Saturday, June 12, 2010

Craziest Republican of the Day: Rex Duncan

Oklahoma State Senator Rex Duncan (R) is pushing for a ballot measure that would prohibit courts from considering international or sharia law when deciding cases. He says the measure is a "preemptive strike" against "liberal judges" who want to "undermine those founding principles" of America.

The "Save Our State" amendment would require Oklahoma courts to use state and federal laws only when ruling, and Duncan explained on MSNBC today that he wants to ensure "that our courts are not used to undermine those founding principles, and turn Oklahoma into something that our founding fathers and our great grandparents wouldn't recognize."

He said that "Oklahomans recognize that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles," and that his measure "is a pre-emptive strike to make sure that liberal judges don't take to the bench in an effort to use their position to undermine" those principles by considering international or sharia law.

When asked if there was a danger of judges doing this, Duncan maintained that though it hasn't happened yet, "it's not just a danger. It's a reality."

"This is a war for the survival of America," he said.

Well, America was founded on a number of different principles, some of the Judeo-Christian, some of them not. (Last time I checked, Roman republicanism was neither Jewish nor Christian.) But if there's a danger of the imposition of theocratic rule in America today, it comes not from liberals (who, last time I checked, tend to be proponents of civil liberties and the separation of church and state) but from conservatives, from those on the right who seek to impose Christian fundamentalism (akin to Islamic fundamentalism) on the country, if not on the rest of the world.

Furthermore, the opposition to international law, and the fear that America will succumb to some one-world government, stems from pure paranoia. We've heard this sort of thing from a number of crazy right-wingers, including Michele Bachmann, and it's basically one of the drivers of the Tea Party "movement" (as when the teabaggers took over the Maine GOP last month). And yet it's conservatives, not liberals, who promote the de facto rule of multi-national corporations and an international oligarchy of plutocratic insiders, and it is this corporatism that poses a threat to American sovereignty, not some make-believe international liberal cabal.

And if it's un-American activist judges you want, look no further than Republican appointees to the federal bench. They may claim to be defenders of "original intent," of the Founders' principles, but what they really want is to impose their illiberal partisan ideology on the country -- for example, by undermining civil liberties and the separation of church and state, by interpreting the Constitution as a fundamentalist Christian moral code, and by expanding executive authority at the expense of the other branches of government.

But what do you expect from an Oklahoma Republican?

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • I would ask you to do some research into Sharia Law.

    On this issue, Liberalism seems to OK honor killings and rape. "It's part of their culture, who are WE to get in the way."

    Just because Conservatives endorse something, does not mean it is wrong and evil.

    And don't attack me personally, as you liberals always seem to do. Just do some research.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:17 PM  

  • And you are... Rex Duncan? Perhaps you could have used your real name instead of remaining "anonymous."

    But I take it to mean you think I attacked you personally. What was I supposed to do? Your position is utterly without merit. I'm sorry, but how is liberalism "OK" with honor killings and rape? Do you even know what liberalism is? The problem isn't that I don't know what Sharia law is, it's that you don't know what liberalism is, and so you end up attacking the political philosophy that is the driving force of modernity, and that allows you to be free, and to speak freely.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 8:36 PM  

  • Hi. Just happened up on this.

    Anonymous is suggesting that liberalism (capital "L" or lower case?) is equivalent to cultural relativity. In fact this idea does come more from the left than the right, but it is not a position held by very many people nor is it a position that would actually approve of honor killings or rape. That is an extreme interpretation.

    Basically, a strawman argument.

    I agree that it is corporatism that is the biggest potential threat to our liberties in the long run. It is scary how willing right wingers are to get down on bended knees for corporations.

    By Blogger James V. West, at 6:01 AM  

  • Hi, it is I, the original poster. No, I am not Rex Duncan, I am a no name from the great State of New York. Our state legislature still hasn't agreed upon a budget for next year, but today, in the legislature, instead of agreeing upon a budget, we voted on a law protecting Sea Grass. But I digress...

    I think that the intent of Duncan's law was a symbolic stand against the ever growing influence of Islam throughout the world. Europe has seen a massive influx of Islam, not from their own ranks, but from immigration. These Muslims do not integrate, or assimilate into society, rather, they collect generous (liberal) benefits from the government, and practice their non-liberal customs, such as honor killings. For example, if a young Muslim girl is seen taking a leisurely stroll with a non-Muslim of the opposite sex, then it is acceptable for her father, or her uncle to kill her for "dishonoring" their family.

    I think that is the intent of Duncan's symbolic law. England may give a Muslim a lenient sentence for murdering his own daughter, using the rationale: "Well, he THOUGHT he was doing the right thing..."

    Duncan is trying to say: "We recognize that you have your own customs and laws, but those laws do NOT apply here, in the United States."

    If a Muslim woman gets forcibly raped, then to preserve "honor", her husband, her brothers, her own sons will kill her, usually by burying her up to her neck, and throwing stones at her skull until she dies. That is the Muslim way.

    Duncan is clearly and unequivocally stating that those customs clearly and unequivocally do NOT apply here.

    Which gets back to what I was saying about the personal attacks. The title of your article is "Craziest Repulican of the Day: Rex Duncan". I am afraid that you are losing sight of the big picture in your abstract goal of "liberalism".

    We can disagree on socialism, taxes, military spending, the list goes on and on.

    But if we disagree about Sharia Law, then you, and most liberals have lost any shred of credibility you ever had. This is a big deal.

    Gays are being beaten to death in Europe. As a conservative, I may be uncomfortable with homosexuality, but I CERTAINLY DO NOT BELIEVE that a homo should be beaten to death over his sexuality.

    If it makes you feel better, my name is Todd Smith. I am glad that I have a common last name, because all it takes is one idealistic Muslim for me to end up like Theo Van Gogh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:23 PM  

  • I totally agree with Anonymous and Rex Duncan. This is a sovreign nation with its own rules and regulations (of which there are many, thanks to you busybody Democrats). We don't recognize Sharia law in this land. If Sharia is so important to you, there are plenty of other countries that do recognize it, such as Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

    By Blogger JMNOR55, at 1:01 PM  

  • We don't have a right to ban Sharia Law in any other land, but we certainly do in any of our 50 states. Rex Duncan isn't so crazy. The notion of tolerance, turning the other cheek, giving your enemy your shirt as well as your coat didn't come from Sharia Law. On the contrary; it's crazy to bite the hand (heritage) that has fed you...

    By Blogger NotintheBox, at 3:41 AM  

  • What do you mean this is what you expect from an Oklahoma Republican? Liberals are some of the most intolerant and racist people I have ever met. You are showing your ignorance by not actually doing your research prior to posting this story. Shariah law courts will circumvent the Constitutional Law in this country. I realize the US Government does this on a daily basis but as it stands I still have some rights. I understand that a fundamental pillar of Liberalism is to systematically take away individual freedoms while accusing your opponent of doing this. A kind of flying under the radar approach to enslaving the population to the liberal point of view. Shariah law courts do the same thing; circumvent current Constituional law and replace it with a Muslim religious dictate. Answer this question my liberal friend: Why do people on the left continually tell me they are for choice? These are the people limiting my choices: I can't choose paper or plastic to carry my groceries; I can't choose not to join a union in most states; legislation was just passed by a liberal Congress that will severely limit my choices in health care; you have Elizabeth Tressler, a child in Ohio, who can't accept an award at the Ohio Statehouse because a liberal lawmaker does not like her right to life views. You see the connection? Liberals limit your choices and rights; Shariah law limits your choices and rights. I understand why you would oppose this Oklahoma legislation.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:28 AM  

  • "the political philosophy that is the driving force of modernity, and that allows you to be free, and to speak freely."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:31 PM  

  • Mr. Stickings, you are a prime example of the mindset that will facilitate the infestation of the Muslim hoards that are intent upon conquering the world. All they need is for bleeding heart liberals like yourself to give them an inch, and they will overtake the USA, just as they have overtaken those gullible and open armed bastions of liberalism in Europe, and in Canada, I might add. You and your kind are the greatest threat to freedom this world has to offer, and I would bet that your Muslim brothers will appreciate your efforts on their behalf, right up until the time they seperate you infidel head from your infidel body. I would not be at all surprised to find that you had a relative lurking somewhere in Eastern Europe during WWII who was both willing and eager to provide Adolf Hitler and his gang with address lists of their Jewish neighbors, under the pretense of inviting them to a shower.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:12 PM  

  • Hi - My name is Zuriea and my email address is The form here only allows me to post anonymously.

    I agree with the idea that our courts should only base judgements on US law. In fact stare decisis, the basis or our legal system, says that cases will be judged as they have been in the past. That's why American attorneys are alway citing precedents established in prior cases.

    If one wishes to CHANGE that law to something that is accepted by other countries, well, great! We have many ways to do that including citizen-initiatives like propositions, electing candidates that agree with you, etc.

    IF an American judge were to base his/her ruling on law that is not part of the US Constitution, has not been made part of the legal codes through the state or national legislatures or has not become law due to citizen initiative processes and elections THEN that ruling is unconstitutional and illegal. The justice should be asked to stand down.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:08 PM  

  • Rex Duncan is just trying to make a political name for himself. He's like a man who yells "FIRE" in a crowded theater and then watches the mayhem ensue. Oklahomans voted on this ridiculous measure. The puppet master won, once again. Wake people! How about some common sense for the common good?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home