6 of 6
6
Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?
Posted: 03 September 2013 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2012-02-02
Lois - 03 September 2013 10:41 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 02 September 2013 11:33 AM
Noetics - 02 September 2013 11:19 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 02 September 2013 09:12 AM
Noetics - 02 September 2013 05:54 AM

The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge’s rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian.
Noetics

The judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment.  Nor does the judge’s name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin.

[Noetics]

That really does not matter, i.e. the name  of a person or place. The opinion of a US judge is determined mostly by the philosophy s/he is subjected to and indoctrinated at the various Law Schools which is manifestly anti- Heritage ( American heritage which they totally deny and has removed from all Texts).  I happened to have a look at a 1980 Social Study text-book of a high school junior- about 20 pages on Islam, Judaism and other religions and one sentence on the Western Heritage as follows: “The second largest religion in the Western world is Judaism”. I looked for, what is the first? No mention. Then I wanted to contact the Author (Bernstein), but could not. Names don’t mean anything!! Opinions and verdicts do.

Noetics

Frankly, I fail to see what an ‘80s textbook has to do with anything on the subject.  Nor can I believe that there is a wide-spread anti-Christian stance in the US when all I have to do is pull out a piece of any US currency of any denomination and see the words, “In God We Trust” on it.  As a resident of TN, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people in this state are Christians, including those holding government office.  Even though its unconstitutional, TN still has laws requiring religious tests for those seeking public office.

“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)

 

That doesn’t appear in the US Constitution.  In fact, there is no Article 9 in the Bill of Rights. There is no such requirement in the US Constitution though there are some State Constitutions that contain such wording, but they have been challenged, most recently by Herb Silverman in South Carolina.

“In 1990, a colleague pointed out that atheists were ineligible to hold public office in South Carolina. After an eight-year battle, Herb won a unanimous decision in the South Carolina Supreme Court, which struck down this religious test requirement.” http://secular.org/bios/Herb_Silverman


Lois

Its from the TN state Constitution, not the Federal Constitution.  Its still not legally valid, but until its challenged in court, it has force of law in TN.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 05:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4767
Joined  2007-10-05
Coldheart Tucker - 03 September 2013 04:53 PM

Its from the TN state Constitution, not the Federal Constitution.  Its still not legally valid, but until its challenged in court, it has force of law in TN.

United States Consitution, Article VI paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That’s pretty clear. As Coldheart Tucker said, this will be law in TN until someone challenges it.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2013 05:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Greatest I am - 01 August 2013 10:55 AM
Lois - 30 July 2013 05:46 PM
Greatest I am - 30 July 2013 05:20 PM

Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?

Some Muslim communities run with Sharia law. Other nations with a high Muslim population promote Sharia. It would seem from this phenomenon that Muslim law can be used to run a society as it does so in a few countries.

I know of no country that uses Christian or biblical law and have not heard of any Christian effort to have their law accepted in their nation.

This indicates that either Muslims are more religious than Christians, or Christians know that their laws would never be accepted as the law of the land.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of nations have rejected both sets of religious laws for a more secular approach to law and governance.

Briefly—-

Which of these three sets of laws do you think are superior and why?

Regards
DL

Christians have pushed governments to pass laws that support Christian values for millennia, and continue to do so to this day.  They are simply not as blatant as Muslims, mostly because Christian influence is mainly in democracies.  Christians know they can’t demand that Christian law be the law of the land because a democratic population would not support it. So they try to influence voting blocs and individual legislative representatives.  They have been successful in countries with established religions. People call for Islamic law in dictatorships where the will of the people carries no weight.
Lois

You are correct in that democratic nations will only suffer so much religious nonsense.

One small glitch that I will not argue here is that all the democracies you see, I call oligarchies. There are no democracies. There likely never was such a thing.


Regards
DL


I agree that “democracies” are not true democracies. We have been led to believe we have democracy, but we have a false version. A pretend version. We’ve been falsely led to believe our vote makes a difference.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 01:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  255
Joined  2012-09-14
Lois - 03 September 2013 05:40 PM

[

I agree that “democracies” are not true democracies. We have been led to believe we have democracy, but we have a false version. A pretend version. We’ve been falsely led to believe our vote makes a difference.

Lois


If thats true it is kind of sad.
But at the same time, if the public is anything like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

I dont think I would be comfortable in democratic America (or republican if one wants to get technical).
Maybe there could be a special “voting test” where only people with enough knowledge of American and foreign affairs can vote?

Of course thats my opinion which could be completely fallacious.

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 September 2013 09:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 06 September 2013 01:22 PM
Lois - 03 September 2013 05:40 PM

[

I agree that “democracies” are not true democracies. We have been led to believe we have democracy, but we have a false version. A pretend version. We’ve been falsely led to believe our vote makes a difference.

Lois


If thats true it is kind of sad.
But at the same time, if the public is anything like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

I dont think I would be comfortable in democratic America (or republican if one wants to get technical).
Maybe there could be a special “voting test” where only people with enough knowledge of American and foreign affairs can vote?

Of course thats my opinion which could be completely fallacious.

It would also be unconstitutional in the US. Right or wrong, the Founding Fathers wanted every American citizen to be able to vote their conscience. Anything that would interfere with that premise, such as a voting test, would seriously skew the democracy they had in mind and that the Constitution guarantees.
Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2013 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  255
Joined  2012-09-14

It may or may not be unconstitutional.
But I am just suggesting about having people choose leaders who know what they are talking about.
These people remind me of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmvCkZxpb8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3w_v0aEX38

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2013 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2013-09-01
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 13 September 2013 02:14 PM

It may or may not be unconstitutional.
But I am just suggesting about having people choose leaders who know what they are talking about.
These people remind me of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cmvCkZxpb8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3w_v0aEX38

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.
Quran (112: 1-4)

Noetics

1. Is the Almighty mighty enough to become a human zygote
2. Is the Almighty a loner until a creature was created?
3. Is Abdul Hakeem just the body/brain?
4. Is Abdul Hakeem spirit/soul/body- a tri-unity?
5. Is smallest unit of time past or present or future or a tri-unity of the three?
6. Is the smallest unit of space length or breadth or depth or a tri-unity of the three?
7. Is your imminent death your own doing?
8. Or is it a Sentence of Death that is universal and inevitable?
8. Who can cancel that Sentence other than the Sentencer?
9.  Is it rational if the Sentencer decides to take that Sentence upon Himself and set you free?
10. Should the abode of the Sentencer be EMPTY when and if that really happened?
11. Reject that Cancellation and be where you always wanted to be- away from HIM
12. Infinity1 + Infinity2 + Infinity3 = 1Infinity.      Field1 + Field2 + Field3 = 1Field

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2013 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  255
Joined  2012-09-14

Umm I’m not a christian.
I also can’t make sense out of the trinity, which is also admitted in the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 6
6