Patriarch of Moscow against global heresy "of Human Rights”

[HolyCrusader007]

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?

How is this not a form of Sharia?

Its true that your not going to get the same answer from everyone when it comes to religion. As for me, I accept the Truth that there is one God and that God teaches that people should be nice to each other. In Christianity, non Christians are to be treated with full equality and are to be allowed to practice their religion. I have studied some other religions… Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism teach that folks of different religions are to be treated as full equals and are allowed to join the military of their countries. When you dig deep into the study of the three religions of Abraham as well as Hinduism…you will find that bigotry is viewed as a major sin…bigotry is something that might put you out of the 4 religions I have mentioned.

 

[aclausen]

As a Catholic I defend Torah Law and Sharia law. I think that the best way to defeat the bigoted religious groups like ISIL is not only via military methods…but also by Muslims and non Muslims loudly and on an often basis responding to ISIL that ISIL is wrong about Sharia and that proper sharia law provides full equialty to all people…just as it was in the Arab Islamic Golden age when Athesits such as Al Marr’ari flourished and was treated as an equal. I can go back hundreds of years, I can go back to the so called “dark ages” to find you Muslim majority countries where Atheists had amazing success.

So even if you are an Atheist…I think you can see where I am trying to come from. My proposal to you is that even if you are not religious…can you at least see the logic in how I disagree that ISIL practices proper Sharia?

Even if you disagree with me…can you see the positive logic in how I am saying that proper Sharia law treats everyone equally. …

If a Atheist asks a Muslim *"doesn’t Sharia law make non Muslims unequal to Muslims? *And then the Muslim says, no Sharia law treats non Muslims as full equals…this is a beautiful thing and this is how many Muslims would react just as many Catholics would say proper Canon law treats everyone as equals. Hey we are in this world together with the Muslims…lets Christians work together with the Muslims in the against ISIL. Thing is I don’t like to see nice people have their feelings hurt, and its a fact that there are friendly Jews who will say Torah law treats everyone equally, and there are friendly Muslims who say that Sharia law treats everyone equally. I refuse to criticize the noble teachings of the three religions of Abraham. But I will always criticize bigotry, whether its from someone who identifies as religious or non religious.

Even if I agreed with a particular set of religious laws (and in a way, I do, I certainly don’t object to many of the Ten Commandments), the problem for me is that I don’t want laws imposed on me whose primary justification is “God says so.”

And “treat equally” seems a rather vague concept. Equality before the law has a very specific meaning; that people are not singled out by a law. In the sphere of civil liberties, that means you can’t pass laws that would remove or limit a liberty for one group of people that you are allowing another group of people to enjoy.

But frankly, I don’t really agree that Sharia or Torah laws do treat people equally. The essential premise behind both sets of laws (and Sharia really is just a descendant of Hebrew/Jewish law) is the “specialness” of the true believer. Yes, the outsider (gentile, goyim, kafur, or however they’re described) gain some protections, but do not gain the full protections of the adherents. The underlying concept, in particular with Sharia, was to create enough obstacles for non-believers that they would convert so as to gain a fuller set of liberties.

In a society where freedom of religion is guaranteed, and by that I mean that an adherent of any faith will receive no disadvantage or inducement to convert by the state, and will have in every way equal opportunities, equal protections, and most importantly, equal treatment, it’s hard to see how a religious set of laws like Sharia could ever be the foundational set of laws. How could you ever have a taxation principle like Jizya in a country with First and Fifth Amendment-like protections?

 

[aclausen]

Its true that your not going to get the same answer from everyone when it comes to religion. As for me, I accept the Truth that there is one God and that God teaches that people should be nice to each other. In Christianity, non Christians are to be treated with full equality and are to be allowed to practice their religion. I have studied some other religions… Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism teach that folks of different religions are to be treated as full equals and are allowed to join the military of their countries. When you dig deep into the study of the three religions of Abraham as well as Hinduism…you will find that bigotry is viewed as a major sin…bigotry is something that might put you out of the 4 religions I have mentioned.

When I dig into the Abrahamic religions, I generally see that, at best, non-believers are disadvantaged in one way or the other.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

But do continue demonstrating your desire for Christian Sharia.

Daniel Carroll, of Maryland, and Thomas Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania were both Catholics who signed the original Constitution of the U.S.

The premise of your opinion falls apart, because Thomas was an Irish Catholic who did not have a taste for the English Crown or it’s Royal legislature over it’s people.

These Two Catholics may have been instrumental in keeping the Church of Jesus Christ separated from secular powers.

Yet, the documents are firmly established on Christian principles of Truth that holds to Truth without prejudice or discrimination of a human being. This is a Catholic 2000 year old fundamental faith teaching in keeping to the dignity of Life for every human being.

Your English common law influence opinion is debatable and lacks credibility. When the U.S founding Fathers made efforts to Eliminate any laws enforced by a Monarch, when it is the People of the U.S who supersedes the power of it’s Government.

That said; there is nothing new under the Sun.

The founder Father’s in their day would never of dreamed of such social issues we have today, although slavery was still legal in their time. The U.S Constitution protects and gives rights to the dignity of every human citizen. The U.S Constitution uses Christian principles based on God’s gift of freewill and liberty to love your neighbor and love your God.

You violate the Constitution when you violate these divine laws.

How these laws get interpreted in our time, is an abuse to the gifts from the God given freedom, dignity and free human will.

An Atheist or non-believer is free to believe or reject the divine revelations of God’s Love for the Human race and Creation. But an Atheist or non-believer, under the Constitution has no right to invent and force it’s new ideology to reject the divine law of Love your neighbor as yourself and Love your Creator with all your heart mind and strength, to which the U.S Constitution is based on for all of it’s citizens.

 

[aclausen]

Daniel Carroll, of Maryland, and Thomas Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania were both Catholics who signed the original Constitution of the U.S.

The premise of your opinion falls apart, because Thomas was an Irish Catholic who did not have a taste for the English Crown or it’s Royal legislature over it’s people.

These Two Catholics may have been instrumental in keeping the Church of Jesus Christ separated from secular powers.

Yet, the documents are firmly established on Christian principles of Truth that holds to Truth without prejudice or discrimination of a human being. This is a Catholic 2000 year old fundamental faith teaching in keeping to the dignity of Life for every human being.

Your English common law influence opinion is debatable and lacks credibility. When the U.S founding Fathers made efforts to Eliminate any laws enforced by a Monarch, when it is the People of the U.S who supersedes the power of it’s Government.

That said; there is nothing new under the Sun.

The founder Father’s in their day would never of dreamed of such social issues we have today, although slavery was still legal in their time. The U.S Constitution protects and gives rights to the dignity of every human citizen. The U.S Constitution uses Christian principles based on God’s gift of freewill and liberty to love your neighbor and love your God.

You violate the Constitution when you violate these divine laws.

How these laws get interpreted in our time, is an abuse to the gifts from the God given freedom, dignity and free human will.

An Atheist or non-believer is free to believe or reject the divine revelations of God’s Love for the Human race and Creation. But an Atheist or non-believer, under the Constitution has no right to invent and force it’s new ideology to reject the divine law of Love your neighbor as yourself and Love your Creator with all your heart mind and strength, to which the U.S Constitution is based on for all of it’s citizens.

If you believe all that about the US Constitution and it’s framers’ intentions, then I have to say you know virtually nothing about the Constitution. One of the core concepts of the First Amendment was to explicitly protect public utterances of dissent. It was a rejection of the Elizabethan compromise where providing you kept your thoughts to yourself, the state had no windows on your soul. Your free to disagree with me, you’re not free to silence me because I challenge your religion, even if you think the Founding Fathers agreed with you (which would be shocking considering even the more devout of them had no desire for a religious state).

In a free country, I enjoy the right to be protected from the imposition of religious beliefs just as you enjoy the pritectib from the imposition of atheism. The state remains agnostic.

 

[anon67074017]

Russia tends to have problems with Western values. I admire Russia, but not all Western values are bad. Human rights can be a very good thing.

 

[LRThunder]

Russia tends to have problems with Western values. I admire Russia, but not all Western values are bad. Human rights can be a very good thing.

At the rate things are going, maybe Russia IS justified with having problems with Western values, especially when said values conflict with Christ’s teachings.

 

[ChaosGamma]

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.

At the same time, this means of enforcing gays’ civil liberties grows out of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, which wiped out Segregation by essentially making it impossible for any shopkeeper to ban African-Americans from their establishments. So it’s not as if there isn’t precedent for this legislative imposition on private commerce.

So far as I know though, none of these cases are about refusing homosexuals service in their establishments, they’re about the business owner not having to take part in an event he disapproves of (providing for a gay wedding). Surely you’d agree there’s a difference between not serving a black person at my restaurant and not catering for the local black supremacist group’s meeting.

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).

Well at least in the case of the Catholic Church though, it’s not like we don’t have actual official teachings on those subjects. There are just a large number of dissidents who think they know better. And since we’re not a democracy, whatever wrong opinions many individuals might hold has absolutely no bearing on what is the correct teaching.

At the rate things are going, maybe Russia IS justified with having problems with Western values, especially when said values conflict with Christ’s teachings.

I’m inclined to agree.

 

[anon67074017]

At the rate things are going, maybe Russia IS justified with having problems with Western values, especially when said values conflict with Christ’s teachings.

Russia has a history of authoritarianism though.

 

[HolyCrusader007]

Even if I agreed with a particular set of religious laws (and in a way, I do, I certainly don’t object to many of the Ten Commandments), the problem for me is that I don’t want laws imposed on me whose primary justification is “God says so.”

And “treat equally” seems a rather vague concept. Equality before the law has a very specific meaning; that people are not singled out by a law. In the sphere of civil liberties, that means you can’t pass laws that would remove or limit a liberty for one group of people that you are allowing another group of people to enjoy.

But frankly, I don’t really agree that Sharia or Torah laws do treat people equally. The essential premise behind both sets of laws (and Sharia really is just a descendant of Hebrew/Jewish law) is the “specialness” of the true believer. Yes, the outsider (gentile, goyim, kafur, or however they’re described) gain some protections, but do not gain the full protections of the adherents. The underlying concept, in particular with Sharia, was to create enough obstacles for non-believers that they would convert so as to gain a fuller set of liberties.

In a society where freedom of religion is guaranteed, and by that I mean that an adherent of any faith will receive no disadvantage or inducement to convert by the state, and will have in every way equal opportunities, equal protections, and most importantly, equal treatment, it’s hard to see how a religious set of laws like Sharia could ever be the foundational set of laws. How could you ever have a taxation principle like Jizya in a country with First and Fifth Amendment-like protections?

Sorry about the late response. I had a long response written but it got deleted by accident.

I do agree that Sharia and Torah law share many similarities. I see these 2 religious laws in a respectful manner. It seems that when some skeptics might think of religious laws…they might think of ISIL today because after all ISIL says hey we are religious. At the same time for many folks around the world Muslim or non Muslim… what ISIL does goes against Islam.

My position is that to hinder equality in society between so called races and religion would go against the teachings of the 3 religions of Abraham.I find that for example the Jiyza tax, like aspects of Torah law…is misunderstood. The early Muslims for example allowed for non Muslims to serve in the military. In treaties that Muhammad made…it was said that in a court of law that Muslims and non Muslims are equal. I see in the early Muslim, Christian and Jewish societies of the world places of honor.

Many religious people of today from the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian faith would argue that their religion teaches to treat all people as equal.

I think its ok to disagree on what religious laws present…it seems we have a disagreement on what these laws present. But can we agree that to hear religious folks saying their laws treats all people as equals is a positive thing? I agree with you that all people should be treated equally under the law.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

aclausen;13790767]
If you believe all that about the US Constitution and it’s framers’ intentions, then I have to say you know virtually nothing about the Constitution.

Spoken, like a true Atheist argument. Grasping at minor details that falsely argues a point, from an uninformed perspective, that makes false claims of being violated, when no violation was made.

Case in point; The True Christian (Catholic) faith does not force it’s belief’s upon no one, yet she defends and protects all human life from conception unto the time of death, no matter the faith of the individual.

Atheist on the other hand. Argue the Constitution by pulling apart certain details, twisting the context to favor their Atheistic view and force the whole of the Constitution to change. For a free society to force the Atheist view upon religious rights.

For example; There exist a court case on capital hill, that will make it unlawful for a Catholic priest to refuse marriage to homosexuals and non-believers (Atheist).
Tell me, who is treading upon who here? Who is forcing their personal (Atheist) beliefs upon other’s, that violates the True interpretation of the Constitution that protects the whole?

In summary, the U.S Constitution on the whole of it’s entire context; is set upon the divine law’s, freedom to the individual to love your neighbor and treat others as you would have them treat you, liberty to those to worship God without impeding upon another.

I will give the religion of Atheism a victory for taking God, prayer out of our public schools. Yet, I don’t find the Atheist religion taking credit for the social issues that plague our free society. This failure by Atheistic liberal laws is what the Patriarch of Russia protests. He does not protest against the protection and dignity of human life.

Which brings us back to the OP subject; The Patriarch of Russia is not forcing his religion upon Communist or Atheist. The Patriarch is exposing Atheistic Liberal Laws which are proving to be failing in a free society.

“From your liberal laws Islam will Conquer you” a religious Cleric of Islam has prophetically sounded the trumpet to what is coming to our free societies that legally abort babies, sell fetus parts for profit, legally allow homosexuals to tread their lifestyle upon religious organizations the list goes on and on.

At the risk of repeating myself, I cannot stress the point enough, that the Patriarch of Russia is giving notice, not to accept Atheistic human right laws that violate human life, human dignity, freedom of religion that protects the dignity and freedom of life.

The human right laws to which the Patriarch of Russia protest’s. Are those liberal laws that fall into sin of relativism, complacency, humanism, Atheism would sum up all the other human laws that tread upon religious freedom, which all violate the divine laws to which our U.S Constitution protects.

In a free country, I enjoy the right to be protected from the imposition of religious beliefs just as you enjoy the pritectib from the imposition of atheism.

On the contrary, I disagree with you. The problem with your falsely gained freedom you subscribe too, was never taken from you by Christian belief’s. Yet, your Atheistic religion made it legal to violate myself and my children’s freedom and liberty to practice our Christian faith while at school or at work.

This is what the Patriarch of Russia protests against the false laws of human rights.

The Pope of Rome warned the Americas before the U.S was ever Country. "Beware of the POISON, which comes for the America’s proclaiming a false freedom.

Peace be with you, or you have the right to reject my peace for you.

 

[LRThunder]

Russia has a history of authoritarianism though.

Agreed, although it appears the west is trying to get acquainted with that philosophy as well.