The Constitution and Religion
 

Not sure I could post directly on the forum with a faith concern, but in this case, it is as much a constitutional question. Last night Bill O gave a very interesting opinion or fact, I am not sure which, of the difference between Religion and Christianity in relation to the US Constitution. In brief, we have freedom from Religion like Catholic, Methodist etc. etc., but that the constitution was based on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ; therefore, the way I understood his intent: THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. Assuming that is a FACT, why do we even entertain issues that pertain to laws and rights that are not within the realm of Christianity? Sharia Law for example.

MY OPINION: As important as it is for Muslim countries to stamp out any Infidel beliefs, we better wake up and stop any non-Christian laws or customs from overriding our constitution. I firmly believe that freedom from or of religion does not mean freedom to change this countries laws and customs to better fit any faith, religion or belief that does not follow a strict compliance with Christian philosophy..

Oh No, we agree on something. No religion should be allowed to make or take away any rights that we have under the US Constitution. The Constitution only states that Government will NOT force upon us any religion and that each of us are allowed to practice any religion we want within reason of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I am on board with that, but more specific, my question is if we are constitutionally a Christian nation, should we allow other faiths laws like Sharia Law to become embedded into our judicial system. I worry about the violence that comes with some beliefs. I fear an increase in tolerance to Muslims that commit human rights crimes in their communities because it is not criminal in their faith or culture.

If you want to live under Sharia Law move to a Muslim country otherwise you can follow your regilion as long as it does not violate Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of anyone else. A crime is a crime is a crime no matter under what desguish it is committed.

Well said, and I must admit all I know of Muslims is what I see on the news, but I do not like what I see. I may be more sensitive as I have a Wife, two Daughters and two Granddaughters. I don't see a great future for women in the Muslim faith. But again, your response is short and to the point and I know you are correct.

the Crusades,Spanish Inquisition,bringing Christianity to the new world leading to the slaughter of thousands.....no religion is violence free. My opinion....religion is a very personal matter between a person and their God,keep the gov't out of it.

waynet, that is the problem with Sharia Law. It is government sponsored religion, if you don't believe in Sharia Law the government can force you to or kill you. Not my idea of freedom of religion based on the United States Constitution.

"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb. We are NOT a Christian nation though we're a nation made up of mostly Christians.

I'll quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 9, signed by President John Adams:

Our Founders were largely Deists. Heck, Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible! In addition, he took it upon himself to work on what might have been the first English translation of the Koran!

:agree:

You are trying to confuse the issue with facts! LOL I totally agree with you, but you said it much better then I could.

dIt seems a bit disingenuous to hold the controversial Treaty of Tripoli as the litmus test for defining Christianity and Government. I believe it was the vigorous debate over Article 11 you are actually referring to. The administrator would not allow me the keystrokes required to give the topic a full scholarly airing. Here goes the greatly abridged version. Keep in mind, context is important.

For centuries, Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa preyed on Mediterranean commerce. The U.S. was forced to pay tribute before the Revolution. Afterward, a series of Barbary Treaties including the Treaty of Tripoli were created. That treaty was originally created in Arabic and it has been convincingly held that Article 11 was not part of the original translation.

The Treaty went from Tripoli, to Algiers, to Portugal and then to the United States. This was around 1797 and transportation options were limited and slow. The disputed document was 7 months in transit being signed by officials along the way. By the time it reached Adams and Congress, they would have been unable to cancel the misinterpreted and incompetently translated terms. This is the core of the ongoing debate over Article 11.

Historians and scholars are largely in agreement that the flawed and mistranslated Article 11 was according to Frank Lambert of Purdue University, "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes. The translation flaw remains an arguable mystery.

The Treaty was remarkably short lived and broken by President Jefferson in 1801 when the Barbary bad guys tried to shake the U.S. down. In an interesting aside, the U.S. had built an impressive fleet to protect our assets in the Med from the pirates. The government authorized Commodore Dale to engage the enemy in protecting assets. In political pandering style, Congress precluded the Commodore from attacking Tripoli who had declared war on the U.S. Sound familiar in today's context? In classic United States Navy style and ingenuity, and in deference to Congress's "no attack" order, Dale gave Tripoli rulers an opportunity to negotiate the terms of their surrender. I'd love to buy the Commodore a drink.

Is it me or is there a fascinating parallel with today's Muslim pirates. Anyway, before you doze off, there will not be a quiz.

The founding documents and their liberal use of Christian language, as used by the Christians who authored them would seem to contradict John Adams statement in the opinion of many.

Establishment is a noun? So?; what's the point of your complaint? You lost me on that one.

WOW, you guys are way to smart for me to follow. I fear Muslims and that is as deep as I can go. I will bow out to the intellectuals on this thread.

Villager II - I've read your posts.......you can hold your own with anyone on the board. Jump in and give us your perspective. Your avatar suggests you are a bike rider. Great physical exercise but we all need cerebral exercise as well.
Have a good day.

The faux attempts at questioning the relationship of the Constitution vis a vis religion/Christianity continues to be half hearted attempts by recalcitrants to foist their beliefs or lack thereof on the majority of Americans.


While I consider myself to be more spiritual than religious. And while I may take issue with a number of religions not in the mainstream it is essential that we defend religious freedoms for all. The facts and history support that mainstream christian religions have contributed more to the benefit of society than not. In fact there appears to be a correlation between the descent of civility and morality to the lessening of christian values.

So I will not waste my energy debating the constitution's intent that erves no more than a dilberate distraction, but focus my energy on retaining a christian America and a belief "In God We Trust."

I agree with you on the fear of having Sharia Law becoming embedded into our judicial system. Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Christian, or just plain Womans libber...here is just a hint of what justice is like with Sharia Law in the 21st Century~
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA_9UJwCPXA[/ame]

V II glad someone else is realizing that Sharia law is as dangerous as it is .I'm not against people practicing their religion but I don't know any organized religion or group of people that are so hell bent to destroy another group of people as the Muslims. I am tired of being politically correct and not saying what I think. Bunk say what you but I'm not going to be nice anymore to h--- with it get out and return this country to Americans. You worry about the illegals ( south of the border) that is the least of your worries. Shape up and get with the program get this current admin. out of office and out of the country. Tar and feather em and run out on a rail and that is my final offer.. If you use to live in Detroit you would understand. In the 60's there was a song ( You don't believe we're on the eve of destruction) how true it is and we didn't learn s--- did we

Act for America
 

for those who are so inclined: to support the work of brigitte gabriel in spreading the warnings against sharia law and radical islam, her excellent organization, Act for America, works very hard to lobby against CAIR and other groups who are influencing our govt....google it....worth your time.

That's A Whole Lot Of People
 

Hmmm, what do we do with Jews, Buddhists, Ba'hai's, Hindus, Seiks, Shintos, those following Confuscious or Tao, those that follow the occult, atheists, or even those who haven't made up their minds? Less than three-quarters of all Americans claim to be Christians. That's a whole lot of people--something like 75 million Americans--that you'd throw under the bus, so to speak.

By the way, if Muslims choose to follow Shira law, so long as it does not conflict with the laws passed by our Congress or other levels of government in the country, what's wrong with that? If Shira Law is more restrictive than the law of the land, why should we care? And if our laws are more restrictive or different, and followers of Shira Law are held to account to "our" rules of law, what's wrong with that?

If you keep you eye on the birth rates of Muslims compared to Christians worldwide, the time will come when they will become the majority in many countries as well as in the U.S. That's already close to happening in France, Italy and in not too many decades, England. What happens then...when Muslims elect representatives who make "their" law our law?

Of all the religions that you mentioned, does anyone of them state that if you don't believe my way, "We will kill you, stone your women and lie to you to get a head and believe that you are not human if you don't believe in allah." Notice the small "a" in allah.

Ditto!!!!! I do not have a problem with different faiths or even with atheists, just the primitive violent actions of radical Muslims.

Here we go again. We simply cannot cherry pick the religions we believe have rights and those that do not have such rights. VK is correct in that assertion. However he also continues on with an argument that supports other posters concernedregarding sharia Law with his explanation that the Muslim population is going to explode in America.

However America has always looked to the law of the land to sort out such differences. It is what makes America, America.

I am as livid as the next person to the possibility of encroachment on America of sharia law as I am Scientiology, Wiccun (sp) witches) etc. But we are a nation of laws

Once again Scientiologists or Wiccans will not KILL YOU for not believing their way. Everyone is free to believe anyway they want as long as it don't interfer with the rights of others. Once you start demanding that you believe my way or I KILL YOU as you are not looked at as a human being, then your religion is not welcome in this country. You want to stone to death a women for being raped and then pad the rapist on the back for being a man, get out of this country. Try that with my daughter/wife and you best have a really good place to hid.

As to your saying "why should we care?"....you answer why we should care in your last paragraph! Under OUR law, EVERYONE is supposed to have equal protection under our law, but by incorporating sharia law, our law is open to the brutality and oppression of their law.

There are countless examples of how sharia law is gaining footholds in US courts. Here's one most people probably never heard of!

Sharia Law Gains Foothold in U.S.--Federal Judge Upholds Government Funding of Islam

http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.t...tblct_uid1=877

kahuna
 

villages kahuna, i am shocked that with your own words you agree that the muslim population explosion will eventually result in the complete overthrow of our judeo-christian culture in america, and you seem to think that that is just peachy and the way our founding fathers would have liked it? the problem is that islam is not only a religion, but is also a political ideology, which has no place in our western civilization other than completely over-taking it....if we do not want this to happen, we must stop it NOW! if we do not defend ourselves legally now, our descendents will all be muslims.

Muslim states are theocracies meaning there is not a separation between government and religion. Theocracies are governed by divine guidance or those officials who seem to be divinely guided. Religious texts ARE the law as in Sharia law.

Here are the words of a Muslim cleric you knew who was divinely guided.

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini


Alexis de Tocqueville on the Muslim world:

"I studied the Kuran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammed. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world, and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion infinitely more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."

It is not a well guarded Muslim secret that Islam seeks and calls for domination over all other religions. The goal of world domination is very real and articulated in undeniable terms as well. Kahuna's observation about the spread of Islam throughout Europe and in this hemisphere itself should raise red flags galore. Yes, even now, some election districts in Michigan and Minnesota are dominated by Muslim electorates. I'm not sure they're doing as well in Birmingham, Biloxi and Dallas. Is it constitutional and legal? Of course. Should we wait until Sharia Law legislation starts to replace the law of our land.....legally......to be concerned? You tell me.

Here’s the list of the country’s top 10 Muslim capitals:

Detroit
Washington, D.C.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Philadelphia
New York
Atlanta
Peoria, Illinois
San Francisco
Houston
Chicago

It is the American way to celebrate freedom of religion. The predicate of the Muslim religion is Sharia law. As a theocracy there is no distinction between religion and the government. Under the Muslim theocracy a person is either a Muslim, subjugated to the Muslims or killed. Therein lies the rub.

Kahuna......once again we have a divergence of opinion. Wait a minute.......is that the PC police pulling up in front of my house? In the words of the Late Warren Zevon......"send lawyers, guns and money, the ---- has hit the fan."

I happen to have an icon on my desk top concerning a wikipedia link pertaining to Alexis Charles Henri Cierei deTocqueville since he seems to be quoted in the newspapers more and more these days. He did indeed address the Muslim issue in the manner, fashion and with those conclusions that Cabo 35 relates.

There are many organization both relgious and secular that are a direct threat to our way of life. In a previous post posit that we are a nation of laws and have to address those threats in that manner. Is there anyone that hasa more effective and lawful way to deal with this problem because i am willing to listen?

The Europeans are now beginning to rebel against the Muslim threat even neutral Switzerland.

Aww C'mon, Don't Just Make It Up
 

I think that the result you describe will be "just peachy"? I guess I should never be surprised in this forum how people simply make up interpretations of what others say or write.

Our founding fathers set up a system of government based on a democratic process of selecting representatives of the people who make the laws and select the judiciary who enforces them. If over a long time if people who embrace Islam become the majority, electing representatives who establish the rule of law set up in our Constitution then their majority will dictate, regardless of what our history has been. Would the founding fathers like it? Probably not. Will American Christians or Jews like it? Absolutely not! But it's not anything the founding fathers might have considered when they set up our system of government.

Without Doing A Lot Of Quoting Of Previous Posters...
 

We all may be making a mountain out of a mole hill, at least in the short term. We have a system of laws and a judiciary to enforce them. Those secular laws trump any and all religious laws. And they will unless or until a majority of Americans elect representatives who change those laws and select different judges to enforce them. For the time being, our rule of law trumps Muslim Sharia law.

If Muslims were to follow their law and if it put them in violation of our secular system of laws, our "law of the land" would prevail. Muslims who stone a woman for sexual misdeeds will be subject to our laws prohibiting and punishing murder. Muslim men who violate the rights of women will be subject to our laws, not what the Kuran says. Civil disagreements will be settled by our courts, not a mullah at a mosque.

So I think we're all getting our shorts in a knot over something that's not going to be an issue in our lifetimes. But if Muslims become the majority in the United States, as their birthrate suggests that they will, that's a whole different set of circumstances. We'll have a chance to see how other democratic countries deal with such a problem before we face it. France and Italy will be majority Muslim within the next 10-15 years. England is not far behind. We'll see.

Your concerns are well taken. I share those concerns. I do not view the future of Islam and its impact on my descendants with an eminent, elevated state of alarm and panic. Optimistically speaking, I believe so much in our American culture and our way of life that it occurs to me that domestic Muslims who subscribe to rigid Sharia standards will, in time assimilate into our culture and establish reformed Sharia consistent with our Constitutional and statutory standards. This will not be a process without great acrimony, suffering and pain. It may even take the form of a multi-generational progression, but it will occur. We need to keep ourselves informed and we need to be vigilant. I will loan you my rose colored glasses if you need them. Be of good cheer and have fun in the Villages.

Good Point
 

Good point, Cabo. It seems to already be happening in places like Dearborn, Michigan, the largest concentration of Muslims this side of Baghdad. As you point out not without some acrimony, but assimilation is happening nonetheless.

There is a problem in the Dearborn schools, where the young male students widely disrespect the rights of the girl students because of their training at home. As I understand it, so far the teachers and school administration has kept the situation under control and consistent with our secular laws and standards. But the teachers are largely Christian Americans, not Muslim first or second generation Americans. I suppose if the school system in a place like Dearborn could find enough Muslims trained to be teachers, the situation might be a bit different. They would still have to follow the rules laid down by the city, state and federal educational administrators, but tensions could arise.

My sister was a first grade teacher in Brooklyn, where the majority of her students were Muslim. She reported that they were uniformly polite, if not always well-behaved. What amazed her was their following of their religious laws and beliefs at times like Ramadan. She described the Muslim kids rejecting morning milk and snacks and sitting in the lunchroom at noon, talking quietly but eating or drinking nothing, consistent with their religious beliefs.

Now that I think about it, how much different is that from the Catholic kids not being able to eat meat on Fridays when we were kids? By the way, do they still do that, or is that one of the things that disappeared along with Latin masses?

But so far, the concentration of Muslims in Dearborn seem to be doing exactly as you suggest, assimilating into American society and culture with only minimal problems.

OK. Now that that's all resolved, we can get back to a good dog-poop thread, or maybe a good old loathe-the-rich-developer thread.

It's a bit of a hot button of mine and I should fully explain.

Most people seem to think that the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of *a* religion". The meaning being that there would be no 'official' religion as there was (and is) in Great Britain.

But that's not what it says. In the misinterpreted version, they think that "establishment" is a verb, and in "to establish". It's a noun.

A church is a religious establishment. A pub could be called an alcohol establishment. In that context, "establishment of religion" is everything from a church to religious schools. It's one of the reasons churches don't pay property taxes.

One of the original reasons for that clause were the kinds of laws that were seen in Great Britain that might have said "no Irish Catholic could be recognised as a lawyer". It says the state will not 'respect' one religion or any religious establishment over another.

This is also why challenges to things like nativity scenes are ripe for misinterpretation. SOme town bans the nativity scene and suddenly the hue and cry is either "war on religion" or "no Christmas". What that really turns out to be are wimpy town officials since the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that you CAN have religious displays on public grounds but that you cannot discriminate. It means you can have your nativity scene so long as you allow a menorah, should someone ask to put one up.

Vatican II kind of got rid of the "fish on Friday" rule.

I'm still waiting for the "priests will not rape children" rule.

fish on friday
 

for all you non-catholics let me assure you that catholics still observe the meatless fridays of lent...back to the subject of co-existing with our muslim immigrants, there is a simple solution...if we insist on no sharia law being used in our country, only constitutional law, then the muslims who are westernized and want to assimilate into our culture will accept that and stay here...the muslims who are truly devout in their faith will leave and return to countries where they may use sharia law...it is against their religion to live where they cannot observe sharia law. this is our LEGAL way to protect our culture, as provided to us by our constituion, and we had better defend our rights now, as i said, or that future majority will wipe out our culture with nary a shot fired.

You mean like Native Americans did? My experiences with Tribal Courts over the years is that these folks have their own way of deciding issues.

There are enough of the Muslim population hell bent on following the dictates of their militant leaders; and that does greatly concern me just as did the Black Panthers or the white supremist. However the Muslim movement is an entirely different thing. If you want to view the future just look across the pond.

I referenced Scientologist and Wiccans because in many peoples view they are faux religion hiding under the guise and protection of religion giving them the ability to gain protection under the US Constitution. I do not desire to engage in a debate regarding these enities but only opine. It will be left to others to draw their own conclusions.

I also wish that when people gingerly raise the issue of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church they remain open enough to include other religions, Universities, Boy/Girl Scouts of America, Day Care Centers, etc the Catholic Church does not have a corner on this market.

Finally I keep repeating that we are a nation of laws and as such are at the advantage or disadvantage of dealing with the encroachment of Muslims and their laws upon this nation based upon this nation's laws. Some may be right and it will all come down to being just too emotional about this issue. But then, I wonder if that is what the Europeans believed too? By the way a key factor in this puzzle rests with our Immigration Policy. Some nations have simply refused any additional immigrants. What will our leaders do????

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the wimpy officials!
I also think that it prohibits the establishment of an official religion for the country.

Yes, you are correct in that the clause prohibits an 'official' religion. It's the common misinterpretation that it stops there.

I find it ironic that the original intent of the 'wall of separation' that was later described by Jefferson, described protecting the CHURCH from the STATE (I'm guessing to prevent a King Henry VIII-like 'reformation' or something like that). Nowadays it has to be used to protect the STATE from the CHURCH.

An example of the "peaceful" religion of Islam...
http://citizensreport.info/2011/07/2...vert-to-islam/

Didn't even look at the link....but I bet you are a fan of Lowe's. :cus: