How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law?

How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

farglebargle -> How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 5:18:25 AM)
How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? It isn't. They're hypocrites.

vincentML -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 5:24:21 AM)
Great question. Too bad you answered it. Nothing more to be said. [:D]

DarkSteven -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 5:52:35 AM)
Sharia is a complete set of law, specifying punishments for specific misdeeds. I apologize for being completely unaware that the Catholics had developed anything equivalent. I only thought they simply had a moral code.

Kirata -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 7:08:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? Almost any ethical set of laws is going to embody somebody's religious prescriptions, and probably more than one religion's. So the fact that a law happens to have a parallel in some group's religion does not constitute an establishment of religious law. K.

vincentML -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 10:13:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Sharia is a complete set of law, specifying punishments for specific misdeeds. I apologize for being completely unaware that the Catholics had developed anything equivalent. I only thought they simply had a moral code. The canon law of the Catholic Church, is a fully developed legal system, with all the necessary elements: courts, lawyers, judges, a fully articulated legal code and principles of legal interpretation. It lacks the necessary binding force present in most modern day legal systems. The academic degrees in canon law are the J.C.B. (Juris Canonici Baccalaureatus, Bachelor of Canon Law, normally taken as a graduate degree), J.C.L. (Juris Canonici Licentiatus, Licentiate of Canon Law) and the J.C.D. (Juris Canonici Doctor, Doctor of Canon Law). Because of its specialized nature, advanced degrees in civil law or theology are normal prerequisites for the study of canon law.

Trismagistus -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 10:28:08 AM)
seperation of church and state shouldn't be a suggestion, no religion should be given a say in any law for any reason, the first amendment of our constitution is explicit in stating this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Which, to my mind if taken at face value means that there should literally be no part played in the legislative process by anyone who has a motive inspired by, derived from, or otherwise respecting the personal practices of a religion. any congressman supporting them SHOULD be run out of office regardless of his past track record. But this is of course what some would call a knee jerk reaction and I do believe those who violate the constitution and it's proclamations about the express intent and policy limitations of our governments powers must be defended by any means necessary, Some might call me extremist for wanting to demand immediate impeachment as an option if the constitution were in danger of being violated but if we were really adhering to our constitution we wouldn't have the patriot act, ndaa, sopa, acta, and a laundry list of other hideously evil legislation making our country a disgusting rancid cunted whore of a political behemoth, getting in bed with anyone who will give us money, caterwauling for attention when things don't go our way, and trying to destroy anyone that stands in the way of our profits.

popeye1250 -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 11:11:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? It isn't. They're hypocrites. I grew up Catholic and if we had any "laws" they kept them well hidden.

tazzygirl -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 11:20:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? It isn't. They're hypocrites. Of course its not different. Greed has no faith .. yet it does have its faithful.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 5:56:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? It isn't. They're hypocrites. The problem is... The GOP doesn't give a rats ass about Catholic law if it doesn't help them politically. They are only "outraged" by a "WAR" on religion, when they think it polls well.

kdsub -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 6:10:36 PM)
But they may be supporting the law and not be Catholic...or they might be atheist but still believe in and follow the law... As I said in another thread any law installed by the majority through their elected officials is valid as long as it is not against the Constitution. It makes no difference if it is religious dogma. If the time comes when the majority are atheist or Islamic then the laws made will be valid as long as they do not conflict with the Constitution. What is so hard to understand about a Democracy and its laws? Right now the majority of Americans believe in God or the laws that matches Christian teachings and they vote accordingly. So get over it you are in the minority! ps... many Democrats and independents also believe in the law based on Christian doctrine. Butch

Owner59 -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 6:45:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Sharia is a complete set of law, specifying punishments for specific misdeeds. I apologize for being completely unaware that the Catholics had developed anything equivalent. I only thought they simply had a moral code. Farg makes a good point tho.....

Edwynn -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 7:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? It isn't. They're hypocrites. I haven't seen the GOP specifically 'supporting Catholic law,' perhaps I missed something. I have seen both the GOP and the Democrats supporting various laws or writing legislation that happen to coincide with some portion of Catholic law. This should not be surprising for a number of reasons, not least of which being that Canon law (alluded to in a post above) was essentially the only thorough treatment of law in the West between the demise of Rome and the relatively modern implementation of strictly secular civil law. Aside from Church and religious matters, Canon law included treatment of many secular issues, for the most part in strictly secular fashion, such as property rights, contracts, etc., essentially carrying forth and further refining and sometimes expanding upon Roman law. But even if referring to moral matters, again no surprise that either US political party might find congruence with some Christian or Judaic treatment of some issue. We would have to go down the (quite numerous) lists in the latters' books and make sure that we did the opposite in order to avoid that.

SilverBoat -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 9:33:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? It isn't. They're hypocrites. The problem is... The GOP doesn't give a rats ass about Catholic law if it doesn't help them politically. They are only "outraged" by a "WAR" on religion, when they think it polls well. ^--^--^--^ Word.

DaddySatyr -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/10/2012 9:40:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trismagistus seperation of church and state shouldn't be a suggestion, no religion should be given a say in any law for any reason, the first amendment of our constitution is explicit in stating this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Which, to my mind if taken at face value means that there should literally be no part played in the legislative process by anyone who has a motive inspired by, derived from, or otherwise respecting the personal practices of a religion. any congressman supporting them SHOULD be run out of office regardless of his past track record. But this is of course what some would call a knee jerk reaction and I do believe those who violate the constitution and it's proclamations about the express intent and policy limitations of our governments powers must be defended by any means necessary, Some might call me extremist for wanting to demand immediate impeachment as an option if the constitution were in danger of being violated but if we were really adhering to our constitution we wouldn't have the patriot act, ndaa, sopa, acta, and a laundry list of other hideously evil legislation making our country a disgusting rancid cunted whore of a political behemoth, getting in bed with anyone who will give us money, caterwauling for attention when things don't go our way, and trying to destroy anyone that stands in the way of our profits. Wow! We're reading that completely differently. All it says to me is that congress (The federal government) can't tell me what to believe or how I can practice what I believe. To expect to only elect atheists or agnostics, especially, back in the day of the constitution would be pretty short-sighted. If I'm mis-stating I apologize but, are you suggesting that denouncement of a "higher power" should be a pre-requisite for holding elected office (Please see what I highlighted in red)? Peace and comfort, Michael

Trismagistus -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/11/2012 12:24:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Trismagistus seperation of church and state shouldn't be a suggestion, no religion should be given a say in any law for any reason, the first amendment of our constitution is explicit in stating this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Which, to my mind if taken at face value means that there should literally be no part played in the legislative process by anyone who has a motive inspired by, derived from, or otherwise respecting the personal practices of a religion. any congressman supporting them SHOULD be run out of office regardless of his past track record. But this is of course what some would call a knee jerk reaction and I do believe those who violate the constitution and it's proclamations about the express intent and policy limitations of our governments powers must be defended by any means necessary, Some might call me extremist for wanting to demand immediate impeachment as an option if the constitution were in danger of being violated but if we were really adhering to our constitution we wouldn't have the patriot act, ndaa, sopa, acta, and a laundry list of other hideously evil legislation making our country a disgusting rancid cunted whore of a political behemoth, getting in bed with anyone who will give us money, caterwauling for attention when things don't go our way, and trying to destroy anyone that stands in the way of our profits. Wow! We're reading that completely differently. All it says to me is that congress (The federal government) can't tell me what to believe or how I can practice what I believe. To expect to only elect atheists or agnostics, especially, back in the day of the constitution would be pretty short-sighted. If I'm mis-stating I apologize but, are you suggesting that denouncement of a "higher power" should be a pre-requisite for holding elected office (Please see what I highlighted in red)? Peace and comfort, Michael I'm not saying that one should only elect Atheists and Agnostics, I'm saying that religions themselves should not be permitted to lobby or levee threats against the state, Congressmen and women should not be making their decisions on the basis of religious bias but on the basis of what will do the greatest good for the largest number of people possible rather than debating moral semantics with religious functionaries.

DaddySatyr -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/11/2012 1:06:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trismagistus I'm not saying that one should only elect Atheists and Agnostics, I'm saying that religions themselves should not be permitted to lobby or levee threats against the state, Congressmen and women should not be making their decisions on the basis of religious bias but on the basis of what will do the greatest good for the largest number of people possible rather than debating moral semantics with religious functionaries. Okay. I did mis-understand but, let me then ask this: How does a senator or representative that considers themself to be religious; that follows a particular dogma, *not* allow their convictions to influence how they legislate. You know what, I'll even grant that that's a bad question because they're *supposed* to represent us (and they don't). So, let's ask it this way (since we're assuming things work the way they're *supposed* to: If a person is elected to congress or the senate and they are pious, can we not assume that their district/state elected them at least partially based upon their "religious" views? For example: If a representative or senator is anti-death penalty because of stated religious views, can't we safely assume that the people that elected them agreed with at least some of the rep/sen's religious beliefs? I guess what I'm trying to say is that the founders weren't trying to avoid the influence (I chose that word, carefully) that religion might have on our law-makers and our laws. They knew that would be impossible. They were trying to make sure that (I swear this is just as an example) President Kennedy couldn't pass a law forcing everyone into a Vatican church on Sunday mornings. Peace and comfort, Michael

Trismagistus -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/11/2012 1:27:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Trismagistus I'm not saying that one should only elect Atheists and Agnostics, I'm saying that religions themselves should not be permitted to lobby or levee threats against the state, Congressmen and women should not be making their decisions on the basis of religious bias but on the basis of what will do the greatest good for the largest number of people possible rather than debating moral semantics with religious functionaries. Okay. I did mis-understand but, let me then ask this: How does a senator or representative that considers themself to be religious; that follows a particular dogma, *not* allow their convictions to influence how they legislate. You know what, I'll even grant that that's a bad question because they're *supposed* to represent us (and they don't). So, let's ask it this way (since we're assuming things work the way they're *supposed* to: If a person is elected to congress or the senate and they are pious, can we not assume that their district/state elected them at least partially based upon their "religious" views? For example: If a representative or senator is anti-death penalty because of stated religious views, can't we safely assume that the people that elected them agreed with at least some of the rep/sen's religious beliefs? I guess what I'm trying to say is that the founders weren't trying to avoid the influence (I chose that word, carefully) that religion might have on our law-makers and our laws. They knew that would be impossible. They were trying to make sure that (I swear this is just as an example) President Kennedy couldn't pass a law forcing everyone into a Vatican church on Sunday mornings. Peace and comfort, Michael You make a lot of sense there and I can't see why I would feel the need to argue against that, but they are supposed to be representing the entirety of their constituency not the loudest or most wealthy voice. Honestly though I don't think our system works at all. I'm a meritocrat. I believe in election by peers rather than the people because appointing offices at certain levels of government and certain kinds of electoral methods clearly have failed us, the other benefit of a meritocracy is that in a functioning meritocracy the dynastic nature of wealth is erased entirely. The electoral process in a meritocratic society in accordance with the vision I see as viable is based on mutual agreement within field of specialization, for instance if one is going to put a surgeon general into office, the vote would then be held by biologists, doctors, and other medical personnel and health and biology professionals who are, at least aware of the subject matter that that particular office would oversee. I also believe that candidates should be of sound psychological health and undergo extensive psychoanalysis to prevent the induction of socio and psychopathic candidates into our ruling body. The lynchpin of a meritocratic society however is something that people have an instantaneous negative reaction to however, because a meritocracy requires by it's nature progression, position, and ascendancy by talent it requires an equal starting point, which is provided by a 100% inheritance tax. This is of course a frightening sounding proposition however if you consider the implications of such a system on the current drastically unequal dispersion of wealth and what the funds that would be collected by the state could be used to fund so long as we keep an ever vigilant eye towards monitoring those in power for corruption, educational programs first and foremost (and they are an absolute must and higher education should, without a doubt be a right not a privilege, imagine how many bright minds there could be in this world if we only took the time to foster them.) as well as programs of social uplift (no, not welfare handouts, I'm talking about things like government assisted job placement by request, better housing and compensation programs for the disabled and those suffering from severe psychological issues) and of course the pursuit of creating a world where everyone gets an equal starting line in the race so to speak.

VioletGray -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/11/2012 4:55:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr If a person is elected to congress or the senate and they are pious, can we not assume that their district/state elected them at least partially based upon their "religious" views? For example: If a representative or senator is anti-death penalty because of stated religious views, can't we safely assume that the people that elected them agreed with at least some of the rep/sen's religious beliefs? Peace and comfort, Michael Umm.. no. If Mitt Romney gets elected president, do you think it's because the entire country decided to support Mormonism? Of course not, there are other things to consider. The economy, taxes, immigration, education, the environment... Otherwise atheists wouldn't vote at all!

DaddySatyr -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/11/2012 5:48:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VioletGray quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr If a person is elected to congress or the senate and they are pious, can we not assume that their district/state elected them at least partially based upon their "religious" views? For example: If a representative or senator is anti-death penalty because of stated religious views, can't we safely assume that the people that elected them agreed with at least some of the rep/sen's religious beliefs? Peace and comfort, Michael Umm.. no. If Mitt Romney gets elected president, do you think it's because the entire country decided to support Mormonism? Of course not, there are other things to consider. The economy, taxes, immigration, education, the environment... Otherwise atheists wouldn't vote at all! I'm not sure what part of my statement you took to suggest that all the people that voted were converts. I think it's fair to say that if Governor Romney gets elected, a majority of those that voted are okay with his anti-abortion stance and his particular choice of religion as well as his stance on taxes, the economy, etc. (God help us). Those that didn't vote: Stop being lazy shits and you get to complain, next time. You can't deny that certain issues tend to raise the level and fervor of debate. It's why they get the most ink and the biggest headlines. No, I believe that if Governor Romney wins the election, because of all the attention his choice of faith has received, we can consider it (in a way) at least a partial moratorium on the acceptability of the LDS church. Peace and comfort, Michael

VioletGray -> RE: How is the GOP supporting Catholic law different from them supporting Sharia Law? (2/11/2012 6:39:10 AM)
That's why I deliberately chose "support" instead of "follow." Just like someone can support gay rights without being gay. My point is that it doesn't even have to be taken into consideration.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625