this is why, kathy, in that same post you quoted from me, I did mention that lawyers will use whatever machinations possible to try to work the loopholes to make it appear as a federal constitutional issue if it fits their agenda.
in this case, that is exactly what the oklahoma judge fell for. Someone came in and sold her on the idea that the U.S. Constitution over rules in this case on the basis of the first amendment.
personally, as I said before, I think it is generally redundant to specify sharia as inadmissible into a any American court of law. religion based laws are overruled by the federal and state constitutions. At best, they might be admissible only as a contract such as when one agrees to use an agreed upon negotiator or the like. even then, it sketchy at best to be allowed then. (especially when you take into consideration those things which approve of violent behavior or false imprisonment, etc...which sharia law utilizes.)
but when a lower court even goes so awry as to accept one of the people in the case and their personal belief in what sharia allows them to do and must later be over ruled by a higher court, it is worrisome that the slippery slope has begun.
so it seems redundant at it's face for a state to need such a law, yet it seems our court system is willing to accept something that should be obviously not admissible as legal fact anyway. Both are ridiculous scenarios yet if the latter did not happen, no one would feel the former necessary.