Christian news - breaking headlines from around the United States and the world. Trending hot topics in Christianity.

Texas Senate Advances Bill Banning Sharia Law in Family Court When in Conflict With U.S. Law

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Texas Senate Advances Bill Banning Sharia Law in Family Court When in Conflict With U.S. Law





    More...

  • #2
    "Sharia Law" in the US is nothing but private agreements between two consenting adults. To ban it is not only unconstitutional, but is an immoral intrusion by government on private rights that sets a dangerous precedent that will used with greater vigor by the government to oppress Christian rights. It seems the intent of this law is to strip parents of religious rights, with the excuse that children can't consent.
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
      "Sharia Law" in the US is nothing but private agreements between two consenting adults. To ban it is not only unconstitutional, but is an immoral intrusion by government on private rights that sets a dangerous precedent that will used with greater vigor by the government to oppress Christian rights. It seems the intent of this law is to strip parents of religious rights, with the excuse that children can't consent.
      The same argument could be made for polygamy existing between consenting adults. Or even sodomy. What about honor killings? The emphasis on the law is when it conflicts with U.S. law. Personally, I believe to an extent the main problem we are having is how we define religion. I think the main body of believers were Christian during the founding of the country, especially since some 2/3rds of the soldiers that died in the Revolutionary war were Calvinist. I am curious as to your thoughts Cornelius, do you think that religion was more closely defined as resembling denominations? Or do you think our founding fathers intentionally tried to unseat a Christian moral foundation, and replace it with a secular institution under the guise of no religion while it bears resemblance to an actual religion (given political correctness)?

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by William View Post
        The same argument could be made for polygamy existing between consenting adults. Or even sodomy. What about honor killings? The emphasis on the law is when it conflicts with U.S. law. Personally, I believe to an extent the main problem we are having is how we define religion. I think the main body of believers were Christian during the founding of the country, especially since some 2/3rds of the soldiers that died in the Revolutionary war were Calvinist. I am curious as to your thoughts Cornelius, do you think that religion was more closely defined as resembling denominations? Or do you think our founding fathers intentionally tried to unseat a Christian moral foundation, and replace it with a secular institution under the guise of no religion while it bears resemblance to an actual religion (given political correctness)?
        Polygamy and sodomy have long been legal in the US. The modern issue is government recognition and support of these things -- And, the stripping of personal consent of members of the public so that we are all coerced into supporting these these things. At this stage in American history, Christians need to make personal consent and religious rights a high priority to protect our own religious freedom. One of the many self-defeating things Christians can do is argue against religious rights, which is what is going in with these anti-Sharia laws.

        Honor killings are not between two consenting adults. And, no one is defending honor killings in the US.

        The US was a Christian country. The majority of Americans were Christian and Christianity defined our culture. But, those days are long gone. Our government is now hostile to Christianity.

        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
          Honor killings are not between two consenting adults. And, no one is defending honor killings in the US.

          The US was a Christian country. The majority of Americans were Christian and Christianity defined our culture. But, those days are long gone. Our government is now hostile to Christianity.
          Of course honor killings would be absurd in the U.S. But not so absurd when you allow immigrants to bring their culture into the U.S. And what I mean by this is a similar example of flying another country's flag on level of Old Glory on U.S. soil. I see a similarity with Sharia law. Fact, if you don't want to be killed by a Muslim don't go an Islamic country. It just doesn't make sense to bring an immigrant into the U.S. and support the culture that contradicts U.S. laws, especially when considering that they left their former country. If that is unconstitutional then I suggest one learn to interpret it "Right".

          Related, I never thought freedom of religion would include Sharia law, Satanism, etc. If we are liberal by our definition of such terminology and reject the historical context of the time of founding the Constitution we'll end up exactly where we are at. If anything, I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful that people will realize what a mistake the left is making and like the last general elections the right will sweep up across the nation.

          God bless,
          William
          Comment>

          • #6
            Consider, in Islam, it's forbidden to charge interest. So, if a Muslim sells a car worth 10,000 to another Muslim for 11 payments of 1000. In substance, the car sells for 10,000 with 1000 interest. But, the Muslim will deem the car to cost 11,000 and charges no interest. The two Muslims agree with that. Then the buyer stops payments on the car and when sued defends himself saying the terms of sale were Sharia, illegal, should the court agree and void the agreement?

            Under American law, we recognize marriages from other countries. If the courts are barred from recognizing Sharia law, then the court would be prohibited from recognizing marriages performed on Sharia Law. A married Muslim man and wife immigrant would be considered unmarried. Is that right?

            If two Muslims go into business together and agree to let a Sharia arbitrator settle their disputes, Isn't that there business?

            Do you want judges to laugh (as many of them do) when a Christian tells the court that it's against his religious beliefs and First Amendment rights of free expression to be coerced to compose, photoshop, and produce SSM wedding photos?

            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
              Consider, in Islam, it's forbidden to charge interest. So, if a Muslim sells a car worth 10,000 to another Muslim for 11 payments of 1000. In substance, the car sells for 10,000 with 1000 interest. But, the Muslim will deem the car to cost 11,000 and charges no interest. The two Muslims agree with that. Then the buyer stops payments on the car and when sued defends himself saying the terms of sale were Sharia, illegal, should the court agree and void the agreement?

              Under American law, we recognize marriages from other countries. If the courts are barred from recognizing Sharia law, then the court would be prohibited from recognizing marriages performed on Sharia Law. A married Muslim man and wife immigrant would be considered unmarried. Is that right?

              If two Muslims go into business together and agree to let a Sharia arbitrator settle their disputes, Isn't that there business?

              Do you want judges to laugh (as many of them do) when a Christian tells the court that it's against his religious beliefs and First Amendment rights of free expression to be coerced to compose, photoshop, and produce SSM wedding photos?
              Are not all recognizable legal marriages here in the United States required to have a marriage certificate? My prior point was regardless of one's religious affiliation, which arguably is a most troublesome issue by definition, a Polygamist can enter into a contract with as many people that they wish. Can the Muslim have concubines? What if that is allowed under Sharia law? Is that contract binding? Why stop at your example and not promote OT slavery where one could pay off the debt of a car by indentured slavery? If marriage is nothing more than contractual why not include a time lapse for said marriage. If a couple agrees to be married for only seven years to the day that the contract is fulfilled and no longer applicable should the State issue and agree to such conditions?

              As for the laughing Judge, that has already occurred in states such as Washington where it was ruled that a Christian has no right to act upon belief despite the constitution protecting expressions of religious belief. Try that contradiction on for size :confused:

              I think the main point of the system we live under has a certain presupposition by its founding fathers. I believe that it is Christendom. Who would of ever of thought that secularism would be the state religion and protected under religious expression as a non religion? I do not believe, just to be clear that we should abolish separation of church and state, however, I do differ as to the intent of the separation. My liberal associates seemingly believe secularism is idea for the country, and they are professing Christians.

              Your thoughts?

              God bless,
              William
              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by William View Post
                Are not all recognizable legal marriages here in the United States required to have a marriage certificate? My prior point was regardless of one's religious affiliation, which arguably is a most troublesome issue by definition, a Polygamist can enter into a contract with as many people that they wish. Can the Muslim have concubines? What if that is allowed under Sharia law? Is that contract binding? Why stop at your example and not promote OT slavery where one could pay off the debt of a car by indentured slavery? If marriage is nothing more than contractual why not include a time lapse for said marriage. If a couple agrees to be married for only seven years to the day that the contract is fulfilled and no longer applicable should the State issue and agree to such conditions?
                Just about every immorality between consenting adults is already legal. A man can have 10 wives. I can have ten weddings and get a King David-sized bed. But, I'd have just one government certificate. (Actually, I'd have ten certificates: I'd legally marry and divorce each in turn). If I were an immigrant, I'd be considered married by whatever standard I was married in from where I came. Before SSM, two sodomites could have a wedding and move in together (just without a government certificate). I can have as many concubines as I want in America, just as long as they're consenting adults. I could pay off a debt with indentured slavery, it's called an employment contract. I could have a marriage that expires in 7 years (via divorce, or simple dissolution).

                Increasingly, morality itself is illegal and opposing Sharia law just legitimizes government opposition to Christian religious freedom, which is our basis of morality.


                I think the main point of the system we live under has a certain presupposition by its founding fathers. I believe that it is Christendom. Who would of ever of thought that secularism would be the state religion and protected under religious expression as a non religion? I do not believe, just to be clear that we should abolish separation of church and state, however, I do differ as to the intent of the separation. My liberal associates seemingly believe secularism is idea for the country, and they are professing Christians.
                America was never an officially Christian nation (although, for a while, some states were officially Christian). But, America was founded by Christians and stayed a Christian nation, even through the 1850s. But, secularism... Atheism is now the state religion. Our government isn't just non-religious (secular), it's anti-Christian. BTW, Communists thought it was just ideal for their country to purge millions of their citizens.
                Comment>
                Working...
                X
                Articles - News - SiteMap