N
neophyte
Guest
Because Sharia law is incompatible with the fundamental principles on which our representative republic is founded.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why is law based on Christian beliefs acceptable, when Sharia law is opposed on the basis of separation of church and state?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
neophyte
Guest
The Constitution says nothing about a separation of church and state. Not a word.In the United States, isn’t the separation of church and state, according to the Constitution, applied to all religions?
H
Hodos
Guest
The Civil law code is not based upon Christian beliefs, it is based on natural law and English common law. That being said, God’s law as expressed in the 10 Commandments are based upon God’s ordering of the natural world. So basic concepts like, humans don’t have the right to kill, steal from, lie or deceive under oath, and have responsibilities to respect the property rights of others, were codified into our law. Notice however, that other aspects of the Sinai covenant, which are not just expressions of natural law but order God’s specific people’s daily lives for the purpose of religious devotion are not codified into law. So for example, you are not required to keep kosher, to observe the Jewish religious holidays, tithe, etc. Sharia law, much like the Sinai Covenant goes well beyond just the expressions of natural law, ordering every aspect of civic, religious, and political life, which is why it is opposed in a secular civil law code.I can not see the reasoning.
D
Dan123
Guest
There’s plenty of things against Sharia law that are also against secular law in the US, same with any religion. It’s not that a law can’t have a religious justification, the criticism usually comes when a law only has a religious justification.
Theft is against religious law all over the world, but there’s also secular justification for making it illegal, so since it’s in such universal agreement it’s unlikely to change significantly or disappear or be challenged. On the other hand keeping holy days free from work varies by religion and so for example preventing businesses from opening on Sunday really has no justification outside Christianity. You can make arguments about strengthening families and such but the specific argument for it being Sunday is only rooted in a single religion and enshrining it in law favors that religion’s practices over other religions and the irreligious.
Theft is against religious law all over the world, but there’s also secular justification for making it illegal, so since it’s in such universal agreement it’s unlikely to change significantly or disappear or be challenged. On the other hand keeping holy days free from work varies by religion and so for example preventing businesses from opening on Sunday really has no justification outside Christianity. You can make arguments about strengthening families and such but the specific argument for it being Sunday is only rooted in a single religion and enshrining it in law favors that religion’s practices over other religions and the irreligious.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Sharia is Arabic for law, so you can just say “Sharia”. Seriously, my brain hurts every time I read it. If the law was based on Christian beliefs, Homosexual acts would be illegal, abortion would stay outlawed (and laws against it would actually be enforced), and supreme courts around the globe would not be able to make rulings based solely on their opinions (exactly what they do in the US, by the way)
A
Allegra
Guest
Individual lawmakers are influenced by the tenants of their faith, whether they are Christian, Muslim, or other. Even atheist lawmakers are influenced by their beliefs that there is no God. There is nothing unacceptable or even realistically avoidable about that. What isn’t acceptable is to hold Scripture or any other sacred text as the standard to which all lawmakers must base their decisions on.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
You could say that about any group of religious tenets.Because Sharia law is incompatible with the fundamental principles on which our representative republic is founded.
“Sharia law” was never going to be instituted in the US. The concept came to the fore as part of anti-Muslim animus – several conservative legislators on the state level passed laws stating that sharia law would not be imposed in the US. It was a solution without a problem.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is a good question. I would say part of the problem is overly-broad categorization of people. Who, for example, actually believe what you say, if anyone? What individual? For example, there are those who do not believe in the separation of church and state. Then there are those that do believe in it, but with different understanding of where the line between morality and Church law is drawn. Few people believe drowning babies to be a moral action. It is illegal. Few people think embezzlement is a moral action, and it is illegal. Easy. These hurt others. But what about drugs, prostitution, and other crimes of morality which do not in their essence directly hurt another person (discounting the debatable effects to society)? I think deacon jeff had the best idea. A devout Muslim is still responsible to acting in accordance with his conscience as much as a Christian, Hindu, or atheist. Sharia that is not rooted in moral law is, as a rule, no more acceptable than canon law as a basis for civil law. For example, we do not punish people for failing to attend Mass, or irregular marriage.I can not see the reasoning.
Last edited:
N
neophyte
Guest
Someone could certainly say that, but they’d be gravely wrong.You could say that about any group of religious tenets.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
You think non-Catholics should be required to perform their Easter duty?Someone could certainly say that, but they’d be gravely wrong.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Where is that the law?You think non-Catholics should be required to perform their Easter duty?
N
neophyte
Guest
What in the world are you talking about? - There’s no civil law in the US that requires Catholics to do it, and to create such a law would violate Catholic teaching (and probably would violate Catholic Canon Law as well).You think non-Catholics should be required to perform their Easter duty?
Your fabrication of situations that don’t exist doesn’t recommend your position.
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Is not soley sharia law; each religion’s tenets violate the principles on which this country was founded.What in the world are you talking about? - There’s no civil law in the US that requires Catholics to do it, and to create such a law would violate Catholic teaching (and probably would violate Catholic Canon Law as well).
Your fabrication of situations that don’t exist doesn’t recommend your position.
N
neophyte
Guest
Bare assertion.Is not soley sharia law; each religion’s tenets violate the principles on which this country was founded.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
see above about Easter.Bare assertion.
N
neophyte
Guest
For you to repeat something absurd doesn’t make it less absurd.see above about Easter.
Unless you begin to engage in a coherent discussion, I’m done here.
I understand your frustration.Sharia is Arabic for law, so you can just say “Sharia”. Seriously, my brain hurts every time I read it
The term ‘Sharīʿa law’ is a misnomer. Sharīʿa is not law, but a set of principles. The literal translation of ‘Sharīʿa’ is ‘the clear, well-trodden path to water’; for Muslims, the path to salvation; divine and unchanging.
Islamic jurisprudence (‘fiqh’) on the other hand is a matter of human interpretation; changing according to circumstance, and subject to prejudice and error. Fiqh is meant to develop and change according to the time and place. It is not meant to be static, but flexible. In practice, this - to put it mildly - is not always the case.
C
childinthefaith
Guest
Why is the sky blue?
We were founded a Christian country.
Nobody who is not a Muslim, in their right mind, would want to trade our justice system for sharia. That’s why.
We were founded a Christian country.
Nobody who is not a Muslim, in their right mind, would want to trade our justice system for sharia. That’s why.
C
childinthefaith
Guest
No, perhaps I am a retired US soldier, am familiar with Revolutionary history, and realize that the founding fathers of our country were acting upon Christian principles. See the US Constitution, “…endowed by our Creator with…” (x) rights. That sound like the language of men who were pro-sharia law?
And I could care not a whit less about Tripoli and that document unless it draws soldiers there to risk their lives. Pretty sure the USMC song includes something about that. But hey, I am Air Force, so what do I know? What i know for certain is, attempting to place sharia law in the USA would fail tremendously.
Lastly, why on earth would you post such a thing on a Catholic forum? Clearly the Catholic Faith is opposed to the beliefs of Islam.
Just trollin ?
And I could care not a whit less about Tripoli and that document unless it draws soldiers there to risk their lives. Pretty sure the USMC song includes something about that. But hey, I am Air Force, so what do I know? What i know for certain is, attempting to place sharia law in the USA would fail tremendously.
Lastly, why on earth would you post such a thing on a Catholic forum? Clearly the Catholic Faith is opposed to the beliefs of Islam.
Just trollin ?
S
stpurl
Guest
It is real history, but the inferences that you draw are not necessarily correct.
Since the other side in question was Muslim in practice, and since most countries in Europe and now this very new republic Were said to have or to be considering some sort of state-sanctioned religion, the phrasing of the article was felt to reflect a reassurance to the Pasha that there would be no ‘religious wars’ and no attempt to engage in such. It was not meant to stand as an ‘11th commandment’ if you will. Perhaps you believe so much in ‘separation of church and state’ that your worldview necessarily causes you to read everything ‘in that light’ and to view the wording and phrases of a document written in 1797 as by men who had the outlook of early 21st century men. That is not the case at all.
Also, the whole “most of them were Deists’ is a kind of revisionist ‘wish’; while many of those involved in the early stages of the U.S. were interested in the “Enlightenment” and members of the Masons etc., they were also men, men who lived in a particular era, men who participated in something, well, revolutionary. I am reminded of men who are wildly enthusiastic about something, be it “Dungeons and Dragons’ or perhaps going to ‘radical meetings’ in their youth, who after a few years begin to find themselves interested in things that are quite different.
Or to be somewhat historical, and as somebody whose older sister was a perfect flower child, the ‘peace and love’ age of Aquarius 20 year old in 1968 was pretty quickly the cunning 40 year old Wall Street trader in 1988, for example. My goodness, the commune-loving, back to the land, simple living 20 year old who wanted to bake bread and smoke tokes was the person who wanted to get rich quick, ‘the one who dies with the most toys wins’, and snorting coke.
What I mean is, and considering times and pursuits, for rich and poor alike were more more homogenous and simple then, the 20 somethings who were taking over in 1800 from the 50 somethings who had actually fought as young men themselves in the war and just prior, would themselves in another 20 years be going right into the Great Revival (look it up).
And even the Founders had a lot more on their plate—and in their worldview, which lacked diversions like the internet—even than discussing “Deist’ principles. There was also a lot about personal wealth to consider, and manifest destiny, not to mention an eye for industry. Such things would be of far greater import than a desire not to have a ‘state sponsored religion’.
Since the other side in question was Muslim in practice, and since most countries in Europe and now this very new republic Were said to have or to be considering some sort of state-sanctioned religion, the phrasing of the article was felt to reflect a reassurance to the Pasha that there would be no ‘religious wars’ and no attempt to engage in such. It was not meant to stand as an ‘11th commandment’ if you will. Perhaps you believe so much in ‘separation of church and state’ that your worldview necessarily causes you to read everything ‘in that light’ and to view the wording and phrases of a document written in 1797 as by men who had the outlook of early 21st century men. That is not the case at all.
Also, the whole “most of them were Deists’ is a kind of revisionist ‘wish’; while many of those involved in the early stages of the U.S. were interested in the “Enlightenment” and members of the Masons etc., they were also men, men who lived in a particular era, men who participated in something, well, revolutionary. I am reminded of men who are wildly enthusiastic about something, be it “Dungeons and Dragons’ or perhaps going to ‘radical meetings’ in their youth, who after a few years begin to find themselves interested in things that are quite different.
Or to be somewhat historical, and as somebody whose older sister was a perfect flower child, the ‘peace and love’ age of Aquarius 20 year old in 1968 was pretty quickly the cunning 40 year old Wall Street trader in 1988, for example. My goodness, the commune-loving, back to the land, simple living 20 year old who wanted to bake bread and smoke tokes was the person who wanted to get rich quick, ‘the one who dies with the most toys wins’, and snorting coke.
What I mean is, and considering times and pursuits, for rich and poor alike were more more homogenous and simple then, the 20 somethings who were taking over in 1800 from the 50 somethings who had actually fought as young men themselves in the war and just prior, would themselves in another 20 years be going right into the Great Revival (look it up).
And even the Founders had a lot more on their plate—and in their worldview, which lacked diversions like the internet—even than discussing “Deist’ principles. There was also a lot about personal wealth to consider, and manifest destiny, not to mention an eye for industry. Such things would be of far greater import than a desire not to have a ‘state sponsored religion’.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.