Islam, Muslims, Theocratic, Sharia Law, and Christianity in National Politics

[Jacob]

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by this...we're a nation largely still comprised of Christians, but we aren't a Christian nation. That is, our government is one willfully created to protect religious right while maintaining no particular religious institution as its wheelhouse.

So Muslims who can accept our process and form are as welcomed and protected as any Jew, Hindu, Christian, etc.

Sharia law in terms of domestic, civil matters, provided it functions within the framework of our law, is no more impermissible than Hasidic courts maintained by Jews. In fact, so long as they are subject to our civil authority and precedent they can be an aid, by reducing the drain on secular courts.

The religion protected may have been the Christian Religions, Denominations basically.

Hinduism is something else, but Jewish and Christian courts, we have the Torah and the Bible. With Islam or Muslims there would have to be another book.

 

[Town Heretic]

The religion protected may have been the Christian Religions, Denominations basically.

Every religious practice is protected here, so long as it doesn't violate some other law (i.e., you can't sacrifice a human being even if you really believe you should).

Hinduism is something else, but Jewish and Christian courts, we have the Torah and the Bible. With Islam or Muslims there would have to be another book.

The Jewish faith rejects the Christian faith and vice versa, but the book isn't the issue. The Mormons have one, Christians another, Muslims another. Every one of them is protected under free exercise and the 1st Amendment.

 

[Jacob]

Every religious practice is protected here, so long as it doesn't violate some other law (i.e., you can't sacrifice a human being even if you really believe you should).


The Jewish faith rejects the Christian faith and vice versa, but the book isn't the issue. The Mormons have one, Christians another, Muslims another. Every one of them is protected under free exercise and the 1st Amendment.

Maybe not as originally written.

 

[Town Heretic]

Maybe not as originally written.

I don't know why you believe that or speculate on it. Originally we were more overwhelmingly a Christian nation, but we had other houses of worship here and protected their adherents from the start (and prior). The first synagogue I know of was founded in Rhode Island in 1763, by way of example.

 

[ok doser]

Theocracy is terrible no mater what religion has absolute power .

the only current Christian theocratic government is that of Vatican City

can you describe the aspects of Vatican City's theocracy that strike you as particularly "terrible"?

 

[Idolater]

Every religious practice is protected here, so long as it doesn't violate some other law (i.e., you can't sacrifice a human being even if you really believe you should).

Because it's a crime. It violates our inalienable right to life. This doesn't limit our right to religious liberty at all---our right to religious liberty does not ever permit us to commit crimes of any variety.

The Jewish faith rejects the Christian faith and vice versa, but the book isn't the issue. The Mormons have one, Christians another, Muslims another. Every one of them is protected under free exercise and the 1st Amendment.

God Bless America.

 

[Idolater]

the only current Christian theocratic government is that of Vatican City

can you describe the aspects of Vatican City's theocracy that strike you as particularly "terrible"?

Their terribly funny hats?

 

[Jacob]

I don't know why you believe that or speculate on it. Originally we were more overwhelmingly a Christian nation, but we had other houses of worship here and protected their adherents from the start (and prior). The first synagogue I know of was founded in Rhode Island in 1763, by way of example.

That is interesting. People wanted to have their own Christian belief, not of a Church in Great Britain. The state should not govern the church.

 

[Town Heretic]

That is interesting. People wanted to have their own Christian belief, not of a Church in Great Britain. The state should not govern the church.

And here it can't. Its only role is as protector of the right.

 

[Jacob]

And here it can't. Its only role is as protector of the right.

I am not sure what that means. Are you saying that the only role of the state, or of government, in the United States of America is to protect those who are right?

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by this...we're a nation largely still comprised of Christians, but we aren't a Christian nation. That is, our government is one willfully created to protect religious right while maintaining no particular religious institution as its wheelhouse.

Doesn't that make you wonder why all elected officials are sworn into office by making an oath with their hand on a Bible?
And why every witness in a court trail swears an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with their hand on a Bible?

 

[Idolater]

Doesn't that make you wonder why all elected officials are sworn into office by making an oath with their hand on a Bible?

But they don't swear to believe the Bible, they swear to uphold the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It's the Constitution that requires the government to acknowledge, recognize, affirm, and protect the inalienable right to religious liberty.

And why every witness in a court trail swears an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with their hand on a Bible?

Just so long as they understand that they're under oath. If they lie, they commit perjury. And I'm not even sure that having a hand on the Bible is as uniformly practiced today as it once was.

 

[Ktoyou]

Doesn't that make you wonder why all elected officials are sworn into office by making an oath with their hand on a Bible?
And why every witness in a court trail swears an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with their hand on a Bible?

Yes, good point. We are a Christian nation and anyone who assumes contrary should realise that anyone who spends US currency, that currency is backed up by a trust in God. This is a formal ever-binding trust, which cannot be dissolved by any government action.

 

[Ktoyou]

But they don't swear to believe the Bible, they swear to uphold the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It's the Constitution that requires the government to acknowledge, recognize, affirm, and protect the inalienable right to religious liberty.
Just so long as they understand that they're under oath. If they lie, they commit perjury. And I'm not even sure that having a hand on the Bible is as uniformly practiced today as it once was.

Oh, yes it is and if they lie they have to live with the consequences!

 

[Town Heretic]

Doesn't that make you wonder why all elected officials are sworn into office by making an oath with their hand on a Bible?

They aren't, actually. We've even had presidents who were sworn in without using one. It's a custom and good politics, but it isn't required (see: Article VI, Clause 3).

And why every witness in a court trail swears an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth with their hand on a Bible?

Also optional. In fact, some Christian sects object to the idea of swearing in any context.

 

[Right Divider]

But they don't swear to believe the Bible, they swear to uphold the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It's the Constitution that requires the government to acknowledge, recognize, affirm, and protect the inalienable right to religious liberty.
Just so long as they understand that they're under oath. If they lie, they commit perjury. And I'm not even sure that having a hand on the Bible is as uniformly practiced today as it once was.

The idea behind swearing on the Bible is that they are standing before God as their witness. The God of the Bible and not some miscellaneous God.

 

[Right Divider]

They aren't, actually.

:french:

 

[jgarden]

Under Sharia law a woman has no rights and homosexuals are put to death. Thieves have their hand cut off and many other atrocities are committed in the name of their false god.

LEVITICUS 20:9 “ ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.'

Sharia Law doesn't have the monopoly on "atrocities" committed in the name of religion.

 

[Aimiel]

LEVITICUS 20:9 “ ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.'

Sharia Law doesn't have the monopoly on "atrocities" committed in the name of religion.

Thank God we're not under Mosaic Law; but then Jews aren't trying to institute it upon the whole world under penalty of death. Never have and never will.