Is Sharia Law incompatible with the tenets of our Constitutional Law?

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (187 posts)

61
andrew savageposted 12 years ago
What are the aspects of the two modes of practical law that make one incompatible with the other?
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Most of our laws in the U.S. were based on basic laws of God. God the Creator. The God of Christians. Yes, that includes our Constitution's basis of law.
  Sharia Law is Muslim Law, not Christian.
  So, of course Sharia Law is incompatible with the tenets of our Constitutional Law. AND if Americans don't stop veering away from our Constitutional Law, and if they keep violating Christian Law while rolling out the red carpet for Muslim Law (and a President who defends it), our land may become subject to Sharia Law. And even the liberals in America wouldn't want to have to abide by Islam's laws.
  reply report
  61
  andrew savageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Most of the framers were deist.
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That would explain why the US legal system is in shambles.
  
  Funny though, where in the US is it illegal to ...?
  
  ...eat shrimp (Lev 11:10)
  ...shave my sideburns (Lev 19:27)
  ...get tattoos (Lev 19:28)
  ...wear 50/50 cotton-polyester shirts (Lev 19:19)
  ...love your parents (Luke 14:26)
  ...refrain from gouging out your eyeballs (Matthew 5:29)
  
  Odd how that's all okay, but homosexual couples having the option to file their 1040 tax form jointly, isn't.
  
  Neither is Christianity compatible with Constitutional Law. It says so right in the Constitution...
  
  The first amendment protects the free exercise of religion. It does not protect just the free exercise of Christianity nor does it suggest that Christianity and Christians should be have special protections and privileges. The authors used the term "religion," meaning that all religions have exactly the same status before the law and the government. If they had thought that Christianity were special, they'd have said so; instead, they treated it like every other religion.
  
  Muslims simply want to have their cases tried by Sharia law instead of US law. They never said they wanted for everyone.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then they should go to a Muslim Country and there petition the Courts or whatever type of legal system they have.
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Those countries won't try their cases because they aren't living there.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Bingo.
  People who want Sharia Law instead of American Law should live in a Country that goes by Sharia Law. If they live in America, they are subject to American Law and should submit to that.
  reply report
  71
  Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Forgive me for coming late to this discussion. May I add another perspective?
  
  Unfortunately, some Americans try to spread fear of sharia law in their quest to convince the rest of us that our Constitution is about to be shredded by an evil, foreign adversary bent on subverting our fundamental ideals. Sharia-phobia is rampant and, like many a spore, it grows best in a poorly lit mind.
  
  Sharia has been part of the law in both Israel and India, two of America's long-standing and democratic allies. In both countries, the sharia law system is a bridge between their colonial past and their multicultural present. It governs issues of personal law for Muslim citizens, like marriage and divorce. It is not, however, superior to existing criminal law, which is uniform for all citizens.
  
  Sharia courts have been government funded in Israel since the nation’s founding. They are fashioned after the Ottoman Empire’s millet system in which each separate religious community lived by its own rules. India is the world’s largest democracy and it applies sharia law to personal status issues among Muslims who account for less than 20-percent of its population.
  
  In both countries, decisions based on Islamic law can be appealed to higher courts, which can overturn sharia rulings that are in conflict with basic rights or other laws. Given that Israel and India have openly applied sharia law for over sixty years should at least suggest to any reasonable, open minded person that this scary, foreign-sounding concept is really not as terrifying as many extremist would like us to believe.
  
  It is extremely unlikely that sharia law will be enforced in any measure in the USA. First Amendment principles will resist every attempt by the state to impose religious law on all. That having been said, however, the First Amendment also guarantees the free exercise of religion leaving open the possibility of some level of voluntary submission to sharia as an expression of religious beliefs.
  
  Sadly, the wholesale demonization of sharia is the latest despicable wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. Narrow minds are defining it by the worst abuses committed in its name. They irrationally ignore the more complex reality that Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is subject to many different interpretations.
  
  Again, I am sorry for intruding. Please carry on.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Good post, Quill, but the problem I see arising from allowing sharia courts in the US to determine divorce settlements, is that women are treated unfairly, which goes against our own laws.
  
  While a Muslim woman might not loudly object, because she's been trained not to - does that make it right? I know instances of physically abused women who were so emotionally beaten down that they accepted the brutality - thinking they deserved it.
  
  The best way to ensure equal rights for all - is to make all legal decisions based on ONE set of common criteria. It should not matter whether a couple is Christian, pagan or Muslim, the same standards should be employed across the board when a judge decides who gets custody of minor children and who gets what in the marital division of assets.
  
  Women who are subjected to patriarchal religious views tend to think their god wants them to hold a lesser position of import than their male counterparts. That might work well in places like India, where young girls are shoved back in their school to burn because the men outside don't want them exiting without covering their faces - but it doesn't fly here.
  
  This isn't about being anti-Muslim. This is about being pro-common sense.
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So I guess you are just as critical of the laws that the Amish make to control their own people and keep the women in their place.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty much. Aren't a bunch in deep trouble about a hair cutting incident? I'm sure I heard something about jail time...jail time from US law, not Amish.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes and no, UW.
  
  Yes, in the sense that the men still dominate - and no, in a small sense, because the women - as teens - can become quite wild. I live about an hour away from an Amish settlement and it's amazing to see the teen girls come into town - change into their short-shorts and run amok until they go back home. It's their "running around" time. That's a real thing. One Amish guy I buy horse gear from served in Vietnam - on the front lines. Since he wasn't yet baptized into his church - that was fine. After that, doing so would have meant ex-communication.
  
  But - for the most part - yes, I want to see Amish women treated just like any other women in the US. Divorce is rare in their culture, but there IS some abuse - and when it occurs - they're held liable and punished (if caught) by our laws. The secrecy issue makes it kind of rough.
  reply report
  71
  Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi there, Howard. I was happy to see you contribute.
  
  Common sense, my friend, is perhaps the rarest of all human traits. Considering that there are no known efforts to implement Sharia law in any part of the U.S. judicial system, I have to wonder why a small fraction of Americans have waged a long and often heated battle against its alleged infiltration of the government. Even further, I am disturbed by the push for legislation that would ban its use in many states. {1} Ignorance, fear, and intolerance fuel these actions and no evidence exists to justify such bias and condemnation.
  
  Furthermore, there is no possibility that sharia law will supplant US law. Even so, a bill banning the influence of foreign laws on court decisions is stalled in the Florida legislature because they can not find a single precedent to justify passing such a law. In Oklahoma, voters approved a referendum that explicitly banned Islamic law that was later stricken down for infringing on the constitutional rights of practicing Muslims.
  
  Everywhere I search I find droppings of bigotry. As I digest the anti-Islam rhetoric in this country, I read very little about concerns over the many inconsistencies with US laws. Your comment stands out as an exception and I am sure there will be others like it. However, most of what I read promotes fear and distrust. Many of the voices reveal scant knowledge about sharia, while too many profess the sentiment, “People who want Sharia Law instead of American Law should live in a Country that goes by Sharia Law.” {2} This message, in tone and in content, is blatantly anti-Muslim-American and contrary to this country’s earned reputation as a “melting pot.”
  
  Americans who now live in fear of Islamic tradition need to learn that there are a gazillion ways to apply parts of sharia law that do not interfere with US laws. In fact, the legal systems in Israel and India prove that democratic and sharia laws can co-exist at some level. All it took was a shared sense of fairness and the mutual desire to make the system work. Muslims-Americans have a constitutionally protected right to practice their religion and even to have voluntary access to sharia remedies that do not deprive them and others of their constitutionally protected liberties.
  
  Have a great night, Howard. I appreciate your viewpoint
  
  {1} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 … 33928.html
  {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/112319? … ost2391594
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  First of all, any attempt to impose or to request Sharia Law instead of American Constitutional Law is anti-American already. As an American from birth (or even if I weren't from birth), as an unquestionably valid American, my sentence was, and stands, valid and true and American to the core. I make no apologies for it, and I take exception to you trying to make it something it isn't. Especially when you should understand that American Muslim is a contradiction in itself. While I can understand the usage of certain terms for descriptive and informational purposes only, the truth is that Americans should be simply Americans in their citizenship and their intent and their patriotism. Not "African Americans" (especially when most didn't even come from Africa), not "French- Americans", not whatever-Americans. That's the whole point of the oaths they're required to sign and abide by; allegiance to the U.S.A.
  "Muslim" is indicative of not just a religion, but a Nationality also. A different Nationality than the U.S.A. So, I'm within my rights (and indeed my duty as an American) to properly define it as such and to protect my citizenship as such. And the citizenship of other Americans who haven't been informed of (or haven't for some reason figured it out on their own) of the facts of what American sovreignty means.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And which nationality would that be? Just curious...
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Figure it out. There are quite a few Muslim Nations.
  America is not one of them.
  reply report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  America is not a lot of places Brenda.
  
  Nationality means from a specific nation. So which specific nationality does Muslim represent?
  
  India? Egypt? Ethiopia? Morocco?
  
  Are all Christians Americans? Cause the Pope is gonna be real surprised.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This has nothing to do with Christians.
  It has to do with Muslims and Muslim Nations.
  Try to stay focused.
  Here---you figure it out. 10 out of 15. Surely you can find out which 10 are Muslim Nations.
  And then, if you don't mind, I'd rather drop the discussion between you and I. It never seems to work out well.
  Here's the info. And I'm sure you can find out more by googling.
  
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … lerance-a/
  report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There are at least 50 countries with a majority of Muslims vs. Other religions.
  
  I'm trying to figure out which one represents the "nationality" of Muslim.
  
  India, for example, holds almost 12 percent of all Muslims in the World. Indonesia holds 13% of all the Muslims in the world. So is Indian the Muslim nationality? Or is it Indonesian?
  
  Romania has a much higher percent of Christians than the US.... Are they the Christian Nationality?
  
  I'm just confused by your statements Brenda. Maybe you can clarify.
  report
  77
  jlparkposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nationality has little to do with religion, Brenda.
  I was born in New Zealand, my nationality on my passport is "New Zealand". My ethnicity is Pakeha/NZ European. My religion is...agnostic.
  
  Muslims are NOT all the same race, from the same country, and just as the many branches of Christianity - do not necessarily believe or worship in the same way. I know European Muslims, Somali Muslims, Iraqi Muslims, Iranian Muslims, Malaysian Muslims, Indian Muslims. Their nationality is NOT muslim - Muslim is their religion, and part of their national culture for some of them (Malay etc). It does not make it their nationality.
  
  Nationality means the nation from which you come from/were born in.
  
  So, please clarify what you mean because it doesn't make any sense.
  An american person born in America who happens to be Muslim, is still American.
  report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Muslim Nation and Muslim American are two completely different terms.
  
  A Muslim American is simply an American who is Muslim, just like a Christian American is an American who is Christian.
  
  You yourself have argued for freedom of religion. Do you not extend that freedom to other Americans?
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure. As long as they don't claim allegiance to another Nation. Which, indeed, they are doing by claiming the Muslim title. Remember that here in America, we CAN be Christian Americans, atheist Americans, etc. Those first things (Christian, atheist, whatever) are belief systems, religions or lack thereof. "Muslim", however, not only implies but defines allegiance to another Nation, because there is NO separation of "church and state" in those Countries. (There isn't in America, either, but that's beside the point because America does not impose Christianity upon its citizens). Those Muslim/Islamic Nations DO impose State religion.
  
  Not my problem if you can't see or understand that.
  report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Which nation? It's a simple question that you keep dodging.
  
  "Those Muslim/Islamic Nations DO impose State religion."
  
  India does? Really? Indonesia does? Really? Those countries have the largest populations of Muslims in the world.
  report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And most of those Muslims who have left those countries for the US left for exactly those reasons. Much for the same reasons as the Puritan's left the UK.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Bingo. And So?
  Then they have no right to bring it here and impose it on our system of laws.
  If they left to get out from under those laws, then they should denounce those laws instead of bringing them here and still being under them and trying to change America's laws.
  Like I said, the term Muslim is synonymous with Islam and inextricable from whichever Nations are Muslim Nations.
  
  Many people still don't get that. As simple and apparent as it is.
  report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is one of the silliest things I've read today. Does "Christian" imply allegiance to any nations?
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No. But "Muslim" does.
  Christian simply implies salvation thru Jesus the Christ; it's a religion, if you will.
  "Muslim", however, is both a religion plus a political/National entity.
  See how easy that is?
  
  I'm not gonna keep explaining it.
  It's simple. And it's getting tiresome explaining something so simple.
  report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are the only one who believes that.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm.
  That's a false statement.
  Even if I didn't know lots of people who do believe exactly the way I do, it would be a false statement because the odds of me being the ONLY person who believes that are astronomically small! LOLOL!
  report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, I'm sure you do know people who think the same way.
  
  Maybe they should look up nationality in a dictionary.
  
  Unless, of course, you can tell me what nation all muslims come from.
  
  Which, if you could, then you would have already. With a smirk. Since you can't you are ignoring a question that could prove me wrong in one word, if you had an answer. Since I know you would love to prove me wrong... I can safely say that you don't have that answer.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No she is not. If one carefully examines the societies most dominated by Sharia one finds that it is all encompassing. Economics, finance, politics, family dynamics, education, diet, hygiene, etc... are all dictated by a fundamental adherence to Sharia and each individual sects interpretation of the Quran.
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you!
  I hate it when people try to make me feel isolated and dumb, even though I know I'm neither.
  You made a great point with just a few sentences. Cool.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually he just unintentionally proved you wrong, as he mentioned the various sects (over 50 major ones) each one is very different and most hate each other to the point of violence. How can there then possibly be a nation of Muslims if most believe different things even in their faiths and often wish harm on each other from that basis. It defies logic.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No Muslim sect hates any other Muslim sect more than they hate you or me for not being Muslim.
  report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know Muslims that absolutely do not give a flying fig that I'm not a Muslim.
  
  They like me just fine as I am.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Dead wrong, we are either: Itmam al-hujjah (unlearned) or in your case Hanif (who has embraced either Christianity or Judaism) the first is considered to have committed so sin at all, the second is considered even better because they have retained some of the wisdom of Abraham and rejected idolatry.
  
  On the other hand each sect sees other sects as having corrupted the message of Allah and there is no greater sin.
  
  So no you are wrong.
  report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Am I the only friggin one who wants to know where this nation is?
  
  Not ideals, not opinions. Lat and longitude would work if no one knows it's name.
  
  If you have a nationality, it stands to reason that you have a nation.
  
  I'm looking for the Muslim nation on the map. I can't find it.
  
  I can find the countries with the MOST Muslims... but both of them have several recognized official religions. Ergo... they can't be the Muslim nation... They can only be nations with lots of Muslims in them.
  
  I'm also not understanding why people can be Jewish and still be American. The Jews actually DO have a nation, at least biblically.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Too few people, still - which astonishes me - fail to see that for those who practice Sharia there are only two spheres in the world, the sphere of Islam and the sphere of Jihad. What produces this blindness is an ignorance of the history of Islam, the teaches of Muhammad and the contemporary beliefs and practices of Muslims who practice Sharia. If one is not in the sphere of Islam, one is in the sphere of Jihad. How Jihad is waged varies from those who seek to convert through proselytizing and educating to the most extreme but still plentiful, torture, mutilation, persecution, execution, etc....
  
  Until eyes open to the extremes of Islam there will be no peace in places where Muslims mix with Infidels. Everywhere in the world, regardless of the conduct of the Infidels in question there is conflict. Whether those infidels are street preachers in Dearborn, Michgan or Tribalist/Animist tribes in Darfur or Catholics in East Timor or secular authorities in Paris or Coptic Christians in Egypt or Roman/Orthodox Catholics in Serbia, Turkey, Cyprus, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia or Hindus in India or Communists in China - Islam tends to be a common denominator in most religious conflicts boiling around the world. It is no accident.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Islam is the newest major faith and the fastest expanding faith in the world it is no surprise it would come into conflict with other faiths.
  There have been many wars and much bloodshed between religions not at all involving Islam, different sects of Christianity butchered each other throughout much of American history, Irish protestants and Catholics tore the country apart, the wars between Catholic and Protestant European nations in the colonial age killed millions, Christians persecuted Jews throughout Europe with pogroms and genocides until the modern age, but then Christianity stopped expanding and thus ran into no more competitors.
  
  There is no faith that has committed more atrocities in it's time, from the very tip of South America and the the hundreds of faiths of that continent to Australia and New Zealand to Canada and America, Malaysia, and Lithuania there is no corner of the world that hasn't seen Christian oppression, forced conversion and Genocide of non believers.
  report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So, you are saying that people who leave those countries for the freedom of the US still only have loyalty to those countries they left because they didn't want to live under that kind of system? Because that is what Brenda said.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps a little research into recent surveys of American Muslims will help clarify some misunderstandings. There are, indeed, a significant number of Muslims who believe that violence is the way to accomplish that which Muhammad, and Osama Bin Laden, advocated - the subjugation of the whole world to the Ummah.
  report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Much like many people want the US to be a Christian-based theocracy
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps it would be worth the time to check the election results in the Muslim world. When afforded the short lived opportunity to vote, Muslims have tended to vote in the parties most hostile to the "Liberal Democracies" of the West and most favorably disposed toward enshrining Sharia. Last I checked, there is no Christian Monopoly Party in the United States.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We call them Republicans, they recently tried to pass a state religion in North Carolina (Christianity obviously) and over half of them (55%) support making Christianity the state religion.
  In other words if Americans were all Republicans this would be theocracy. Thank any and all deities for liberals.
  
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 … on-of-usa/
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It will be fun to see how well the Unitarian Universalist Church fares when Sharia is enacted over the whole world. I hope I live so long. I hate to be so cold, but I will laugh and laugh when Muslims get their hands on Richard Dawkins. The day rapidly approaches.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  First you were totally off topic (when you lose change the subject).
  
  Secondly your paranoid delusions are pretty hilarious, the fastest growing belief in the world is non belief, there are already more non believers than Muslims so it ain't going to happen
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Aren't we all delusional? After all what is non-belief but a delusion. As for topic, isn't the topic of this entire forum posting Sharia? As for losing - I find that entire notion amusing. I was unaware that there was either a competition or an argument here.
  report
  60
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Stop drinking the Kool-Aid of religion, and you'll see where the delusion truly lies.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Such a clear and compelling argument. I am completely and totally convinced. Thank you for opening my eyes. I am certain the rewards will be impossible to count. But let's start with isolation, materialism, minimalism - so much to embrace and enjoy. Wow, I never understood how wonderful a life without communion could be. The reduction of human beings to just another animal, just another thing is so liberating. Now I see the appeal.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or you know.....science proving that humans evolved from earlier primates.
  
  But don't let facts get in the way of your stories....
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  An opinion offered in ignorance is also so compelling. Perhaps you should research the position of the Catholic Church - the world's largest single religion without the division of conflicting sects as with Islam - and then venture an opinion on evolution and religion rooted in information rather than assumption.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah finally they did, the majority of American Christians do not.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The entire series of responses was based on a comment about world wide religion. Few religions are as world wide as the Catholic Church.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They accepted it almost a hundreds years late, thanks guys but it is till not the predominant belief amongst Christians.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Though liberals love to pay lip service to evolution they don't believe it either. After all, isn't natural selection the primary mechanism of evolution. Liberals seek to thwart natural selection at every turn producing a population of organisms slowly devolving into slower, fatter, stupider, lazier and ever more parasitic creatures that, if left to the harsh realities of nature, could not survive - witness Katrina, Sandy, etc....
  report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I guess that's better than believing in a kind, loving God that would cause Katrina and Sandy to happen.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Some ideas are difficult for some to grasp.
  report
  81
  junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You obviously don't understand evolution, so you're in no place to argue that liberals don't believe in it. And of course the majority of conservatives believe in it as well, so I'm not sure how you'd factor that into your assessment (not that your actually making an assessment).
  
  Natural selection doesn't select on abstract relationships between individuals and "harsh realities of nature." It selects on traits which give an organism selective advantage, which often means traits which have value for the benefit they bring to social groups (compassion, leadership, communication, etc.) Your dog-eat-dog mentality is actually a poor quality that will in the long run probably be phased out in favor of those who do care about the fat and stupid.
  
  Witnessing Katrina, Sandy, etc. is good advice, but you should do so for their realities, not for what you want to see in order to support your narrative that X group of people are parasites. If you see their realities, you'll see that they were also events which brought out the best in us--piles of people reaching out to help those in need. Truth is that none of us can survive all situations. Doesn't really matter how tough or smart you are. Any one of us could be put into a situation for which we have no practical experience and not do so well without assistance. That includes you. And if that moment ever comes for you I suspect you'll be thankful that people came to your aid rather than calling you a fat, stupid, lazy, parasite, though if it's ever up to me, I'll just leave you be and give you the opportunity to prove your evolutionary superiority. That would be entertaining
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So in short, are you saying that "Brownie " did a great job by encourage natural selection - cool.
  report
  60
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's so cute when people like you can't understand what Natural Selection is.
  
  You're mistaking it for "survival of the fittest," which has been a fallacy since Day 1. If "survival of the fittest" is truly how evolution worked, we wouldn't have feeble, helpless creatures like krill, sloths, fainting goats, or kakapos.
  
  The phrase you're more likely fishing for is "survival of the ones most able to avoid being killed and can breed an awful lot."
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "survival of the fittest" somehow that phrase never appears in what I posted - thanks for the mentalist act - now what do I have in my pocket.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The phrase itself no butt he fallacy is precisely there. Animals in societies aid each other and that is how many have been successful particularly primates and humans, it is a part of the evolutionary process.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course you are right. You must be. It is you and that makes your right. Society is different than government regulated or promulgated activity and that is what divides liberal from conservative. Conservatism accepts and encourages individuals acting either alone or in concert for the betterment of themselves- through which society automatically benefits in the aggregate or for the betterment of others. Neither compelled nor punished for doing so by an overarching power elite.
  
  Liberals continually demand that a power be created to compel others to do as they would have them do as part of a collective, hence FEMA fails where charities and individuals, acting alone or in concert, succeed. It is the liberal who demands price controls for high demand goods following a natural disaster, resulting in shortages and suffering, It is the conservative that understands that the natural processes of supply and demand will remedy shortages if allowed to function.
  
  No where is "survival of the fittest" ever part of the picture. Perception colors your answer and the color is ordure brown, so be it.
  report
  60
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nah, Conservatives are more like the fattest male walruses: Big, fat, hairy, and only they are allowed to have nice things--to hell with everyone else.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would recommend Russel Kirk's "The Conservative Mind," Bastiat's "The Law," Skousen's "The 5000 Year Lear," and The Constitution and Declaration of Independence so you may come to understand conservatism.
  report
  60
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You mean the documents that were written to destroy the status quo? The documents that were written on behalf of the common man and not corporations? The documents that were progressive in nature instead of regressive?
  
  How are they Conservative, again?
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you would be better served to examine the great "progressive" revolutions of France, Russia and China.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, please, answer his question. How exactly is a document crafted by progressives a conservative document?
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What possible connection exists between the pro-government, anti-gun, amoral, pro-tax, anti-business 20 and 21st century American left("progressives" - hence the quotation marks)and a bunch of anti-government, pro-gun, pro-private property, pro-religion, pro-business radicals on the fringes of a pro-government, anti-gun, anti-business, pro-tax all powerful central government empire.
  
  You and all who claim that the American Revolution was a "progressive" revolution fail to recognize that the "Shot Heard Around the World" was caused by the legitimate, all powerful, pro-tax central government sending legally appointed agents to seize a stockpile of military arms from anti-government, anti-tax, pro-religion, pro-private property gun nuts at Lexington and Concord.
  
  The American Revolution was revolutionary without the silliness undertaken by foolish liberal revolutions, like the one in France, where the entire society is ripped down and recast as some Utopian experiment. It is that pursuit of Utopian-ism that marks the liberal and his revolution. The American Revolution sought to secure the rights that Englishmen enjoyed, not to rename the months of the year or grab and redistribute property.
  
  "Progressivism" has much more in common with socialism, communism and fascism than it has or ever will have with the political, moral and economic ideas of the American Revolution or of the Scottish Enlightenment ideas that informed it. What connection could possibly exist between the political ideas of the left and the authors of documents that are rooted in Natural Law Theory, as is the Declaration of Independence, or the decentralized, enumerated, limited and circumscribed powers of the federal government as spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the left that has sought to place more power in the hands of the judiciary, the least democratic of the three branches.
  
  I would offer that the American left is neither progressive nor democratic, especially in the policy positions it consistently takes. The left supports "states rights" when it comes to drug law but solidly supports a federal power grab when it comes to guns, taxes, education, etc.... Hardly the position of those great Americans like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, etc.... Weren't most of the American Revolutionaries white, men, property holders, heterosexual and religious - how is that progressive??
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And yet....they were among the most progressive men of their era...
  
  Remember, when the country was first founded, it was considered a foolish and silly revolution brought about by men who were trying to do something radical.
  
  You should also remember what the country went through to become great. It was a tad more than "people working hard to achieve stuff", there was a lot of exploitation of the lower classes, immigrants and minorities.
  
  What you try to generalize as a utopia is an attempt to brush over the ills and evils of our past. When the day comes when everyone has truly equal rights, social issues such as gay rights and abortion won't matter because we will finally be at a point where everyone truly is equal under the law and able to pursue life the way that they want to.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So what people want is always good, always acceptable, always propelling civilization and the civil society forward? Sounds Utopian to me.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not always, but who are you to judge what is right and wrong? Who are you to stop someone from living their life?
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That just boiled right out of you - perhaps next time some name calling can be added for effect
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Animals far more frequently eat each other than form "societies." A little socio-biology or research in the behavior of primates might help. Bonobos will slaughter a competing troop and eat them, cool.
  report
  60
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry, a competing what? Troop? Why, that sounds almost like...a society or something!
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Troupe, I accept the correction graciously, is a description of a grouping, like a colony of ants, swarm of bees, etc...these may be collectives but are they societies? Aren't societies much more complex than ant colonies? As for competing, competition - an idea universally maligned by lefties - is a condition of nature not a hallmark of society.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And research into those same creatures shows that they also help others, show cooperation and even experience empathy.
  
  And its "troupe", not troop, unless the competing group was made of a single soldier.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lol, no divisions or sects in the Catholic church?
  
  You sure you wanna stick with that?
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I do.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, you would be wrong then, my friend.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When in conversation with you aren't we all.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well when so many people use "facts" instead of FACTS to make an argument, its hard for me to be wrong.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lol Christian monopoly party.....sounds like something the Puritans would have done on a Saturday back in the day.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It really does not, Muslims are from all over the world, from different sects that actually hate each other (the two majority Sunni and Shia kill each other far more than anyone else) so how people who often intensely despise each other, live all over the world, with radically different opinions on things can be called a nation of some sort is just flat out factually, provably wrong.
  
  Shia hate Sunni, Sunni hate Shia, Wahabbists from Saudi Arabia would jail the average Turkish Muslim for his practices and Indonesian Islamists which is the largest concentration of Muslims in the world consider all other forms of Islam barbarous etc. etc.
  
  Obviously these people are a nation
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They sound like Congress, or the average Hubpages forum discussion
  report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is easy to present double standards.
  
  A Christian is a follower of Jesus.
  A Muslim is a follower of Muhammad.
  
  See how easy that is?
  report
  59
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I believe her pov... is Christian is a religion without borders...
  
  but Muslims all come from Allahislammuslimland. I am trying desperately to find it on the map, however...
  Do you think it's near Hinduistan...or closer to The Peoples Republic of Buddhapest? I already tried looking all around Wiccanburgh.
  report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Quill,
  
  While you might be right that there have been no efforts to “implement” Sharia – in a regional or court sense, there are incidents of judges being asked to use Sharia law on which to base individual decisions. One such case happened not far from me and was the catalyst for the State of Kansas passing a law to ban “foreign” law from consideration in our courts.
  
  You can see the case at the link I’m posting below. The contract the Muslim couple entered into – by American standards – wouldn’t hold up. The husband then asked the judge to base his decision on Sharia law.
  
  http://cjonline.com/news/2012-05-10/mas … a-law-bill
  
  I’m not sure of the final decree – but the judge was blocked from considering Sharia. Maybe he wouldn’t have anyway – I can’t say. You can find better details of this story – this was just the first I stumbled upon.
  
  I agree that Sharia will not supplant US law, but I personally think judges should be held to a stricter standard anyway. Banning foreign law is a stop-gap, if the judge can still make arbitrary decisions, i.e., a Hanging Judge vs. a Lenient Judge. Justice is not just if it’s unequal for anyone.
  
  You might also be right that there is some bigotry involved. Where I disagree is that we should give ANYONE a pass. Our laws in the US are not based on Christianity - and I’m grateful for that. While some lawmakers obviously follow Christian – or other religious beliefs, our Founders, who were quite enlightened for their era – set us up to rise above religion. We’re still going to find pockets of resistance. There will always be that judge that thinks in his head, “WWJD?” But there no place in the courtroom for a biblical punishment.
  
  A complete separation of church and state means a complete separation – no Christian law should be considered. No Sharia law should be considered and no other law of any kind that differs from the laws on our books should be considered. Both laws, by the way, originate from the ancient Code of Hammurabi, and - honestly – we should be a bit beyond that by now.
  
  I agree that Muslims, Christian, pagans – whatever, should be allowed to solve their own problems through their religions – if they can do so without taking away the rights of another. The problem is, Old Testament Law and Sharia Law – favor men. That’s a fact. Because of that – no judge should use either to settle any case.
  
  I’m in support of total Church/State Separation.
  reply report
2. 59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The only problem is a definitional one as in what do you define as cruel or unusual punishment, we have the death sentence and consider that fine but would we consider severing a man's hand cruel and unusual? The only issue is one of opinion in what the writers of the constitution meant in the 8th amendment.
  The truth is Islamic law is pretty much utterly identical to Christian law but it sticks more closely to the "eye for an eye" thing, of course original Christian law is also completely incompatible with the constitution (i.e Kill heretics and stone people to death for not being virgins on their wedding night, that sort of thing.)
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse you, but Christian law isn't like that. Yes, in Biblical days, the Law was literal. God set down those rules, and there was literal punishment for breaking the laws of God. But Jesus "spiritualized" the Law. Now mankind suffers spiritually if they break the laws of God, and Christians and American Law doesn't literally punish someone for breaking even the Laws of God unless there's a reason for justice to be served in that particular case.
  Because there are still Laws that have to be dealt with literally. We have to have a way of punishing a murderer, taking him/her out of public access so that other people are protected from them; so we put them in jail or execute them. We have to punish thieves somehow or other so that they don't rob everyone blind; there has to be some semblance of order in society. And there are still laws against (and literal punishment for) lying IF that lie affects others and is of public/societal importance instead of just lying to another individual. But we don't literally mete out punishment on someone who chooses to be an atheist or someone who lusts or engages in immorality or isn't a virgin, etc.
  
  However, yes our Laws were based on the ideal of obeying God's Laws literally. God's Law is about right and wrong, obedience and sin. America has simply done away with the literal interpretation and literal punishment for breaking (most) Laws.
  So.........if you want to compare Sharia Law to "Christian" Law, go ahead. But you'd be in error.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh my Brenda read the bible for once.
  "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."
  
  Jesus never "spiritualised" the law or anything else he supported the old testament law, and the old statesman has it's laws clearly written for all to see and they are just as incompatible with our constitution as the Islamic laws.
  reply report
  59
  Patriot Questposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus disregarded many things in the old testament Josak, for one he added indefintie forgiveness of ones brother, in the old testament it was 7 times, Jesus said forgive 7 times 70, I believe Brenda is right, he wanted spiritual growth and spiritual thinking, physical laws would not get one into heaven and that was his desire,
  reply report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Conservatives govern only in accordance with biblical law.
  Why else would they fight contraception, fight sex education, fight abortion, fight same-sex equality, fight science in general ...?
  Just look at them preaching their Islamophobia, acting as though there is any difference. The Old Testament is just as violent as parts of the Koran.
  They are equally dangerous because the of fundamentalists and extremists on either side who take ancient scrolls literally and cherry-pick verses out of context (and with bad translations) - to use their god as justification for perpetual suspicion of, hatred for, and war with each other.
  reply report
  59
  Patriot Questposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  why else????? Because we believe morality builds great societies and financial markets..........in the 50s 5% of babies were born out of wedlock, today that number is 40%! 75% of the country claimed Christianity in the 50s and children said prayers in school............Am I getting your attention now? Wake up sonny!
  reply report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But you believe that your personal view of morality is all that matters.
  Prayer in school? Completely unconstitutional, bright eyes.
  You know why more kids are born "out of wedlock"? Because daughters were expected to marry and reproduce immediately without any thought of a career of further education. Women are free to pursue their own goals in society today, without the permission of a man.
  75% Christian - is what why women "knew their place" & blacks had no rights?
  The 1950s were only pleasant for non-poor white males - everyone else suffered. The fact that you yearn for those times tells us a lot about your world view.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Omniscience must be difficult.
  reply report
  61
  andrew savageposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Being a conservative does not necessarily mean that you are Christian. There are plenty of conservative atheists and other religions.
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What sets this country apart from other countries is our first 10 amendments to the constitution, which forms the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from wielding unjust power against the people. And the first Amendment states that the government cannot impose any religion on the people. They are free to have their religion of choice. Their is no reference to any one type of religion including Christianity.
  
  In Eisenhower's administration he put "one nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance to make a distinction from the Soviet Union during the Cold War of the 50's.
  
  Our constitution ensures a democracy. Sharia Law is a Theocracy. Which means it is not only their law, but also God's law as they see it, which governs their day-to-life.
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How come no one replied to my comments? Are there no arguments for what I said? That would be a first!!
  reply report
3. 60
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't believe there is such a thing as Christian law. Peter stood up in the Jerusalem Church and stated that gentile believers should simply abstain from food sacrificed to idols, animal blood, and sexual immorality. If they followed these guides they would do well. The Catholic Church has issued its catechisms which are supposed to direct the beliefs and obedience of Catholics, but that is not Christian law.
  
  Western 'Christian' countries set their law upon common sense not biblical interpretation. Shariah law is directly derived from the Quran.
  reply report
4. 59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sharia is a "supreme" law for all actions civil, religious, cultural, societal, dietary, etc. This makes it entirely incompatible with what little is left of the Constitution. Sharia requires all who live in a Muslim nation live according to its dictates, Muslim or not.
  reply report
5. 0
  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Neither Christian nor Muslim law is suitable to govern us today. Both are faulty, violent, and repressive.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
  51
  Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  -1
  reply report
69
Justin Earickposted 12 years ago
Sharia-law is equally as compatible with the Constitution as Christian law.
reply report
1. 77
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No it isn't. You're confusing Christian law with the tenets of the old testament and the large majority of Christians have grown out of that. They no longer accept those commands and certainly don't accept the punishments as appropriate in this day and time. They have in, general, developed along with the rest of civilization in growing and improving their sense of morality, of what is right and wrong.
  
  Muslims, while improving, have not. There are still large regions where the old laws are considered right, and Sharia law is the bastion of those beliefs. A great deal of that law, still accepted and in use, is not compatible with our constitution. As Muslims become more civilized (and many areas are) that will inevitably change, but for now they have lagged far behind Christians in throwing off the barbaric practices and laws of the past.
  reply report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please, bombing abortion clinics and assassinating doctors is a current practice celebrated by many christians. Domestic terrorism is generally a right-wing tactic used by evangelical extremists. (Left-wing terrorists rarely if ever kill - they block ports and roads, break into animal testing facilities, and chain themselves to trees.)
  Christians simply don't view their own extremists as terrorists - while they are quick to label Muslims as such.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Please, bombing abortion clinics and assassinating doctors is a current practice celebrated by many christians."
  
  No, these things are being done by a very, very small percentage of Christians, and the much larger majority are quick to condemn it by both words and actions.
  
  On the other hand, some 70% of the people in Afghanistan support Sharia law, at least until it's applied to them personally.
  
  And that's the difference. A handful of Christian radicals vs a country composed primarily of radicals.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Go to poor Christian countries and you can see the same radicalism in action, religious radicalism always occurs amongst poverty and a lack of education.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you asked Christians how any of them favored introducing bible law what kind of percentage response do you think you would get?
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Very close to zero. Personally, I've never known any Christian that would not wear a blend of cloth, eat pork or stone women for not being virgin upon marriage.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah yes but the question was not would they be hypocrites or do they even know what that means it was do you think they would answer that they supported it because that is what the people in Muslim countries are answering, "would you support the legal system of your faith" I think most Christians would say yes without really considering the implications (or even knowing them in many cases).
  
  Certainly when it comes to same sex marriage many Christians use a religious argument to support not allowing it and that is pure old testament, not even mentioned in the new.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Same sex marriage may not be mentioned directly in the New Testament (after all, I guess even the heathens back then didn't have the audacity to even suggest forcing that kind of union into its laws! wow....)
  but the sin of homosexuality is very definitely mentioned in the New Testament.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus does talk about marriage and it is never in neutral terms but always a man and a woman.
  reply report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda, no it is not.
  There was no word for homosexual in Hebrew, or in Latin (early biblical translations were Latin). Homosexuality wasn't identified until the 19th century - before that time, same-sex relations were simply considered an excess of lust.
  At issue is the translation of two words, arsenokoitai and malakoi.
  In Romans, Paul is comparing forsaking God to forsaking your "nature". If you are gay, then forsaking your nature would mean sleeping with the opposite sex.
  The term Paul uses for "nature" is the same word he uses to describe men having long hair (1 Corinthians 11). But a man's nature is for his hair to grow - so "nature" only means customary, nothing to do with orientation.
  And 1 Corinthians 6 is describing sexual exploitation, not consensual same-sex relationships (again, there was no recognition of sexual orientation in those times, they only considered passive or aggressive sexual roles).
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. You are of course misinterpreting those words, and apparently ignoring Romans 1: 26 and 27, which are very plain verses.
  And add to those Jude's admonitions about Sodom and Gomorrha and strange flesh.
  
  You also seem to think that because something didn't have a specific label put on it, that the action wasn't even in effect. lol. The phrases that the Bible uses in Romans spells out the sin acts themselves. Surely it doesn't throw liberals for a loop just because God didn't use their activist labels in His word.
  
  Notably, it's the same with the Constitution. I reckon liberal activists think everything should be spelled out in long drawn-out sentences with modern labels before they can understand the Law; they expected the ones who wrote the Constitution to have foreseen that activists would speak the unspeakable in public and try to make those things legal. Looks like the Founding Fathers had too much confidence in the morals of future generations. Or not enough fortitude themselves to spell it all out so there'd be no way for liberals to twist things.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you use the word 'liberal' as a term of contempt or as a kind of swear word?
  reply report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Umm, I did not forget Romans. Read it again
  "In Romans, Paul is comparing forsaking God to forsaking your "nature".
  The term Paul uses for "nature" is the same word he uses to describe men having long hair (1 Corinthians 11)."
  But we know that is it natural for men's hair to grow - so it means "customary" - not "natural" as in "the way god made you".
  And sexual roles were defines as passive or aggressive - not straight or "gay". So it was considered "natural" for men to be the sexual aggressors, thus "soft" (malakos) means sexual passivity in this context.
  BTW, if a person is gay, then sleeping with the opposite sex IS against their nature (both naturally and customarily).
  There was no "label" because "homosexuality" was not recognized until the 19th century. Once again - up to that point same-sex practitioners were considered more lustful than same-sex - though no one thought of them as "gay".
  Your assertion that Paul was speaking about something (homosexuality) that had not been recognized in society is very odd.
  reply report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The sins of Sodom & Gomorrah are mentioned 20 times in the bible, and only Jude 7 has any sort of sexual connotation. The sins of Sodom were poor treatment of strangers (gang rape; Matthew 10:14) and the poor; and worshiping false idols - that is why god sent the angels to Lot in the first place.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Considering that Jude took his inspiration for fallen angels from the discredited Book of Enoch, then I would suggest that Jude cannot be counted as a credible source anyway.
  reply report
  77
  jlparkposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus himself speaks of the sins of Sodom, and not once does he mention homosexuality or the theory of such. The sins of Sodom according to Jesus were haughtiness, inhospitality, the mistreatment of those less fortunate.
  
  Yada - the term in the OT that means "to know" is the term used in Gen 19 for Sodom and Gommorrah. Only there is currently translated to mean "to know sexually" in the modern versions of the bible. If you read it in it's original language, I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean it that way...why the ONLY place in the bible that its translated that way??? Translator bias? I think so.
  
  Anyway, to use Gen 19 to condemn homosexuality regardless of the translation etc is a VERY VERY odd thing to do. To use such a Verse out of context makes you forget the other things in that story that are much more awful than homosexuality - that you are condoning by ignoring.
  Such as - Lot offering his virgin daughters to be raped, and later in the piece having an incestuous relationship with his daughters and impregnating them.
  
  So use Gen 19 at your own peril - to condemn Homosexuality using it, is to CONDONE incest and rape in order to not offend your guests.
  
  Frankly, homosexuality is the LEAST offensive thing in that verse, if in fact it is even what they meant at the time.
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed
  
  Ezekiel 16:49
  “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
  
  No homosexuality here.
  report
  60
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You know, this sounds like someone else I know...
  report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No one's arguing that those weren't sins of Sodom.
  But those weren't the only sins.
  Read verse 50.
  I don't think Christians usually say that sodomy/homosexuality/lesbianism is worse than other sins (although God does call them abominations.....so that's definitely worth taking note of). But you naysayers don't even want to admit that it IS a sin that needs repented of.
  report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda - Abominations? Seriously? Tattoos are an "abomination" (or to'ebah) the same as eating shrimp, lobster, and pork, the same as mixed-blend fabrics are all "abominations".
  Is that not worth taking note of?
  Homosexuality is not a sin - no more than eating bacon, at least. That is the entire point here - mistranslation and cherry-picking is what leads you and many others to this misguided conclusion.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually at the time that the New Testament was written a form of gay marriage was already legal within the Roman empire.
  reply report
  51
  Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Slavery was legal in the Roman empire too.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And legal in the bible too because owning people (and beating them even to death) is fine but god forbid people marry someone they love
  reply report
  51
  Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was unaware that the Bible was a book of statutes.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It was certainly used as such.
  report
  77
  jlparkposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not to mention the fact that the Bible has been used in the not too distant past to PROMOTE slavery.
  reply report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right, but Roman slaves could file legal complaints against their masters, earn money and become citizens with voting rights.
  reply report
  51
  Lie Detectorposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure that made the slaves feel so much better.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It existed but in no way was considered equal to male/female citizens being married and was often ridiculed, criticized and satirized. It did not persist for long and what ever happened to the glorious culture of Rome?
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your point being? I was just pointing out that Brenda was wrong. Same sex marriage needs no historical basis it's just the moral course hence the global change in that direction.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It existed as an exception or an aberration not as a durable practice. It will not be a durable practice this time around, either. Merely because there is an historical occurrence of a practice that emerges from time to time does not demonstrate its efficacy or durability.
  
  Most practices persist on the fringes emerging and submerging as the over arching culture drifts from the course toward civilization. Merely because a practice finds acceptance in the moment by multiple societies is no demonstration of its superiority.
  
  Antisemitism, pedophilia, slavery, fascism, communism, spiritualism, vampirism, etc... have all waxed and waned leaving little lasting mark on societies except the desire to expunge the most offensive, disruptive or destructive aspects of those various practices - until the next waxing.
  
  The moral relativism of liberal societies ultimately leads to the disintegration of reason, law and order. It is only a matter of time before those who hold the opinion that homosexual "marriage" is not the proper course for society will be ousted, punished, denied employment and eventually imprisoned in re-education camps. There is no more proof necessary than to observe the treatment received by any actor or media person who expresses any doubt about homosexual "marriage."
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh of course sorry but it's over, it's happening all around the world and it won;t be reversed int eh foreseeable future.
  Also if we look at libertinism in social and sexual freedoms we see they correlate with the biggest flowerings of human civilization, whether it was the high of the ROman empire, the high of the Greek golden age etc.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Revisionist history is so entertaining. There is a better argument for polygamy as a durable societal practice but the homosexual "rights" supporters always blanch at that suggestion - until lately. Perhaps we will finally get the real nut of sexual liberation and legalize bestiality. It is rather retrograde of liberals not to champion that cause.
  report
  81
  junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Animals cannot acquiesce or dissent to being diddled, hence there is no correlation between the practices, so there is no reason to introduce such daftness.
  
  The only durable societal practice that has ever existed is society itself, in which differences, diversity, and minority/fringe behaviors have always existed, and arguably have always made us better. A rainbow doesn't mean the end of any one color. Even if one color becomes less prominent than it once was, the whole spectrum becomes all the more beautiful.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ]Animals cannot acquiesce or dissent to being diddled-doesn't an animal have the right to love who it wants? After all animals are also living things. If a pony loves a woman who are you to say it is wrong?
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because we can't actually determine what animals want. They also do not have the intelligence for consent to human relationships, just as children don't.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't that up to the ones who love each other to decide. Certainly a 15 year old can decide with whom to copulate or to love - unless all the vaunted and high minded freedom from moral restraint talk is just talk. Surely an animal and his lover know if they are in love by what they do with each other. Isn't that the barometer of love?
  
  There are animal rights advocates who would disagree with you. Are you saying that your morality is better than theirs? That they must be forced to conform to your notions of love? Sounds rather oppressive to me to deny the love of a man and his sheep or his 10 year old neighbor or his daughter(s) and or son(s).
  
  Are you setting up barriers to happiness? Based on what, some out modded morality, bah. Tyrant!
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is simply based on consent, if you can demonstrate that a sheep or a child can give informed consent then fine, but you can't, where we draw the line between child and adult is often a difficult question but certainly not with animal, they simply lack the brain processing capability to give informed consent.
  
  It's very simple.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Is it. If you tried to diddle my dog she would bite you. If I tried she would just love me more. Isn't that consent? You are just ramming your puritanical definitions down the throats of all the different species couples/amalgamations who are seeking only love, happiness and equality.
  report
  81
  junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You can claim that act is love all you want. You may even be right, but good luck trying to objectively prove that to others.
  
  Lawyer: "Fluffy, could you please describe your feelings for the defendant"
  Fluffy: *bark bark woof woof howl*
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why must we prove our love? Are you saying that the government should decide what is and is not love?
  report
  81
  junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ummm...you don't. You have to prove you aren't causing harm. I thought that was clear.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Harm to whom, you and your puritanical ilk who cannot understand the love between two species. Isn't it enough that we love each other. Who are you to judge? Why don't you want us to be happy?
  report
  81
  junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Asked and answered. Move along.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hardly answered, but indeed asked. Who are you to deny a loving relationship between a boy and his dog?
  report
  81
  junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You can not prove you are doing no harm. That's the answer. Obviously. You choose to ignore it and chase yourself around the stupid tree. Have fun. I've better things to be doing.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently not.
  report
  81
  junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it's oppressive, but it is oppressive with the aim of preventing harm. As for the sheep, let me know when you learn to converse with them. Until then, we can't claim to know their amorosity. As for adults with children, experience as well as medical knowledge has established the potential for harm, hence we don't do it. Homosexuality, polygamy, no harm done = no cause for oppression.
  
  The point is, that it ISN'T an issue of one person or group's morality (or 'good' book). It's based entirely on objective actual harm.
  report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I do champion polygamy too, everyone should have the right to be with any consenting adults they want to be with, in any way they want to be that is the meaning of a free society.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You really need to read and open your eyes a little more. Homosexuality is most likely a genetic mutation or some other natural occurrence in nature.
  
  You also realize that many other animals have members of their society who prefer members of the same sex. Is that also just a byproduct of loose morals?
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  NOW ME --- "Revisionist history is so entertaining. There is a better argument for polygamy as a durable societal practice but the homosexual "rights" supporters always blanch at that suggestion - until lately. Perhaps we will finally get the real nut of sexual liberation and legalize bestiality. It is rather retrograde of liberals not to champion that cause."
  
  I looked very carefully and I found no mention of loose morals. I find the implication of animal society interesting. Are you arguing in favor of bestiality?
  
  If we are to equate human society with the behaviors of animals, which animals do we choose? Wolves? Bonobos? Crows? Bees? After all aren't we just the sum total of our genetic material just like every other animal. Like every other animal, if we can do something than it must be natural to do so.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I love how you change the argument.....
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  From what? I was looking for your cogent argument and found only that animal SOCIETY has homosexuality.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, you said that if animals can be homosexual it opens the door to beastiality.
  
  Two separate things.
  
  But its OK, keep thinking that something that happens naturally is somehow immoral. As if people and animals can overcome millions of years of evolution because you think its wrong.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am certain you cannot actually quote anything that even vaguely resembles that.
  
  I did, however, say the following - a direct quote of me for you - "Read what you want into what ever I wrote, it is what liberals do best."
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lol....a quick recap of our conversation...
  
  You: Homosexuality is wrong and is only accepted due to moral relativism...
  
  Me: Excuse me sir, homosexuality is indeed something that occurs in nature. Animals display homosexual behavior. Animals also do not have moral relativism. Therefore, how do you explain that?
  
  You: Interesting that you bring that up. Do you support having sex with animals?
  
  So yea......you have anything based in reality that you want to argue with? Or are you just going to name call?
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Where was this ever said by me??? "Homosexuality is wrong and is only accepted due to moral relativism..." as for name calling, I am certain that hasn't happened either. Find it and quote it, don't invent. The conversation quoted above has occurred in your head not in reality.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Fine, here is the direct quote that I just took from you....
  
  You'll notice in the first sentence of the last or second to last paragraph you used the words you say you didn't use.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, that I stand by. Liberalism leads to disaster.
  report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Are you actually suggesting that Rome fell because of same-sex marriages?
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Which would be funny because it fell long after the Christians abolished the same sex marriage statutes and had anyone with such a marriage executed.
  reply report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Read what you want into what ever I wrote, it is what liberals do best.
  reply report
  70
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes would have been a simpler answer.
  report
  59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And incorrect, and so it goes.
  report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Look at this troll - he refuses to offer specifics; simply satirical sniping. Should we be impressed? pfft
  Again, what were you saying about Romans and gays?
  report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  34% of Americans responded just last month that Christianity should be the national religion.
  I would be willing to wager that 99.99% of those idiots are Christians, and 100% of them have no clue about the Constitution whatsoever..
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 … 22255.html
  reply report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness, you are a funny guy. Christian terrorists only represent a small percentage - but Muslims embrace it? What a ridiculous statement.
  70% of Muslims approve of Sharia law? Sharia law is not terrorism.
  I am willing to bet that at least that amount of Christians believe that we should be a Christian nation governed by biblical law.
  Do I need to list the examples again?.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Guess you'd better. Which Christian groups support stoning people for wearing a blend of cloth? Of for (women) not being virgin on their wedding day?
  
  I very carefully said that in certain regions 70% of muslims support sharia law. Those countries are in the minority, but they do exist.
  
  The point was that "Christian law" (if there is such a thing) has changed enormously in the past 2,000 years - sharia law, as far as I'm aware, has not. It is still barbaric and still virtually enslaves over half the opulation.
  reply report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Again, what does Sharia law have to do with terrorism? That is just like linking the 10 commandments to abortion clinic bombers.
  reply report
  77
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  About as much as bombing abortion clinics has to do with Christian law. Nothing, at least so far as I understand Sharia law.
  
  Again, what biblical laws are still embraced by Christian law AND are in disagreement with our constitution? Laws that the average Christian would like to see put into effect in the US?
  reply report
  77
  jlparkposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A very very small amount of Christians bomb abortion clinics....okay. I agree with that. I also understand why people would like not to be tarred with the same brush as their more extreme counterparts.
  
  I note that we are quick to jump to the defence of "Very few, but I as a Christian am not one, and you shouldn't judge me like that".
  
  Yet, we are also quick to tar all homosexuals with the same brush. VERY VERY VERY few homosexuals are paedophiles (majority are actually straight, or not attracted to adults of EITHER gender) - yet many (no not all) Christians are quick to label all homosexuals as such.
  
  Hypocritical? I think so
  reply report
  59
  Patriot Questposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Justin I love it you think Christians bomb abortion clinics, (they) may claim Christianity but no Christian claims them as one of their own, On the other hand one seldom heres Muslim leaders denounce suicide bombings, Most believe the leaders are the ones financing terror, Ever look to see where the money came from to support the lifestyles of the 911 bombers????????
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sooner: "the way abortion providers are threatened with murder is indefensible."
  
  Brenda: "The way people legalized abortion is what's indefensible." 15 hours ago.
  
  Such a strong condemnation
  
  But seriously if you think Muslim leaders are not condemning terrorism all over the place then you have your head in the sand, you do realize that Muslims are most often the victims of Muslim terrorism right?
  
  Yup the money came from three wealthy families in Saudi Arabia.
  reply report
  69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is a perfect example of how the religions are exactly the same - seeing a bunch of dudes talk about how women shouldn't have any say over their own bodies.
  Submissive women without a say over their own reproductive system is a religious fundamental.
  reply report
77
jlparkposted 12 years ago
Except te Bible promotes Slavery. I know which out of the two issues in discussion actually harms people - and it's not being gay.
reply report
1. 69
  Justin Earickposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The bible certainly condones slavery - and certain individuals have been quick to cite the bible in defense of slavery.
  Cherry-pickers use ancient scrolls to excuse their own prejudice. At points in history: they legitimize slavery, they require submissive women willing to cede control of their own bodies and love lives, they ban gay & interracial marriage, they burn "witches", they hate the left-handed.
  The Crusades; the entire Old Testament!
  "God" is a serial mass-murderer, far beyond even genocide and infanticide.
  reply report
70
Cody Hodge5posted 12 years ago
Here Ya Go Retief....

"Merely because a practice finds acceptance in the moment by multiple societies is no demonstration of its superiority.

Antisemitism, pedophilia, slavery, fascism, communism, spiritualism, vampirism, etc... have all waxed and waned leaving little lasting mark on societies except the desire to expunge the most offensive, disruptive or destructive aspects of those various practices - until the next waxing.

<b>The moral relativism</b>....
reply report
1. 59
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Moral relativism is your phrase not mine. You are certainly free to (mis) interpret anything you like.
  reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago
And by the way, there are deliberate moves, yes, to impose Sharia Law into our American society. When it's not done outright and blatantly, it's done like this:

http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/ … urity-firm

So....America's common-sense activities of hiring for jobs, even, is being twisted into a mess of controversy. The firm should've been able to assume that the woman would go by the employee dress code instead of using her hire-in apparently as a way (most likely) to get unemployment for free and without due cause while, yes, imposing her religion upon a company.
This kind of thing is happening more and more. It's ridiculous and it's insidious and it's unAmerican to try to do such things. If the job requirements weren't to her liking, she should've refused the job. And if it were known ahead of time that she'd make an issue of such a thing, the employer should've never offered her the job.
reply report
1. 81
  junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Back in 1964 they passed this thing called the Civil Rights Act. You might want to look up. Most Americans I know think it is a pretty good thing, so I have no idea why you are calling it un-American. Perhaps you are just a bit behind on your reading.
  
  You might be interested to also know that it is often used to protect people of many different faiths. Like Christians who are fired for not working on the Sabbath or women who are fired for not wearing pants, for example.
  
  A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5
  reply report
2. 71
  Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Golly, Ms. Durham. While each of us is entitled to our opinions, they are not a license to distort facts, twist definitions, or to make up personal interpretations of our Constitution. Let me see if I can address some of your claims.
  
  First, some Catholic Americans go to confession in a church, some Christian Americans get dunked in tanks filled with water to be born again, some Muslim Americans, who may have been born in this country, go to a mosque to settle private disputes according to sharia law. Permitting the first two while denying the third is called “Religious Intolerance.” They are ALL Americans enjoying their constitutional rights to follow the dictates of their different religions. Anyone saying that one of these actions is un-American is in dire need of sensitivity training.
  Ms. Durham, this statement is false. “Muslim” is a noun identifying people who follow the religion of Islam. There are many Muslims who are also American citizens and it is quite appropriate to use the term Muslim-American to identify their group from other subsets of Americans.
  Thank you for this link. I read the article and it clearly explains that the company broke the law and had to pay a fine. The young lady did nothing illegal.
  Actually, the firm should not have assumed anything. They were fined because they assumed their employees would follow the law and not insist she remove religious garb that did not interfere with her duties. Furthermore, your assuming she “most likely” wore a khimar to qualify for unemployment compensation is absurd.
  Your statement is as un-American as un-American can get. The US is a very small part of a much bigger world filled with many other cultures, religions, and traditions that are much older than our own. America represents a standing invitation: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
  reply report
  60
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Is Sharia Law incompatible with the tenets of our Constitutional Law?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Is Sharia Law incompatible with the tenets of our Constitutional Law?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies