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

[MikeInVA]

Should coveting be a crime?

Unless you’re the thought police I’m not sure how such a law (which has never been proposed) would work.

Making graven images?

That’s already addressed by the First Ammendment.

Working on the Sabbath?

Having lived in a country where businesses are closed on Sunday, I’d actually love to see this as a law!

 

[Dan123]

Unless you’re the thought police I’m not sure how such a law (which has never been proposed) would work.

It would probably work poorly, but I think that means we’d agree we should not implement that aspect of Christian morality into our laws, right?

That’s already addressed by the First Ammendment.

Sure, so implementing that part of Christian morality would be unconstitutional without an amendment, one I don’t think would garner much support.

Having lived in a country where businesses are closed on Sunday, I’d actually love to see this as a law!

You’d fine people and/or put them in jail for not following that law? Do you think it’s constitutional to tell people they can’t gather on Sunday to do business when the same act is legal any other time?

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

This comes up in every gay marriage conversation and I doubt we’ll broach any new ground here. The requirement to product offspring does not exist anywhere except when it comes to gay couples. Infertile couples marry all the time. Couples past the age where they can have or want to have kids marry all the time. Couple who simply voluntarily decide not to have kids marry all the time. We allow them to marry, we don’t invalidate the marriage if they don’t have kids. So that is not the reason government endorses such unions, certainly not exclusively at any rate.

 

[MikeInVA]

The requirement to product offspring does not exist anywhere except when it comes to gay couples.

Some married couples cannot have children, no “SSM” couples can have children. The Church has no requirement to test for fertility, why would the government?

You’d fine people and/or put them in jail for not following that law?

That’s usually not the case for minor infractions. Does every jaywalker get jail time?

Do you think it’s constitutional to tell people they can’t gather on Sunday to do business when the same act is legal any other time?

I don’t think it violates anyone’s rights. It’s a practice that’s beneficial to the community in general, and people who get a day off from work in particular. I would be opposed to a mandate to attend religious services though.

It would probably work poorly, but I think that means we’d agree we should not implement that aspect of Christian morality into our laws, right?

Extreme hypothetical examples are counterproductive. The question is what reasonable law could you envision being proposed that contradicts the Constitution?

 

[Dan123]

Some married couples cannot have children, no “SSM” couples can have children. The Church has no requirement to test for fertility, why would the government?

If the purpose of the government recognizing these unions is to promote a new generation of productive children then why wouldn’t producing a generation of productive children be part of the deal? What if they promise to adopt a child one of those heterosexual unions gave up for adoption?

That’s usually not the case for minor infractions. Does every jaywalker get jail time?

No but they get a fine, there were two parts there. Would you fine people for working on the sabbath? Would you make exemptions for pharmacies, medical workers, etc?

I don’t think it violates anyone’s rights. It’s a practice that’s beneficial to the community in general, and people who get a day off from work in particular.

Just off from work? Can they do yard work? Could they perhaps pick up sticks?

The question is what reasonable law could you envision being proposed that contradicts the Constitution?

That was not the question. The question was “What particular aspects of Christian morality conflict with the Constitution?”

So far we seem to agree any thought crimes such as coveting are incompatible since the Constitution does not establish the power to regulate thought as being part of our government. We seem to agree on freedom of expression, which rules out making graven images. What about taking the name of the Lord in vain, would that law be incompatible with the Constitution?

First amendment also covers freedom of religion which would make the commandment about having no other gods before Him unconstitutional right?

What about honoring thy father and thy mother? It’s a good idea in most cases sure but there’s certainly instances such as with physically, emotionally or verbally abusive parents where someone might shut them out of their lives or otherwise not act in a very honorable way towards them. Would be make honoring them the law and punish those who didn’t?

 

[Pattylt]

I don’t think it violates anyone’s rights. It’s a practice that’s beneficial to the community in general, and people who get a day off from work in particular.

Can you explain how this law wouldn’t violate Jewish, Muslim and SDA rights to conduct business on Sunday?

 

[MikeInVA]

Because it isn’t a religious requirement, it is a secular requirement. It slows life down and gives time for families to relax together.

 

[Montrose]

As long as it complies with the constitution

Don’t know what you mean. I can understand the decision must comply with the constitution but what he bases it on can be anything. If he sees three bald eagles flying overhead he could make a decision based on that so I don’t understand your comment.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

As long as it complies with the constitution

Don’t know what you mean. I can understand the decision must comply with the constitution but what he bases it on can be anything. If he sees three bald eagles flying overhead he could make a decision based on that so I don’t understand your comment.

Well, all laws must comply with the constitution. When laws are passed, regardless of religious beliefs, it has to comply.

 

[Pattylt]

Because it isn’t a religious requirement, it is a secular requirement. It slows life down and gives time for families to relax together.

So, we could make it Saturday and that would be ok? Or, do you think Christians would be upset and insist it be on Sunday?

 

[MikeInVA]

Being a nation with a Christian majority, Sunday would make more sense, but in this hypothetical debate Saturday would be fine.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

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.

As I understand it, the marriageable age in Islam varies widely. Generally speaking, Islam had the principle that a person may marry upon reaching puberty. However, the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence have set different ages. In Sunni Islam, the Hanafi school sets the age at 9 for girls and 12 for boys. The Shafi’i and Hanbali schools set the age at 15 for both boys and girls, while the Maliki school sets the age at 17 for both. In Shia Islam, the Jafari school sets the age at 9 for girls and 15 for boys.

However, one also has to consider the marriageable ages that apply in Muslim countries compared with the marriageable ages in Christian countries. It is true that a handful of Muslim countries, such as Sudan and Iran, have very low marriageable ages. In Bangladesh, around two thirds of all marriages involve children. However, it is also the case that girls can marry with parental permission at the age of 12 in Equatorial Guinea, where 93% of the population is Christian, and at 14 in São Tomé and Príncipe, where 95% are Christian. Girls can also marry at 12 with parental permission in Uruguay, historically a strongly Catholic country, although Christians now make up only around 58% of the population. There are also Muslim countries with relatively high marriageable ages, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which both set the marriageable age at 18 in all circumstances.

By the way, when I mentioned that until 1917 the Catholic Church allowed girls to marry at 12, I was not in fact citing this as a reason to criticise the Catholic Church, but, rather, as an example of how religions change. Over a period of just over 100 years, the Catholic Church has increased the marriageable age for girls from 12 to 16. This is yet another example of how one cannot generalise about religions.

 

[Niblo]

Excellent!

 

[childinthefaith]

• 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.

. . . .
Muslims subjugate women, and do “honor killings.”

Both of these are current, not historical.

Oh, and last year in the Punjab province a woman raped by a member of her husbands family was executed for adultery.

2 of these 3 are related to Sharia, 1 related to decadence. I’ll readily grant that all human institutions have some faults, but I’d fight Sharia coming to America with every ounce of energy I have.
Further, it’s my belief that Islam is a hate group, not a religion, so…we all know where this conversation heads if I expound.
Sorry, no disrespect or hurt intended, but again, this IS a Catholic forum, so I dont wish to entertain Muslim theories…

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

it’s my belief that Islam is a hate group, not a religion

If that is your belief, it is unlikely that anybody is going to change your mind any time soon.

Needless to say, there are bad people who are Muslims. There are also some very unpleasant cultures where Islam is the main religion. You will not get any argument from me on either of those counts. But I don’t think that people do bad things because they are Muslims or that bad cultures evolve because of Islam.

On an individual level, there are also a lot of bad people who are Christians. There are even more bad people who are Christians if you include people who are Christian merely in the sense that they come from a Christian cultural background (just as many of the bad Muslims are Muslims only in the sense that Islam is their cultural background).

There are also Christian countries where bad things happen and where these things are to a large extent a part of the local culture. For example, Jamaica is a country where violence, criminality, misogyny, and a hatred of homosexuals is normalised. In Russia, the world’s largest Eastern Orthodox Christian country, violence against women and children is similarly normalised. If you look at this table of countries by intentional homicide rate, you will see that the top 33 countries are countries where Christianity is the main religion. As for honour killings, yes, they do commonly occur among Muslims, but they are sadly also widespread among Hindus and Sikhs in India and Nepal. In the Middle East, honour killings are also reported among the Christian minority as well as among Muslims.

Unfortunately, “Christian” values are often simply western values, and “non-Christian” values are often simply non-western values. Compare Poland and the Czech Republic, for example. Poland is one of the most strongly Christian countries in Europe, while the Czech Republic is one of the least religious countries in Europe. Yet their values are broadly similar. On the other hand, I know Iraqi Christians, and I can tell you that their attitudes towards women are not hugely dissimilar to the attitudes of Iraqi Muslims. When I have been to Israel/Palestine, I have found that the attitudes of Christian Arabs are overall not very tolerable to a western woman. On the other hand, I have met people from the Ismaili Muslim community in London, which is extremely western in outlook, and their attitudes are basically the same as you would find among British Christians (unsurprising, as Aga Khan IV is of three quarters European ancestry).

 

[childinthefaith]

Just real quick, I think my initial reply shouldve been, “Asking why on that is chasing your tail. That’s simply how it is. If you dont like it, dont live in America.” Yeh, that sums it up.

 

[childinthefaith]

Ok now, a point I didnt mention is, numbers show that of the Muslims who HAD to emigrate a few years back, a large number have converted to Christianity in the European nations.

 

[Presbyterian]

Because you’re beginning with a false premise. US Constitutional law may have been based on Christianity, in some respects, but it specifically forbids law that favors any one religion.

Sharia Law is a direct contradiction to that freedom. It establishes a society of religious law in direct contradiction to individual rights. The US Constitution cannot endorse it as that would be inherently opposed to its mandate. In other words, you can’t use freedom of religion to impose law.

 

[mcq72]

In the United States, isn’t the separation of church and state, according to the Constitution, applied to all religions? What are you specifically referring to?

Yes and no. The constitution does not specify. What does apply to the establishment (institution) of religion ( 1 ammendment) is applicable to all, that Congress shall pass no law regulating them. Any wall is to keep Congress from regulating religion. Religion has free reign to intertwine with Congress and is like all institutions, bound by the Constitution itself.

If i have it right, a school board or county or state government can be very religious.

 

[ltwin]

If i have it right, a school board or county or state government can be very religious.

Not sure that’s how it works. The 1st amendment refers to Congress, but the Supreme Court has applied the Establishment Clause to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (this is called incorporation doctrine). This means that states cannot establish religions either. County governments and school boards are creations of state law; therefore, the Establishment Clause applies to them as well.

 

[mcq72]

Not sure that’s how it works. The 1st amendment refers to Congress, but the Supreme Court has applied the Establishment Clause to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (this is called incorporation doctrine). This means that states cannot establish religions either. County governments and school boards are creations of state law; therefore, the Establishment Clause applies to them as well.

Ok, but being religious and establishing a religion are two different things.

From what I understand is that today people interpret “establishment of religion, " as founding or starting even aiding a religion, instead of one that is already " established” or already instituted. The intent was to leave alone the expression of established religion, which at the time was predominantly Christian. At the time, that meant such expression in schools and governments. In NY colony ( possibly state) you had to be a baptized professing Christian to hold any legislative office or elected office (not sure of the exact details). Of course there were the Sunday laws also.

My take is that the disestablishment of religion from the public sector thru the first ammendment is not what the framers intended.

The Civil War was fought on a field of friction between federal and states rights. ( Can you imagine you vote as a geographical territory to join the Union but can never democratically extricate once joined).We rightly used such federal might to defeat slavery in a Christian cause , but in so doing lost a check to federal infringment on other Christian causes, be they as miniscule as a school prayer to making abortion law of the land.
.

So how it works now is not how it worked yesterday. The founders were not ignorant of foresight of such possible future interpretations, that in the end we can create the constitution in our own image, the good, bad and ugly of it, aided or unaided by Divine Providence.