C
ColoradoCatholic
Guest
Because Sharia law is wrong. Christian Law is the truth.
Why is law based on Christian beliefs acceptable, when Sharia law is opposed on the basis of separation of church and state?
- Status
I
Inquisitor85
Guest
I’d be careful going down that road, the US has a common law system because it’s what the UK has and you’ve stuck with it. Same as the likes of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Other countries in Europe, notably those more heavily influenced by the Catholic Church, and their former colonies tend towards civil law systems.
As to the OP, I think this comes down cultural reasons. Most people in the US, even if they don’t believe, have cultural baggage from growing up in a majority Christian country. Therefore laws that are influenced from a Christian perspective are considered normal, those from any other perspective are seen as abnormal. That’s what it comes down to, unless theres a significant shift in demographics (not likely according to current modeling) then you’re unlikely to see any changes any time soon.
M
mcq72
Guest
"In his 1941 book The Mysterious Science of the Law Daniel Boorstin wrote that no other book( Blackstone’s Law Commentaries) except the Bible played a greater role in the history of American institutions. The Founders of the country found their philosophy in John Locke and their passion in Thomas Paine, but they found the blueprint for a new nation in Blackstone. "
“Human laws, Blackstone believed, were like scientific laws. They were creations of God waiting to be discovered …”
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/william-blackstone/
"Blackstone turned to the revealed law of God for “the only true and solid foundation of man’s dominion over external things.” He referred to Genesis chapter one wherein the Creator gave man "dominion over all the earth
http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/blackstone.htm
Last edited:
I
Inquisitor85
Guest
While that may all be true the fact remains that the reason the US uses Common Law is because you inherited it from the UK. The vast majority of the former British Empire countries use Common Law, where as former French or Spanish Empire territories tend to use Civil Law. In fact one could make the argument that the reason for a lot of issues between the UK and EU comes down to the fact that the UK uses Common Law whereas most of the EU use Civil Law.
Tl;dr if the 13 colonies were founded by the French Empire, you’d use Civil Law.
Tl;dr if the 13 colonies were founded by the French Empire, you’d use Civil Law.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
The reason is clear.
The US is not an Islamic theocracy.
It is not also a Christian theocracy but a Western nation founded on Western principles which at its foundation is Christian.
The US is not an Islamic theocracy.
It is not also a Christian theocracy but a Western nation founded on Western principles which at its foundation is Christian.
L
ltwin
Guest
Yes. Individuals can be religious. However, individuals acting as officers of the state cannot use government power to favor or promote one religion over another. If a school board voted to provide religious indoctrination to public school students, it would clearly be “establishing a religion” and that would be unconstitutional.
The word “establishment” as used in the Constitution simply means churches officially favored by the government (which are therefore “established” by law). At the time the Constitution was written, there were “established religions” within several of the states. These were the official churches of those states, and these official churches received special privileges and benefits from their status as established religions. In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, the Congregational Church (modern day United Church of Christ and Unitarian Churches) was the official religion until 1833, 1818, and 1819 respectively. In Virginia, the Episcopal Church was the official religion until 1786.
We can compare the established churches to modern day public schools. Today, the states operate public school systems with tax money, but there are private schools that do not receive state support. Likewise, in the early history of our country, several states operated “public” churches even though there were other churches that did not receive state support.
The calls for the disestablishment of religion came from these non-public churches who believed that the government should not play favorites but instead treat all churches the same.
When it came to the US Constitution, it made sense to prohibit the federal government from favoring one religion over another. There was no single church that could claim to be THE national church for the US. Which church would have been the official religion? The Methodists? The Presbyterians? The Baptists? The Episcopalians? None of these groups would tolerate another being funded and favored by the federal government.
The Establishment Clause does not and never has removed religion from public life. Religious people and religious institutions have the same rights to engage in public debate as their non-religious counterparts. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from favoring one religion over another.
Last edited:
L
ltwin
Guest
Well, the Constitution was amended after the Civil War, so we’re not exactly operating under the same rules as they were before the Civil War. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying citizens liberty without due process, and this has been interpreted by the courts as prohibiting states from establishing religions.
In regards to abortion, the establishment clause has nothing to do with that. The United Kingdom has an established church (the Church of England) and it also has legal abortion.
P
pohandes
Guest
Sharia is a arabic word for “law”. There s not any “Sharia law”!
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, that is the latest ruling, but was not so at the beginning. Again you can not establish an already existing religion, especially when it is the consensus or majority or cultural religion of the community.
Some carry indoctrination to an extreme, where a Christmas tree, Nativity, or ten comnandments plaque, or a bible in the library is “indoctribation”. So God was kicked out of science books and filled in vacuum with indocrinating our children with belief that we came from premordial slime and monkeys.
Correct but I cited the War and states rights. Just like the War/ federal government infringed on state right to secede, so too does the federal government forbid states to protect the unborn.( oddly enough using due process for all citizens).
Well, you rightly first cited established religions as of founding fathers and concern for sectarianism, or one denomination over another so to speak. Not only did we get rid of that concern we got rid of all religion together, of Christianity vs Islam vs Buddhism etc…none can be favored by government, a broader disestablishment of religion.
For example, when the federal government removed “official” prayer from school, it removed a prayer asking for God’s blessing that would find approval with most major religions:
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country”.
While I also don’t like forced religion or mere cultural consensus, I certainly don’t like the cultural direction or vacuosness about religion as being neutral either.
Last edited:
L
ltwin
Guest
You are misusing the word “establish”. When the 1st Amendment refers to an “establishment of religion”, it isn’t saying that Congress can’t start a brand new religion or church. It’s saying that Congress cannot take an existing religion or church and “establish it by law” as the official religion of the nation with all the special benefits that accompany official status (like government funding and a requirement that office holders be members of the established church, etc.).
If a school board decided that students were to be taught the Christian religion as the true religion, that would be an establishment of religion. Yes, the state isn’t creating a new religion, but they are establishing an existing religion as an official religion and that is unconstitutional.
The fact is that constitutional interpretation follows society. We do not live in a Christian society anymore. Even if the government was to give recognition to Christianity (such as through school prayer and Ten Commandments & nativity scenes in courthouses), it wouldn’t mean that our society was suddenly Christian again.
As I’ve said before, England has an established church. The Queen is the governor of this church. This church’s bishops sit and vote in Parliament. Even with all of this entanglement of church and state, England is probably less Christian than the United States at this point.
I find it a waste of time for Christians to bemoan the fact that teachers can’t lead their students in prayer when the actual foundations of Western society are crumbling.
Let’s imagine that the government wasn’t neutral. Why do you think your version of Christianity would be favored? The way things are going, it would be a progressive, left-leaning version.
D
Dan123
Guest
It’s perhaps useful to consider that the phrase “separation of Church & State”, while not appearing in the Constitution, appears addressing the precise concern you raise here. That of the Danbury Baptist association, who were concerned their religious liberties would be infringed upon by other Christians. It’s worth remembering within the realm of being a Christian nation, there’s a lot of different ideas on what that could mean.
C
childinthefaith
Guest
In re: to the OP, one more time, and be grateful patriots believe this part of the pledge: “One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL.”
That’s well after the part where it says “endowed by our Creator with certain, inalienable rights.”
Nowhere in that founding document does it say Islam, or sharia, or anything that is not from the Christian beliefs taken from the Christian Bible.
And again, if anyone in the USA doesn’t like that, citizen or otherwise, IMO they should go live somewhere else. There’s a long line of people wanting to get in this great country, and our Christian attitudes from things ranging from the actual Constitution to the current rules of law, have a lot to do with why.
Adios
That’s well after the part where it says “endowed by our Creator with certain, inalienable rights.”
Nowhere in that founding document does it say Islam, or sharia, or anything that is not from the Christian beliefs taken from the Christian Bible.
And again, if anyone in the USA doesn’t like that, citizen or otherwise, IMO they should go live somewhere else. There’s a long line of people wanting to get in this great country, and our Christian attitudes from things ranging from the actual Constitution to the current rules of law, have a lot to do with why.
Adios
A
Alexandria2020
Guest
There’s freedom of religion in US. I see mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist temples here in the US.
Now lets go to Saudi Arabia, the land of Mecca. There’s no freedom of religion. Most migrant Christians in Saudi Arabia worship underground. Why is that?
In a democracy, individuals have the right to their rights. Look at India as an example, the largest democracy in the world. A Muslim Indian has the rights to his Muslim values, so does a Christian Indian and a Hindu Muslim. People vote and the majority decides. That’s how a democracy works. Individuals elect a lawmaker who stands for their values. If this particular type of lawmaker make a majority, then they can bring in laws and regulations that match their values etc. That’s how a democracy works.
Plus,
The US is not called United Christian States.
as previously mentioned its not a theocracy.
Last edited:
A
Alexandria2020
Guest
The Church of the East Syrian Christians had to pay dhimmi (Jizya )tax for their religion when they were under Islamic rule.
Same with the majority Hindus of India, who were under the rule of the Muslim Mughal Empire in the Indian subcontinent.
The sad state of affairs of being in Muslim rule.
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Bit like Jews in various European countries at various times - things like ‘tolerance’ taxes and financing ‘Houses of Catechumens’.
A
Alexandria2020
Guest
Atleast there’s freedom of religion and separation of church and state now. I’m sure European Muslims can vouch for that.
I lived in Saudi Arabia in the 20th century - cannot say the same thing there.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Saudi is one of those places best avoided by people of my background.
The following non-Muslim citizens were exempt from paying the jizya tax: women; children; the elderly; the handicapped; the sick; monks; hermits; and the insane. Non-Muslim foreigners, whose residence in a Muslim State was temporary, were also exempt; as were non-Muslim male citizens of military age who elected to join the State’s armed forces.
Muhammad Abdel Haleem, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, writes:
‘The jizya was one dīnār a year for every able-bodied male who could fight in the army – monks were exempted. As non-Muslims they were not obliged to fight for the Muslim armies. This is a liberal attitude, which recognised that it would be unfair to enlist people who do not believe in Islam to fight for the Muslim state, something which their own religion and conscience might not allow them to do. The jizya was their contribution to the defence of the Islamic state they lived in. Muslims, on the other hand, were obliged to serve in the army, and all Muslims had to pay the much higher zakāt tax, part of which is spent on defence.
‘When non-Muslims chose to serve in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the jizya, and when the Muslim state could not defend certain subjects from whom they had collected jizya, it returned the jizya tax to them, giving this as a reason. In return for the jizya, non-Muslims also enjoyed state social security.’ (‘Understanding the Qur’an – Themes and Styles’).
Today, no Islamic country imposes the jizya. It is no longer applicable, due to Islamic and international law. In such countries, all the people – regardless of their religion or status (citizen or visitor) – fall under the category of mu’ahids (contractually protected persons).
Muhammad Abdel Haleem, King Fahd Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, writes:
‘The jizya was one dīnār a year for every able-bodied male who could fight in the army – monks were exempted. As non-Muslims they were not obliged to fight for the Muslim armies. This is a liberal attitude, which recognised that it would be unfair to enlist people who do not believe in Islam to fight for the Muslim state, something which their own religion and conscience might not allow them to do. The jizya was their contribution to the defence of the Islamic state they lived in. Muslims, on the other hand, were obliged to serve in the army, and all Muslims had to pay the much higher zakāt tax, part of which is spent on defence.
‘When non-Muslims chose to serve in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the jizya, and when the Muslim state could not defend certain subjects from whom they had collected jizya, it returned the jizya tax to them, giving this as a reason. In return for the jizya, non-Muslims also enjoyed state social security.’ (‘Understanding the Qur’an – Themes and Styles’).
Today, no Islamic country imposes the jizya. It is no longer applicable, due to Islamic and international law. In such countries, all the people – regardless of their religion or status (citizen or visitor) – fall under the category of mu’ahids (contractually protected persons).
My son might also have a hard time there…he’s a SufiSaudi is one of those places best avoided by people of my background.
A
Alexandria2020
Guest
with over 2000+ mosques in the US why would they do that? It’s quite comfy here indeed in all honesty. I see absolutely nothing to complain about.
By 2040, Muslims will replace Jews as the nation’s second-largest religious group after Christians. And by 2050, the U.S. Muslim population is projected to reach 8.1 million.
Last edited:
- Status