Again, by implication you stated as even a possibility that religious law, confined to a particular religion (Sharia Law, Torah Law, Catholic Canon & Moral Law) might have the possibility of being implemented in the United States of America, in which you, meltzerboy, were theoretically educated to understand without a moment’s cognition that this is impossible. I expect much more from someone with your education and intelligence.
I don’t want to speak for the poster to whom you responded (sw85), but based on retracing his conversation to which you responded, this is what he said. He was not addressing you, a Jew. He was addressing another Catholic, like himself:
He’s speaking about the obligations of Catholics to represent what we believe are absolute (not relative) principles in the public square, because of their universal applicability. By the way, Mormons do this – apply their principles, as do Christian evangelical faiths, etc.
I will grant you that he may have opened himself up to criticism here, and perhaps that prompted you to put on the brakes:
I think what you may be inferring is that the contrast being implied is that, if “Catholic” Law could succeed in being implemented, it should be, but not Sharia Law. I’ll let him speak for himself, but I don’t
think that’s what he meant. I believe he meant (or he should have meant),
the principles behind that law – precisely the way faithful and well-educated and committed Jews believe fervently in the principles behind
tzedakah in Torah, extending not only to the Jewish community but to humanity.
But do you seriously think that Canon Law “in its entirety,” (or even one paragraph of it), Torah in its religious language, and Sharia Law is a possibility? This is such a straw man.
Who has suggested this? Is it I? And if you are not suggesting that this is possible, why is it an issue? If others (Catholics, whoever) think it’s possible, they need a civics lesson, quickly. Whatever they “think” is possible, it’s not a threat to you, to me, or to Rence. These are straw man arguments, because they are impossible.
If it even could happen, then it makes sense to reply to this thread. Otherwise, the entire thread is a gigantic STRAW MAN. There is no explicitly religious morality being “forced” on others. It is unconstitutional to do so. Show me where this has occurred during your lifetime. Not pressure. But force.
Huge difference. One is lobbying and persuasion – your constitutional right to exercse, Rence’s constitutional right, sw85’s right, my right. The other (“forcing”) has zero legal authority of actual enforcement.
Newsflash: For Rence and any others who seem to register alarm that opinions are voiced in the public square by those affiliated with specific religions:
Their opinions have no binding legal authority. Such persons get to apply whatever their beliefs are, including if those are Wicca, to their participation (however they express that legally – passionately or quietly) in a representative democracy. Too bad if others are threatened by that – whether that’s the OP, Rence, you, or anybody. The appropriate response is not denial of the rights of others to be daft or misguided, but a counterbalancing voice against whatever they are concretely proposing that opposes your own moral view. Voicing an opinion =/= “forcing Morality on others.” We can build a Towering Inferno with that super-sized Straw Man.
!
But in this time-and-space universe, it is not happening to this country.
), public school teachers in many locations are required, regardless of personal belief, to advocate a “morality” which supports homosexual behavior, homosexual unions, and homosexual “marriage” It’s part of the curriculum. IOW, not just to be silent on the issue, or to refrain from discouraging students from seeking such materials on their own; rather, he or she as a teacher must advocate for this, must teach it. :bigyikes: