Why is law based on Christian beliefs acceptable, when Sharia law is opposed on the basis of separation of church and state?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Metis2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed. Incorporation of the constitution had a profound effect on the federal system.
 
Common law is in many ways based on the Judeo-Christian worldview — but then again, so is Islam. Lawmakers in a country like the U.S. with no established religion can have religious motives all they want, but the arguments themselves have to be grounded in a rational dialogue that is naturally accessible to all people, so anything based on supernatural revelation is not relevant to secular jurisprudence.
 
Historically the Founding Fathers were people of faith - many Christian. That was my understanding. So it would be logical that one’s faith impacts their worldview & law.

When I was in the Middle East, I learned very quickly that the laws in the US are not the same in the Middle East. And granted that there are some Muslim countries that are more secular, but I don’t think there are many…

For example: here in the US - if you steal & you are caught, you will receive a fine, or jail, or both, or possibly community service. When in Saudi Arabia, if you steal, they will cut off your hand.

In the US, people are free to live as they please - even if that means some cheat on their spouses or partake of sexual intimacy with other partners whether married, single, or other. In Saudi Arabia, if you commit adultery (cheat on your spouse), you can be killed. I think it falls under a family justice thing. If you engage in premarital sex & your family learns of it, you could be subject to an honor killing.

While in Saudi, you couldn’t openly practice your faith if you were anything other than Muslim. As a servicemember there, we could not have religious medals there - no Bibles - I should say not openly anyways (They are illegal there).

There was a time when my husband had considered employment overseas there. I told him we would have to go underground with our faith if we went there. He didn’t believe me, so he contacted the hiring manager he’d been in contact with asking about religious practice there. He basically told my husband that if you are caught there worshipping as a Christian, you might receive jail time, flogging, or at worst - a date with the executioner, & then he added in his message: “But first they have to catch us…”

And with that, my husband changed his mind.

So yeah…Little differences like that…Not…
 
Last edited:
Forget religion, the countries where Sharia law is the law of the land are not what we would consider good examples of human rights. In fact, mostly the opposite. So westerners cannot accept such a law. Simple as that.
 
I am not arguing for Sharia law, I am just trying to see the reason.
 
Having had the chance to live abroad, the US has its problems, & it isn’t perfect by any means, but there is no place like home.
 
No no no. Totally understood here. Just making a weird point. No issue whatsoever. 🙂
Dominus vobiscum
 
What specific law in what specific place are you questioning?

In the US we have secular federal and state and municipal governments. They are all required to follow the establishment clause and free exercise law wrt religion
 
Last edited:
The law is not really based on Christian beliefs, although Christian beliefs may have influenced it. The law in the US and most of the British Commonwealth (like Canada, Australia, India, South Africa) originates in what is called ‘English Common Law’ which itself may have roots in Roman Law. You can read some history here: Anglo-British Law & History, 1 | Legal Studies Program
 
Last edited:
Dan_Defender said:
Forget religion, the countries where Sharia law is the law of the land are not what we would consider good examples of human rights. In fact, mostly the opposite. So westerners cannot accept such a law. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
When people think about sharia law, their minds seem to go straight to all the awful things like beheadings, amputations, and floggings. In western countries, however, sharia law is only applied in religious cases (similar to the system of tribunals in the Catholic Church) and in arbitration. In Britain, the best known example is the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which can operate in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland as a tribunal for the purposes of the Arbitration Act 1996.
 
Metis2 said:
Why is law based on Christian beliefs acceptable, when Sharia law is opposed on the basis of separation of church and state?
Click to expand...
It’s one thing for a law to be influenced by religious or ethical principles. For examples, Christian politicians can oppose legalized abortion because they believe it is a violation of the Christian religion. However, if they want broad support for their policies, they also need to base their opposition to abortion on rational principles that can also appeal to non-religious people. The United States is a religiously diverse society, so its impossible to rely on merely religious arguments to effect political change.

It’s another thing for people to be forced to adhere to any religious law, whether that be Sharia law or Christian canon law. Christians, Muslims, Jews and atheists have a right to advocate for legislation they believe in as long as they follow the democratic, political process. But no one should be forced to follow the teachings of a religion they don’t believe in. In the US, we get to choose our religion.

There have been isolated cases in the US where civil courts for some bizarre reason deferred to Sharia law in cases involving people from Muslim backgrounds. There was a domestic abuse case in New Jersey where the judge unconstitutionally deferred to Sharia law (the judge minimized marital rape saying that the husband was following the Islamic religion and didn’t intend to do anything wrong), but this was overturned by the state Supreme Court.

This led to several states passing laws prohibiting Sharia law and other religious legal systems from being used by courts. The fear was that people from certain backgrounds were somehow going to be using religious law as a defense of illegal behavior and the states wanted to prevent that.
 
Last edited:
Legislation must be passed in accordance with the Natural Moral Law (NML) which is not merely applicable to Christians but to all people both baptised and unbaptised. Necessarily, the NML does not conflict with Catholic teaching on any points because the Catholic Church is the one true faith. That being said, anybody whether baptised, unbaptised or living in a Christian country or not can discern the NML with the use of right reason in accordance with nature. Even Aristotle recognised the existence of the NML.
Now, what of Sharia? Why is it not acceptable? For, Sharia is a 7th century Arabian legal code set up by a man named Mohammed who claimed - falsely - to be a prophet. The Sharia is a theocratic legal code that conflicts with the NML on various points and is antithetical to any form of government that is not explicitly Islamic.
The former, the NML, does not seek to unite the state with faith and allows for a distinction between the two (not separation like in France). The latter establishes despotic government where the ruler controls the public conduct and private consciences of the ruled.
 
EmilyAlexandra said:
In Britain, the best known example is the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which can operate in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland as a tribunal for the purposes of the Arbitration Act 1996.
Click to expand...
Yes. Operates in family matters, and decisions are binding under Arbitration Act 1996 only, as you say. The Sharia, of itself, has no authority under UK legislation.
 
Last edited:
Metis2 said:
why-is-law-based-on-christian-beliefs-acceptable-when-sharia-law-is-opposed-on-the-basis-of-separation-of-church-and-state

I can not see the reasoning.
Click to expand...
Laws based on sharia can become law if they are constitutional. So, they’ll have to recognize the individual rights all Americans have, and abide within the constitutional limits to government power.

“Separation of church and state “ is really the religious free exercise part of the first amendment, which has two parts.
  1. establishment - the state cannot establish a state church, like the CoE in Britain.
  2. free exercise- the state cannot place limits on religious free exercise.
The constitution doesn’t place restrictions on legislators religious motivations or beliefs when passing laws.
 
Kaninchen said:
Bit like the Papal States then.
Click to expand...
Thankfully the Papal States, unlike Mohammedan Sharia law, did not permit paedophilia and other disgusting things dictated by Mohammed in his laws to fulfil his disordered desires and which have caused much misery across the Islamic world since.
 
Last edited:
Tumbler House has done a good video on the baptism of the Jewish boy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top