Reply With Quote
Right.... so there wasn't any judge who tried to put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, or any numerous amount of politicians who use God as a justification for policy, or use the Judeo-Christian values as a basis for morality... etc etc.
You do know that the First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech, right?
And uhm... there's quite a few Christians out there that would be nabbed by this law.
Right.... so there wasn't any judge who tried to put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, or any numerous amount of politicians who use God as a justification for policy, or use the Judeo-Christian values as a basis for morality... etc etc.
How do you figure?
Does it meet this criteria:
Anyone who follows a religion that dictates the imposition of that law on society should be banned from holding office.
What exactly do you mean by "dictates that law" etc etc? After all, many religious folk use the Bible as justification for certain laws based off morality. Should they be unable to hold office?
What about people who are Muslims, but don't agree with enforcing their religion as law? Is that ok?
You make it sound like there's only one Islam. Islam believers have various beliefs/strengths of belief, as do Christians.
Personal justification is not the same as having to follow a strict law of your religion. In fact, somplace in the Bible, it says God's followers are to be law abiding. God's law if for the people. Not for the government.
So they are false followers? Wouldn't their own disown them?
Yes, there are different sects. I'm not ruling all Islams out by my statement. Only those who are in a sect that requires strict laws of the religion that are imposed over others.
someplace in the Bible it says says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man.
yeah! God's law for the people!
What about anyone that tries to impose Christian law on society?Yes, there are different sects. I'm not ruling all Islams out by my statement. Only those who are in a sect that requires strict laws of the religion that are imposed over others.
Isn't that a textbook definition of a religion 'dictating the imposition of law on society'?
Gotta love those Cafeteria Christians.
Some of those who the profess traditional creeds of the USA yearn for official recognition as a protected minority against the crypto-pagan, crypto-libertarian onslaught of popular culture.
When government is called on to protect traditional values, you can be pretty sure their power and influence is reaching a low ebb in society.
Traditional values need a government bailout too.
Ive heard that traditional values is going public.
I might go in on a few shares.
The distinction you don't see, where I draw the line, is that the Bible does not tell God's followers to impose God's will on others.
You too?
No. It's telling God's followers to obey local laws.
It doesn't tell people to impose God's will upon others. Does it?
So if God's law conflicts with the law, like, for instance, stoning children who talk back to their parents, then...
Wouldn't this apply?
It's their right to believe whatever cuckoo nonsense they wish.
Uhm... are you sure about that?I mean, if God commanded his followers to oeby his laws, and they conflict with a regular law, wouldn't that imply God telling his followers to impose God's will?
^^^Iconic emphasis on tradition and family values. 1972.
And what happens if they don't?
Does every muslim you know tries to impose their God's will upon you? Or you don't know any muslims?
Wouldn't you be called a 'false follower' (whatever that means) if you deem yourself a christian and don't follow god's laws?Uhm... are you sure about that?
So I see Darrins is still stuck on the non existent shariah issue..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
