jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (80 posts)

Is it acceptable for some religions to be immune to the law?

  1. lucieanne profile image80
    lucieanneposted 5 years ago

    There has recently been a debate on a radio station about female genital mutilation, which I find abhorrent. Why is this practice acceptable on religious grounds, when it is ultimately child abuse?
    Why don't Jehovah's witnesses get charged with manslaughter when they allow  someone to die for the sake of a blood transusion?

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This seems to be the case in many cultures world wide too, and includes the atrocities committed in the name of allah as well as the biblical religions.

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ALL present mortal Law, around the planet, came from a form of Theos -be it equation or sensation (aka science or religion: ie the law of gravity, the law of moses, the law of physics, the law of war, the law of the land, etc ,etc, etc).
        Without such establishments, there would be no laws to govern mankind.

        ps, the largest infidel of these practices is in India, very non-islam, non-christian, non-buddhist --even non-Hebrew.

        Read what you write dear Earnest. big_smile

        James.

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I hope someone is able to understand this, I can't.

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Earnest, I do think that James is talking about Lawless countries or territories, where there's nothing but complete chaos amongst citizens and militants of those lands.

            He's saying that if the laws that are in place, were not in place, then chaos would ensue.

            It's the same mentality that brought religion into existence in the first place. People must be made to answer to a higher authority otherwise no one would behave themselves.

            1. earnestshub profile image87
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks Cags, explains why I didn't get it, it was rubbish! smile

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, it's not rubbish, because part of his post states that ALL Laws come from either science or religion. Which is exactly right. Most laws in government were originally derived from religion's primary basis and other laws with regards to science came from theories.

                I'm sorry, but I only pointed out the "p.s" of his post.

                1. earnestshub profile image87
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  All good. I missed all of it. smile

                2. jacharless profile image81
                  jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Correct indeed, Ray.

                  Had Theos never come to be, no mortal law would exist.
                  The issue of mortality and morality are the roots of science and sensation.
                  Many argue as to which came first, like the chicken-egg thing.
                  I believe they were spawned together.
                  Throughout human history, the power has shifted from one foot to the other -and at times been viewed as the same thing. Today's society would again be an expression of that singularity. Yet, even with the massivity of [every changing, splintering, bending etc of] laws imposed upon the people of this planet, by governess through science and/or sensation, lawlessness continues.
                  This makes people wonder if humanity can ever live without laws.
                  Until humanity abandons itself, it cannot abolish the laws it made.
                  Until humanity comes to an altruist society, it cannot abandon itself.

                  James.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't heard that such mutilation is allowed in the US, and we certainly can't charge the citizens of another country.  Abhorrent, yes, but quite legal where they are.

      Witnesses occasionally do get charged for such things - there was a case in our paper not too long ago from a child dying from a simple bladder infection and the parents were up on charges.  I've never heard how it came out.

      It is a sensitive subject, though - where do you stop?  Should we allow circumcision?  Many think it should be outlawed.  Should we actually let parents train their child never to question that the Christine myth is actually true and to force them to spend hours each week sitting quietly on a hard bench?  One will certainly harm the child's cognitive abilities and the other is absolute torture of the child.

      Should we allow Sharia law in the US?  How about animal sacrifice?

      It's all a matter of how you spin it and what your beliefs are.  Religion vs Govt is always a problem as religion often desires to violate the morality and laws of other peoples.  Many religions have practices which many of us find cruel and ugly - I don't think there is any easy answer.

    3. profile image70
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The JWs should allow transfusion of blood to the needy.

    4. psycheskinner profile image79
      psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This practice is illegal in most first world nations. As is withholding treatment from a minor. Adults get some leeway to risk death by various means for whatever reason is important to them.

    5. GinaCPocan profile image60
      GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "There has recently been a debate on a radio station about female genital mutilation, which I find abhorrent. Why is this practice acceptable on religious grounds, when it is ultimately child abuse?"

      To my knowledge, this is against the law in the United States. I only know of this in the Africas, and I believe there are groups out there trying to plea to the United Nations about this inhumane practice.

      "Why don't Jehovah's witnesses get charged with manslaughter when they allow  someone to die for the sake of a blood transusion?"

      I don't know about how they handle that with adults, but I do know that in Illinois, child welfare will remove children from Jehovah Witness's once they have been reported for certain medical neglects.  But I do agree they ought to be charged with manslaughter if someone dies on a con they refused blood simply because the JWs teach this practice.

      May I also add that the Jehovah Witness is a Cult, not a Christian Denomination, they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God in the flesh. They call their workers Publishers, not brother, sister, Ms, or Mr. The reason they are called Publishers is because they Publish those magazines they hand out. The organization promotes their members to certain positions, then they charge them for the magazines and are told they  to pass them out free to outsiders, in hopes they can recruite new members. It's actually quite effective.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        21 percent of all Christians do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God in the flesh. As of 2002, that means 33,496,000 American Christians.  Not really a cult.  Thanks though, I love being called a cult member.

        1. GinaCPocan profile image60
          GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well Melissa, wasn't aiming to insult anyone, just rolling with what I know. I ran with the JWs for many years, so did my brother. I know what they believe and their practices as well as their policies. I have been involved up through the ranks and also know their disciplines. I see the Catholic Church as a cult as well, and again I'm rolling with what I know, being born and raised Catholic.
          It doesn't matter if 21 percent doesn't believe that Christ is the son of God in the flesh or not, it just means that 21 percent doesn't follow the biblical teachings. I have ran with other Christian denominations as well, and it's my experience that the JW's are the of the minority that do.
          BTW the JWs also wrote their own Bible as well, in fact the founders of both the Jehovah Witness's and the Mormon Church were best friends. They went to school together as well.
          Anyway, my intention wasn't to insult, but simply tell what I know.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not a JW or Mormon.  And one does not have to take every figure of speech, metaphor, and object lesson in the Bible literally to be considered a Christian.

            1. GinaCPocan profile image60
              GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There are Parables in the bible as I have said before, but the bible is very clear on what it expects. Too many people try to over read it, but its very clear.
              Then if your not either of those, then why feel as if I called you a cult member?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Because I do not believe that Jesus was the literal son of God. I think that he was a child of God in the way that we are all metaphorically the children of God.

                I am a Unitarian.  As were quite a few of our founding fathers.  Thomas Jefferson felt so strongly that the metaphors in the bible were being misread that he actually went to work with a razor and removed all instances of Jesus being called "the son of god" from the Bible.

                So if I am a member of a cult, it is a cult that predates your verson of Christianity (Unitarian beliefs predated Luther/Calvin) and it is a cult that around half of the signers of the declaration of independence also belonged to.

                With that said, your beliefs are just as valid as mine and one or both of us may be wrong.  My point is that not all Christians that don't believe exactly how you do are in "cults"

            2. lucieanne profile image80
              lucieanneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Evidently there is a scripture in the bible which states 'All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching' You'll have to pardon my 'ignorance' for not knowing which one. I believe it's in Timothy somewhere. So what you're saying is, it's okay to pick and choose which scriptures you want to live by then?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That is absolutely what I am saying.  Are you saying we should do otherwise?

                1. lucieanne profile image80
                  lucieanneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Erm.... Actually.... yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. To quote 'ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD AND BENEFICIAL FOR TEACHING'
                  so you're saying. 'I like that bit, so I'll do that, but I don't like that bit so I'll ignore it.' LOL .I rest my case!

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, you are one of THOSE.  LMAO, would it be more convenient if I only formed opinions based on one specific source of information.  That way it would make me easier for you to judge me? I'm sorry, you actually have to treat me like an individual rather than your preconceived notion of what a Christian is.  I won't be a stereotype to make your life easier.  I love that you are criticizing me for not being christian enough when in another thread you slammed me for being too christian.

                    Do YOU only get answers from one source?

        2. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, I had no idea the percentage was so high! Makes me feel like much less of a heretic. smile

    6. Dave Mathews profile image60
      Dave Mathewsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Muslims practice genital mutilation to their girls believing it sinful for the woman to enjoy sex with a man the woman is just supposed to be a baby factory.

      Jehovah Witness people go therough the courts to apply their beliefs in transfusions.

      1. kerryg profile image88
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, it's more of a regional practice and is not tied to one particular religion. The majority of FGM cases come from northeastern Africa and the Sahel, where the practice dates back at least to Ancient Egyptian times, and today it remains common among the Muslim, Christian, and animist communities in the region.

        One of the less extreme forms of FGM was practiced in Europe and North America during the 19th century as a "cure" for masturbation, but fortunately that's no longer legal!

  2. trecords0 profile image61
    trecords0posted 5 years ago

    Separation of Church and State comes to mind, they are also exempt from paying taxes.  Hmm...maybe I should start a church.  Witnesses should be charged just because they are annoying, just kidding.  What about circumcision?  That's genital mutilation.

    1. GinaCPocan profile image60
      GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "What about circumcision?  That's genital mutilation."
      I have to admit, you have a really good point here.

  3. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    No. Church members, including Priest and Nuns alike, should never be immune to the laws.

    1. GinaCPocan profile image60
      GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This I agree with.

  4. MesianiLaw profile image59
    MesianiLawposted 5 years ago

    Being a believer of a particular religion does not exclude anyone from the law. Besides, those who believe in whatever religion are still humans after all. Meaning, they have the right whether to follow the law or not. Having a religion is an option and abiding the practices dictated by it is  a mere choice. Hence, it is acceptable for religion to be immune to law.

    1. lucieanne profile image80
      lucieanneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you believe it is acceptable to mutilate a four - year old little girl - a practice that is carried out by her own grandmother, who has no medical qualifications, for the sake of religion?  It is not an option for the children and causes a lifetime of suffering for the victims. Where are their rights? Who is there to protect them from this vile sadistic ritual? It needs to be stopped. The child has a right to be protected.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So you believe it is acceptable to condemn a child to the torment of Hell to save a couple of ounces of nearly worthless flesh?  The grandmother may well be as qualified as anyone else in the village to do the surgery and knows exactly what to do and how to do it to maintain that little girls eternal happines - let her be.  It would be a terrible thing indeed if you had the right to deny that girl her chance at Heaven and someone (the grandmother) must protect her from the likes of you and your sadism.  The child does indeed have a right to be protected.

        As I said earlier, it's all in how you spin it.  To you and I this is indeed an extremely cruel and barbaric act; suitable only to enslave that poor little girl for as long as she lives.  Our understand of how things work and our moral structure tell us this is so. 

        I repeat; where do you draw the line?  Where do your (and my own) feelings of right and wrong take precedence over what that grandmother knows to be absolutely true?  Who are you to force blood into a childs veins, thus condemning him to eternal hell just to circumvent Gods will and let him live a few fleeting years?

        I don't have any answers - just questions.  As long as we declare that the irrational beliefs and attitudes of all religions are acceptable we will have this problem.  Personally, I would rather see laws made without regard to any religious beliefs and ignore the inevitable bleatings of those that find themselves being forced to change their barbaric religious customs.  I doubt that many of the religious society would agree with me.

      2. GinaCPocan profile image60
        GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "So you believe it is acceptable to mutilate a four - year old little girl - a practice that is carried out by her own grandmother, who has no medical qualifications, for the sake of religion? "

        Hi lucianne, I didn't get that from his post, I think he was trying to be factual instead of opinionated.
        But if we did stop this act then we must stop male circumcision, because its the same mutilation.

        1. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm opposed to male circumcision too, but describing it as the "same mutilation" is very misleading. The difference between male circumcision and FGM is like the difference between ripping out a fingernail and cutting off the whole hand.

    2. GinaCPocan profile image60
      GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "Hence, it is acceptable for religion to be immune to law."

      No it isn't, not in any Church I have ever been to. The bible tells us to obey our governments. If they read their bibles they  would know this.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's because your scripture doesn't directly violate govt. laws.  Some scriptures and beliefs do violate the law, such as the mutilation being discussed, or certain US religious groups that believe they can't take kids to doctors or must "marry" and rape a 13 year old girl.

        1. GinaCPocan profile image60
          GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness, no scripture in the Holy Bible, King James Versions of any kind, American Standard Version, Common English Bible or even the Catholic Bible, and so on... do not condone mutilations of any kind, or rape of any kind. I don't know what scriptures your referring to, or even what bible your referring to.
          If they wrote their own books, that doesn't make them scriptures or even bibles that support God the Almighty.
          If they are of some other religion, okay but they aren't to be confused with Christians. Some Churches try to mimic Christianity, but are far from Christianity.

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You might want to re-read the OT of the bible then. There is plenty in there about rape, and many other things fully supported by God, If fact, the majority was even his suggestions.

            1. lucieanne profile image80
              lucieanneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, How do we know it was God who supported it? This is my argument about the bible. It was written by human hand. there's no proof that it was inspired by God, and no God worth his salt would endorse the atrocities that took place back then.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
                DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Let me re-phrase. The bible claims that God supports it. And since those of Christian beliefs say that it is the divinely inspired word of God, to me, that means that they feel that God supports it. And as such are in support of it as well.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's not what I said, although DoubleScorpion is right; there is plenty of God promoted rape in the old testament and God required genital mutilation of all males as well.

            But scripture refers to holy or sacred writings, of which the Christian bible is only one of many.

            Nor did I indicate that it referred only to mutilation or rape: the comment was that many scriptures demand that the follower violate the laws of local government, and they do.  How many Christian missionaries are in countries where such activity is illegal?  Real Christians, not just the ones that agree with your dogma.

            And once more, who made you the authority that will determine whether a Christian is really a Christian?  I daresay that catholics, mormons and JWs will all vehemently disagree with you.

  5. kirstenblog profile image79
    kirstenblogposted 5 years ago

    No one should ever be above the law (unless its me of course! LOL).

  6. leahlefler profile image98
    leahleflerposted 5 years ago

    This is a really interesting topic. In our area, the Amish are exempt from many laws (including child labor laws). Amish children are exempt from compulsory education and may withdraw from school at the age of 13 to work full time - they do not need work permits as non-Amish children do. Amish children do not attend secondary school.

    The Amish claim the children have a period of "free choice" (Rumspringa) to decide whether or not to continue in their faith. Of course, with only an eighth grade education and no exposure to anything else from the modern era, the children have a hard time making it outside of the Amish community -

    So the religious exemptions to child labor laws and educational laws actually eliminate the freedom of choice for young Amish children - the Amish believe that anyone who abandons God's ways and the Ordnung (Amish code of rules) are not destined for heaven, so they desire a childhood filled with industrious work and do not want science or higher level academic subjects taught to the children.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      An excellent example of child abuse in the name of religion.  Amish children are not truly given a choice; the only choice they know is to become Amish.  As you point out even if they know and understand other ways of life they can't participate in them because they can't compete in the outside world.

      And yet...Amish adults don't seem unhappy with their choice, and isn't that what it's all about?  Living a happy and full life?

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Amish kids are totally given a choice.  In fact they have to live outside the Amish community for a year as a young adult before deciding to return, and they can leave at any time.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But they have no education or experience that is valuable in that world.  As a result of that they are seldom successful or happy there, or so I gather from Leahleflers post.

          If that is so, it would seem but another way to "teach" the child that the Amish way is the only way - a hard lesson perhaps, but one that would seldom fail to make its point.

          1. psycheskinner profile image79
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            They are educated to the end of eight grade with full recognized equivalency to public schools. I suspect they would have what employers consider at least an average high school education. The then go on Rumspringa to decide if they will go onto a modern job or education, or return. I think a lot of people have false stereotypes about the Amish.  In many states they use modern technology for business purposes.

            1. leahlefler profile image98
              leahleflerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              They are educated to an eighth grade level, in segregated schools - they do not receive the equivalent of a mainstream high school level education. Children who decide to leave the community are shunned by the entire community: to leave the faith is to leave your family - forever. The Amish faith has been romanticized by popular media - the realities of living in an Amish community are rather different than the popular perception.

              The Amish are peace-loving people, but there are many pressures and restrictions keeping the Amish youth within the faith. Getting a "GED" is considered an act of rebellion among the Amish - formal education is frowned upon past a certain level.

              http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?i … amp;page=1

              http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/20 … sh-part-1/

              1. psycheskinner profile image79
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am not saying it is a perfect lifestyle but yes, their schools are recognized as equivalent in every state I know if, and do not differ functional from any other person home-schooling.  The teach largely the same curriculum.

                And the point being suggested was that they could leave, not that they could leave and also stay.  Yes, the do need to choose one or the other.  At certain times in history many people did leave.  But currently most stay.

                I am not sure what the problem is.  Kids get raised in whatever environment their parents choose.  As adults they can leave and doing so often means a total rift whether it is Amish going English, Evangalical's kid being out and gay, a supremacists kid marrying another race, or any other radical departure from the natal culture.

                That's just a fact of life. And none of these things are abuses under the law as raised by OP, just beliefs.

                1. leahlefler profile image98
                  leahleflerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The education restriction does violate the law - which is why it was a Supreme Court case. Current law requires compulsory education to the age of 18 - the Supreme Court allowed the Amish to violate that law as the restriction on education is part of their religious values.

                  Parents who refuse to educate their children past the age of 13 would lose their parental rights - unless they were Amish. It is the only exemption granted.

                  Homeschoolers in most (but not all) states generally have to demonstrate academic equivalence by having their children take the state's standardized tests. Homeschoolers also continue the education through the secondary school level.

                  The Amish are also granted an exemption for child labor laws. 13 year old children are put to work full time.

                  I'm not "for" or "against" the Amish - it is just a prime example of how one religion is allowed to violate the law for the sake of a belief system.

  7. profile image0
    Wentworth35posted 5 years ago

    There does seem to be an acceptance that the religious, especially the clergy can get away with things that would normally be unacceptable.  For instance the way the Roman Catholic church has protected priests who have abused children.  The Pope simply cannot seem to understand how the secular authorities have the nerve to question what the Church does.  Believing that someone is Christ's representative on Earth seems to give them the belief that they are above the law.  Scientology too seems to have a lot of power, and because it can seem very threatening, they seem to believe they can do as they please.  Religious authority should realise that it is answerable to the same laws and regulations that govern the rest of us.

    1. GinaCPocan profile image60
      GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Again, they think wrongly anyway because the bible specifically tells their people to obey they're governments. That does include the laws.

      1. GinaCPocan profile image60
        GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Now I am not going to beat anyone over the head with biblical literature, I am simply trying to show that the Bible tells its people to obey authority, and the People who are in authority of these Churches don't even heed to their own faith when they disobey the laws, hence, they don't read their own bibles. They can't when they behave the way they do.

        Here I will show Scripture that demonstrates Gods position on his peoples submissiveness towards their governments.

        "Romans 13:1-7

        1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

        2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

        3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

        4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

        5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

        6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

        7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.."

        Here the first sentence is plain and clear " Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers,"
        The word "Fear" in the Bible means "to Respect,"

        "1 Timothy 2:2

        2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

        Here he is actually speaking to the governments telling how THEY should conduct themselves AS an authority.

        "Titus 3

        1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,"

        To be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, means to obey authority.

        "Hebrews 13:17

        17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

        Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves. Again it is to submit yourself is the same as obey.

        "1 Peter 2:13-17

        13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

        14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

        15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

        16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

        17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."


        Right here is a direct message "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man". You can't get any clearer then this.

        My point. We as Christians must follow the laws too. No matter who we are, what position we hold. God is bigger then all of us. He is telling us to to submit to our government. A Pope is just a man. So is a priest, a preacher, a nun. It is the fault of the authority of a Church who would place a man on the same level as God, and they are leading wrongly.
        To say the Pope is above the law, is saying he is on the same level as God. God told him to submit himself to the government, and if he isn't then he is in sin. He is just a minister, a Priest.

        So yes, when they commit crimes of any kind, they should be arrested, charged, tied and convicted like anyone else.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Same question: when man's law prohibits something required by God or His prophets, what then?  Or vice versa?

          Did not the trial (Texas?) just finish recently over a sect that "married" and raped very young girls because God requires them to do that?

          You also have the problem of other religions, not just various Christian sects.  Sharia Law is being actively promoted in much of the world, but is very often in direct conflict with local laws.  Who is right there (you must answer as a good muslim!)?

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Not the "You must answer as a good muslim" proviso! Now that's a tough one! lol

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol

          2. GinaCPocan profile image60
            GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Same question: when man's law prohibits something required by God or His prophets, what then?  Or vice versa?
            He tells us to submit to our authority, our government. If you are required by mans' law to do something against Gods requirement, then the sin is on the authority at hand, but God does expect you to use common sense as well.

            For instance, when those soldiers in Guantanamo Bay allegedly torchered the Muslims they had in custody, it was said it was ordered by someone in their chain of command. Now in this case, the soldiers should have refused to carry out those orders. Yes there would have been consequenses, but they still should have refused them none the less.
            Raping of girls or Woman is never okay in any part of the Christian bible. Polygamy went out in the old testament. The New Testament speaks of marriage as being of One man and of One Woman. It always refers marriages as being of a couple. If one has another partner, then is adultery. These Polygamists don't read their bibles, or they have written their own bibles such as the Mormons did.
            Other religions aren't my specialty, and they don't have anything to do with Christianity so I can't comment on those. smile

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              But Christianity isn't the only religion around.  The Mormons you mentioned (although still technically Christians), Muslims, Wiccans and many many others.  Unless you are ready to demand that only Christianity, and in fact only your particular brand of Christianity, is to be allowed then other beliefs must be taken into account and accepted as no better or worse that your own.

              It's good that you recognize mans law as superior to Gods (although you also seem to waffle on it a bit), but I suspect that few others will agree.  Many Christian (and other religions) send missionaries out, but few will limit them to countries that permit such activity.  They don't care; God has told them to spread the word to everyone and they will do just that in spite of mans law.  Most religions feel that mans laws take a back seat to Gods.

              1. GinaCPocan profile image60
                GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am well aware  there are other religions. First of all, I do not have to accept other Churches or religions, nor do I have to like them. I can live peacefully among them. I don't have to hate them either. I would still have super with anyone no matter who they are or where they came from.

                "It's good that you recognize mans law as superior to Gods (although you also seem to waffle on it a bit), but I suspect that few others will agree. "

                You misunderstood, I didn't waffle, maybe unclear. I never said that man's law was superior over Gods law. Reread please.
                I said "He tells us to submit to our authority, our government.." This is very clear. I am a servant of God, and it is his will that I submit to the laws written by man.

                "Unless you are ready to demand that only Christianity, and in fact only your particular brand of Christianity, is to be allowed then other beliefs must be taken into account and accepted as no better or worse that your own".

                I don't demand nothing from anyone, they can believe how they wish. I don't hustle no one either. I know what my bible tells me. Yes he does ask us to spread the word, but he also tells us in Revelations, if a Filthy man is Filthy, let him be Filthy still, if a Man is Holy, let him be Holy still. Another words, you can give him the scriptures, but you can't force him to believe. You can't change someone, they have to make that decision.

                Those that push it on people are wrong for it, because that's not Gods way.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "He tells us to submit to our authority, our government. If you are required by mans' law to do something against Gods requirement, then the sin is on the authority at hand, but God does expect you to use common sense as well."

                  "For instance, when those soldiers in Guantanamo Bay allegedly torchered the Muslims they had in custody, it was said it was ordered by someone in their chain of command. Now in this case, the soldiers should have refused to carry out those orders. Yes there would have been consequenses, but they still should have refused them none the less. "

                  I took the bolded areas to indicate that God would punish people put in a position where the two laws contradicted each other.  Sorry if I misunderstood.

                  My point is and has been in the context of this thread; how do we declare that someone with different religious beliefs and requirements cannot worship as they see fit?  In that context your religion is not somehow better than theirs; if they wish to mutilate their children in Gods name how can we say "No" while maintaining the freedom of religion we all want to see?

                  It is only arrogance that causes one to declare that their religion is somehow "right" and all others are "wrong", or is a "cult" or other undesirable qualification but it is a common arrogance throughout the world.  It is also the very thing that causes the problems mentioned by the OP.  Somehow (somehow) we must figure out how to declare that some practices are unacceptable to society while still accepting all religions as valid as any other.  So far we don't seem to do a very good job at it.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Spreading the word IS pushing it on people, and yes, that IS your Gods way.

                  No one wants to be changed nor do they wish to be placed in a position in which they must make such a decision to change.

                  In order to prevent disrespectfully and selfishly pushing your beliefs on people, stop spreading the word. So easy, yet so productive.

                  1. earnestshub profile image87
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    They simply don't get it. Indoctrination causes this. Indoctrination and the fear that is behind it.
                    Logic is the first casualty.

  8. lucieanne profile image80
    lucieanneposted 5 years ago

    Wilderness - I don't get you. which side of this discussion are you on? I really take exception to your remark that the female genitalia is 'worthless flesh' IF God exists, He gave us everything He thought we need, so who are you to say that female bits and pieces are 'worthless' flesh? This ritual is barbaric and should be stopped. End of!
    As for circumcision, I have the same views about that also. It should only be carried out on medical grounds, not just because some crackpot religious nuts think it's dirty for boys and men to have a foreskin. The difference is, the male can function as normal (so I believe) without one, however, for a girl to lose a vital part of her anatomy just to stop her from enjoying the sex act is a violation. We are now in the 21st century, not in the dark ages. These nut-jobs should be held accountable in a court of law for child abuse!

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm truly sorry, lucieanne - I am obviously not making myself clear.  The comment you refer to might be a complete reasonable answer from one that believes in the horrific practice of genital mutilation (although circumcision is OK - both my sons were so "mutilated" on my orders).  It is not my own.

      What I'm trying to point out (and failing at) is that American society is under an increasing barrage of unacceptable religious practices.  I'm not familiar with the UK laws, but many will interpret our constitution to require a "hands off" policy in religious matters.

      As far as I can tell, I'm in complete agreement with you about what should or should not be acceptable.  At the same time we have, as you and I have pointed out, churches and belief systems that mutilate little girls, rape more little girls, murder women for the most minor offenses and deny simple medical care to children that die without it.  As time goes on it would not surprise me to see both animal and even human sacrifice and torture - the world has already seen multiple episodes of mass murder and suicide because "God ordered it".  Some have requested Sharia Law be allowed in the US (and, I hear, the UK?).  The atrocities done in Gods name are both horrendous and endless.

      Our society, and maybe yours, is going to be put in the position of denying certain religions the right to worship or even exist and that goes against the very foundation of America.  Or allow most such barbaric practices in the name of religion and I know which I will choose.

      As soon as that happens there will be an outcry that everything under the sun also be banished; requiring a girl to wear long hair, maybe, or skirts.  Any requirement of celibacy for priests.  Parents requiring  that their children attend church or sunday school.  Circumcision.  I forsee a never ending fight - there will always be someone that objects to something someone else believes is necessary for a good life for themselves or their children.

      Your impassioned (and completely justified) OP, to me, opens a tremendous can of worms that we will all have to face one day.  To deny any of the practices is not such a simple question as soon as religion enters the picture.

      Just in case I'm still unclear: I would deny any and all religions any right to exist before I would accept the genital mutilation OR the denial of medical care you spoke of and I'm in favor of almost complete religious freedom.  Any parents that allow such practices need to be jailed and forbidden any future contact with any children.  These things are unacceptable.

  9. lucieanne profile image80
    lucieanneposted 5 years ago

    And... the brown stuff will hit the fan if it's discoverd that this FGM is being carried out here in the UK.

  10. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.




    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded.  "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.




      So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.



        The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."



        Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.



        Obviously these women were repeatedly raped.  These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more.  How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      GinaCPocan


      Any comment on these little gems from god's word?

  11. GinaCPocan profile image60
    GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago

    wilderness, don't get me wrong, I do however see what your trying to convey.
    Yes I do take a very arrogant stand on my faith. But at the same time, I do leave reasonable room for respectable interaction with people of all faiths even atheists. I don't hate them or even dislike them. I do believe I have the truth and will stand firm with it. I only hope and pray the people see it my way. But, I won't force it. My God doesn't require me too, and am thankful he doesn't.
    I also am arrogantly against practices such as mutilations in the name of a god, because my God doesn't teach us this practice. Though my humanity also takes center stage as well in matters like this.
    So, my humanity and my Christianity merge under one umbrella. But to be completely honest, I am human first before all things, and my bible tells me, that my God does understand this fact, because his son experienced all the things all men have, so he is empathetic and sympathetic. This means that if my Bible did teach such a practice, I probably wouldn't be a Christian right now. That would be my frail weakness with my own faith. I thank God that mine doesn't require such things, because I wouldn't have done them.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      For me personally, I'm with you most of the way (excepting I don't care what the bible says) in this case.  FGM and with holding medical care is not acceptable and shouldn't be tolerated.  I suppose we're both arrogant there but only if one assumes that religions can do whatever they want in the name of God.  Mostly, though, your own post indicates the arrogance I refer to: YOUR God doesn't promote FGM and so other Gods that do are wrong and false.  Whatever your religion, it doesn't give the right to make that call.

      But I also look at a much bigger picture.  There are many times that religions (including Christianity) make strong efforts in evading the laws of our country and I don't find any of them acceptable whether God told them to do it or not.  As atrocious as the actions listed by the OP are, they pale beside the destruction or severe damage of a 400 million strong society and I believe that is what we could be looking at if we can't solve this. 

      Eventually, we will have to choose between becoming a religion based nation or a law based one.  Laws such as those (posted earlier) allowing child labor for a particular religious group or refusing education for children must not be allowed to continue; society, not religion, must make the laws.  Religion (including Christianity) will not be happy, but neither will anyone else if a particular religion or sect is chosen to make all the laws.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Now you know why your religion causes so many wars. smile

  12. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I think people can worship as they see fit so long as it does not impinge on the fundamental rights of other.  Removing the clitoris of a little girl is a significant violation of her bodily integrity.  While I feel that circumcision is also going to be increasingly challenged, it is a more minor imposition.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But only God can determine those fundamental rights of others.  You (and I and everyone else on this thread) may think that little girl has a right to bodily integrity, but their God says differently. 

      While I personally think society is the one that should determine rights, religion in general says differently.  When a single society contains many different religions it results in this kind of conflict.

  13. GinaCPocan profile image60
    GinaCPocanposted 5 years ago

    This is a huge tug of war, I do agree. I also think there will be a change in direction of the pendulum at some point in the future. But here it is again, my Bible teaches this will happen also.  This is part of the process before Armageddon. Mans law will win out, and then the other extremes will begin. I however don't think all this will happen in my lifetime, maybe in the lifetime of my grandchildren.
    Nobody promised us a rose garden, that's for sure.

  14. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    Again, Laws govern only mortal concepts. And mortals seem to be obsessive about them, making them, breaking them, splintering them. If anyone who adheres to Judaism pre or post format, ought to understand this. Before the Adamic Inception there was no mortal law.

    This is why concepts of End Times, Armageddon, Rapture, Gravity, Evolution, Quantum Balance, etc exist: to establish lawfulness (through fear or hope). Either way it is a limbo stasis -a stasis precisely like that of Adam after the inception -a stasis of being stoned, overloaded by the processes of light and the emote those processes brought.


    Miss Gina, do you realize for the last near 100 years talk of Armageddon has been the focal point of nearly all religions, mostly fundamental Christianity. Was it not John G Lake, Smith Wigglesworth, Ammie Semple McPherson (later Paul Yonggi Cho) and the like, of the Roaring 20's Lawlessness --as a result of a global depression and the threat of war that became a reality 10 years later-- that gave birth to these concepts? Indeed. In fact, it was one of the largest portions of my examination for biblical school, to know the history of the theology.

    The Rose Garden is valid and was promised to those who follow the Original Agreement of "Walk With Me", else they are given a measure of the Rose Garden under covenant -with or without Mosaic Law.

    In the original Judaism, there is no law, there was no afterlife, there was only Life by Agreement. Judaism was changed because of lawlessness, which brought about the Mosaic System and the "Ten Commands". It then morphed even further --as it began to absorb many, many pagan & baal concepts-- into the most powerful and influential theology in history, where the "Vatican of Jerusalem/Sanhedrin" even shadowed the power of the Roman empire.

    Now, if Christianity is true to its roots --then it must abide by the Original Agreement, or at least by the Covenant. According to the teachings of 1st Century Christianity: the Law, Previous Covenant have been superseded by the New and the re-establishment of the Agreement (Walk with Me). And if so, there is no Armageddon, no Rapture, etc.
    That leaves just two things: New covenant of a blessed temporal mortality and then death or Everlasting Life by and only by the pre-inception Agreement.

    Cheers,
    James.

    1. lucieanne profile image80
      lucieanneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for that James. I found it very interesting and informative.

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Lucie Anne,
        Thank you. (I didn't think anyone actually read my replies.)
        James.

 
working