A law that requires courts to only rely on federal and state law; Really?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/22/oklahoma.islamic.law/index.html

Check out the link above.  It is a story on the issue out in Oklahoma dealing with court cases where a referendum was past that prohibits the use of Islamic religious law in state courts.  The referendum states that courts will only use applicable state and federal law during trial proceedings.  Apparently an Islamic individual violated a state law, was prosecuted for it, but claimed that under his religious beliefs that he had done no wrong.  I say so what!  Our country is, basically, made up of a system of laws that were implemented to serve the greater good of the nation to the best of their ability.  And we must uphold these laws.  Some religions around the world still practice human sacrifice.  Are we as a society going to allow that to occur here?  I don't think so. 

I am all for religious freedom, that is one of the founding principles of this country.  But when certain religious practices violate state or federal laws, in place for a purpose, there must be no exception.  If we start allowing exceptions for religious practices, where would it end?  Various faiths of all kinds would spring up declaring an otherwise illegal act (i.e. smoking pot etc) as a normal cerimonial or religious observance.

The Counsil on American-Islamic Relations is challenging the referendum as an unconstitutional measure against their freedom of religion.  The goal of this challenge is for Islamic law, known as Shiria, to be accepted by the OK State Courts.  Maybe counsel for the Council should tell them about the Lemon test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 61213 (1971).  The third criterion of the test indicates that no statute can foster an excessive entannglement with religion.  A statute that allows Shiria to be taken into consideration during court proceedings would clearly incite entanglement beyond excessive.  I believe that the referendum is in concurrence with Supreme Court precedence and does not violate the First Amendment due to the fact that the actions of the individual violated an aplicable state law.