Posted on 11/23/2010 9:16:05 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Muneer Awad (Your Views, Nov. 14) referred to Sharia as a set of rules that “guide” the daily life of Muslims. He further said that no government should “intrude on any religious community's right to practice its faith.” Would this exclude a ban on polygamy? Should Kalona, Iowa, allow Amish law? Should the Wiccan community be as respected as the Muslim community?
The Constitution wasn't written to protect minority (or community) rights. It was written to protect individual rights. I can no longer exercise the way of life in which I grew up. I can't smoke where I please. A child can't ride on his mother's lap in the front seat, as I did. I have to turn packages in stores around to read the English labels. Rarely can I eat in restaurants for the spices in the food, adapted to accommodate alien palates. People neither dress nor act in the decent manner expected when I was young.
I had to adapt to the society around me. So should Awad.
“If “gay marriage” is okay, why isn’t polygamy?”
And polyandry.
Slippery slope, but we’re already sliding down it.
And polygyny.
Author does topic a disservice by equating private free choices to adapt to the citizenry (bi-linhgual food packages) and government-imposed restrictions (seatbelt laws).
Congress is prohibited by the First Amendment from making any law regarding the establishment of religion by a government. That means no laws creating a state religious sect. It does not mean no laws allowing the state to give respect to the varioius religious sects practiced by the people. In fact, the First Amendment forbids Congress from making any law that prohibits the freedom to practice any religious sect (arguably limited to any sect known to the framers), but does not in any way prohibit laws encouraging the practice of religion.
If citizens can contract to abide by a private system (such as arbitration) for resolving disputes, religious systems for resolving disputes (that citizens agree to follow) such as religious tribunals cannot be prohibited by federal law. This applies to civil law disputes, but not to criminal law matters.
Sharia as a legal means of resolving contract disputes can be a good thing. But not for criminal issues.
Refusing to give federal recognition to more than one marriage or to some new definition of marriage is not a religious matter. It is a law that does not prohibit ones private choice to have more than one religious marriage or to redefine marriage.
Private or religious arbitration helps keep cases out of court, saves money & time and solves many problems, but as you say, no criminal cases.
The existence of the First Amendment itself is proof that the Framers acknowledged a difference betwen a religion and a government. If there wasn't, then there could be no First Amendment, because two governments would be colliding.
Islam is a government that calls itself a religion. It presumes all of the authorities of a government, as divine dictate. This is not some obscure concept - it is simply a religious government, and as such, demands total jurisdicational control of everything it can reach, like virtually all governments do.
Thus, Islam is NOT a "First Amendment religion." It can't be - in it's very nature, it challenges the authority of the Constitution.
But in the mean time, it uses First Amendment protections to infiltrate our country, with the openly admitted plan of usurping our government, and seizing control of our country.
By it's own admittance, Islam is an enemy of the United States of America, and ANY country which it does not completely, totally control.
Islam is NOT a First Amendment religion, and referring to it as one is nothing other than aiding and abetting an enemy of the country.
“it is simply a religious government, and as such, demands total jurisdicational control of everything it can reach”
I keep waiting to hear the “seperation of church and state” mantra of the Left. Perhaps it only applies to Christianity...or just religions that don’t issue death Fatwas.
Yet the sense of Genesis 2:24 is singular, not plural, from the original Hebrew as well as in English translation. It also comports well with the Pentateuch´s stress on the Oneness of God.
If the mooselims want sharia used then they shouldn’t get mad when canon law is used too.
On the other hand, does it mean that moslems will not be allowed to follow their religious law in their own communities? I hope not, because that would set a terrible precedent. What's next? Will Halakhah (Jewish religious law) be banned? Will kosher food or circumcision be outlawed? Will Jewish religious courts which affect absolutely no one but the Orthodox Jews who recognize them be dissolved?
Even the Catholic Church has religious courts. Will they be next?
This sounds an awful lot like the ACLU's campaign to secularize America and destroy all Theistically-based moral/ethical/legal systems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.