PDA

View Full Version : New Study Finds Shariah Law Involved in Court Cases in 23 States



Odysseus
05-26-2011, 04:27 PM
Center for Security Policy | May 17, 2011
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18723.xml?genre_id=4

The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study-- Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday's Los Angeles Times put it that, "...There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah." To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases.

Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center's analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases.

The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections.

On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy's President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

Key Findings:


At the trial court level, 22 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 15 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 9 were indeterminate; and in 4 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision at this level, but was applicable at the appellate level.
At the appellate Court level: 23 decisions were found that refused to apply Shariah; 12 were found to have utilized or recognized Shariah; 8 were indeterminate; and in 7 cases Shariah was not applicable to the decision, but had been applicable at the trial court level.
The 50 cases were classified into seven distinct "Categories" of dispute: 21 cases dealt with "Shariah Marriage Law"; 17 cases involved "Child Custody"; 5 dealt with "Shariah Contract Law"; 3 dealt with general "Shariah Doctrine"; 2 were concerned with "Shariah Property Law"; 1 dealt with "Due Process/Equal Protection" and 1 dealt with the combined "Shariah Marriage Law/Child Custody."
The 50 cases were based in 23 different states: 6 cases were found in New Jersey; 5 in California; 4 each in Florida, Massachusetts and Washington; 3 each in Maryland, Texas and Virginia; 2 each in Louisiana and Nebraska; and 1 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and South Carolina.
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases includes summaries of a sample of twenty cases, as well as the full published texts for all fifty cases.

Mr. Gaffney added:


This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center's bestselling 2010 "Team B II" Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah's adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.

Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center's commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.

The full text of the study, including text from the court cases and tables displaying the findings, can be found at www.ShariahInAmericanCourts.com.

JB
05-26-2011, 05:27 PM
From the desk of WTF:
1. S.D. v. M.J.R., 2 A.3d 412 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010).

S.D. (wife) and M.J.R. (husband) were both Muslims and citizens of Morocco and both resided in New Jersey. After only three months of marriage, husband began physically abusing wife. The physical abuse administered by husband injured wife’s entire body including her breasts and pubic area. Additionally, husband forced himself on wife and had non-consensual sex with her on multiple occasions. Husband stated to wife that Islam allowed him to have sex with her at any time he wished.

Wife asked the trial court to grant a restraining order against husband shortly after he verbally divorced her in front of their imam. The trial court refused to issue a final restraining order against husband finding that, although husband had harassed and assaulted wife, husband believed it was his religious right to have non-consensual sex with his wife and that belief precluded any criminal intent on the part of husband.WTF. Am I in America?

Fortunately saner minds prevailed:
The New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial court and ordered that the trial court enter a final restraining order against husband. The New Jersey appellate court stated that the trial court erroneously allowed the husband’s religious beliefs to excuse him from New Jersey’s criminal code and that husband knowingly engaged in non-consensual sex with wife.Ya think?

No wonder why it's free to cross the bridges into Jersey but you have to pay to get out.

Hawkgirl
05-26-2011, 06:59 PM
Husbands religion trumps wife's safety? Are we in Syria?

Odysseus
05-27-2011, 02:16 PM
Husbands religion trumps wife's safety? Are we in Syria?

Not yet. But give it time.

txradioguy
05-29-2011, 01:25 PM
But...but...but Sharia law isn't being practiced in America! /Lanie mode


:rolleyes:

Rcd
05-29-2011, 01:31 PM
Baby steps.

Small increments. Reminds me of the story of the frog in the pot. Before ya know it, it's too late to leap out.

Novaheart
05-29-2011, 02:50 PM
Baby steps.

Small increments. Reminds me of the story of the frog in the pot. Before ya know it, it's too late to leap out.

Yeah, but some of it's just contracts.

If Joseph and Mary Windsor sign a secular pre-nup, and the court upholds it, it's just a pre-nup.

Presumably there are orthodox Jewish equivalents of marriage contracts which amount to a pre-nup, but we don't consider their enforcement by a court to be creeping Hasiddism.

By the same token, the Jusef and Miriam Abalabadallah bin Camelnabi come to court for a resolution of their divorce according to Sharia contracts, it's not creeping Sharia, it's just more contracts wrapped in religion.

Really, the religious aspect of marriage amounts to window dressing on property contracts.

txradioguy
05-29-2011, 03:04 PM
Yeah, but some of it's just contracts.

If Joseph and Mary Windsor sign a secular pre-nup, and the court upholds it, it's just a pre-nup.

Presumably there are orthodox Jewish equivalents of marriage contracts which amount to a pre-nup, but we don't consider their enforcement by a court to be creeping Hasiddism.

By the same token, the Jusef and Miriam Abalabadallah bin Camelnabi come to court for a resolution of their divorce according to Sharia contracts, it's not creeping Sharia, it's just more contracts wrapped in religion.

Really, the religious aspect of marriage amounts to window dressing on property contracts.

A perfect example of the rationalization and equivalency that is allowing Sharia Law to creep into our way of life.

Orthodox Judaism isn't trying to convert or kill the rest of the world. They don't have a stated goal of an entire world adhering to the Torah.

And the fact you're so willing to dismiss the threat out of hand is why this threat to our way of life is creeping into our culture without a fight.

Odysseus
05-29-2011, 03:30 PM
Yeah, but some of it's just contracts.

If Joseph and Mary Windsor sign a secular pre-nup, and the court upholds it, it's just a pre-nup.

Presumably there are orthodox Jewish equivalents of marriage contracts which amount to a pre-nup, but we don't consider their enforcement by a court to be creeping Hasiddism.

By the same token, the Jusef and Miriam Abalabadallah bin Camelnabi come to court for a resolution of their divorce according to Sharia contracts, it's not creeping Sharia, it's just more contracts wrapped in religion.

Really, the religious aspect of marriage amounts to window dressing on property contracts.

Except for one thing: Orthodox Jewish divorces, or gets, are independent from civil law. In that, they are like Catholic annulments; they impact on remarriage within the church, but not in civil ceremonies. They have no bearing on marital property, custody or any other issues. An Islamic divorce under Sharia governs all aspects of the settlement, and which is heavily biased in favor of the male. For example, a woman does not get custody of any child over the age of seven. Marital property is not divided equitably, but is presumed to be the husband's. Even the terms of divorce are highly unequal, in that a man can divorce a woman by simply proclaiming the divorce three times in public, while a woman must show cause which is based on violation of the marriage contract that her parents entered into, and if that contract does not permit her to divorce, then she cannot.

Rcd
05-29-2011, 04:28 PM
Yeah, but some] of it's just contracts.

If Joseph and Mary Windsor sign a secular pre-nup, and the court upholds it, it's just a pre-nup.

Presumably there are orthodox Jewish equivalents of marriage contracts which amount to a pre-nup, but we don't consider their enforcement by a court to be creeping Hasiddism.

By the same token, the Jusef and Miriam Abalabadallah bin Camelnabi come to court for a resolution of their divorce according to Sharia contracts, it's not creeping Sharia, it's just more contracts wrapped in religion.

Really, the religious aspect of marriage amounts to window dressing on property contracts.

Some of it is just that. I agree with you. But I wonder, would you expect to see Judeo Christian laws supported in say Riyadh, contract or other wise? When judges start legislating from the bench I have huge concerns, regardless if it's contract law, civil law or criminal. And these are clear cases of legislating from the bench. It's wrong and should not be tolerated, so I stand by my claim of incrementalism.

Novaheart
05-29-2011, 06:10 PM
A perfect example of the rationalization and equivalency that is allowing Sharia Law to creep into our way of life.



No it isn't, it's just an acknowledgement of the truth and the fact that you can't react to everything that smells of Islam the same way, or you lose your intellectual authority.

There are people in this country who have entered into contracts which are governed by religious rules. Our courts do not accept all of these rules, but they do respect those which conform to common law.

Our courts do not respect Christian law forbidding divorce, because to do so would amount to a form of slavery. But our courts can and do force one parent to accept the religious decisions of the other when that has been agreed to, or when it is consistent with the custodial parent's prerogative. That's not Christianity creeping into the law, it's simply how the law addresses the rights specific to a case.



Orthodox Judaism isn't trying to convert or kill the rest of the world. They don't have a stated goal of an entire world adhering to the Torah. .


No they don't. However, the law does require prisons to serve Kosher meals to Jewish inmates. The law does require employers to make a reasonable accommodation for the needs of practicing Jews. That's not creeping Judaism, it's accommodation.

I don't like Islam coming to the US. It should be resisted in every legal, logical, and intelligent way. I don't think that cab drivers should be allowed to turn down fares for Islamic reasons but not other personal preferences. I don't think that we need to be inclusive of Islam at all, but then I'd be OK if all religion was put on shut-out. I certainly don't want kids taught that Islam is simply another religion, and I don't want tax dollars going to make special arrangements for students that I consider to be above and beyond reasonable accommodation (like foot sinks).

But if you don't take a rational approach, which is not the same thing as rationalization, then you aren't making a case you are weakening the case. Choose your battles.

djones520
05-29-2011, 06:13 PM
Except for one thing: Orthodox Jewish divorces, or gets, are independent from civil law. In that, they are like Catholic annulments; they impact on remarriage within the church, but not in civil ceremonies. They have no bearing on marital property, custody or any other issues. An Islamic divorce under Sharia governs all aspects of the settlement, and which is heavily biased in favor of the male. For example, a woman does not get custody of any child over the age of seven. Marital property is not divided equitably, but is presumed to be the husband's. Even the terms of divorce are highly unequal, in that a man can divorce a woman by simply proclaiming the divorce three times in public, while a woman must show cause which is based on violation of the marriage contract that her parents entered into, and if that contract does not permit her to divorce, then she cannot.

If it's a mutual contract signed by both parties before hand, then do we really have any right to say it can't work out that way?

Sharia law has no place in our judicial system, but civil contracts between two consentual adults that follow Sharia guidelines should be adhered to IMO. If we start stepping on that, then we're just doing the nanny state shit.

Novaheart
05-29-2011, 06:18 PM
But I wonder, would you expect to see Judeo Christian laws supported in say Riyadh, contract or other wise?

How is that relevant to your complaint that Islam is creeping in America?

And out of curiosity, what would be an example of a Judeo-Christian law currently in effect?


When judges start legislating from the bench I have huge concerns, regardless if it's contract law, civil law or criminal. And these are clear cases of legislating from the bench. It's wrong and should not be tolerated, so I stand by my claim of incrementalism.

You have brought no evidence of legislating from the bench in this regard.

Novaheart
05-29-2011, 06:44 PM
But...but...but Sharia law isn't being practiced in America! /Lanie mode


:rolleyes:



One of the problems here is that the author is counting on you doing no more than reading an article about an article about a huge and mouthy volume of stuff. Now, often we can be forgiven for not wanting to read a book on an issue, but there are things about this article which jump out at the objective person:


• The title itself is suspect. Anytime something says "involved" rather than a specific claim, it's a flashing red light. It's like gun control folks saying "gun violence" rather than specific terms like "gun murders" and "police shootings".

• On clicking through to the meat, we find that these cases go back decades.

Which brings us to one of the cases, and I'm not going to do a case by case analysis, because the one case shows that the drive-by understanding of this article is wrong.


IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF LAILA ADEEB SAWAYA AND ABDUL LATIF MALAK.LAILA
ADEEB SAWAYA MALAK, APPELLANT, V. ABDUL LATIF MALAK, APPELLANT.


From the link:

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Shariah-Law-and-American-State-Courts-1.3-05202011.pdf

This is a divorce case which deals with a married couple and their children, all of whom were citizens of Lebanon and/or United Arab Emirates. The Lebonese wife had absconded to California with their children without the husband's permission (this could be parental kidnapping under US law depending upon custody).

The husband conducted himself in a legal way both in his country and in the US, to get the US to enforce the rulings of the couple's country of jurisdiction. And the author of this article calls that "involved with sharia law" and suggests that the US court is doing something wrong by enforcing it. It was indeed a sharia court which issued the original rulings, and it was also a foreign court that actually had jurisdiction.

Now make up your mind people. If you want American rulings and contracts upheld in other countries, then you need to reciprocate. If you want to maintain that the anchor babies of illegal aliens aren't US citizens because they are born to foreign parents, then you need to recognize tht these people are not under the jurisdiction of the US. If you want an American child returned to his US father, then you need to return Elian Gonzales to his father in Cuba. These aren't always easy things to do , and we may not even think they are always right, but as Professor Kingsfield says, "It is neither right nor wrong, it is the law."

Odysseus
05-29-2011, 06:56 PM
If it's a mutual contract signed by both parties before hand, then do we really have any right to say it can't work out that way?

Sharia law has no place in our judicial system, but civil contracts between two consentual adults that follow Sharia guidelines should be adhered to IMO. If we start stepping on that, then we're just doing the nanny state shit.
Many Sharia contracts are not between consenting adults, such as marriage contracts between the parents of the couple. Also, Sharia dictates the terms of contracts in such a way as to render the concept of consent to be all but immaterial. For example, a woman cannot enter into a contract without the consent of her nearest male relative. Inheritance law demands that males receive twice the bequest of females, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. And, once you get beyond just the terms of contracts, Sharia becomes even more restrictive. For example the testimony of a man is worth twice that of a woman, and a Muslim's is worth far more than a non-Muslim's. This has direct implications in the enforcement of contracts, where my testimony as to the terms, as negotiated, or compliance, is worth half of a Muslim's. This is because such contracts, enforced by Sharia courts, take a back seat to the demand of Islam that the submission of the infidel is the most important goal. Thus, even if the evidence, the written terms of the contract and the law is on my side, a court can still decide that I am insufficiently submissive to Islam and decide against me. The end result is that a non-Muslim will avoid contracts with a Muslim, which will further isolate Muslims in America.


How is that relevant to your complaint that Islam is creeping in America?

And out of curiosity, what would be an example of a Judeo-Christian law currently in effect?
Since you ignored my previous post, which explained why Sharia is incompatible with western law, I'll weigh in here. First, the imposition of Islamic law in the US is a result of agitation by Muslims who are seeking to enforce the submission of non-Muslims through the expansion of the sphere of Sharia law. You do not see non-Sharia law enacted in Muslim-majority states because in such states, the submission of non-Muslims has been established, and any Muslim who comes out against Sharia risks execution for blasphemy. Second, the laws that establish equality between men and women and equality between believers or non-believers of different faiths, which are diametrically opposed to Islamic jurisprudence, are based on centuries of Judeo-Christian traditions which recognize the equality of all people before God. In addition, those laws are also based on a tradition of separation of church/synagogue and state, which is the result of the origins and trials and tribulations of both religions, which underwent long periods of persecution in states governed by other religious orders.


You have brought no evidence of legislating from the bench in this regard.

On the contrary, the citation of Islamic law, which has no bearing or statutory weight in American courts, in legal decisions is an example of judges elevating and imposing their own preferences in lieu of precedent, and foreign law in lieu of American law.

djones520
05-29-2011, 07:00 PM
Many Sharia contracts are not between consenting adults, such as marriage contracts between the parents of the couple. Also, Sharia dictates the terms of contracts in such a way as to render the concept of consent to be all but immaterial. For example, a woman cannot enter into a contract without the consent of her nearest male relative. Inheritance law demands that males receive twice the bequest of females, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. And, once you get beyond just the terms of contracts, Sharia becomes even more restrictive. For example the testimony of a man is worth twice that of a woman, and a Muslim's is worth far more than a non-Muslim's. This has direct implications in the enforcement of contracts, where my testimony as to the terms, as negotiated, or compliance, is worth half of a Muslim's. This is because such contracts, enforced by Sharia courts, take a back seat to the demand of Islam that the submission of the infidel is the most important goal. Thus, even if the evidence, the written terms of the contract and the law is on my side, a court can still decide that I am insufficiently submissive to Islam and decide against me. The end result is that a non-Muslim will avoid contracts with a Muslim, which will further isolate Muslims in America.



And all that has nothing to dol with what I said. What I said was as long as the contract was between two consentual adults, then we have no business in interferring with them. If not, then they should have no legal basis to be upheld with.

Rcd
05-29-2011, 07:35 PM
How is that relevant to your complaint that Islam is creeping in America?

And out of curiosity, what would be an example of a Judeo-Christian law currently in effect?

You have brought no evidence of legislating from the bench in this regard.

The original article supports that legislating from the bench is indeed happening. Quite honestly if you think that legislation from the bench does not occur then there is no need for further conversatiion with you. I say that respectfully, but judges have been legislating from the bench forever.

Sir, you asked me what would be an example of Judeo-Christian law. Since this country was founded on JC law please see this citation (http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html).

Quite honestly I don't know how you can deny the relationship with the Bible and JC law. Also please note that Sharia does not provide relief for JC law, as this country was founded. Yet we seem to be willing to allow the opposite to happen here.

Odysseus
05-29-2011, 09:01 PM
And all that has nothing to dol with what I said. What I said was as long as the contract was between two consentual adults, then we have no business in interferring with them. If not, then they should have no legal basis to be upheld with.

But even a contract between to consenting adults can be forced into a Sharia court if one party demands it. A Muslim who wants a contract disputed adjudicated in a western court can be accused of apostasy and coerced into a Sharia court. A non-Muslim engaged in a contract dispute with a Muslim will be accused of Islamophobia if he does not accede to the demand of the Muslim party to settle the dispute in an Islamic court. A woman seeking a divorce cannot even go to a Sharia court unless her parents gave her the right to do so in the marriage contract, and even then, her custody and property rights are forfeit, but if she tries to have her case judged in a western court, she risks her life, or haven't you heard of honor killings?

The purpose of Sharia law in western states is to impose the rule of the Ulema (clergy) on all Muslims, whether they are devout, lapsed or anywhere in between. It also isolates them from the wider community and enforces their self-imposed isolation. It has nothing to do with consent, as consent is irrelevant if it conflicts with the will of Allah, as interpreted by the local imam.

Rcd
05-29-2011, 10:15 PM
But even a contract between to consenting adults can be forced into a Sharia court if one party demands it. A Muslim who wants a contract disputed adjudicated in a western court can be accused of apostasy and coerced into a Sharia court. A non-Muslim engaged in a contract dispute with a Muslim will be accused of Islamophobia if he does not accede to the demand of the Muslim party to settle the dispute in an Islamic court. A woman seeking a divorce cannot even go to a Sharia court unless her parents gave her the right to do so in the marriage contract, and even then, her custody and property rights are forfeit, but if she tries to have her case judged in a western court, she risks her life, or haven't you heard of honor killings?

The purpose of Sharia law in western states is to impose the rule of the Ulema (clergy) on all Muslims, whether they are devout, lapsed or anywhere in between. It also isolates them from the wider community and enforces their self-imposed isolation. It has nothing to do with consent, as consent is irrelevant if it conflicts with the will of Allah, as interpreted by the local imam.

I would also put in this caveat regarding Sharia, the purpose of Sharia in the west is to usurp western idealism, western culture. Islam by definition does not tolerate any other religion, hence the drive for Sharia law. To continue down this road with Sharia law, taking little bites at a time is folly. Sharia and Islam do not, nor can they tolerate western religion. To believe otherwise is akin to sticking your head in the sand and hoping it all goes away.

Novaheart
05-29-2011, 11:18 PM
The original article supports that legislating from the bench is indeed happening.

We must have different understandings of the meaning of that particular expression.


Quite honestly if you think that legislation from the bench does not occur then there is no need for further conversatiion with you.

I didn't say that legislating from the bench doesn't occur, I said that this article doesn't employ or demonstrate that accusation.


...., but judges have been legislating from the bench forever.

.

Judges apply laws and constitutional principles to broad spectrum of circumstances. Sometimes the lines are clear, any car exceeding 25 MPH is speeding, other times other factors need to be taken into account. When you agree with a ruling, the judge is a great legal mind. When you disagree with a ruling, the judge is a moron. Recognizing when laws, contracts, rulings, and jurisdictions outside this country are relevant to matters brought to court here is not legislating from the bench, and a great deal of it is covered under international treaties.

Recognizing the parental rights of Elian Gonzales' father was not legislating from the bench, nor was it subordinating US law to communist infiltration. It was simply a painful but proper thing to do.

wilbur
05-30-2011, 01:17 AM
The original article supports that legislating from the bench is indeed happening. Quite honestly if you think that legislation from the bench does not occur then there is no need for further conversatiion with you. I say that respectfully, but judges have been legislating from the bench forever.

Sir, you asked me what would be an example of Judeo-Christian law. Since this country was founded on JC law please see this citation (http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html).

Quite honestly I don't know how you can deny the relationship with the Bible and JC law. Also please note that Sharia does not provide relief for JC law, as this country was founded. Yet we seem to be willing to allow the opposite to happen here.

Just what "JC laws" was this country founded upon?

Many of the commandments, if you're referring to those, are in direct opposition to our laws regarding religious freedom.

Rcd
05-30-2011, 12:39 PM
Just what "JC laws" was this country founded upon?

Many of the commandments, if you're referring to those, are in direct opposition to our laws regarding religious freedom.

Would it hurt to do a little research yourself?

link (http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html)

fettpett
05-30-2011, 01:14 PM
Would it hurt to do a little research yourself?

link (http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html)

thats typical wiiiillllbuurr, he's an anti-theistic, anti-Christian libtard that chooses to ignore historical facts

Rcd
05-30-2011, 01:17 PM
thats typical wiiiillllbuurr, he's an anti-theistic, anti-Christian libtard that chooses to ignore historical facts

He's got his head in the sand. Typical of libs, they see what they want and to hell with reality.

fettpett
05-30-2011, 01:33 PM
He's got his head in the sand. Typical of libs, they see what they want and to hell with reality.

pretty much.

'
As far as the law goes, as long as the contract is legal and they don't go out of legal bounce while going through the dispute, I see no issue with it. All Court mediation has a mediator and as long as that mediator makes sure everything is legal than there shouldn't be an issue

Novaheart
05-30-2011, 01:37 PM
Would it hurt to do a little research yourself?

link (http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html)

I went to your link. The "research" on that page offers no refutation of what Wilbur or I have said. It's not even particularly well done. It simply serves to confirm in your mind what you already believe.

As Wilbur pointed out, our very first stop on this tour would be the comparison of the 1st Amendment to the 1st Commandment. The 1A is directly opposite of the 1C. The 1C says you can only have one god whereas the 1A says you can have any, as many, or no gods.

Taking from your link one early piece:

Principle: Religion and Morality form basis of Liberty

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." (Leviticus 25:10)

Leviticus 25 goes on to lay out the statutes of Jubilee, which are found nowhere in our laws.

10And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

In the history of this nation, we did not free slaves or return property to original owners or forgive debts in a fiftieth year or Jubilee. There is no legal provision for this.

11A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.

Again, this is not expressed anywhere in US law.

12For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field.

13In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.

14And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not oppress one another:

AGain, you will not find this in US law, ever. The price the market will bear would meet the Biblical definition of oppression. This passage says that you should not exploit your customer, and that is exactly what we consider to be "smart" in this country, and always have. The closest we have come to such a law is usury laws and price controls, both of which were the cause of much wailing by those who call themselves Christians.


15According to the number of years after the jubile thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:

16According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee.

17Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God.

18Wherefore ye shall do my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety.

"Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 34:17)

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

American Founding Ideal:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (Federer, p. 10)

This is an opinion, not a law or a founding principle. John Adams was a founding father, if indeed our Constitution were based in Christianity, then it would make no sense for Founding Fathers to design it to fail. Many founding Fathers expressed concerns about the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Regardless of how they couched their sentiments, in religion or logic, their collective concern appears to be that the Constitution would permit others to do what they had just done. They had committed treason against their country, allied themselves with enemies of their country, and perpetrated gross theft from the Crown. The laws designed to consolidate this nation, could as easily be used to destroy it from within.

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" George Washington (Federer, p.660)

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." George Washington's Farewell Address

Novaheart
05-30-2011, 01:46 PM
thats typical wiiiillllbuurr, he's an anti-theistic, anti-Christian libtard that chooses to ignore historical facts

The fact that most of our ancestors and all of our Founding Father were nominally or enthusiastically Christian does not mean that our laws, liberty, or society is based in Christianity. As Wilbur pointed out, the Commandments which are specific to religion are not encoded in our laws, and the rest (murder, false witness, adultery) are universal laws which evolved in every society long before Jews and Christians came along.

We have indeed had and still have some laws which reflect our Christian culture. We also have some traditions which reflect our Christian culture. That is not the same nor does it support the false claim that this country's Constitutional principles are Christian in origin and nature. They simply aren't.

fettpett
05-30-2011, 01:54 PM
The fact that most of our ancestors and all of our Founding Father were nominally or enthusiastically Christian does not mean that our laws, liberty, or society is based in Christianity. As Wilbur pointed out, the Commandments which are specific to religion are not encoded in our laws, and the rest (murder, false witness, adultery) are universal laws which evolved in every society long before Jews and Christians came along.

We have indeed had and still have some laws which reflect our Christian culture. We also have some traditions which reflect our Christian culture. That is not the same nor does it support the false claim that this country's Constitutional principles are Christian in origin and nature. They simply aren't.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

They are based on Common English law, such as the Magna Carter and others. but the basic concepts of individual freedom and choice come from Jeudo-Christian concepts. Yes they are secular laws as the Constitution was being framed to encompass 13 colonies that each had their own "religion" and the founders overall did not want to create another theocracy such as what was extremely common in Europe and in the various Colonies. Yes it was pragmatic, big deal, much of what the founders did was pragmatic, such as allying with France and even declaring independence to being with (which many DIDN'T even want to do)

Rcd
05-30-2011, 02:15 PM
I went to your link. The "research" on that page offers no refutation of what Wilbur or I have said. It's not even particularly well done. It simply serves to confirm in your mind what you already believe.

As Wilbur pointed out, our very first stop on this tour would be the comparison of the 1st Amendment to the 1st Commandment. The 1A is directly opposite of the 1C. The 1C says you can only have one god whereas the 1A says you can have any, as many, or no gods.

Taking from your link one early piece:

Principle: Religion and Morality form basis of Liberty

Judeo-Christian Roots

"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." (Leviticus 25:10)

Leviticus 25 goes on to lay out the statutes of Jubilee, which are found nowhere in our laws.

10And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

In the history of this nation, we did not free slaves or return property to original owners or forgive debts in a fiftieth year or Jubilee. There is no legal provision for this.

11A jubile shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed.

Again, this is not expressed anywhere in US law.

12For it is the jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field.

13In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession.

14And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not oppress one another:

AGain, you will not find this in US law, ever. The price the market will bear would meet the Biblical definition of oppression. This passage says that you should not exploit your customer, and that is exactly what we consider to be "smart" in this country, and always have. The closest we have come to such a law is usury laws and price controls, both of which were the cause of much wailing by those who call themselves Christians.


15According to the number of years after the jubile thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:

16According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee.

17Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God.

18Wherefore ye shall do my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them; and ye shall dwell in the land in safety.

"Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 34:17)

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

American Founding Ideal:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (Federer, p. 10)

This is an opinion, not a law or a founding principle. John Adams was a founding father, if indeed our Constitution were based in Christianity, then it would make no sense for Founding Fathers to design it to fail. Many founding Fathers expressed concerns about the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Regardless of how they couched their sentiments, in religion or logic, their collective concern appears to be that the Constitution would permit others to do what they had just done. They had committed treason against their country, allied themselves with enemies of their country, and perpetrated gross theft from the Crown. The laws designed to consolidate this nation, could as easily be used to destroy it from within.

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" George Washington (Federer, p.660)

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." George Washington's Farewell Address

We all have opinions. your opinion that what I cited was poorly done is just that, an opinion. My opinion is that the piece from my citation was well done and supports what I said. If you have trrouble with it than that is your problem.

Then there's this troubling pesky thing.
Such an understanding of the foundation of the American law was still reflected in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court just over one hundred years ago. Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]


When you study the documents of the Revolutionary period, a precise picture comes into focus. Here it is:

Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants.
The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances.
The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed.
Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it.
Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.

However...


The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.
They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity--or any other faith--as the religion of our nation.

A Two-Sided Coin

We can safely draw two conclusions from these facts, which serve to inform our understanding of the relationship between religion and government in the United States.

First, Christianity was the prevailing moral and intellectual influence shaping the nation from its outset. The Christian influence pervaded all aspects of life, from education to politics. Therefore, the present concept of a rigid wall of separation hardly seems historically justified.

Virtually every one of the Founders saw a vital link between civil religion and civil government. George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Speech, September 19, 1796, were characteristic of the general sentiment:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports....And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles

link (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243)

Novaheart
05-30-2011, 02:26 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

They are based on Common English law, such as the Magna Carter and others. but the basic concepts of individual freedom and choice come from Jeudo-Christian concepts.

Show me ONE example which proves your point.

fettpett
05-30-2011, 02:34 PM
Show me ONE example which proves your point.

um...lets see, there is way that the Jewish people were encouraged to bring in people that weren't Israelites, teachings of how slaves where to be treated then released of all debt after 6 years or high Sabbath years (considerable change from what other civilizations were doing). treatment of neighbors and enemies.

All of Chirst's teachings, as well as the Apostles

Rcd
05-30-2011, 02:35 PM
Show me ONE example which proves your point.

Come on, I know you're not that intellectually lazy.

wilbur
05-30-2011, 06:42 PM
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html
We all have opinions. your opinion that what I cited was poorly done is just that, an opinion. My opinion is that the piece from my citation was well done and supports what I said. If you have trrouble with it than that is your problem.

Then there's this troubling pesky thing.
Such an understanding of the foundation of the American law was still reflected in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court just over one hundred years ago. Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]

link (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243)

Yea, and we have judges today who try to put gargantuan 10 commandment monoliths in courthouses, based on the same misguided notions. Fact is, Moses and Judeo-Christian principles (whatever those actually are - there is no gold standard - they are fragmented, amorphous, and shift and change fluidly throughout history, as does any form of human belief) had little to do with the basis of our law and government (thank goodness for that).

The man who deserves the credit for the ideas that where the template for our government and law, is Solon the Athenian, not Moses, the Bible, or uniquely JC principles.



...

Let's examine what we owe to him, in comparison with the legendary author (or at last, in legend, the transmitter) of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments. Solon is the founder of Western democracy and the first man in history to articulate ideas of equal rights for all citizens, and though he did not go nearly as far in the latter as we have come today, Moses can claim no connection to either. Solon was the first man in Western history to publicly record a civil constitution in writing. No one in Hebrew history did anything of the kind, least of all Moses. Solon advocated not only the right but even the duty of every citizen to bear arms in the defense of the state--to him we owe the 2nd Amendment. Nothing about that is to be found in the Ten Commandments of Moses. Solon set up laws defending the principles and importance of private property, state encouragement of economic trades and crafts, and a strong middle class--the ideals which lie at the heart of American prosperity, yet which cannot be credited at all to Moses.

Solon is the first man in history to eliminate birth as a basis for government office, and to create democratic assemblies open to all male citizens, such that no law could be passed without the majority vote of all. The notion of letting women into full political rights would not arise in any culture until that of modern Europe, but democracy never gets a single word in the Bible. Solon invented the right of appeal and trial by jury, whereby an assembly of citizens chosen at random, without regard for office or wealth or birth, gave all legal verdicts. Moses can claim nothing as fundamental as these developments, which are absolutely essential to modern society. The concept of taking a government official to court for malfeasance we owe to Solon. We read nothing of the kind about Moses. The idea of allowing foreigners who have mastered a useful trade to immigrate and become citizens is also an original invention of Solon--indeed, the modern concept of citizenship itself is largely indebted to him. There is nothing like this in the Bible. And like our own George Washington, Solon declined the offer to become ruler in his country, giving it a Constitution instead--unlike Moses who gave laws yet continued to reign. And Solon's selfless creation of the Athenian constitution set the course which led to the rise of the first universal democracy in the United States, and it was to Solon's Athens, not the Bible, that our Founding Fathers looked for guidance in constructing a new State. Moses can claim no responsibility for this. If we had Solon and no Moses, we would very likely still be where we are today. But if we had Moses and no Solon, democracy might never have existed at all.


... the Ten Commandments of Solon (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.60), which run as follows:

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

....


More here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html)