My admiration for Patriarch Kirill continues to grow.Our rights come from God and these do not include the right to sin.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration was a manifesto, and ceased to have any legal standing with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the US Constitution made “sin” a legal classification, and by and large the US inherited English Common Law, with one of its core principals being “that which is not forbidden is allowed”. Seeing as some of the English colonies had had some rather notorious run ins with people legislating sin, the Founding Father’s were rather keen to keep notions of enforced or imposed religious virtue out of the running of government.As the US Declaration of Independence says:
Our rights come from God and these do not include the right to sin.
There is no such thing as Christian sharia.But do continue demonstrating your desire for Christian Sharia.
What atheist defends Shariah, and how is making “sins” crimes not imposing religious laws?There is no such thing as Christian sharia.
Besides, it’s certain secular liberals and atheists who resolutely defend sharia law activists, even at the expense of feminism and gay rights.
I’m sure they were, but one by one, many of those laws disappeared or were struck down.Alot of sins in America used to be illegal, and I’d guess that 99 pct of the population would not have believed we were living under so called ‘Christian Sharia’ because of it.
According to Catholic doctrine, (1) civil authority’s power comes from God and (2) exists to serve the common good. With regard to the first part, this means civil authority cannot pass laws or take means contrary to God’s law (they do not have authority to do this). While God has given civil authority the power to punish sin, He Himself tolerates sin in the world, so toleration of sin can also be justifiable.How would that work in a Catholic country, for instance? Would you ban condoms and birth control pills? Would there be a level of sin that was permitted, or a level of sin that was banned? Much better to treat people like adults, and if they commit “sins”, then that is between them and their alleged Maker.
- And now We wish to speak to rulers of nations. To you most of all is committed the responsibility of safeguarding the common good. You can contribute so much to the preservation of morals. We beg of you, never allow the morals of your peoples to be undermined. The family is the primary unit in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God. For there are other ways by which a government can and should solve the population problem—that is to say by enacting laws which will assist families and by educating the people wisely so that the moral law and the freedom of the citizens are both safeguarded.
One can formulate an argument against murder without the Ten Commandments. What I’m referring to is this hatred and fear of secularism and desire to impose religiously motivated laws on people, often via thinly veiled references to “natural law” or to protecting social order.murder is both a crime and a sin.
kind of refutes the idea that making a sin a crime is “the same thing as sharia”.
that is of course unless the atheist believes we should not make murder a crime. then the atheist would at least be internally consistent.
in the defense of the atheist, maybe he was being imprecise in the way he formulated his accusation of sharia coming from of Jesus Christ.
Not me!I get the feeling some Western Christians wouldn’t be terribly upset if the same thing happened here, though obviously with their sect at the top of the food chain… you know, for society’s good.
Freedom is in no way judged by that. Try not baking a cake for a same sex wedding and see how free you are in most states. The new sins are just as ferociously punished as the old. But at least the old sins usually were actual sins. The old order may have been too severe. The new order is just insane.Beyond that was always the problem in a religiously diverse country like the United States was that what one denomination declared to be sinful, another would not, so “sins” were never universally banned, and the notion of liberty being the freedom to swing one’s fist, providing it didn’t make contact with someone else’s nose, became the standard by which laws were measured and applied.
Well, first off, I won’t defend that view. I don’t think any baker should be forced to put any message on a cake they don’t want to, and in this particular collision of liberties, I think freedom of religion should trump the opposition. So you won’t have me defending the “baker” cases.Freedom is in no way judged by that. Try not baking a cake for a same sex wedding and see how free you are in most states. The new sins are just as ferociously punished as the old. But at least the old sins usually were actual sins. The old order may have been too severe. The new order is just insane.
Even within the same denominational families, or even individual churches, what are “sins” are not always universally agreed on. Even in a church as dogmatically centered as the RCC what constitutes a grave sin per church teaching isn’t even always agreed to be a sin by members of the church (as evidenced by the fact well over half of Catholics in the west support same sex marriage and a large minority support abortion despite church teaching on both matters).I’m sure they were, but one by one, many of those laws disappeared or were struck down.
Beyond that was always the problem in a religiously diverse country like the United States was that what one denomination declared to be sinful, another would not, so “sins” were never universally banned, and the notion of liberty being the freedom to swing one’s fist, providing it didn’t make contact with someone else’s nose, became the standard by which laws were measured and applied.
How would that work in a Catholic country, for instance? Would you ban condoms and birth control pills? Would there be a level of sin that was permitted, or a level of sin that was banned? Much better to treat people like adults, and if they commit “sins”, then that is between them and their alleged Maker.
Hi Paul,As the US Declaration of Independence says:
Our rights come from God and these do not include the right to sin.
So what happens if my god gives a different list of sins than your god? Who wins? Is the god with the most supporters the winner? Is there no protections for the worshipers of a minority god?Agreed.
Our Jewish and Muslim brothers are good people. And proper Sharia law and Torah law…like Proper Canon law…treats all people as equals. That being said we face a challange… ISIL for example does not correctly practice Sharia law and ISIL claims to be practicing Sharia law. In Iraq probably as I type this message their are heroic Arab Christians and Muslims in Iraq and Syria teaming up together in the fight for freedom. I think that some people can be bad…but I try to steer clear of painting large groups of people with a broad brush…this is exactly what ISIL does wrt how ISIL views Shias and Christians. I do agree that some Atheists are bigoted against religion, but let us keep in mind that many Atheists are noble people who donate money to charity.There is no such thing as Christian sharia.
Besides, it’s certain secular liberals and atheists who resolutely defend sharia law activists, even at the expense of feminism and gay rights.
Hi aclausen,What atheist defends Shariah, and how is making “sins” crimes not imposing religious laws?