H
Hokomai
Guest
I completely agree.Maybe I can clarify myself too. I’m not opposed to religion, but I am opposed to the abuse that can arise where the government sponsors one religion over another and bases secular law on religious law. Such as the imposition of Sharia law which is imposed in so many of the Arab/Muslim countries to the deteriment of human rights, especially rights for women.
I don’t want to see Canon law become the law of a country either because that can lead to abuse and discrimination based on other differences. Secular law and religious law can be in sync – I think the abolition of the death penalty in this country is one such law that Catholics oppose and many secularists do too. But in that case, no rights are being violated, but affirmed. No one is being singled out for harm. That’s the distinction.
Roe is bad law in a secular sense (but I won’t babble on about Roe). In that case, the problem with Roe is in it’s fashioning and that comports with those who are against abortion. There are legit and legal reasons to overturn Roe that can be found in secular law and conforms to religious laws.
I am not Muslim bashing – but in today’s world it’s the Muslim countries that have erased the line between religious and secular law – or are actively attempting to do so. If it’s fear, it’s a fear of what Sharia law brings.
Some countries such as Morocco (in the major cities) acccept a woman’s head uncovered. But Morocco is a tribal country so when you go outside of the cities, you must dress much more modestly. I’m okay with that. I can respect some customs.
But then you have headcoverings which, in other countries, lead to veiling, which leads to complete body covering. Now, the Saudis are trying, or have imposed, a law that women, who cannot drive at all, should cover their eyes when outside. The Taliban did not let women out of the house, without male family escort, and had another head covering, equally obstructive. They did not educate girls. How non-discriminatory is that? This is what happens when there is no difference between the secular and the religious – in this case Sharia law.
Religion plays a role in the secular and I would not interfere with that. I, as a Catholic, should know how to dress and behave. I would not change people’s dress here and say, for example, Orthodox Jewish women should not cover their heads nor would I suggest that Orthodox Jews must open for business on a Saturday, because we should have a uniform day of rest, and cut their ear locks because no one else has ear lock. Those religious practices harm no one. They are choice. When it becomes the secular law too, that’s when I see a problem.
Israel is another example – a good one. They are a Jewish state but have managed to keep the secular and the religious separate to a large degree. The Orthodoxy (those who accept Israel as part of the prophecy), would like to impose more religious law. Thus far Israel has resisted from crossing the line from a Jewish state to a religious state.
.