Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Sharia law

May 2, 2015 2:26AM PDT

You say you are against Sharia law but, if you are making laws based on your religion, you are promoting Sharia Law no matter what you want to call it in your religion.

If you can say I don't want to do this because it's against my religion, don't do it. If you say I don't want you to do it because it's against my religion, it's Sharia Law.

What's to stop Jews and Muslims from saying that I am opposed to port and alcohol, therefore nobody can have these things?

Don't tell me that this is different because it isn't any different that no mixed race marriages or slavery. Those states voted against mixed race marriages and for slavery. Are you saying that, if your state voted against mixed race marriage, your state doesn't have to recognize it? If you voted for separate drinking fountains or white only restaurants, that you could enforce it in your state?

The Civil War showed that Federal Law trumps state laws.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
What if a person says they don't want something to be legal
May 2, 2015 3:20AM PDT

because they have a personal belief that it's harmful or might cause problems for future generations? If they don't cite it as a religious objection, is it still the same as wanting to enact a form of Sharia law?... or is it now acceptable? If this person is known to favour a specific religion, does that change how you feel about their concerns?

- Collapse -
Does
May 2, 2015 3:24AM PDT

Christianity (the most predominate religion in the USA since its conception) prevent women from driving, cut off the hands of thieves, force women to have four male witnesses to rape, stone people to death for various crimes, incarcerate and torture those who don't follow Christianity and those who ARE but who don't practice that belief to extremes, etc.?

I didn't think so........

Attempt to compare all you want, Diana........it doesn't wash.......and no legislation will be able to force pastors and priests to perform gay marriages if their religion doesn't accept that behavior. Yes, I know that there a many who have and do, but a good majority don't and won't.

- Collapse -
When I see things like this,
May 2, 2015 4:36AM PDT
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/

I wonder what religion is to some people other than an excuse to attack it in all shapes and forms. I've always...well, almost always...asserted that one's real ethics and morals come from within and not some blind acceptance of particular religious tenets. It gets very ugly when personal morality needs to deal with politics and it's far easier to attack religion as though it was a wall against freedom and justice than it is to deal with each issue as its own being.
- Collapse -
I often wonder what religion is to some people
May 2, 2015 6:51AM PDT

other than an excuse to attack other people.

- Collapse -
Ask yourself what it is to you
May 2, 2015 8:00PM PDT

Do you use your own religious beliefs to attack people who practice other religions? When you hear that a person is of certain specific Christian faiths, do you think of them or treat them any differently than those of your own church membership? If so, in what ways?

P.S.

I'm not really expecting an answer but just offering a tool I use myself for introspection so please don't feel in any way offended by the questions.

- Collapse -
I do not treat people differently of different faiths
May 3, 2015 4:36AM PDT

or even a lack of faith.

I have people that I adore and hug that are Muslim or Jewish. My best friend is Wiccan. Some in my family are atheists or agnostic and I love them all.

I am not offended. It is a valid question. In fact, I dislike people that use their faith to condemn or beat people over their heads if they don't believe exactly as the "Good Christians" do. In fact, I do ask those people (including the ones here) which religion they want controlling the country and schools? If it's Christianity, which flavor? Religion should be taught in the home. That way the parents are the ones that can teach their children which flavor of which religion they want taught.

We are a secular government, period. The only mention of religion is in the first amendment, not in the Constitution at all. It says that you can worship as you wish and even have no religion if you wish. Most of the founding fathers were deists which means they were agnostics.

I very much resent having some else trying to force their religion on me and I do not try to force my religion on anyone else. You will notice that I am opposed to any law that starts out "It's what my religion says should be".

I have never hidden any of this.

- Collapse -
that's the difference
May 3, 2015 5:03AM PDT

between you and me, I put God first, Family second, Country third. Therefore I recognize the duty of Christianity isn't just to the individual, but to national units. It is God's will that each nation worships and follow His commandments.


Matthew 28:19-20 ESV
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."


Psalm 24:1 ESV
The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein,

Psalm 72:11
And let all kings bow down before him, All nations serve him.


Psalm 47:9
The nobles of the nations assemble as the people of the God of Abraham, for the kings of the earth belong to God; he is greatly exalted.


Psalm chapter 2

1Why are the nations in an uproar
And the peoples devising a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth take their stand
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,

3"Let us tear their fetters apart
And cast away their cords from us!"

4He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them.

5Then He will speak to them in His anger
And terrify them in His fury, saying,

6"But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain."

7"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

8'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.

9'You shall break them with a rod of iron,
You shall shatter them like earthenware.'"

10Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.

11Worship the LORD with reverence
And rejoice with trembling.

12Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

- Collapse -
Re: God's will
May 3, 2015 5:10AM PDT

" It is God's will that each nation worships and follow His commandments."

Hopefully God respects other religions and accepts that other nations follow the commandments of Allah or Buddha or the ideas of Hinduism? Or is God intolerant for those other religions?

Kees

- Collapse -
I'm just separating religion from morality
May 3, 2015 5:52AM PDT

While the two are inextricably linked, they can exist separately. I linked to a group claiming atheism but which were also against abortion. One without a practised religion doesn't need to mean they aren't without morals. One who names their faith just wears a badge that allows others to know what to expect of them and can either support or attack them at will. It's a bold step to label oneself that way. I will dispute your comparison of deism to agnosticism, however. The words are not interchangeable. I'll also, and as I've said before, the "founding fathers" didn't own the country and invite people to come over and join them. I think we need to have respect for the unknown and unnamed thousands more who were also here to build a new life based on their own desires. Were they also deists, agnostics and/or atheists? History doesn't record it that way.

- Collapse -
I never said that someone couldn't be moral
May 3, 2015 6:25AM PDT

without religion. Sometimes it's easier.

As to what to expect from people of faith, that is not necessarily true. What flavor of faith do they have and which part to they believe in? Are they conservative or liberal or moderate? Do they believe that everyone should believe exactly how they believe or not?

Too many believe A, B, and C. If you don't believe exactly the same, you are going to hell and damned for all eternity. Also many don't even follow the tenants of their own founder.

Where did Jesus or, even the disciples, say that the poor and sick deserve to be poor and sick and should just die?

Where did Jesus say that the rich deserve it and should be given more money? I seem to remember something about the eye of a needle and camels and rich and heaven.

Where did Mohammad say that, if you didn't become a Muslim, you should be beheaded?

- Collapse -
I'd not try to re-categorize people of faith
May 3, 2015 7:49AM PDT

into liberals, conservatives or moderates as those are more often used as general political labels. My own choice of faith fits squarely across all three of those in political terms but I'll stay away from arguing that. As for the camel and needle eye comparison, one needs to understand more of what that means. It doesn't mean that being rich is, in itself, a bad thing. What's being pointed out is that the desire for wealth or already having riches can be a distraction that can cause one to loose focus on the more important reward. Jesus spoke of many other distractions that cause the same end results. We sometimes call them the seven deadlies so laziness fits as well. From my own understanding, today's poor are not that way for the same reasons as were yesterday's poor. I'll also speculate that it's secular law that's caused most of the shift in that, although with good intentions, we've allowed a lot of people to not participate in caring for their own selves and families but still participate in making political choices for the rest of us.

- Collapse -
Do you also believe then
May 3, 2015 7:07AM PDT

that agnostics or atheists have the right to stop us from our religion? Because that's what they do every day.

I wonder how some of them would feel/react if we showed up at their funerals and ranted/protested?

- Collapse -
How about this one
May 2, 2015 6:54AM PDT

The House past a bill last night to allow employers to fire women who are using birth control?

Tell me that isn't Sharia Law.

- Collapse -
(NT) link?
May 2, 2015 7:05AM PDT
- Collapse -
That bill was passed
May 2, 2015 8:31AM PDT
- Collapse -
what is your solution
May 3, 2015 12:42AM PDT

where the majority in a country is one religion and there's a clash between it and another belief system? Irreconcilable Compromise? Majority Rule? Accomodation through Segregation? Different Legal Systems? Who then decides when BOTH legal systems would be involved due to members of both groups? A house divided can not stand?

- Collapse -
A secular government
May 3, 2015 4:40AM PDT

One where all religions are allowed to exist as long as they do not try to hurt anyone else.

Where laws are built on what is sane and reasonable to most. Most people in this country favor legalizing pot and same sex marriage and the rich paying their fair share of the taxes.

Before you same anything about taking away from the rich, the top 1% of the people got 90% of the income. Shouldn't they be paying 90% of the taxes?

- Collapse -
Re: 90%
May 3, 2015 5:02AM PDT

That's called "flat tax":everybody paying the same percentage of your income.

A lot of people (my guess: the majortiy of the other 99%) favour a progressive tax (pay a higher percentage if your income is higher), so that that top 1% pays more than 90% of the taxes, and bottom 99% less than 10% of the taxes. But that would be considered "socialist" or "theft" in stead of "just" or "righteous" by some of your countrymen, I think. Ain't that strange?


Kees

- Collapse -
If everyone paid 10%
May 3, 2015 5:15AM PDT

Then the person who made $10,000 would pay $1,000

The person who made $1,000,000 (a million) would pay $100,000

The person who made a billion would pay 100 million dollars

For some reason that doesn't seem fair to Diana. The envious greed of Socilism seemingly knows no limits.

- Collapse -
That's exactly what Diane proposes.
May 3, 2015 5:30AM PDT

Glad to see you agree!

Kees

- Collapse -
doesn't bother me
May 3, 2015 5:36AM PDT

She has to be right once in a great while. Wink

I've long been advocate of a flat tax

- Collapse -
There is nothing wrong with socialism
May 3, 2015 5:17AM PDT

It is just the pooling of money for the greater good - like fire and police departments, the military and national guard and park rangers and fixing and plowing roads and bridges and the judicial system and FEMA and IRS and schools and a lot of other things we enjoy that one form of government or another pays for.

We could get rid of them and repair and plow the road in front of our house or get out the hose when our house is burning or go after the guy that killed your daughter yourself or donate one day a year to repair bridges and definitely only private schools or home schooling would be the norm.

- Collapse -
Infrastructure is NOT Socialism
May 3, 2015 5:26AM PDT

So quit trying to claim they are the same. Money for things of mutual benefit is equally shared by all. That is not Socialism. Socialism is when social engineering is the excuse for taking money from productive parts of society and wasting it on the unproductive. Just because FDR liked the word "social" for Social Security doesn't mea in it's original form it was Socialism, but rather an investment plan, which sadly the Socialist have taken over to rob it time and time again for use in Socialist based programs, then complain it's running out of money. That's like the fox complaining the hen house is running out of eggs while he keeps stealing both them and the hens. Socialism isn't mutual benefit, but specialized greed.

- Collapse -
Social Security is not socialism
May 3, 2015 6:31AM PDT

Look who first robbed the SS trust fund and put it in the general fund and gave and IOU - Reagan.

So you are saying that socialism is just taking from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. Aren't we doing just the reverse now? We are giving tax breaks to the wealthy and taking programs from the poor. And we are not fixing our infrastructure or taking care of our veterans or even soldiers. Whatever you call what we have now, it isn't working except for the very wealthy individuals and corporations.

- Collapse -
Have to correct you
May 3, 2015 7:19AM PDT
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Johnson is the one who put in 'on budget', and Clinton took it 'off budget' so it doesn't show up in the normal annual budget anymore. Kind of like inflation doesn't show the true numbers because fuel/energy and food costs aren't included.

Can't blame Reagan, hon........
- Collapse -
Not really the pooling of money but the pooling of the
May 3, 2015 5:59AM PDT

fruits of labor. There is a huge difference. Socialism does demand that everyone pull their own weight and cannot demand that some pull the weight for others..."from each according to his ability..."etc., etc. No slackards allowed. Sounds good on paper, doesn't it? Now try and make it work without implementing slavery.

- Collapse -
That's communism, not socialism, especially
May 3, 2015 6:48AM PDT

social democracy. Communism didn't work so well in communes. When the women got tired of doing all the work and left, they kinda fell apart.

So you are saying that people that need help are unproductive? [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/business/economy/working-but-needing-public-assistance-anyway.html?_r=0]And they are not alone. Nearly three-quarters of the people helped by programs geared to the poor are members of a family headed by a worker, according to a new study by the Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California. As a result, taxpayers are providing not only support to the poor but also, in effect, a huge subsidy for employers of low-wage workers, from giants like McDonald's and Walmart to mom-and-pop businesses.

This disparity has helped propel the movement to raise the minimum wage and prompted efforts in a handful of states to recover public funds from employers of low-wage workers. In Connecticut, for example, a legislative proposal calls for large employers to pay a fee to the state for each worker who earns less than $15 an hour. In 2016, California will start publishing the names of employers that have more than 100 employees receiving Medicaid, and how much these companies cost the state in public assistance.

Who are the welfare queens?

- Collapse -
Did you know that
May 3, 2015 7:26AM PDT

(or at least remember) that Child Labor laws state that kids under 16 are not allowed to work, unless it's for their parents' (relatives) business? There are no trade schools anymore, kids can't be hired to work for spending money babysitting or even mowing lawns, and they aren't allowed by law to become interns. Even adult interns are no longer allowed to be 'hired' for experience only, even if they are willing to work for nothing.....they must be paid, with benefits.

Nothing for kids to do anymore except hang out, join a gang, and skip school......bright futures for all. No wonder so many are into either using or dealing.......

And don't give me crap about how the schools in poor neighborhoods need more money. Baltimore, per student, spends the third most in this entire country, but they've had Democrat leadership for 50 years straight.....ask THEM where that money went to and praise them all (including Cummings in the Senate that SOB) for doing such a great job.

- Collapse -
Not really Communism
May 3, 2015 8:04AM PDT

"From each...to each" is a fundamental of socialism while Communism is an implementation and a forced implementation at that. Unfortunately, it seems the Communistic attempts at government have disclosed the flaws that exist in large scale implementation of socialist ideals. As I said once (or thrice) before, socialism is just fine on a very limited basis where all are bought in and harmony can be maintained.