Sharia law is not the Qur’an. It is not even based exclusively on the Qur’an. It is a mixture of legal opinions (that have taken on some level of conformity by tradition) applied to some verses of the Qur’an, much of the Sunna, and then modified by opinions expressed as fiqh. As such, it is much closer to the Gemara of the Talmud than it is to the Bible. (It is also wrong to speak of “Sharia” as if it was a single thing. There are at least four separate legal traditions that each express Sharia in ways that are often in conflict.)
Comparing “living under the Bible” to “living under Sharia” does not even make sense; they are unlike comparisons.
I certainly do not want to live under Sharia, but I do not want to use the Bible as a legal text. If anyone thinks that simply using the Bible as law is fine, they need to pay more attention to the legal conflicts that occur in Israel where only some of the Law has been imposed on the secular state, with separate groups fighting (sometimes literally) over what part of Israeli law shouldor dshould not be bound by the Torah (or even the Torah and Gemara.
Inappropriate comparisons to unlike situations hardly makes Prager’s case look any less stupid that it did originally.
I think I agree with all of this. To be sure, I’d be against a particular prayer, but would not be opposed to a time for prayer. And regarding the bible for oaths, I’ve simply been entertaining Prager’s idea that the object involved in the swearing derive from the foundations of the country. Now whether the bible is a “founding document” so to speak is another matter. It is perfectly possible to find Prager’s notion correct (not that I necessarily do) while concluding that the bible is a poor representation of a founding document. But I do see the point that he makes. You even admit that it played a role, but give more importance to The Enlightment thinkers. I’d agree. But that raises the question, was their something about a Christian society that helped spawn that thinking?
And for what’ it’s worth, although I was raised Catholic and went to a Jesuit university, I have no personal use for The Church whatsoever. I later lived in the Bible Belt and attended some services with good friends of mine, but those experiences resulted in pushing me even further away. I’m glad the church (generic) is there for those who find comfort, connection and peace of mind in it, but it is of no value to me personally.
I absolutely agree with this.
Yes, this is done, but also done from the other side. Many see instances by Washington, Jefferson, etc. being more secular and are quick to appropriate their persons as anti-Christian, anti-religion, or atheistic. This, to me, is every bit as disengenuous. I think often get the incorrect impression of my religious stance on this board because I argue against that point of view.
So what threat do you perceive coming from me, and by extension people “like” me. Please be specific. I’ll ask you to take into account the other information I’ve shared in this post.
The threat posed by someone who does not understand the nature of a threat facing this country and therefore supports a “remedy” that would do nothing to alleviate the actual threat and would conceivably make a different threat worse.
Yeeaaah… I asked a question, he answered it. I then commented on his answer then asked another question. Kinda run-of-the-mill for a debate board I’d say.
These questions are all, obviously, very important and would need to be dealt with. And the men will get to it in due time. Their answers I’m sure will depend, in part, on how well you cook and clean and your ability to bear children. I suggest you immediatley start to hone these skills, as a U.S. ruled by biblical law is such a strong possibility. You ignore this advice at your own peril. :eek:
In the way “being ruled by biblical law” has been offered in this thread, yes. Now I find them both to be highly unlikely. But I give the nod to Sharia as it would be coming from a minority religion. In this country, the Christianity majority is feared by the secularists, who have more then enough power to stop it. But they, and others, who embrace a more and more pluralistic society and are infatuated with political correctness will allow the toe hold to be gotten. I actually think that at some point they will be forced to see the error of their ways and there will be a huge backlash, ironically, beyond where people like Prager, Coulter and Hannity are right now. And I think this nonsense with the Imams will be looked upon as being instructive as to what to avoid. And by “nonsense” I mean the reasonable fear that people felt in this particular situation.
You don’t think secularists would have just as much a problem with an attempt to get Islamic law into the system as they do Christian law? Pluralism and political correctness, even in their worst forms, hold equality of religion to be the goal, not a triumph of other religions over Christianity.
“Just as much”? No. There’s a bit of the enemy-of-my-enemy at play here. To some, ANYTHING that eats away at the Christian power base is embraced. They detest the ties of the countries founding with Christianity and the fact that it has been the dominant religion in our culture. So while, they would prefer less religion, period, they see a benefit of making the religion that there is less monolithic.
And you believe that the power of the few securalists who believe this and would happily promote Islamic (or other) religions to the point of being* the* dominant religion would be able to do so against the wishes of the majority, sane secularists and every religious group (spare non-secularist Muslims) more easily than it would be for the non-secularist Christians to impose conservative Christian law in a society where Christianity is already dominant?
Then you’re a fool. And your stupidity makes you dangerous, because it leads you to advocate policies which are stupid, unjust, and more dangerous to our body politic than the idiotic danger you’re afraid of. (The “specific remedy” of yours I was referring to are these nonsensical notions of making people swear only on the Bible, or proclaiming the Bible to be the “foundation of our society”.)
Al-Qaeda and their ilk do not pose any political threat to the United States. They are not going to Take Over. They may sneak in and bomb buildings and kill people; on the outside chance they get hold of something really nasty like a nuclear bomb they could cause devastating damage, which is why it makes sense for us to worry about things like port security and helping the Russians secure their “loose nukes” or bomb-making materials. But even if al-Q set off a nuclear bomb in a major city, it would not lead to us capitulating to them and setting up an Islamic state here–far from it.
So, you think the political threat posed by the Islamic extremists is greater than the (admittedly unlikely) political threat posed by the Christian extremists, because the Muslims are weaker? Do you believe in homeopathy, too?
“Some”, eh? What a carefully trapdoored wording, “some”. Could you be more specific? Some public figure or spokesman for this dominant force in the radical secularist movement? Have they direct ties to the War on Christmas? Do they take their marching orders directly from the Worldwide Islamofacist Central Committee?
We are at great pains to assure the Muslims of the world that the propaganda of our enemies is a lie, that we are not at odds with Islam but with a virulent subset of men who exploit Islam to their own nefarious ends. The election of Ellison is a happy coincidence, a “progaganda of the deed” that underlines the inclusiveness of our culture and politics. It is vital that we make this point clear.
Imagine, if you will, such a discussion on an Islamic web site, where moderates advance the election of Ellison as proof that America is not an enemy of Islam. Mr. Pronger might be cited as proof of the opposite. He could hardly do more harm to our nation if his intentions were as malign as his reasoning. Please be so kind as to not offer aid and comfort to our enemies, as our Leader is more than sufficient, he is the gift that keeps on giving.
So, how woud this work? Would it be houris doing the blowing? Seventy-two virgins? Would we have to stand in line, or sign up for some kind of lottery?
First, I do not believe the there are just a “few” secularists. And no, I don’t think they would happily promote Islam to the point of being the dominant religion. I think they are interested in promotiing almost any belief that would make the U.S. less Christian.
While there are occasional stories of town councils or school boards tolerating non-Christian religious displays while resisting Christian displays more firmly, they are nearly always examples of people who misunderstand the various rulings on the separation of church and state and not actually “secularists” (that miniscule number of people who actually push for legal or court actions).
I said few secularists “who believe this and would happily promote Islam to the point of being the dominant religion”. Do you believe there are few of them?
Any belief? Really? That nihilism lobby’s got the ear of the President, I hear.
Anyway, you said that you were worried by their potential actions. If you don’t think they want to promote Islam into a position of dominance, does that mean you’re afraid they’ll promote various other beliefs into a position of equality with Christianity? That doesn’t sound too bad to me.