|
jlf1961 -> RE: Speaking of Sharian law=Women's rights ? (12/31/2008 1:07:09 AM)
|
FAIR WARNING, I HAVE SLIPPED INTO HISTORY TEACHER MODE ON THIS, THUS IT IS LONG WINDED, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE POST, IT OPENS OTHER ASPECTS TO THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY THE OP.
With the witch trials properly addressed, I will return to, what I think the op was getting at.
To begin with, our code of laws are based, with one exception, on English law as established prior to 1776. The exception being Louisiana which uses a french based legal code. Both were loosely based on the laws of the old testament, The Book of Leviticus.
As for there being no laws against witchcraft, you are correct, as codified, HOWEVER, there are federal and state laws against public harm, which has been used to deal with the Mormon movement, as well as others since the founding of this country, including witchcraft. In this way, the people that codified the American version got past the "suffer not a witch to live among you."
And, unless I am mistaken, laws against witchcraft may still exist in most European countries, waiting for some fruitloop to use them for personal gain.
Now, turning to Sharian Law which is a more detailed interpretation of the laws of Moses, we have set of laws that are well over a thousand years old, part of Muslim tradition, and therefore would be hard to change without some problems.
When dealing with Woman's Rights, even we still have problems with it, and in fact, we violate the laws for the protection of women daily, in the strictly biblical sense.
We, are not supposed to allow women out unaccompanied by a male family member.
We are required by Biblical law to be the provider of food and shelter, as well as discipline for our women.
And the only work outside the home a woman is allowed to do is help tend the flocks.
Sorry ladies.
In one respect, by giving the women in the western world the freedoms we have, we have actually taken away many of the rights given to them by God, according to the old testament.
However, when it comes to women fighting in wars, please note that in Judges, a woman became a war leader against the Philistines.
In the old testament, judges weren't legal judges, but war chiefs.
Consider the following points:
Let me point out a western equivalent.
The Catholic church (no jokes or attacks about the few priests that have committed child abuse and molestation, I was raised Catholic and still respect the Church, and like the church condemn the priests who acted in those ways) is older than the Muslim faith, but not by much.
First, while there is no place in the bible expressly forbidding women in the priesthood, EXCEPT in the old testament, male dominated clergy still exists.
There is still a prohibition against the use of chemical birth control.
It was 1000 years before the church decided that priests and nuns could wear secular clothing. (Vatican II)
For that matter, the Greek Orthodox church took 1000 years to forgive the Catholic church and the descendants of the crusaders for stabling horses in the Athens Cathedral.
Now, up until the late Renaissance, in Catholic Europe the Law of the Church was the law of the land, hence the famous Inquisition (from which we get a lot of our furnishings.)
In Protestant Europe, religious leaders were also the local judges, so, if you screwed up, YOU REALLY SCREWED UP.
This was a simple and accepted fact of life for 1700 years of western thought, so, with the Muslim Religion being only about 1300 years old, it is far behind the western philosophy.
However, with the exception of the Islamic faith, there is no, I REPEAT, NO WESTERN RELIGION WITH SPECIFIC RULES AND RELIGIOUS LAWS DEALING WITH WARFARE!!!
Just because fanatics are dumb enough to be brainwashed into committing mass murder, or suicide bombings, under Islamic law dealing with warfare and Jihad, every one of those suckers are now burning in hell, denied access to paradise for killing non combatants.
Read it for yourself.
By the very same point, while the bible does say there is a time for peace and a time for war, and a time to kill, there is still that little thing in the commandments, "thou shalt not Kill."
That means specifically, THOU SHALT NOT KILL THE DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM OR THE FOLLOWERS OF THE FAITH.
That means, killing Muslims in the name of Jesus was a sin in the Crusades, and is a sin now. Just as killing Jews and Christians in the name of Islam is a sin, for we are all 'people of the book.'
|
|
|
|
