By Constitution Staff

On November 2, 2010, the people of Oklahoma were asked to decide a very important question. They were asked to decide whether or not the state's courts should be directed to rely solely on federal and state law, or whether other bodies of law… international law, laws of other nations, or Sharia law… could also be used. State Question 755, amending Article 7, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution, declared that, "The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."

When all the votes were counted, 695,650 Oklahomans (70.08%) voted to live under existing federal and state law, while 296,944 voters (29.92%)… liberal Democrats, Muslims, deceased persons, and a few trouble-makers who sneaked across the border from Texas and Arkansas… voted to live under whatever legal code happened to be the "flavor of the day."

Just two days later, on November 4, local Muslims filed suit in federal court, seeking to block implementation of the measure. The suit was filed by Muneer Awad (of the Oklahoma Awads), executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Oklahoma, who expressed the view that the people of Oklahoma had no right to decide the parameters of the constitution under which they live and that the amendment, approved by 70.08% of the Oklahoma electorate, was… unconstitutional. Awad argued that the amendment tramples the "free exercise" rights of a disfavored minority faith (it does not), restricts the ability of he and his fellow Muslims to execute valid wills (it does not), and prohibits equal access to the judicial system (it does not).

The lawsuit further asserted that the Oklahoma amendment "undercuts a central concern of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, sending an unmistakable message that Muslims are religious and political outsiders." If Muslims are religious and political outsiders, as Awad suggests, there must be a reason.

Those who worry that restrictions on Sharia Law… such as Oklahoma SQ 755… may conflict with 1st Amendment rights, must understand that the 1st Amendment prohibits the "establishment of a religion." Islam is not a "religion" as we in the West understand the meaning of the term and it cannot be viewed as such. It is far more than that; it is a social, political, legal, military, and economic system with a spiritual component.

We in the United States have developed social, political, and economic institutions that are the envy of the entire world, and Islam is the last place we would look for guidance in perfecting our Western civilization. No help is wanted, or needed, thank you very much.

Like most Europeans of the post-World War II era, many Americans have succumbed to the fiction that Islam is a "religion of peace" and that worldwide jihad is merely a pipedream of the radical few. However, the truth lies elsewhere. As one Muslim caller to a radio talk show put it, "The liberal (peace-loving) Muslims are on the bus… but the crazies are driving the bus." Only when so-called "moderate" Muslims show a bit of courage by unmasking the radicals in their midst will any sort of accommodation be possible. Until then, Muslims will increasingly be seen as a "disfavored minority faith," as Mr. Awad refers to them.

In Islamic countries, Christians and Jews are prohibited from practicing their religion freely and openly. Fair enough. So I'll pledge to accept their petty little demands on the same day that Christians, Jews, and everyone else are allowed complete religious freedom in all of the nations of the Islamic world, but not before. The litmus test for Islam as a "religion of peace" will be the day when Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and all other non-Muslims are free to visit Mecca; and when churches, temples, and synagogues can be built throughout the Muslim world. Until then, Islam must be viewed, not as the world's largest religious denomination, but as a primitive alien culture that has not evolved appreciably beyond its seventh-century roots.

Complete reciprocity is the standard that must be met… nothing more, nothing less.

On November 30, 2010, Federal District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down a decision in the Oklahoma SQ 755 case, barring the Oklahoma State Election Board from certifying the results of the election until she could prepare a final ruling.

Because the people of Oklahoma have made "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," the Awad suit is totally without merit. To the contrary, the amendment approved on November 2 served only to reinforce the 1st Amendment in that, like it or not, it prohibits the "establishment of religion" for a small minority of Oklahoma citizens. As might be expected, Judge Miles-LaGrange got it exactly backwards. (Appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1994, Judge Miles-LaGrange provides just one more horrible example of why we cannot trust Democrat presidents to appoint capable and competent judges to the federal bench.)

Finally, on January 11, 2012, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver agreed with Judge Miles-LaGrange, upholding her injunction against the implementation of Oklahoma SQ 755. The case now goes back to federal court in Oklahoma City for a decision on the question of constitutionality.

Depending on the outcome of the case in Oklahoma City, and the anticipated appeal to the 10th Circuit, the people of Oklahoma may have to play the game a bit longer by appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if by some chance a majority of justices would find some merit in the lower court decisions, striking down State Question 755, then it will become necessary for Oklahoma to stand on its 10th Amendment rights by engaging in nullification. Governor Fallin and Attorney General Pruitt will have to inform the federal courts that the people of Oklahoma are sovereign and that they have spoken. State Question 755 will become part of the Oklahoma constitution and it will be enforced, the opinion of the federal courts notwithstanding.

In a recent interview, a Muslim in Bahrain admitted to having shot his sister in the head four times because she had been forcibly raped. Although she was the victim of a brutal assault, her violation had brought shame upon her family. As the brother explained, in Islam, a woman who has been violated is much like a broken dinner plate that must be thrown away; she is no longer of any use and it's best to discard her so that she can bring no further shame to the family. It's time that Mr. Awad and all of his Muslim friends understood that, in Oklahoma, all human lives are valued equally, regardless of gender, and that our women are not like "dinner plates." And if he and his CAIR associates don't like the way we do things; if they refuse to recognize that Sharia law is incompatible with Oklahoma values, then we have a few suggestions for them… and we'll give them more than three days to pack up and leave; we'll give them at least a week.

Paul R. Hollrah

Locust Grove, OK

Most Critical Election

Here we go again, another year, another general election. This time, most of the patriotic and knowledgeable citizens feel it is the most critical election in the 234 year history of our Representative Republic, known as the United States Of America. It seems to be the general consensus of opinion, shared by me, that the USA will not continue to exist as it was founded if there are four more years of the PRESBO administration with its staff of anti-freedom and anti-free enterprise zealots.

As some sports teams sometimes find themselves, we are in a "must win" situation. Some of those in a much more affluent financial position than most of us have publicly stated that if the present "rulers" of the nation are allowed to continue in control it is their intention to desert and move to another location where there finances, and personal bodies, will find a safer haven.

In my memory there are a number of similar situations where the very wealthy, many of the entertainment community, have moved their residence to other nations in order to be out from under the unfair and excessive tax policies that began in the 1930's during the administrations of F.D. Roosevelt, who defied a tradition of two terms in office established by our first President, George Washington. While we then felt that the Nation was in extreme danger, in retrospect it was nothing like those problems we face today.

Much of the situation can be traced to a deterioration in the quality of the "public" (read that "Government") education system. The teachers and journalism colleges have been infiltrated by individuals whose loyalty is to the Socialist/Communist world conspiracy and their students have been duly indoctrinated into that philosophy which carries over into the general education system, but particularly into the colleges and universities today. Gradually, the Federal Government has taken over control of the pre-college education system and with the advent and control of the national teachers union, also on board, the citizens have lost control.

Some teachers in the schools blatantly tell the students that their parents don't know anything and to pay no attention to them. This has for decades been a problem in the universities, even in the science majors. In my own experience in the oil fields, it was occasionally dumped on me as the well-site geologist in charge, to train major company new-hires. While most of these younger geology graduates were eager to learn and attentive to what they were being told, there were some who refused to listen, particularly those with advanced degrees and no field experience who looked down on someone like me sporting only a Bachelors degree, but also in the College of Engineering and with ten or more years of solid field experience.

It never ceases to bemuse me how some individuals can be so adamant in statements they claim to be absolute and refuse to listen to someone else with first hand knowledge of just what the facts happen to be. In fact, in all of the instances, and there are a number, where there was a newsworthy incident that had been witnessed by me, or someone near whose word was trusted, the stories that appeared in the "news" media bore no or little relation to the facts as were known to me.

Such individuals cannot be engaged in a civil discussion, let alone a debate. Invariably, when unable to achieve a point, the result is that they revert to shouting and/or calling names. Those of the Left philosophy in media can be seen on TV regularly all talking at once or continually interrupting a person on the other side, or stalking off the set.

Hopefully you all will keep your cool, seek accurate information, and be active.

Robert W. McDowell, Jr.

Broken Arrow, OK