Are Americans willing to give muslims a separte judicial system in America? If so, how long before our judicial system is completly ruled under Sharia law? See previous post of founding fathers regarding the United States, law and God.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-B...
No to Sharia law and no to Christian law. Yes to a secular constitution that turns a blind eye toward religion. You must be confused if you reject Sharia law but embrace Biblical law as desirable for our government. If you were consistent, you would reject ALL religious law as a basis for ordering our society.
What Christian laws are you referring to?
To love one another and give your life to save another?
To give water to the thirsty, food to the hungry, clothes to the poor, a home to the homeless?
To honor your parents?
Not to murder?
Not to steal?
Not to lie?
Not to commit adultery?
Where would the world be without the laws from our Judeo-Christian roots? It would be extinct or enslaved.
Ethics, morality, and good conduct were not invented by the Christians. In the western world, those concepts are older than the Greeks. And, by the way, ethics is a Greek word. The world would not degenerate into chaos if Christianity were not around. Read Aristotle and Plato.
You religious freaks seem to think that Christianity is the glue that keeps civilization together. Wrong! Not everyone is a savage without Christianity.
[edit] Matter of fact, millions have been slaughtered in the name of Christ. The current situation with the radical Muslims reminds me of Christianity a few centuries ago. So much for your Christian ethics.
Hey Petey
Nobody said Christians invented those. God did, and gave them to the Israelites. Christianity is only the continuation of the worship of the same God of Israel that began with Adam, continued with Noah, then with Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, blah blah begat blah blah. Every one of them came before the Greeks (by the way, Greece is not in the western world) it's Mediterranean in the near east.
And no, we "religious freaks" don't believe that "Christianity" keeps civilization together. We believe God gave man a pretty good standard of guidelines to follow - the 10 commandments. We're only trying to follow them so we don't decay into a bigger mess that what we have today.
Men have f=d up pretty good in the name of God. Is that God's fault or my fault - or every believers fault or present-day Christians' responsibility? I love how the slaughter of "millions" in the name of Christ is always the first grenade that gets tossed in this kind of discussion. I've been through this same discussion before and I'm not going there again.
You never answered the question Pete. You said ALL religious laws should be banned. Are you even aware that the modern day law is based on the original Ten Commandments? Are you aware that God gave us a choice? We don't have to follow them, we just have to be prepared for the consequences of our choices.
ISLAMIC law doesn't give anyone a choice except DO or DIE.
I don't know why I get involved in these discussions except that I don't have anything better to do at the moment and this shit is mildly amusing -for a while.
First of all, Greece IS in the west. The accepted dividing line between Asia and Europe is the Bosporos. Look it up.
Second, Greece is commonly accepted as the origin of Western Civilization. Look it up.
Third, your canon of truth (the Bible) proves nothing to me.
Fourth, "modern day law" is NOT based on "the original Ten Commandments". Our law is based on Anglo-Saxon Common Law and the Justinian Codes. Look them up.
Fifth, if you knew as much as you think you do, you'd be only half smart.
Have a nice day!
Sure there is a choice.
A follower or believer can choose to believe and follow or not, just as Christian believers and followers can make a choice to follow the tenants of an earlier people or not.
Not all Muslims follow or recognize, Sharia law.
But making that distinction does not fit with the plan, to paint all people of other faiths as believing in one way or rule.
The broached question, is why are non-Muslims so concerned about what a people of a different faith choose to practice. It doesn't apply to those that are not of the faith.
You might want to read up on it a little more because Islam is a Do or Die religion. There is no such thing as freedom of religion in any Islamic country. I have posted several articles about it under the Jesus Freak Group here on SB. Islam is nothing like Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism. I'm dead serious. There are people dying everyday all over this world at the hands of Islamic government.
In an Islamic country, all it takes is one accusation by one Muslim against a non-Muslim to be found guilty of any crime and put to death. Check it out for yourself if you don't believe me.
http://del.icio.us/christianheadlines/persecution
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/270
www.jihadwatch.com
http://del.icio.us/christianheadlines/islam
Is that the U.S., an alleged Christian country, is supporting governments that are Muslim governments and so in turn we are helping to kill the people, that are alleged to have been killed.
Like Egypt, where there is a Christian community, mainly the Coptic Christians.
The answer to the question is, for the U.S. to invade and over throw and put in place a government and religion that is favorable to the U.S.?
"You might want to read up on it a little more because Islam is a Do or Die religion. "
I speak to people about it.
And the people I speak to are from countries in the Middle East, and yes there is repression and we help to continue it.
There are some countries that are less strict and there are some that are more restrictive.
Have we in the U.S. cornered the market on fairness, yet?
"Yes to a secular constitution that turns a blind eye toward religion"
I agree. And with that in mind, add to the secular constitution all the Supreme Court rulings that further paint the line between "church and state".
So, with all that in mind, WHY DO WE HAVE WELFARE?
Isn't the welfare system a moral code made by someone? And since "feeding the poor" is a moral choice, why has American Government embraced that common moral code?
And, since the Welfare system IS based on a "common moral code", the Supreme Court HAS ALREADY ruled that "common moral code" IS a religion.
Facts behind UNITED STATES v. SEEGER
1) Seeger was a draft dodger
2) Seeger claimed he was allowed to dodge the draft because he was a "conscientious objector".
3) Although he claimed he was a "conscientious objector", Seeger was ATHEIST
4) The case was brought to the Supreme Court in order to answer the question "Can a common moral code be included as a religion" and therefore, was Seeger allowed to be excluded from the draft on religious reasons even though he HAD NO RELIGION?
Here is an excerpt from UNITED STATES v. SEEGER, 380 U.S. 163 (1965). The MAJORITY Opinion written by JUSTICE CLARK.
",,,answer `yes' or `no'"; that his "skepticism or disbelief in the existence of God" did "not necessarily mean lack of faith in anything whatsoever"; that his was a "belief in and devotion to goodness and virtue for their own sakes, and a religious faith in a purely ethical creed." R. 69-70, 73. He cited such personages as Plato, Aristotle and Spinoza for support of his ethical belief in intellectual and moral integrity "without belief in God, except in the remotest sense." R. 73. His belief was found to be sincere, honest, [380 U.S. 163, 167] and made in good faith; and his conscientious objection to be based upon individual training and belief, both of which included research in religious and cultural fields. Seeger's claim, however, was denied solely because it was not based upon a "belief in a relation to a Supreme Being" as required by 6 (j) of the Act. At trial Seeger's counsel admitted that Seeger's belief was not in relation to a Supreme Being as commonly understood, but contended that he was entitled to the exemption because "under the present law Mr. Seeger's position would also include definitions of religion which have been stated more recently," R. 49, and could be "accommodated" under the definition of religious training and belief in the Act, R. 53."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=380&invol=...
Bottom line:
In US v.Seeger, the Supreme Court has ruled that a "common moral code" IS a religion.
Welfare has no redeeming value except that value based on a "common moral code" of feeding the poor.
Therefore either WELFERE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, or THE RELIGION OF ATHISM (as defined by US v. Seeger) HAS BEEN EMBRACED BY THE UNITED STATES AS THE "RELIGION OF THE STATE".
Well, Libs, I don't think the government ought to be providing any welfare to anybody. Nor should the Government be taxing us for that. Family should take care of family members and, lacking that, the community should do it. My elderly mother-in-law lives with us and we take care of her. Before she died, my nearly ninety-year-old mother lived with my sister. I believe in relatives helping their kin. Government should be defending the borders and that kind of stuff, not providing handouts on a regular basis (social security, etc.) out of the public funds. I give to charities for people I don’t know and so should everyone.
But about the Seeger case you mentioned, that has to be a very unusual one and it involves his unwillingness to go into the service. I know that historically Hutterites, Mennonites, and probably a lot of other religious people with "moral codes" against violence use those as a reason not to be drafted. And, in fact, the authorities usually let those people go because they're small potatoes and have been around for a hundred or more years. But I think they let Seeger go because it wasn't worth the possibility of putting a whole class of heretofore-untouchable religious people into draft eligibility, such as the Quakers and those others. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court has ruled that a moral code is a religion. Nah, I don't see that. If any large number of ordinary Americans tries that in a future conflict, the prisons will be full.
Finally, your statement that the Supreme Court has ruled that Seeger’s moral code constitutes a religion is wrong. What the ruling actually said according to your quote was, "under the present law Mr. Seeger's position would also include definitions of religion which have been stated more recently," R. 49, and could be "accommodated" under the definition of religious training and belief in the Act, R. 53." I think there is a huge difference between saying “ THE RELIGION OF ATHISM HAS BEEN EMBRACED BY THE UNITED STATES AS THE "RELIGION OF THE STATE" (your words and your capitals) and saying that it can be “accommodated” under the definition of religious training.
You’re trying too hard to make something out of this one instance of an atheistic conscience objector being included as a religious exemption.
Excellent answer Pete.
I am very disappointed with the title of your post. The UK has NOT OK'd Sharia law to settle disputes, and your post is very misleading. The article is from a speech given last week at a mosque by the most senior judge in England.
_____________
Interesting excerpts from the article:
In his speech in an East London mosque Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as a means of settling disputes so long as no punishments that conflict with the established law are involved, and as long as divorces are made to comply with the civil law.
A spokesman for Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice said: 'English law, which is based on our shared values of equality and a respect for the rule of law, takes precedence over any other legal system.
'The Government has no intention of changing this position. Alongside this it is possible for other dispute resolution systems on matters of civil law to be accommodated, so long as they are not in conflict with the laws of England and Wales and are abided by on a voluntary basis.'
- Orthodox Jews operate Beth Din courts which are subordinate to the civil law and which decide issues among 180,000 people according to ancient Jewish law. They are regulated by the Chief Rabbi. A divorcing Jewish couple first divorce in the civil courts, then come to the Beth Din tribunals for religious judgement.
- The only religious courts in England with full and official legal status are the consistory courts and tribunals which decide disputes and disciplinary matters in the Church of England.
__________________
Precedent has been set already in Britain by allowing other religions to define more stringent guidelines for commerce, marriage, etc., as long as they are not in conflict with the existing civil law. This opens the door up for other religions to be allowed the same latitude in England, I would imagine.
I don't understand where your concerns come from that this might happen here? Is there a trend that you see happening?
Yet another defender of Islam. When the high judge says the UK should allow Sharia law...you better bet your damn ass its going to happen. You guys think Christians are nuts...wait till they have rule over us.
Do you honestly think any country can have multiple laws for different groups of people? Give me a break....they will utlimately adopt Sharia Law for all Brits.
So, do you actually have to be in the process of being flogged before knowing this isn't a good idea...or, do you have no foresight at all?
I can't even begin to imagine how you zealots are going to deal with elected American government officials taking their oath on the Quran.
Oh wait, it's already been done, in 2006.
.
Keith Ellison, who will become the nation's first Muslim congressman next month, raised the eyebrows of some last week when he announced he would be using a Koran for the ceremonial swearing-in ceremony.
Fortunately, my wife is a UK citizen and has kept me abreast with this story.
One judge's opinion does not make it so.
FACTUAL STATEMENT: LONDON (Reuters) - Islamic Sharia law could have a role in mediation in England, but the country will never have Islamic courts that can impose their own judgments, the top judge said on Thursday.
Ignore me all you want, Kooz, the facts will prevail.
And the Quran used was a copy of Jefferson's copy;
"When Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) takes his individual ceremonial oath of office on Jan. 4, it is to be with one hand upon Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran.
Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, requested to take the oath upon Jefferson's personal copy of George Sale’s 1734 translation of the Koran, commonly called the Alcoran of Mohammed (London: Hawes, Clarke, Collins and Wilcox, 1764). The two-volume work, which resides in the Library of Congress’ Rare Book and Special Collections Division, is one of nearly 6,500 titles sold to Congress by Jefferson in 1815 to replace the Congressional Library that had been destroyed when the British burned the Capitol during the War of 1812."
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2007/07-001.html
And from the link provided that refers to Congressman's decision to take oath on Koran raises eyebrows;
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) searched for a copy of the Hebrew Bible last year when she was sworn in for her first term, after refusing to use the Christian book provided by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. Wasserman Schultz eventually borrowed one from another Jewish congressman. "
Hebrew versus Christian bible?
Which one and what version or translation is the true word?
now they're going to come out of the woodwork.
(edit: double post)
"Yet another defender of Islam?" Where the heck did that come from? I never once said I was in support of anything in that article, just that you had mislead through your posting. If I disagree with you I am pro-Islam? Or anti-christian?
BTW, I do support people's right to practice their religion, for sure, and that does include Islam. Buddhism. Hinduism. Wicca. Do you support that right?
"you guys think christians are nuts"? Who are you guys? I am a Christian, so why would I ever say something like that. I think that there are christians who ARE nuts, but that's their personal bag, or perhaps their denomination, not christianity in general.
Although you seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with people practicing Islam. I may be wrong with my interpretation, I may admit, but you do seem to post a lot of things that express outrage toward that religion. I do wonder why.
As stated in my previous post, apparently Britain already allows for certain disputes to be settled under Jewish strictures, and the same for the Church of England. Have THEY taken over the English judicial system? They are not entirely separate judicial systems, but rather smaller subsets to be used in very specific instances, and entered into only voluntarily. It happens, by the way, in America all the time, when businesses and/or unions enter into agreements to settle disputes through arbiters or mediators, as opposed to going directly into civil court over certain issues.
And no, I am not in favor of any type of religious courts in America, christian, muslim, or otherwise. What the heck is up with your flogging comment? Are you saying that if you are Muslim you support flogging, because SOME muslims do? That is out of touch with reality in a major way. By the way, Christians have also supported that in the past. So de facto, being Christian, that means you do too?
The commandments were handed down from Moses to the Israelites and others patterned laws on them.
Moses was not a Christian and the very same laws have been broken and smashed by people of all faiths.
"To give water to the thirsty, food to the hungry, clothes to the poor, a home to the homeless?"
This is not unique to any one faith.
The foundations of many of the holidays were pagan as well. All taken, just like the commandments and repacked as some thing that any faith takes partial credit for.
Your point is?
than any other religion on this planet because their Bible said so.
What, pass over those other threads pertaining to God, did you?
I guess I still don't understand.
I have taken part in the threads, so I guess the answer, is no, threads were not missed.
People are free to believe as they will just as others are free to speak about they will.
your hatred for Christianity is based on the fact that it forces you to face the fact your life doesn't measure up to God's standards....and that scares you to death.
but one must embrace the force to fear it, and by my not embracing it, I don't have the fear.
I respect Christianity, as I do with other religions proliferating our planet, but the hypocracy Christianity displays regularly doesn't lead me to believe that the Diety in your religion is the "Supreme Being".
The newly-formed Christ Church of Vero Beach opens July 1, the date the Episcopal diocese set for Coyle's group to leave Trinity Episcopal Church on Pine Avenue. The first service in their new home will be July 6.
In recent years, portions of a number of Episcopal congregations across the United States have broken off from the national Episcopal Church from reasons ranging from ordination of a gay bishop in New Hampshire to religious practices. Christ Church leaders say the national church has become unorthodox and cited a variety of differences for the split.
No, I'd rather embrace my species and treat them all the same until they deserve otherwise, not based on a belief, but on example. I'd cast off a hypocrite before I cast off a homosexual because he/she has a relationship perspective that is different than mine.
But feel free to keep judging me and my beliefs
No, I'd rather embrace my species and treat them all the same until they deserve otherwise, not based on a belief, but on example. I'd cast off a hypocrite before I cast off a homosexual because he/she has a relationship perspective that is different than mine.
Judging ALL of Christianity based on the hypocritical actions of a few is the same as stereotyping and racism. Come on. Get to know a few more. We're not all ignoramuses.
A common misconception about Christians is that we all hate homosexuals. The truth is that TRUE disciples Christ are instructed by Him to love all people. That doesn't mean that we should approve of the lifestyle. The controversy over allowing gay clergy is due to biblical scriptures which prohibit allowing people that practice certain lifestyles or habits to be a teacher (pastor, priest, deacon).
Judging ALL of (insert what ever group) based on the hypocritical actions of a few is the same as stereotyping and racism.
If only 1 percent of the entire world's Muslim population were extremist it would equal over 1 million. That's hardly a "few".
Keep on kidding yourself that Islam is harmless.
Religious wacko's are dangerous (whatever religion).
There are people of all faiths, that distort and mis-use the teachings.
A faith is a not a person. A faith is a set of religious doctrines.
Like guns and fireworks, do not harm people, a faith does not either, the followers of the faith do.
We have examples in the U.S. with the cross burners, etc., that all draw from the well of one faith to justify their stands, they are but a few.
From Pete:Ethics, morality, and good conduct were not invented by the Christians.
Like Hell they weren't! Wanna fight about it?!
The trouble with Christianity is that the various sects all get lumped together. As soon as I declare myself a Christian, I'm automatically assigned a seat in the same boxcar as every single (or married) televangelist broadcasting between 6 and noon every single Sunday. Every self-proclaimed Christian cult is a part of my circle of friends, as are the miracle workers, snake handlers and skirt chasing charlatans all across the Bible belt and well beyond.
I'm tired of it.
The reality is that we, the general public, do not hear much about real Christians one way or the other. This is mainly because the real Christians are busy minding their own business and trying to help people on a fairly practical level, such as distributing food, clothing and shelter where it will do the most good. Missionary work in foreign countries, helping to teach people to read, that kind of thing. All of these people will cheerfully tell you or anyone about the Lord if you want to hear about Him. Most will not engage in profitless arguments about religion and the merits of same.
My rejoinder to Pink_Slip's contribution, Religious wacko's are dangerous (whatever religion)., is that the religious wackos in the United States are not even half as dangerous as the freedom hating politicians who want to take away our rights one small step at a time.
religious wackos in the United States are not even half as dangerous as the freedom hating politicians who want to take away our rights one small step at a time.
I can trump that. Politicians who use religion to try and take away our freedoms are the most dangerous.
"Ta Ethika, is a work by Aristotle on virtue and moral character which plays a prominent role in defining Aristotelian ethics. It consists of ten books based on notes from his lectures at the Lyceum.
"Justice plays an important role in the ethics of Aristotle. It is the cornerstone of social living and demonstrates the highest comprehension of the virtues. Aristotle thought that justice is important enough to devote an entire book to it in the Nicomachean Ethics.
"Vices are extreme behaviors between which lies virtuous behavior. Moral virtues are close to what we would call personal virtues today. Aristotle lists the following as moral virtues: courage, temperance, liberality, magnificence, pride, gentleness, agreeableness, truthfulness, and wit.
"Aristotle describes other virtues, including liberality, magnanimity, amiability, sincerity, wit, and modesty."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
I think you hit the nail on the head. I agree with you.
If we change a few words and submit "Muslim" with Christian, though, it's a great treaty for how many people of Islam feel, I imagine.