Are you telling me that because you and Christie agree I am supposed to?  Really? I had no idea I was supposed to agree with him. I mean, the things I learn.

Uh, ... no Jim, but keep throwing that straw.

And quit trying to change the subject. If you want to rant about unconstitutional Christian laws, rant away. Heck, I might even join you in some.

Really?  Not changing the subject at all - just interested in your double standard.  You frequently rant on your blog about Shariah Law, and you've never ranted about "Christian law".  I'll keep an eye out for that one, ...

... but I won't be holding my breath.

If CAIR opposes Sharia law being used in the US, why did it file suit?

None of your responses answers the question.

They all answer your question.  You just don't like the answer.  The reasons are all spelled out in the injunction order.  It's a very simple order.  Just try reading it.

Doesn't the separation clause say church and state must be separate?

Very good, Jim, but as you know (or should know) the courts have held that the wall of separation between Church and State is not absolute, and the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as meaning absolute separation of government from all things religious.  Hence the very reason we're permitted to have the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance - not that you're upset by that one, right?

So what's wrong with a law that says church law can't be used by a government court?

From my perspective, nothing at all.  Of course, that's not what Oklahoma was doing with State Question 755.  It specifically targeted Muslims and Shariah law, not a general prohibition against "Church law" or "religious laws".  That was the reason the injunction was issued.

OTOH, religious "laws" or principles are frequently applied in civil courts, as long as there's some basis for applying them and they don't violate the Constitution.  People sign medical directives or wills with provisions based on their own religious "laws", and a civil court will generally enforce these wishes, provided they otherwise comport with the laws of that jurisdiction.  Family courts also often apply religious laws, such as when an Orthodox Jewish couple wished to obtain a "Get", or when a couple signs a Jewish Prenuptual Agreement requiring the parties to submit to arbitration before a rabinical court.

If the decisions to enter these agreements are made knowingly and voluntarily, and they otherwise comply with the laws of that jurisdiction, a strong case could be made that the failure to apply those laws is a violation of the First Amendment.