老澳门开奖结果

Condemning an entire faith and singling out its followers for disfavored and unequal treatment by the government violates the Constitution, it turns out. That principle might seem obvious to anyone who has read the Constitution, but the State of Oklahoma and its voters did not get the message, prompting a federal appeals court today to affirm a decision blocking the implementation of an anti-Islam constitutional amendment.

The Constitution鈥檚 promise of religious liberty extends to followers of all faiths, including Muslims. Thus, a federal appeals court ruled today that an Oklahoma law that discriminates against Muslims appearing before state courts likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court upheld a district court ruling preventing the amendment from taking effect. The 老澳门开奖结果 and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (鈥淐AIR鈥�) represent the plaintiff in the case, Muneer Awad (pictured), the executive director of CAIR鈥檚 Oklahoma chapter.

Oklahoma鈥檚 proposed 鈥淪ave Our State Amendment鈥� would have changed the state constitution to bar state courts from considering so-called 鈥淪haria Law鈥� in making decisions. The amendment defined 鈥淪haria Law鈥� broadly as Islamic law based on the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed. If implemented, the amendment would have rendered Oklahoma鈥檚 Muslims second-class citizens before the state courts. For example, it could have prevented courts from probating a will that incorporated or even mentioned the religious beliefs of the deceased. It also could have inhibited Muslims from forming enforceable contracts in accordance with their religious beliefs, even while those of other faiths could. And it would have effectively denied Muslims the ability to bring suit in state court to remedy violations of their religious freedom rights.

In its ruling, the appeals court flatly rejected the State鈥檚 claim that the law was necessary to protect against the courts鈥� improper application of Sharia law. The court affirmed that the so-called 鈥淪haria threat鈥� identified by the State is a myth. The court wrote: "Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted...that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma."

In addition to blatantly discriminating against Muslims, the amendment also would have banned state courts from applying or considering 鈥渋nternational law.鈥� Not only would this have violated the Constitution, but it also would have . And it could have blocked state courts from recognizing or ruling on issues relating to international marriages and adoptions.

The Oklahoma law was an early entrant in the race by a number of state officials to ban Sharia law and international law in response to a loathsome wave of anti-Muslim sentiment that has swept the country in the last few years, including myriad attacks on Muslim houses of worship, discrimination against Muslim women, and the improper targeting of Muslims in the national security context. The 老澳门开奖结果 continues to work tirelessly to protect the rights of Muslims in all of these areas.

The court鈥檚 decision today represents a significant victory against anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry and sends the message that the religious liberty of Muslims, like Americans of all faiths, may not be put up for a vote.

Learn more about religious freedom: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .