me and personally i am glad not to be living in the state of Oklahoma, (no i am not stating it is a horrible state, just not my own personal beliefs and views on its laws TYVM)
    Joeliane Muegge, Mr. Sloan P.5

    ReplyDelete
  8. i don't think a religion can be used to excuse something as bad as rape, but polygamy and drug use i think can be allowed. like Indians and peyote, and Utah Mormons and their many wives (respectively).

    i am not surprised the law passed, separation of church and state should be maintained.

    i do not believe it violates the first amendment, because it does not affect the religion at all, all it does is separate church and state.

    the precedent it creates is that some actions can be taken to SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Maria Schmidt, Bauer, Per 5December 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM

    I am not entirely surprised that the people of Oklahoma passed this proposition by such a large margin. Like others have said, you can't have a double standard and be lenient towards one religion. As far as religion being used to break laws, I think it depends on the situation, but now thinking about it that seems contradictory. I guess I would have to say that a law is a law and it needs to be followed no matter your religion. Like Kayla said, I don't know what religion sees rape as acceptable;In my opinion it is never acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ok so they can choose not to follow the first amendment and say no you dont have the right for this or that?! Well they are completely wrong. That is a law and all have to be followed, lets say we cant kill other people but some crazy moron says hey the disobey the law why cant i? Then the guy commits murder. LAWS ARE LAWS PEOPLE!
    RENE BONILLA
    BAUER 4TH
    AP. GOV

    ReplyDelete
  11. Religion should not grant a person the ability to use it as an excuse when accused of a crime. States cannot pass laws that discriminate against certain religion as stated in 1st Amendment. The purpose of the law was to basically get rid of Islamic religions in Oklahoma, which I was surprised that passed because one would think that people have changed and have come to learn how to accept different cultures, obviously not in Oklahoma. The law is certainly a violation of the first amendment and should be rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Emily Staab Bauer Period 2 :)December 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM

    I think that there needs to be a seperation between church and state. A law is a law and it should be followed no mater what. I don't think that states could pass a law directed at one religion without having those poeple in outrage. I also agree with Kayla. I can not think of any religion that sees rape as ok. And yes, you should be proud to be whatever religion you are and be proud to stand up for what you believe in, but don't use it as an excuse to why you broke the law.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Alex Matedne

    I thnk that oklahoma had no right passing a law like this, especially if it goes against the basis of our country. I do believe that this is violating the law of separation of church and stats.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Religion can be an excuse to break laws in some cases. These cases do not extend to such things as rape or theft; that should not be permitted no matter what. Things such as polygamy or not participating in some function do no harm to the public and should be allowed to be carried out under religious protection.

    States can pass laws that target a religion as long as it does not restrict the citizens pfrom practicing it or make the religion in question part of the government in any way shape or form.

    The purpose of the law was to ensure that Islamic values are not forced on or used in American society. It could be necessary depending on the circumstances. I am not surprised it passed.

    The law is not a violation because it does not restrict any citizen(s) from practicing Islam. It actually is in harmony with the 1st amendment because it keeps religion and Government separate.

    I see no precedent created.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am not surprised that this law was passed. I also agree that rape should never be okay, so why would a religion think it is okay. The purpose of this law was to ensure that the Islamic religion will not ever be used in the American Society. Laws are passed for a reason and they should always be followed.

    Melissa Quezada
    Mr. Bauer
    P.2

    ReplyDelete
  16. I dont think any law should be broken but targeting a specific religion is not the way to go either because it would be like targeting a specific group of people. Im not sure if the law was neccesary to pass because there are many claims on both sides of the case.

    Clarisa Carrillo
    per.4
    sloan government

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am not surprised that the state passed the law, Rape should not be excused because a religion allows it. Cases are to be followed laws previously established however these laws are not to single out a specific religion. Sloan p3

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nathalie Trevino; A. Bauer period1December 1, 2010 at 8:18 PM

    Religion itself should not be some evil thing that encourages, or even permits harm to other individuals. If some religions see it necessary to do out of the norm things, fine, as long as they're not extremely out of line,but never should religion be an excuse to hurt someone or their property. However, I do not feel it is ok to target one religion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I dont think that you could brake rules just because of your religion rules are to be followed no matter what.I am supriced that voters passed this law i dont think it was necessary to be passed and it does violate the first amendment because its takeing the people rights.Also i think that it wouldnt be fair if one group would have different advantages then another religious group.

    Tania Hinojosa
    MR.SLOAN
    P5

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, I dont think they should have pass the law cause its in 1st amendment about religion. I think states shouldnt use religions words or anything that is kinda disappointing. Rules are Rules but still its not right to use other people words or religious beliefs.
    Sania BAcha
    Bauer, P3

    ReplyDelete
  21. Religion should not be used as an excuse to break the law or cause harm to others. States should not pass laws that target any specific group because that would be discrimination. This law did not need to pass in Oklahoma, but I understand that it was intended to help people such as the woman that was raped.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The laws should be fallowed as set with a few exceptions. For instance if you are a hard core religious person, then they should allow small offenses such as polygamy and so forth. Once rape and more serious actions are taken, they should enforce the law regardless because as a CITIZEN you should have to oblige to all laws.

    Michael Robles, Bauer per 3

    ReplyDelete
  23. Emily Geiszler, Bauer, Period 4December 1, 2010 at 10:23 PM

    States should not be allowed to discriminate when it comes to religion. It would be creating a law that goes against the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they want religiously, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be charged for certain crimes just because their religion says it is okay. The law is the law, it was put there for a reason and there shouldn't be any exceptions because if you make one exception, others want to be treated that way as well. If the government decides to say that if your religion recognizes drug use as a normal part of daily activity then it's not illegal, well how many pot smokers and heroin addicts and junkies will try to say they are a part of a religion that recognizes drug use. Looking past something like that would not be good for our country.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Josh Agans, Bauer P.5December 1, 2010 at 11:05 PM

    i do not think religion should be used as an excuse to break the law. i also think it is very unfair for states to pass laws that target a specific group. that is very wrong in my opinion. i think OKLA passed this so no one got away with any crimes like rape. i am not surprised they passed this law. yes i think it does violate the first amendment, but that didnt change the people's minds.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Steven Reichmuth, Bauer, period 2December 2, 2010 at 12:20 AM

    Oklahoma didn't even need to pass a new law for this. Religion and Goverment should be kept separate. Seems to me that where ever these muslims go they ecpect the country or place their at to be complient to their religion. This just can't work that way however, look at their glorious home countries...those are doing real well eh? There constantly fighting and have been for years. What are those goverments based off of....religion!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I dont believe that any laws should "target" a religion, but i dont believe it is right to take away that law from the okies especially since it passed by a large margin. religion and government should be seperate and the govt shouldnt be greatly involved unless for some support.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The first amendment states that people have the freedom of religion, meaning that a religion cannot be forced onto someone and that there is no one main religion. The separation of church and state make it clear that no sort of religion is to used in the Constitution and therefore I think a law cannot be excused due to a religious belief. This also means that laws should not target a particular religion since it is considered discrimination and disregards all first amendment rights of citizens.

    Devin Smith, Mr. Bauer, P.1.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Spencer PellandiniDecember 2, 2010 at 1:37 PM

    It did not surprise me that the people of Oklahoma passed this proposition by such a large margin. There should be no such thing as a double standard or being lenient towards one religion. Using religion to get away with rape is crazy, no matter what your religion is rape is not okay and religion should never make it okay. I believe a law is a law and it needs to be followed by everyone no matter what your religion is. I don't know what religion would ever see rape as acceptable, it is never acceptable.

    Spencer Pellandini
    Soan
    P.1

    ReplyDelete
  29. I do not believe it is right for a state to make a law against a certain group of people or religion, they are free to practice any religion they wish to, it is specifically stated in the constitution. i believe that oklahoma has this law put in place for a purpose, but the law violates the constitution and therefor it cannot be passed.

    Trista Dowdy
    Sloan per.5

    ReplyDelete
  30. no religion makes crimes like rape ok...laws is laws...(yes i know it should be 'are'). It may fall under the religious rights column but it contradicts with human saftey. so obviously, there should be no discussion about this...
    Samantha White
    Sloan per.5

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cierra Gonsalves, Mr. Bauer, Period 2December 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM

    I don't believe that religion should be an excuse to break certain laws, even though some people do believe in specific teachings and way of life, the law should always be followed, not only to maintain order, but also to keep the people of the United States safe. States shouldn't have to pass laws that target a particular religion because its mandatory that obvious rules are followed. The purpose of the law in Oklahoma was to forbid state courts from using religious ideals to decide laws. In some ways the law may have been necessary to pass to prevent corruption among citizens. I don't believe that the law violates the first amendment because you can believe in whatever you want but in the end no religions beliefs will add up to the control of the law. And I don't recall any religion that allows you to beat and rape your wife, so yeah...

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't think that it's okay for people to break the law just because it's their religion they should have to follow the law just like everyone else. Sloan per 1

    ReplyDelete
  33. Everyone else that says that laws are laws and that they should be followed is right. But that doesnt mean that they cant be bent or broken.Thats what teachers do sometimes with tests, they make them curve. Why? so students can have better grades and it benefits everyone. Thats what i think is what happened in Oklahoma, its not that theyre trying to target a certain religion,and that the law violates the first amendment but they have to pass certain things that sometimes go against peoples religion in for the good and benefits of the citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  34. TO START OFF I BELIEVE THAT RELIGION SHOULD NOT BE ENTANGLED WITH THE LAW OR THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE TWO SEPERATE AND PRIVATE THINGS THAT ARE PERSONAL. RELIGION SHOULD BE NO HARM TO OTHERS BUT IF THEY DO HARM THEN THE RELIGION SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE CAUSE.

    ReplyDelete
  35. People should follow the law because it is the law and people have to follow it or they can get in trouble. I think everyone should follow the law, not certain people. Because no matter the law everyone is permitted to follow it. If one group was seperated then it would not be fair to others and to themselves. No religion should be segregated.
    Tori Milligan
    Slaon per. 3

    ReplyDelete
  36. I firmly believe that religion should never be a factor when making important political decisions, and shouldn't be integrated into politics at all. That being said, I do believe that the Oklahoma measure does violate the 1st amendment, as it is taking away someone's right to practice their religion. HOWEVER, religious beliefs are NEVER an excuse to break the law.

    Brian S.
    Per. 4 Sloan

    ReplyDelete
  37. I do not believe this law is necesary because American laws should be the only laws that are followed in American court. However, the fact that one judge believe that we should override our laws due to the teachings of one religion is frightening, so it does not surprise me that it passed. I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to break the law, even for religious purposes. A law is a law, and you must follow them, or else it would be discrimination against people of every other religion, because they are not allowed to do what the followers of another religion does.
    Bauer per. 1
    Sloan per. 3

    ReplyDelete
  38. The Government will sometimes ignore breaking a law when practiceing religon is the means for doing so... I i dont know why the people of Oklahoma passed this law, probably because there scared of some muslim extremeist finding a loop hole in there law. I just think the people of oklahoma are mostly ill informed and stuck in old souther ways.
    jake beilby

    ReplyDelete
  39. I believe that this law should not have been passed. It violates our amendment to practice our own religion. If this continues then our whole country will be run by this. This also leads to discrimination because of religion. Just because someone is muslim, and is practicing their religion, they automatically should be imprisoned? I don't believe so. Although, the courts should take in consideration the religion of the person that's being accused of whatever crime they committed if they're saying their religion is what allows them to do whatever they're doing.
    Stephanie Romero
    Period 3
    Bauer

    ReplyDelete
  40. A law shouldn't target a specific religion, but then again each state is able to pass laws that are different from all other states.

    Guadalupe Velasquez
    Sloan, Period 1.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Omar Delgado sloan per 4December 2, 2010 at 5:42 PM

    there has been times when people have tried to use religion to break the law. for examle, some religions had customs were it was necessary to smoke pot for some special occation. i forgot what religion it was but i beleive if its not hurting anyone it should be allowed. now in the case were the woman was raped, she unwillingly was raped therefore it caused her harm. she doesnt have to agree to sexual activity because of some religion. i was shocked to beleive a judge ruled against the smoking religion and not the religion were the woman was raped. its like saying its ok to murder someone one once a year because the religion demanded it. maybe the judge was just evil or sumthing. but yea, to place my point, relious acts that break the law should only be excused from punishment if they are doing no harm to people.

    ReplyDelete
  42. i honestly believe keeping religion out of court is a great idea but to target a specific culture and there religion is a no no in my book. I stil dnt agree to the fact that the man was let go and his reason justified by the court due to the nature of his relgion. If it is a crime its a crime no matter where or what religion u belong too.
    Francisco Gonzalez
    Mr.bauer p 2

    ReplyDelete
  43. My opinion is that the state of Oklahoma is going to struggle in law and with it's people. The state might even hear from the Supreme Court, you can't put law over religion.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I don't think religion should be allowed to be used as an excuse to break certain laws. Constitutional law should be highest and most respected. According to the 1st Amendment no one can pass a law targeting a certain religion. The purpose was to create a justice system that relies only on federal and state law. I think it's only necessary to pass if Muslim law had been used before and didn't have a good outcome. I'm not so suprised that any state would do so, but the state I think would be most likely to do so is New York. The law doesn't really violate the 1st amendment because it doesn't prohibit the free exercise of a religion, becuase religion is supposed to be seperated from state. What the law is against shouldn't even be a problem unless the court is violatig the 1st amendment by basically establishing a religion.

    Melody Morphis
    Mr. Sloan
    per. 1

    ReplyDelete
  45. Religon shouldn't be used to break any law, the constitution even says in the establishment clause no religion shall be incorporated into the law. That means even in the interpertaion process no religion should be incorporated. However no state shold target a religion, if the Oklahoma law is to hold up i believe it should state courts can only "rely on federal and state law" not specifying any law such as Islamic or international law.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Criminal acts should not go unpunished even if someone says they have the religious right to perform them. The fact that the law targeted a specific religious group goes against the Constitution, but letting the guy go without punishment would be against the law. In certain crimes, religion should not be a factor of defense, no matter what religion, if it takes away from the rights of another citizen. Bauer/Sloan

    ReplyDelete
  47. first of all i dont think that a court should rule in favor someone who uses religion as an excuse for rape. thats ridiculous. but it is also a violation of the 1st amendment to pass that law in Oklahoma. seems pretty discrimminating to me.
    ~~brooke fletcher:)
    mr. bauer
    period 2

    ReplyDelete
  48. I dont think that religion can currently be used as an excuse to break laws that even by themselves do not discriminate against religions. Everyone should follow the same laws, thats why theyre made for people to follow, no matter the type of religion one is or isnt. States shouldnt pass laws that targef a particular religion, that in my opinion violates the same law. Its like favoring one religion over another.

    Sloan period onee.
    Adilene Vazquez

    ReplyDelete
  49. Chelsea Ray, Sloan p.1December 2, 2010 at 7:24 PM

    I dont think that religion should be an excuse for breaking the law. This law breaks the 1st amendment because they didnt do anything to the guy that raped his wife. It doesnt surprise me in the least that Oklahoma passed this.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Laws are made to not be broken by any means. I do not believe that religion should be used as an excuse to break laws, but also, states cannot pass laws that would target a particular religion either. The purpose of the law in Oklahoma was to follow other U.S. laws, in my opinion, which doesn't necessarily harm specific religions. If we allowed that religion to be allowed, it should go the same for all religion, but that is not the case. Laws against religion should be allowed. If people want to do what they "believe in," they should go back to their country.

    Chrissy Vue
    Sloan
    Period 3

    ReplyDelete
  51. i think that the states should be able to make laws that restrict criminal acts even if its part of a religon. if its not legal in a state it should not be legal for those who claim that its part of their religon.
    monica salazar
    mr.sloan

    ReplyDelete
  52. brenda anguiano
    Mr. Bauer P4
    I believe that oklahoma is not right to target a specific group but that the man should not be allowed to avoid consequences for his actions by calling it religion. i believe freedoms are not to be denied unless they "endanger the life or physical safety of any individual" as stated in the Freedom of Information Act. This would have allowed the woman to get justice by saying it endengers her mind and physical life.

    ReplyDelete
  53. No matter what religion someone is, they should not be allowed to do something that is against our laws. This particular law however, clearly does violate the 1st amendment by targeting Sharia law. Maybe if it encompassed religious laws in general, those who opposed it would be appeased.

    ReplyDelete
  54. what the heck? why is it even necessary that they pass a law saying that they only use US law when making decisions? this is america! we use american laws. you cannot excuse someone from an act just because it's legal in some other country. am i misunderstanding this? it's like saying "from now on, english classes are only allowed to test students and the english language." it should not be necessary.

    church and state need to stay separate. this law separates church and state. it does not unconstitutionally respect any one religion

    ReplyDelete
  55. Maria Perez
    Sloan
    Per. 4
    I believe that religion can't be an excuse to break laws because religious beliefs and don't have to do anything with their actions even if they believe in a certain religion. I think that a state can't pass laws that target a particular religion because it would not be fair for that religion, since there is many different religions, in one state. The purpose of the law in Oklahoma is to require Oklahoma courts to "rely on federal and state law when deciding cases" and "forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia. I think that this law violates the first amendment because the first amendment is defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Miriam Bejines Mr.Sloan P.5December 2, 2010 at 8:17 PM

    I think that this law does violate the first amendment because it says that no law can be specific to any kind of religion and Oklahoma's law IS unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Why are polygamy, mutilation, virgin sacrifice, and other bizarre religious practices illegal in the United States? What makes this case any different? This just shows the weakness of America. We are bending over backwards for Islam. Whether it is security checks at the airport, or the construction of mosques near sensitive sites, Americans are sick of this ever expanding religious faction.

    State Question 755 is absolutely constitutional.
    (Sloan P.3/Bauer P.4)

    ReplyDelete
  58. i think a state law should only be outlawed is when it violates human right or the majority or a majority minority group.
    veronica iniguez
    SLOAN p1

    ReplyDelete
  59. i think that the laws shouldnt be broken but when it comes to something reasonable like if a religion were to kill or rape that shouldnt be allowed. its not right. i also think that it is not fair that they target one religion.
    erika oropeza
    mr. sloan
    p.4

    ReplyDelete
  60. karina ramos mr sloan period 1

    in my opinion i believe that a law is a law.i really dont think any law harms religions or peoples beliefs.i think that if people want to follow their beliefs they should do it under the legal ways where it is not unconstitutional.
    i also believe that the government and religion should not be tangeled. religion is a big part of our society but since we live in this country we have to follow the laws or else...
    most likley you will be in big trouble. ")

    ReplyDelete
  61. It is not surprising that the law was passed; there is a lot of anti-Islamic sentiment in the U.S. I do not think it is fair that the law targets Islam; however i dont think that religion should be an excuse to comit brutal crimes.

    omar hoyos

    ReplyDelete
  62. it is evident that religion and law has always been a contreversi. states have had debates as to waht should be excepted as religious and made laws to put some limits. as states can make their individual right they have the right to decide if they want to accnowlege international laws, but groups should not be targated. the constitution should not be violated and this law fals in that catigory.
    alondramunoz
    sloan p.5

    ReplyDelete
  63. i believe in the freedom of religion, but just because a certain act is classified as "religious" doesnt mean it should be permitted. polygamy is against the law, you cannot do illegal drugs based on your religion. i believe that there is a compromis here. oklahoma has a point, rape should not be protected in anyway by religion. i dont believe in targeting a religion, but no laws should be broken in the name of that religiom.

    ReplyDelete
  64. mallory lemieux mr. sloan pd.4December 2, 2010 at 8:59 PM

    i think that laws are passed to keep are country safe and continue to let us be free, and if we let one relegious groups have a greater influence, then thats not right. nobody in this country should ever be able to break a law just because they say its part of there relegion!

    ReplyDelete
  65. The law passed in Oklahoma does not prevent Muslims from practicing their religion, it simply seeks to eliminate possible excuses and justifications for breaking the law. Muslims were probably specifically targeted in this case because the state has had prior issues with Islamic law being a justification for crime. So, instead of creating an ambiguously phrased law, they passed one that specifically dealt with an issue that has previously caused conflict

    ReplyDelete
  66. no law should be broken because of a religion, that is just another excuse to pass a law.
    kimberlie hernandez
    sloan p.4

    ReplyDelete
  67. Cristian Garcia period 3 BauerDecember 2, 2010 at 9:21 PM

    People have the right to practice their religious freedom because that is what the first amendment right states. But there is a point where the U.S. should draw the line as in when someone complains or fights to change there lives.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I think that some people may be using the freedom of religion to make an excuse for things such as poligomy. Also I dont think the government should be able to make laws that target a certain religion, it just isnt fair. Also I think the law passed in Oaklahoma is not acceptable to be passed.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I do not think that religion should be an excuse to do things that illegal. However I don't think it's ok to target a specific religion for certain acts but should make it official for all religions not to practice illegal things. The purpose of the Oklahoma Law was to get rid of the Sharia religion. I don't think it should've been passed because there are ways to prevent people from doing illegal things besides getting rid of their religion. I am not suprised that the voters passed the law because it's understandable that some would be annoyed, however i think there are other ways to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Janeiry Balderas, Mr. Sloan, Period 4December 2, 2010 at 9:31 PM

    Though people do have freedom of religion, i do not believe that they can use their religion to brake the law. Technically no state can make a law that targets a certain religion, in any case it is the federal law that must do this. As mentioned we have the 1st amendment which limits what the government may do and what it can not. Oklahoma may think that they are doing what is in their best interest but what they have passed may not be legal and will only cause problems between them and the federal government.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Danielle Smith, Sloan P1December 2, 2010 at 9:38 PM

    In some cases, religion is a valid excuse to do something. If someone is following their faith without causing harm to others, then let them. I don't think states should pass laws that discriminate against one religion because it's similar to not allowing a race. That's just not cool.I'm very surprised voters passed this Oklahoma law. It seems out of line and really discriminatory. It goes against the first Amendment and its freedom of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Federal law is king. Religious activities cannot break the laws set up by a country. Religious law should not be taken into Federal court. I believe this even as Christian

    ReplyDelete
  73. I dont think this law should of ever even been proposed. It doesnt really matter. People can freely practice their religions as much as they want, as long as they obey the law. Federal and state laws should be used in courts anyways, regardless of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  74. i don't think the law is a violation of the first amendment. if anything, it is keeping religion and government separate. The law is not keeping anyone from practicing their religion, rather it makes sure that people aren't using the excuse of religion to break laws. this law was directed at Islamic people, but if Oklahoma is having a specific problem with that group of people, then maybe they need a law that specifically addresses that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Kyle Maples - Bauer Period 1December 2, 2010 at 9:54 PM

    State law and the federal laws should be respected and fully accepted to any member of the United States of America regardless of religion. There are of course extreme cases where religious law may be used but those are extremely rare. I believe there is another factor we need to look at. The use of the Islamic code of laws that is directly imputed into governments that are ruled my the Islamic faith. Here in America we have a strict division of church and state, as it should be, but I do believe we need to follow the federal governments laws and regulation due to these citizens being of American citizenship.

    ReplyDelete
  76. This law seems completely unnecessary! Don't we follow law created by the United States already? Why is it necessary to ban international law or Islamic law? This is a violation of the first amendment because the state is specifically targeting one religion, and this is a dangerous precedent because it says the the government can exclude a religion in a government process. What other processes are going to be banned for specific religions?
    Caleb Boyd
    Sloan
    Per. 2

    ReplyDelete
  77. You can't have a double standard and be lenient towards one religion. Religion should not grant a person the ability to use it as an excuse when accused of a crime. States cannot pass laws that discriminate against certain religion as stated in 1st Amendment. The law is the law, it was put there for a reason and there shouldn't be any exceptions because if you make one exception, others want to be treated that way as well.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The ballot is further defining the law saying the courts will abide by only federal and state laws. It is not singling a single religion out it forbids many other laws as well. In addition CAIR, the Islamic activist group challenging the constitutionality of the law, has been connected to Hamas by a federal court case; just thought I would throw that out there. If there was a court case where a Catholic attempted to use their religious laws/beliefs to circumvent a federal crime everybody would be screaming separation of church and state, but if a Muslim does it they are protected by the same amendment? That logic makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I think that the amendment right to freedom of religion it okay and understandable but however, the law needs to come into action when it’s causing harm to others. A person shouldn’t be raped or do anything they do not wish to do. I do not agree with the jury declaring that the man is innocent, he raped a woman and should be punished for his actions, "religion" or not.

    ReplyDelete
  80. In order to keep a country safe, laws are needed to be passed to do so. I do not believe however that a law like this should have been passed! It violates the difference between church and state.Theres no way the law should be more leniant toward one group more than others..

    Danielle Barros
    Gov p.4
    Sloan

    ReplyDelete
  81. Letting someone commit a crime because it is part of their religion is uncostitutional. It is one thing to excersise ones' religion, but another to use them as an excuse. The government should put law and the safety of people above religion. Although this seems to single out one religion, it is actually settting up a precedent so that religion can not be use to get away with commiting a crime.

    ReplyDelete
  82. When it comes to religion and laws of a country i believe they shouldnt be related of interwoven. religions must obey the laws of the country simple as that. if a relgion causes someone to go against the law, consequences should still be bestowed. As for the OK insident, states must follow federal laws and keep religion out of the picture. As a christian there is no problem with this for in the bible its claims obey the law of the land.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I think that people should have the right to have any religious beliefs they want. The government should never allow crime to take place even if it is a religious belief. No one should be able to get away with breaking the law.
    Erica Ayala, Bauer, per. 4

    ReplyDelete
  84. Sergio Maldonado, Sloan p.3/ Bauer p.4December 2, 2010 at 10:43 PM

    Any religious practice should not be allowed if it is illeal. This is not discrimiation because people of every relgion or that do not have a religion have to follow the law. States however should not target specific religious groups. Oklahoma made the law to make sure that relgious law isn't used because if it were not a law then judges could consider allowing people to use religion as an excuse for crimes. It does somewhat violates the First amendment because it specifically states that this Sharia is based on the Quaran.

    ReplyDelete
  85. You should have to follow the law regardless of your religion even if your religion wants you to go against the law. The punishment should still stand. Freedom of religion is okay but the law must still be followed. In Oklahoma they should still follow the federal law and disregard the religion excuse. Though this is targeting one religion in this case it is okay because they are trying to prove a point and set a precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I believe that religion should not be use as an excuse for braking a law there for if the law that is placed towards a certain religion it could be for a good reason . states are not be allowed to pass laws that discriminate religion, but when there is a need to restrict some because you think it might involve danger well you cant take that chance.

    Richard Manzo
    Sloan pr5

    ReplyDelete
  87. Brian Magina, Sloan P.3December 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM

    Religion should not be used as an excuse to break laws. Laws are passed for a reason and that reason is to keep our country not only safe, but equal. And if we allow one religious group to have an advantage over others then that would not be fair and it would cause problems.

    ReplyDelete
  88. This law is protecting the first amendment right however oklahoma needs to watch what they are doing because laws that may prtoect other religious rights may be taken away even though they are targeting one group.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Alejandro Ibarra, (Mr. Sloan, P. 1)December 2, 2010 at 10:52 PM

    I believe that the law does violat the first amendment because it focuses on one religion over all. I also believe that a religion shouldn't be use to break the law and if we allow this then what would stop the other religions from trying to make their own laws as well.

    ReplyDelete
  90. If breaking the American law is someone's religion, don't practice it in America. The law passed in Oklahoma is not a violation of the constitution. It states that the religion of Islam may be practiced as long as it obeys the law. I think that is perfectly fair. You cannot use the excuse of religion to commit a crime. The Law simply says you may practice religion if it is not breaking any laws: valid.

    Gabriella Cello p.3 Mr. slaon

    ReplyDelete
  91. Oklahoma passed the state law to ensure that the constitution is followed which the voters think is weakened by arguments or precedents using international laws or religious laws such as the Sharia. I think it is necessary to pass this law because what Oklahoma did was strengthen the Constitution by being more specific.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Haley Collins (Sloan Period One)December 3, 2010 at 1:32 AM

    Q:Can religion currently be used as an excuse to break laws that by themselves do not discrimnate against religions?
    A:What is religion?
    Can states pass laws that target a particular religion?
    A:Society has no morals when religion comes into play.
    Q:What was the purpose of this law in Oklahoma? A:People are afraid to accept someones different beliefs, that's the purpose.
    Q:Was it necessary to pass? Are you surprised that voters passed it? - No it was not necessary...
    Q:Do you believe the law violates the first amendment and why?
    A: Yes


    What is religion? Why would you create something that only destroys? There are some who try to help this world of corrupted minds, but, in the long run, we are the creators of hate and genocide. We are the disease that plagues this land. With that said, some man was smart and power-hungry enough to come up with this all powerful, all knowing persona to manipulate the people through pathos for the construction of fear in our minds to help us strive as a society. Because who wouldn’t love the fantasy of an icon that has magical powers to grant forever salvation; and all you have to do is pray and be a “good” person to save yourself from the gates of punishment. It stimulates us mainly because it draws a line between good and evil. A lot of people are breaking the First Commandment now-a-days, with their sequels of the first lie. “Thou shall not have any other Gods before me.” The visions of this God seem to be a little selfish anyway. This ideology of a higher power makes some sort of sense for people who are afraid of the idea of a mass explosion creating our universe, or Darwin’s theory. This is why people need to see the world as we live, not the nonexistent utopia from above, and take care of it and each other. Not because they are threatened to bathe in eternal flame, but because it’s the right thing to do.Why must society reject what others believe? Because of fear, it's pathetic. Think about this though: if everyone was Godless this world would be utter chaos, people would be self consumed in greed and hatred; this world would become a living hell. It’s already on that predetermined path when you let the wrong people have such power like Hitler in 1941. So sure I am Agnostic when it comes to religion, but I do admit, it puts some balance of order in society because so many people are consumed with the false words and broken promises of an everlasting future.

    ReplyDelete
  93. The religious freedoms of people in the United States are protected and that the government cannot be involved in the practice and expression of faith. Under the Free Exercise Clause, Congress cannot pass a law that would have the effect of interrupting the practice of a certain religion. However the government is allowed to pass laws that have the effect of limiting religious practices if it has a compelling interest. I'm shocked to even learn that this law has passed, because it was entirely unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Well ya see, there's this little thing called separation of church and state. So if you live in a state you follow their rules or you can get out. You can not just go by your religions rules because someone could just go along and make up a religion that says that they can kill babies and eat puppies that are still alive. It doesnt work that way, you may have heard the phrase "my house my rules", well I say my state my rules.

    Zachery Atkins
    Mr. Bauer
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  95. Religion should not grant a person the ability to use it as an excuse when accused of a crime. At the same time States should not be able to pass laws that violate our amendments.

    -Ivan Cardenas
    Mr. Sloan Per. 3

    ReplyDelete
  96. This is completely disobeying the first amendment as the law would prohibit the Islamic religion power over other belief systems. If this were to pass then other religions would claim they too had a religious law and want it to be used in the court system. This would never work in a million years as one religion would say one thing is against the law when another wouldn't. The founding fathers had left religion out of the constitution for a reason and this is why. Unless the government establishes a set religion for all Americans to follow, faith must be left out of government because otherwise to much fighting between which was the "better" religion would be done. However, no religion would willingly give up in America unless it was their religion that was chosen to stay. This law passing would just begin a long war that no one should start.

    ReplyDelete
  97. ricardo villalpandoDecember 3, 2010 at 6:16 AM

    I think that the people who break a law because of their religion is just taking advantage of it and religion is no excuse to commit a crime. I also believe a religion should not be forbidden but like restricted, they should be because some religions have extream practices and some times law have to put in order to keep the public safe and order.

    Ricardo Villalpando
    pr5 sloan

    ReplyDelete
  98. religion should not justify any kind of breaking the law, it should represent that religion only. religious laws have nothing to do with our state laws either, if it is illegal by the state you are forbidden of it, not based on any religion. Its not even that they want to hurt this religion in paticular, that religion is simply the one that happened to disagree first.
    hayley swearingen
    sloan per 4

    ReplyDelete
  99. There are many other religious practices that are illegal in this country. I don't see this case as any different. There should be no religion or belief system that allows rape of a individual. I don't know how a court could even consider incorporating Islamic beliefs into their system. We need to stop being so sensitive, politically correct, or afraid to hurt other people's feelings.
    Marklin Nixon
    Mr. Sloan Gov. 1

    ReplyDelete
  100. Religion is not an excuse to be able to break the law, however there shouldn't be any laws that target specific groups such as religion. A law such as this one does violate the first amendment, but the courts already follow state and fedral law so it shouldn't make a difference.

    Zach Mietz

    ReplyDelete
  101. I dont think religion is an excuse to break the law.No state should target a religion by passing a law.The law violates the first amendment because everyone, no matter what religion you are, should be able to practice their religion.However, they should obey the laws, a religion is not an excuse to violate the law.
    Jose Alvarez. Sloan p4

    ReplyDelete
  102. I agree with Olivia, states pass laws for a reason. However, they cant just pass laws against one certain group that would be a huge no- no . Yes itsone thing to go against the 1st but to go against the 14th now wow they are pushing it. jordan elzie per 2 sloan

    ReplyDelete
  103. I believe that religion should not be an excuse to break the law. There shouldn't be any exceptions or excuses because the law is the law. It's illegal to make laws that are against any religious group since everyone has the freedom to choose what religion they want and not be discriminated or anything for it. The law that was created does violate the first amendment and I'm pretty surprised that it was actually even considered in being passed.
    -Kevin Rodgers, Sloan Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  104. I don't think religion should be an excuse to break laws. If that were the case, everyone could just pretend to be a certain religion in order to break laws. Laws are there for a reason and they shouldn't be broken no matter what the circumstances are.
    Sloan
    Period 5

    ReplyDelete
  105. To me, it doesn't seem like the law violates the 1st amendment. If it's interfering with the laws already in place, then it could be putting the public in harms way, whatever they may be. Just like in the Employment Division v. Smith, 1990. They got fired for smoking peyote for religious purposes. BUT it's against the law, so they couldn't use their religion as an excuse. So, just like here, you shouldn't be able to use your religion as an excuse to "get away with the law." So, you can have your own religion, that's cool, but if there are certain points that go against the law, then they shouldn't do it. Plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  106. In my opinion i think that laws shouldnt be broken because then no one would even care about any law at all. There shouldnt be any laws that are meant for one specific group overall.I dont think that the religion laws have anything to do with the state law because both are different. States make a law for a reason!

    Jaskiran Kaur
    Mr. Bauer
    Economics
    Period 2

    ReplyDelete
  107. Michael Freeman Per 5 SloanDecember 3, 2010 at 7:40 PM

    No, none of this is legal, and it always was not be. It has happened in the past were people would kill for religion and say they can't be jailed for it true or not. The fact stood then, that if it was illegal then it is not going ageist your religion. But I bet there will be controversy with this because lots of are political leaders and general public will want to excuse them because we are being raciest and bigoted.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Well i do not think the law should SPECIFY any religion, but if they want a law that says only American law is to rein in America, i say go for it. I thought that was a given though.
    As a christian i do not expect any court to uphold any part of Christianity.

    Personally, I hope I would have the strength to breaks the laws that contradict the Bible if they are ever passed. I would expect to be punished by that same law.

    If they are religious, they will stand by their religion, and jail will not hold them back.

    No state can not pass laws that regard a specific religion or church.

    Caleb Newman

    ReplyDelete
  109. laws shouldnt be broken due to religion. no im not surprised they passed the law. this whole world is messed up anyways so you never know what could happen.

    ashli roberts
    bauer 2nd

    ReplyDelete
  110. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Nobody should use religion as an excuse to break the law, unless of course the law is unfair. If the law is unfair then it will be questioned at some point or never pass in the first place. I agree with Caleb, the court shouldn't be targetting a specific religion; however, it is still doesn't justify the people in question going against federal or state law without taking legal action against the law (or laws) being broken.

    ReplyDelete
  112. What a silly thing to need to make a proposition on. If the judge in New Jersey had only made a proper and sensible ruling, thousands of dollars would not have had to been spent passing this proposition. First of all, rape is never justified, for any reason. The fact that a judge could let a man off the hook for it is appalling. And second, when has America ever thought that it should be okay to break a law because of religious beliefs? It's not like I could murder someone and say "Oh, well, it was okay because my religion said I should." To say that this man is justified in raping his wife because Sharia told him so, is to green light so much violence from all religious backgrounds.

    Let us be fair, however. This country has been functioning on Christian-based laws ever since its birth. For example, gay marriage rights. It is the bible that finds the issue there, as it does not genuinely harm anyone. I'm not trying to incite anger here, but I hope you can see that this is a legitimate example of how we as a nation are influenced by religious laws.

    So why is this new law offensive? Because it says that we will not follow "international or Sharia law" rather "international or ALL religious laws". But our country at its current state would have never passed a law such as this

    But, going back to my first statement, this should be obvious and the proposition should not have even needed to be created.

    Sasha Schotzko-Harris
    Bauer 1

    ReplyDelete
  113. Victoria charles
    mr. bauer p2

    i believe that religion is not a good enough reason to break a law. the state is not going to give pitty on someone who breaks a law just because its part of only some peoples religion. what about the other people who dont believe in that religion. it wont be fair that they have to fallow that particular law and others dont.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Hannah Engebretsen/Bauer P2December 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM

    Religion is a complicated topic. Government shouldn't interfere with laws dealing with religion unless the religion is harmful or hurting someone dealing with the laws(if that makes since). For example, crime, and laws that hurt other individuals. People should also not use religion to break the law as an excuse, so from certain standpoints it could go either or.

    ReplyDelete
  115. In some occasions religious beliefs can be an excuse to break a law however not all of the time. Religion is a very complicated topic and that's why i'm surprised that law passed. I'm not sure if this law is a good idea because it might discriminate against certain religions.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Religion should not be an excuse to break laws in almost any situation. There are very few situations that I would consider exceptions. However, laws should never be made to target a specific religion. That would be discrimination.
    Conner Woods Bauer

    ReplyDelete
  117. Personally, I don't believe religion should be aloud to be used to break laws especially when it concerns drugs and rape. I believe Oaklahoma made a wise decision in passing this law because if anything like the situation does ever happen then their tracks will be covered and they will finish first in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  118. i believe that laws should not be broken by using an excuse of religion. because of the religions that i know, rape is not a desired thing among them. or any other sort of criminal act. states can pass laws tht target a certain group but that would be rude in the sense that all over races have differnt rights and freedoms. this is a good thing that they passed it or elseanyone could lie about their religion and get away with it. its just not fair.
    blake harrison
    bauer
    period3

    ReplyDelete
  119. religion cant be an excuse, its just some part of life that people look up to and believe in to safe them from sins and whatever. but still people should keep there free exercises from different religions and there believes. believers and non-believers of religion, in every state

    ReplyDelete
  120. I do not see a problem with this law being passed. The law of the land favors no religion and shouldnt be an excuse to break the laws. If the law was voted no then that wuld be unfair to other religions and against the Constitution. Yes we do have freedom of religion but the practices must be safe and not against the law.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Why do people want to change amendments and laws? Do they think its really going to make a difference in their state or where they live? We have these rights for a reason so people wouldnt be controlled and wars wouldnt be started so dont try and change laws. And dont try to make people try and change religion because everyone has their own beliefs in religion and thats how it is.

    Aniscia Silva
    sloan
    Per 5

    ReplyDelete
  122. Passing this violates the constitution no matter what it is. If that what it says then you can't do it. If a state target a particular religion, that would be discriminating or helping out which is illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  123. enrique salazar sloanper5December 15, 2010 at 3:10 PM

    religion should never be an excuse to break a law. laws should not be made to target a certain religion because then that would be discimination

    ReplyDelete

All comments will be reviewed before they are published. Make sure to leave your name to receive credit.