State Of Oklahoma Suspends Police Officer For Refusing To Attend Mosque Service

By Theodore Shoebat

The police department of Tulsa, Oklahoma, suspended a police officer, Capt. Paul Fields, for refusing to attend a mosque service which was organized by Muslims as a law enforcement appreciation event hosted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa.

Although this happened in 2010, the The 10th U.S. Circuit of Appeals just ruled on Thursday that the “police officer’s constitutional rights were not violated”. In 2012, Capt. Fields was denied by a judge from filing a complaint against the department. Fields said that his religious rights were violated because he was punished even after “he was told to either attend or order subordinates to attend a law enforcement appreciation event hosted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa.”

This is what the court concluded as what they filed on Thursday:

The Attendance Order did not burden Fields’s religious rights because it did not require him to violate his personal religious beliefs by attending the event; he could have obeyed the order by ordering others to attend, a nd he has not contended on appeal that he had informed his supervisors that doing so would have violated his religious beliefs.

The order did not violate the Establishment Clause because no informed, reasonable observer would have perceived the order or the event as a government endorsement of Islam.

The order did not burden Fields’s right of association because it did not interfere with his right to decide what organizations to join as a member.

Fields’ equal-protection claim duplicates his free-exercise claim and fails for the same reason.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fields’s motion to amend the complaint to add ORFA and free-speech retaliation claims because the amendment would have been futile.

This is silent sharia, all working to force us to conform to the insanity of religious equality. Islam will never be equal to Christianity, and nor should it ever be treated as equal to Christianity.



, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Quote: “…he was told to either attend or order subordinates to attend a law enforcement appreciation event hosted by the Islamic Society of Tulsa.”
    The fact that he was told to “…order subordinates to attend” violated this officers conscientious belief that he would personally be ordering them to venture into a place that he deemed hostile to his country, America!
    The mandate, or request, to attend this gathering at the mosque should have come from the Chief of Police to the entire department and each officer given the choice of whether to attend or not. This “directive” imposed upon Captain Fields to do the ordering conflicted with his conscious and should have been respected as such. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong and was “politically motivated” in its decision to punish Captain Fields. This ruling should be overturned and Captain Fields should be issued an apology.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      He should be issued an apology, but I doubt one will ever come. We (Okla) voted in 2010 (by 70%) to never allow Sharia Law to be recognized in the state, but, guess who, the ACLU, on behalf of Muslims, brought suit and a judge overturned it- BASED on religious freedom! So much for government By the people.

      • The question in this, however, is where can the line be drawn between identifying the difference between “freedom of religion” and freedom to subvert and/or replace the law of the land based on foreign laws that guide one’s religious beliefs? I know that there is much more detail in this and other cases that have been presented but in the case of Sharia being allowed so as not to infringe on the Islamic “freedom of religion” needs to be exposed as to what Sharia laws permit and how those Sharia laws actually negate the
        Constitutional Rights and Freedoms that a Muslim is entitled to in this country. Here are comparisons:

        (A) In Islamic nations, Sharia Law establishes that all non-Muslims are second-class citizens and, thus, have less rights and privileges than Muslims;

        (B) In America, allowing Sharia Law converts Muslims to second-class status, unable to fully partake of the protected rights, privileges and freedoms guaranteed to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

        While Muslim groups claim that Islamic Sharia Law is their right to practice under America’s “Freedom of Religion”, the following few examples should be considered by all U.S. Courts when making a ruling that fully examines the true and potential danger of allowing Sharia-compliant courts and rulings in America:

        Rights and Privileges:

        In Islamic nations, Sharia Law establishes that all non-Muslims
        are second-class citizens and, thus, have less rights and privileges than Muslims. Meanwhile:

        In America, allowing Sharia Law literally converts Muslims to
        second-class status, unable to fully partake of the protected rights,
        privileges and freedoms guaranteed to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.


        1.) Sharia Law: Leaving the religion of Islam is punishable by death for apostasy;

        >U.S. Law:True freedom of religion: Citizens have the protected
        right to choose which faith to convert to or away from;

        2.) Sharia Law: A man may literally beat his wife if he perceives her as being unruly;
        >U.S. Law: Fines and Imprisonment for domestic abuse/violence;

        3.) Sharia Law: Speaking negative criticism against Islam and/or Muhammad is blasphemy – punishable by death;

        >U.S. Law: Speaking negative against Christianity
        and Judaism may be in poor taste but is protected under freedom of

        4.) Sharia Law: Burning or defacing a Qur’an is punishable by death or life imprisonment;

        >U.S. Law: Burning/defacing an American flag or Bible is protected
        as freedom of speech/expression;

        5.) Sharia Law: Drinking wine is punishable by administering whippings/lashes to the offender, death sentence on third offense;

        >U.S. Law: Drinking wine is permissible for citizens of legal
        age; driving after drinking wine is prohibited and is punishable according to degree of offense cited regarding alcohol level and any other related situations related to driving under the influence;

        6.) Sharia Law: Honor Killings – a Muslim family may kill a son or daughter who dates or marries a Jew or Christian;

        >U.S. Law: No legal restrictions are imposed that prevent
        someone from dating or marrying outside of the family’s religious faith. A citizen of the U.S. may choose to abide by their family’s wishes to not marry outside their “faith” but that citizen is still legally protected should he/she choose to go against the tenets of the faith that mandate who they can or cannot marry.

        And this is just for starters…

        • Julie LaBrecque

          It’s just all bad.

          • Julie, I had been told that the American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation had still passed in Oklahoma. This would prevent laws such as Sharia from being implemented in your state’s courts. Did that not happen?

          • Julie LaBrecque

            I believe so, but, it is ‘watered down’, – to make it palatable to Muslims. We need to remember that if the Senate ratifies a treaty, (think UN) it is binding. That’s where I am scared-I don’t believe ALAC specifically mentions Sharia Law.

          • Right, ALAC does not specifically mention Sharia, however, the legal language was designed in such a way so as to apply to any and all foreign laws, including Sharia, that would attempt to supersede U.S. Constitutional Law.
            Here is a bit more explanation from ACT! for America:
            “Authored by Representative Kern, ALAC passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives 85-7 and the Oklahoma Senate 40-3. The bill was signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin on 22 April 2013.

            The passage of ALAC in Oklahoma was the culmination of a 3-year effort by Representative Kern that she embarked upon when she learned that SQ755 was likely to run into trouble in the courts.

            ALAC has now been passed into law in Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma and North Carolina. A version of ALAC also passed into law for specialty courts in the state of Washington. Moreover, ALAC passed the Alabama legislature overwhelmingly last year as a constitutional amendment and goes to a vote of the people on the ballot in their next statewide election in November.

            ALAC remedies the flaws in Oklahoma’s SQ 755, and in many ways takes a diametrically opposite approach to SQ 755:

            • ALAC is facially neutral. In an honest debate, it cannot be accused of discriminating against any religion or protected class.

            • ALAC is based on a completely different legal premise from SQ 755’s. Rather than seeking a ban on foreign or international law, ALAC seeks to preserve the constitutional rights and state public policy protections of American citizens and legal residents, in cases involving foreign laws in the particular dispute being adjudicated. If a case arises in which a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine is involved in a dispute in a state court, ALAC prevents the use of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights or state public policy would be violated in the process. This is very different from a blanket ban on foreign laws.

            • ALAC is not vague. It provides specific guidance for judges on complex legal issues involving comity, choice of law, choice of forum, conflict of laws and forum non conveniens, protecting fundamental constitutional rights.

            Because of the careful planning and thought behind ALAC’s wording, in contrast to SQ 755, from a practical standpoint, it is effective in preventing the enforcement of any foreign law – including shariah law – that would violate U.S. and state constitutional liberties or state public policy.

            And the need for an effective law preserving constitutional rights against the enforcement of unconstitutional foreign law is both real and urgent: an independent study found 50 cases in 23 states where shariah law had been introduced into state court cases, including some appellate and trial court cases where the judges ruled for shariah law over U.S. law. Most victims of foreign laws in these cases had come to America for freedom and individual liberty – including American Muslims seeking to escape shariah.”

  • Kristin Philips

    If a Muslim cop were forced to attend a Catholic mass – what do you suppose would happen? You can be sure the ACLU would be there to defend him… There are such double standards when it comes to Christianity. This infuriates me.

  • richinnameonly

    What would have happened if he didn’t go and his subordinates would not go?