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

[EmilyAlexandra]

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.

Do people still use the word “Mohammedan”? Apparently the term is “now largely obsolete and offensive”.

It’s really not very profitable to generalise about Islam in this way. Islam is the world’s second largest religion. It has existed for around 1,400 years and is found in every corner of the globe. Even in the present day, you will find very significant differences between the kinds of Islam that you will find in Iran, Turkey, the Arab world, sub-Saharan Africa, and central, south, and southeast Asia. You would of course find even greater diversity if you were to take a longer historical view, comparing, for example, the Ottomans, the Mongols, and the Mughals. Generalising about Muslims therefore makes about as much sense as generalising about Christians, e.g. expecting to find much common ground between Christians in the Kingdom of Aksum and Christians in 21st-century America.

Indeed, the Catholic Church at one time allowed girls to marry at the age of 12. This was raised to 14, and I believe the pope recently increased the age further to 16.

If you are going to talk about terrible things that were done under the auspices of Islam, perhaps you will also have to consider some of the terrible things that have been done under the auspices of Christianity. For example, the Christian missionaries in Canada and New Zealand who used to beat indigenous children for speaking their native language as part of a systematic campaign to suppress indigenous culture. Indeed, Welsh-speaking children in the Christian nation of Wales used to be beaten for speaking Welsh.

Or consider the great public schools of England, all of them Christian foundations, where boys were beaten with considerable cruelty, often for the most trivial of reasons. One headmaster of Eton, Dr Keate, boasted of flogging 80 boys in a single day. Eton used birching (administered in public and on the bare buttocks) until 1963 and caning until 1984 (Anthony Chenevix-Trench, an alcoholic, was notorious for caning boys on the bare buttocks in private sessions).

One could also think of all the boys who were castrated so that they could sing in church choirs, including the Sistine Chapel choir, from the 16th century until the practice was banned in Italy in 1861 and, finally, with the disappearance of the Papal States in 1870 (the last castrato to sing in the Sistine Chapel did not retire until 1913).

 

[AlbMagno]

It’s really not very profitable to generalise about Islam in this way

obsolete and offensive

Proceeds to list 4 other generalizations about the world’s largest religion

 

[ltwin]

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”

First thing to point out is that this originally applied only to Congress (i.e. the Federal Government). The Federal Government was prohibited from establishing a religion, which refers to elevating one church to official status like, for example, the Church of England.

It was only much later that this clause was “incorporated” against the states by judicial interpretation. Well into the 1800s, the state of Massachusetts had an official church–the Congregational Churches–and these official churches received numerous privileges including government financial support.

So, the original intent of the establishment clause was never to stifle religious influence over public life. Rather, it was a recognition that the US was culturally diverse. Different states had different religious characteristics. The New England states were heavily Congregationalist. In the South, the planter elite were heavily Episcopalian and the backcountry farmers were Baptists, Presbyterian and Methodist. It would have been the cause of endless strife to try to force one particular denomination on the whole country. So, the Constitution left each state to choose its own official religion or none at all.

Of course, these days, even the states are banned from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, and in more recent history this logic has been applied to banning prayer in public schools.

However, every US citizens has the right to the “free exercise of religion” and that includes letting your religious views guide your government policy preferences.

 

[Freddy]

I can not see the reasoning.

Most laws happen to align with Christian beliefs. They are not founded on them. For example, I’m pretty certain that there would have been laws against stealing and murder well before Moses came down from the mountain.

 

[Niblo]

Indeed, Welsh-speaking children in the Christian nation of Wales used to be beaten for speaking Welsh.

Yes, my grandparents were. Kids caught speaking Welsh at school were forced to wear a board around their kneck (called the ‘Welsh Not’). This would have to be worn until the child reported another to a teacher. This other would then wear the board. Any child wearing a board at the end of the day was beaten. My paternal grandad, bless him, always refused to report another child.

 

[Laverne]

What do you think separation of Church and state means?
Having laws based on Christian values is not the same as Christianity being set as the state religion, or the government being run by the Church.

Not to mention, what is a law not based in moral values? It doesn’t matter if you are Christian or not, you have to have some form of moral basis for law, otherwise its just people pushing their personal opinions on others.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Proceeds to list 4 other generalizations about the world’s largest religion

No, the comment to which I was replying was a generalisation. The examples that I gave were specific cases:

• Catholic Church up until 1917: girls aged 12 allowed to marry.
• Canada, New Zealand, Wales, 19th/20th centuries: Christians abuse children and suppress indigenous culture.
• England and Wales, Middle Ages until 1980s (mostly c. 1820s-1970s): boys abused at schools run by Christians, including Anglican priests).
• Europe (especially Italy), c. 1500-1870: boys castrated.

This is why I said:

Generalising about Muslims therefore makes about as much sense as generalising about Christians, e.g. expecting to find much common ground between Christians in the Kingdom of Aksum and Christians in 21st-century America.

I could also have pointed out:

• England and Wales, 1533-53 and 1563-1861: anal sex and sex with animals punishable by death (Act of Parliament generally used to prosecute male homosexuals).
• England and Wales, 1533-1967: male homosexuality illegal in all circumstances (discriminatory laws not wholly repealed until 2003).
• UK, 2004: the British government, led by Tony Blair, an Anglican (later a Catholic convert) introduces civil partnership for same-sex couples.
• England and Wales, 2013: the British government, led by David Cameron, also an Anglican, introduces same-sex marriages.
• Uganda, 2009-2014: David Bahati, an evangelical Christian MP, attempts to have homosexuality made a capital offence. A harsh anti-homosexuality Act is eventually approved by President Yoweri Museveni, also an evangelical Christian. The Act is supported by Christian leaders in Uganda. It is opposed by Christian leaders outside Uganda, including the pope and the archbishop of Canterbury.
• Uganda, 2020: Anglican Church rebukes the archbishop of Canterbury, regarding his views on homosexuality as too lenient.
• United States, 2003: Gene Robinson is consecrated a bishop in the Episcopal Church, the first openly gay bishop in any mainstream denomination.

As you can see, my point was that one cannot generalise about any religion.

 

[Dan123]

and in more recent history this logic has been applied to banning school led prayer in public schools.

Important distinction if we’re to have honest debate about sensitive topics

 

[Rubee]

I can not see the reasoning.

There’s plenty of stuff that’s totally abhorrent to Christians but is perfectly ok in secular law and there are things outlawed by secular law that both religions “outlaw” too, like murder, theft, bearing false witness, etc. There is a Christian base to Western Secular law, of course, but that’s not the same thing as western law being Christian. Only that Christianity is the original soil from which it sprouted; but that’s all. If you doubt me, consider abortion and such things.

 

[Montrose]

Some law makers will decide whether to vote for or against a law based on the Bible and Christian values. Why is it acceptable to base law on the Bible but not the Qur’an?

They can make decisions based on whatever they want.

 

[AlbMagno]

Is it a generalization to say that the marriagable age in Islam is very low, even lower than the one in Catholicism? And, I think, it isn’t a movable disciple like in Catholicism.

 

[JonNC]

Metis2:

Some law makers will decide whether to vote for or against a law based on the Bible and Christian values. Why is it acceptable to base law on the Bible but not the Qur’an?

They can make decisions based on whatever they want.

As long as it complies with the constitution

 

[MikeInVA]

“ As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ;

I am far from being a scholar, but I believe what was being said here was that the government of the United States does not draw its authority from a church. The monarchs in Europe were in power with the approval of a church, e.g. the Catholic Church for Spain, Portugal and France (before the revolution), the Church of England for England, etc. It is reductionist to think that our founding fathers were not shaped by their faith and their culture.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Because the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and the separation of Chuch and state is problem one of most misunderstood tenants.

 

[BornInMarch]

I can’t either, and I myself don’t want Christian morality to be legislated. Given how in the past many protestant-majority countries discriminated against Catholics, including the United States, I think separation of Church and State is something that should be maintained in the United States.

Having said that, if the law can be justified on a secular basis then it should be fine even if it happens to correspond to the tenants of a religious text. The most obvious example is the law against murder; “Thou shalt not murder” is a commandment in the bible but there are non-religious reasons to support anti-murder laws.

 

[MikeInVA]

I myself don’t want Christian morality to be legislated.

I hear this a lot. What particular aspects of Christian morality conflict with the Constitution?

 

[BornInMarch]

What particular aspects of Christian morality conflict with the Constitution?

Bans on gay marriage and gay adoption, for starters. There’s no constitutional basis for childbirth being the goal of marriage, and all the scientific data shows that gay couples are no worse parents than straight couples are.

Yet American Christians oppose it’s legality for no other reason than “my religion forbids it”.

 

[harshcshah]

If you are going to talk about terrible things that were done under the auspices of Islam, perhaps you will also have to consider some of the terrible things that have been done under the auspices of Christianity.

Whilst this is an understandable position to take, I would think that the terrible things done in the name of Christ cannot be compared to the terrible things done in the name of Islam because the sources from which Islamic doctrine is extracted (i.e. the Quran and Hadith) specifically condone many of these acts whereas the Bible does not and the Christian tradition has not permitted . Whilst there are some Muslim sects and specific liberal Western Muslims who dissent from those positions, they have been widely considered within the Islamic world to be heretical, indeed “innovation” in Islam has been considered heretical since the early days.

Generalising about Muslims therefore makes about as much sense as generalising about Christians

I would note that my point, if it was unclear which I appreciate it could have been, was intended to describe the broad system of ideas within the religion and not individual positions held by specific believers; as a broad generalisation of Islamic doctrine I think my view is quite correct.

Indeed, the Catholic Church at one time allowed girls to marry at the age of 12. This was raised to 14, and I believe the pope recently increased the age further to 16.

Regarding this matter, the principle behind the matter is one of canon law and the principle behind it is, as per my understanding, intended to protect prepubescent girls from being sexually violated. Whereas, Mohammed in his Sharia law - as noted in the Hadith - permitted sexually violating prepubescent girls (his child bride Aisha still had her dolls with her when he . . . first had sex with her, . . . this is a euphemism for her being prepubescent). Whilst one might think the ages under previous canon law were misjudged, I think it would be a false analogy to compare Catholic faith and Islam.

 

[Dan123]

I hear this a lot. What particular aspects of Christian morality conflict with the Constitution?

Within the ten commandments alone there’s several. Should coveting be a crime? Making graven images? Working on the Sabbath? There are people who would see these rules enforced by the power of law.

 

[MikeInVA]

Bans on gay marriage and gay adoption, for starters. There’s no constitutional basis for childbirth being the goal of marriage, and all the scientific data shows that gay couples are no worse parents than straight couples are.

The reason a government endorses marriage is because married couples produce future contributing members of society. Pseudo marriages do nothing for society.

Children should be adopted by married couples. It is sad that the Catholic Church was forced out of the adoption business in so many places. Children deserve a mother and a father.

I would address your scientific data, but with no names of studies to go by I can only dismiss them.