September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Construction vs. Development (Share your dialogue with us!) | Main | Is Morality Natural? »

September 15, 2008

Comments

It's scary when Religious fundamentalists take over the courts in Britain. Now just imagine Sarah Palin appointing Supreme Court Justices.

Think about what you are doing America.

Seriously, Carmine? Do you seriously think that Palin would appoint judges that would judge from religious ideologies and on matters of theology? W. hasn't even done that.

Think about what you have done, Britain.

^ Civics lesson FAIL!

Since when does a Vice President appoint judges?

To Robert: I fear that Palin would appoint Justices according to her own religious ideologies.

To the anonymous fool: Vice Presidents become Presidents when Presidents die. McCain is 72 years old and he has had several types of skin cancer. Despite legitimate requests, his Medical Records still haven't been made available in a manner sufficient for careful and critical review.

carmine -

Islam and Christianity teach completely opposite things. Please educate yourself on both of them before you spout off such a foolish comparison.

Carmine, I honestly don't understand what liberals have to fear from strict constructionist judges. By definition, in their decisions, they don't believe in going beyond the original intent of the Constitution. I think you might be projecting the liberal justices' view onto conservatives. Where liberal justices believe in the legitimacy of reading in new interpretations that fit their personal beliefs, conservative justices do not, so you don't have to worry about them imposing any views on you. They'll respect whatever laws you're able to pass democratically. This makes it more difficult for you to change things (because you have to convince the population and not just a few judges), but it leads to a much more stable society because we won't have one or two people forcing their views on the majority (as is the case in California with same-sex marriage).

Carmine and Robert: Please take your political insight to another site. This discussion is about Sharia Law in BRITAN...not American politics. There are MANY other places to argue your political views.

Everyone appoints judges according to their ideologies. Obama would be appointing based on his religious ideologies as well. There are other factors which come into play, however, and I think that Palin (if in that position) would appoint as McCain would: strict constructionalists. This does have a basis from her religious beliefs, in the sense that there is an understanding that authors have intentions in the works that they write which should be understood and honored. There is nothing wrong with that.

When Islam is in power Islamic beliefs are forced on to everyone. When Institutionalized Darwinian Humanist Atheism through our universities and thus Law schools and Law Courts,and also protected by blasphemy Laws comes to power, Darwinian Humanist Atheistic beliefs are enforced on everyone. They don't allow ID theory, Intelligent Design Theory to be taught along side Darwin's theory and all the other theories taught now. They fire professors who also want to teach ID Theory along with the other theories or even talk about it in class, because they don't allow any other creation story or worldview to live all of life by, or they fire you, fine you and try to ruin your reputation and life.

When morals are taught in Western classrooms, teachers usually instruct their students, now that the Ten Commandments are outlawed in our country and Western Cultures schools, courts and society and out of students and citizens minds, that one’s ethics are relative and situational. They learn concepts like values clarification which teach that each student must make up his or her own mind about what is right or wrong. Kinsey Sex Education is also taught alongside this and other perversions such as their right to abortion, and that it is not taking an innocent human life. Dr. Bernard Nathanson found this to be a lie,"because of fantastic Science and technology.” He produced SILENT SCREAM and ECLIPSE OF REASON to show how our education establishments are producing Physicians and Surgeons, Lawyers and Judges, and the rest of our Culture to murder innocent unborn Children without guilt. These unborn children are innocent human beings. No wonder people murder their children so easily, because they are taught love without meaning,and murder without guilt.

Students also learn that they are not to judge another person’s actions by assuming that ethics are absolute and therefore binding on the behavior of others.

When a student makes up his or her own mind about what is right or wrong and brings a gun to school and kills someone or a citizen goes home and kills her / his disabled child. That student or citizen is doing just what he or she is taught.

“It doesn’t take rocket science to figure this out! ”

The Nazis passed over 400 Laws before their murder of innocence. At the Nuremberge trials they too invoked the Law. They said,” We did not break any of our LAWS.” And they didn’t.

Our Judges, the Judges of Western Civilization, with the” Living Tree Evolving Society” interpretation of Law have murdered many more innocent human beings and broken up more families and homes through the legalization of many more perversions. " They are not finished yet." These are some of the consequences of the writers of the Humanist Manifesto taking over our Education Establishments and thus Law Schools in the guise of separation of Church and State , because the Church was already separated from the State. They wanted to separate Western Civilization from Christianity and unto Darwinian Humanist Atheism, with this end of Democracy with the “Evolving Society Living Tree” interpretation of Law. And so they did, and with this interpretation of Law can and are doing anything they want. While most of our citizens go around in a drug induced type of stupor produced by this institutionalized relativism. Truth and facts don’t matter to many of them, and they will do anything to get what they want.

Most of the popular media, teachers, law officers, judges and the liberal-minded can’t make any sense out of it. This is what Darwinian Humanist Atheism through our education establishments has done to our society and Western Civilization.
Only in Christianity is the privilege given to both Islam and Darwinian Humanist Atheism to disbelieve without any enforcement.

One of the episodes in the latest series/seasons of Doctor Who (Series 4) depicted an alternate future in which Britain transformed itself into a new Nazi-like Germany, complete with concentration camps for the non-natives.

"No. Not again. It's happening again," one character, a war vet, said as he watched the truck pull away that carried his new immigrant friends off to certain death. I thought that this was unbelievable, given the legendary moral character of the Brits. Now I see that anything is possible, for it has started down a path in which this nightmare is one of its many possible futures.

England is well and truly dead, and woe to them who witness the last whispering embers of Camelot's once mighty flame.


[i]Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.
—Jerry Pournelle[/i]

Wow, Garry,

I don't even know where even to begin. Such out of proportion ridiculous claims is what makes Christians look like ignorant fools that are impossible to have a conversation with. Don't promote this view.

Did you even go to school?
If you did, you would know that when ethics are taught it is not about "making up your own mind about what's right and wrong". This is a subject that brilliant minds (including Christian theologists) have studied over many thousands of years, and none of your simplistic nonsense is even remotely true of different ideas presented in a classroom.

Not to mention that in the academic world ideas are presented and evaluated as hypotheses (not absolute truths) based on evidence and rational thought, something that this forum is supposed to promote.

Emotionally laden, unsupported assertions of the kind you offered here not only lower the standard of any intelligent conversation but achieve nothing.

I suppose elwira meant to say "theologians." Also "_many_ thousands of years" is stretching it, at least for the Christian theologians. Still, "Wow Gary" is in order.

There seems to be a lack of understanding of what a theocracy is, and what the Bible actually says about it.
First: The issue of national boundaries. God created, tongues and tribes and nations. For a good reason. To limit tyrany.
Second: There are only two God sanctioned theocracies in the Bible. Ancient Israel proved that man can't be trusted with it. Ancient Israel is the first case.
The second theocracy will be when Christ returns and rules it Himself, using Israel. All other attemps at theocracies of any kind lead to death and destruction, including liberal socialistic theocracies where man sets himself up as god.
Nazi Germany was a theocracy where Hitler assumed the role of god.
Communism is a theocracy where the state becomes god, and so on.
In this country, liberalism which is based on humanism/scientism is trying to set the 'random particle ' up as god. We really can't help how we act, we came from slime. All will end in tyrany at some point. Frederick Bastiat pointed out that all socialism degenerates to communism. No, Marx didn't invent communism, he just brought it up again.
A Biblical understanding of Christianity cannot arrive at a theocracy, which by force imposes religious doctrines.
America is a Constitutional Representative Republic, it isn't a democracy in the classic sense, though I do understand the sense that the word is used today. Our founders knew the failings of enforcing denominational doctrines at the national level.
Jesus didn't come to found another theocracy, He came to seek and save that which is lost.
The true danger that Mrs. Palin poses isn't a theocracy, the true danger she poses is only to liberalism. She will show that a Biblical, Christian world view is a viable alternative to, ' if you make a mistake, or being pregnant is inconvenient, just kill it.' I don't wonder that some would like to 'lay the abortion issue aside.' From God's view on the issue, determined by how He delt with Israel, it was right in the top three or four activities that caused Him to judge Israel.
Whatever theological differences I might have with Pro Life, I agree with the pro life stand he takes. Carmine needs to actually study the issues and quit making 'talking point decsions.' The same goes for everyone.
Sharia law or any other type of theocracy will only cause tyrany.
Every place where Sharia law is enforced, there has been a general decline in liberty and in many cases a return to 6th century living standards.

I assume that most of us agree that the basic liberties of the individual must be safeguarded, and that this entails protecting the individual from the dictates of any particular religion. Thus, we'd object if, within a particular region of our nation, the majority of voters wanted their land to be governed by Sharia law—since this would sacrifice the liberties of individuals in that region, particularly those individuals comprising the minority who are either non-muslims or muslims who want to quit the faith. (Presumably this is why the Brits have attached a proviso: “provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.”) Amy mentions that “conservative justices…respect whatever laws you're able to pass democratically.” But isn’t this the problem and the reason why a democratic society needs a constitution in the first place? In the interest of protecting individual liberties, a democratic society needs a constitution to set limits on the sorts of laws that the majority can impose on everyone.

P.S. 'Civics lesson'
Your both wrong. The President nominates candidates. The Senate in its advice and consent role confirms or rejects a nominee.
The president can appoint interim judges in the lower courts, but not to the Supreme Court.
Your point about what views a candidate holds and carries to the court, has a direct bearing on the person in office is acurate though. The main problem I have with liberals, is that they have no rational basis for determining whether a program has failed or not. Johnson's Great Society has failed at the main points, and cost over a trillion dollars. By any rational analysis, those programs should have been defunded long ago. Only if you apply some esoteric criteria that only the elite can understand, does spending more money on something that's failed make sense. If they can't even balance a check book, what recomends them for setting policies on when life begins?

Carmine,

a little melodramatic, don't you think? Or perhaps an overly active imagination?

Let's review: the US is not a theocracy, never has been one. If that were to have been, the optimal time to have established such rule would have been at the founding of this country and that did not happen.

Next, Sarah Palin will not be appointing anyone.

But speaking of Supreme Court justices, I'll take an entire court of justices like Chief Justice Roberts any day. The job is to interpret the law, not circumvent the legislative process.

Everyone goes to school and university where our education establishments and through them our Courts impose Darwinian Humanist Atheism, and Kinsey sex education on everyone from kinder-garten to university grad school. The liberal politicians endorce this. In countries where Islam rules it also imposes it's worldview on its citizens. Islam also regulates every aspect of life.

Former Chief Justice Roy Moore's book, SO HELP ME GOD, The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, And the Battle For Religious Freedom tells about the culture war we are in with the liberals. A real mind opener.

Carmine, you are a fool.

Educate yourself before spouting garbage on a Christian apologetics site.

At the very least, both parties must agree to be judged by sharia; but, as can be seen from the article, abuses should be expected in which men are unreasonably favored. I did find it interesting that the same thing has been done with adherents of Judaism for around 100 years; but we must be realistic and rational about the difference with what Muslims tend to do. This is one of the problems inherent in a democratic society, if you allow one religion to do something, you will probably be forced to allow another less favorable religion to do the same. We should also remember that even though both parties have to agree to judged by sharia law, there will probably be pressure on certain people to agree to be judged by sharia due to family, the community, or some other reason. It's things like these that make me appreciate being American, at least for now.

On theocracy, you can criticize some Christians for many things in this country, but a push for theocracy is not one of them. The only Chrisians that I have heard who actually would like a theocracy are theonomists; and there is no need to fear them, since they are a very small minority.

Really, this post was orginally about sharia law being upheld in Britain. It is interesting carmine has effectively been able to come in and hijack the post AND turn it into a fright fest for so called "Christian Fundamentalism". I am a little dissapointed.

So.....what kind of government allows a compleatly different set of laws to govern a portion of it's citizens besides the ones that are already established???? I wonder if they are going to allow beheadings?

Hi Virgil, what you've asked is what I think is the most dangerous part of this move to allow a separate set of laws. This will surely divide any country and spell it's demise.

Brad B

"Really, this post was orginally about sharia law being upheld in Britain. It is interesting carmine has effectively been able to come in and hijack the post AND turn it into a fright fest for so called "Christian Fundamentalism". I am a little dissapointed."

Virgil,
If you have an argument that refutes the statements you object to, then please present it. It is usually in the form of "This, this and this is true, therefore this follows as a result."

If you have a valid point to make, this should be easy for you.

Although the original post is about sharia law in the U.K., we as Americans can't ignore it. Our ideals and civil structure as stated in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitutions, state and national, are based mainly in the Common Law of England. The difference is that without a monarchy, the Art IV Citizen became the Sovereign, but a Sovereign without subjects. Our founders took the principals of the Magna Charta, and applied them to the common man (private ownership of land in allodium etc.). The British subjects arrived at much the same effect eventualy, just by a different route. Limited government power in the everyday life of the common man. That of course isn't the case in either country today.
No other nation, with the exception of ancient Israel's common wealth, more closely approximates the Citizen, Government interaction as intended by our founders, than does England. We had better pay close heed to what will happen to England with the abomination of sharia law infesting that once great nation.
Although I don't agree with Carmine's positions based in ignorance, she has a valid point in bringing the focus of our attention to how it might affect our nation.
In a technical sense, sharia law acts mainly in an Admiralty Jurisdiction. In the third of our four Declarations, The Declaration of Rights of 1768, "The bringing on shore of Admiralty Jurisdiction", was one of the major complaints of our Founders. If anyone doesn't understand the ramifications of that, Carmine, you had better educate yourself before you advocate for sharia law. I surely don't want anyone like Carmine making decisions of a legislative nature for me.
This nation right now is being ruined by a similar type of law, known as 'Administrative Law.' All of our so called 'entitlement programs' are based in administrative law statutes.
The problems pastors are having with the IRS, are based in administrative law.
Sharia Law is totally in compatable with both English and American legislative and judicial systems. It indeed will cause only chaos. By the way, very few politicians have any idea what the differences in the types of law are, Pelosi being one of the prime examples of that.

"Virgil,
If you have an argument that refutes the statements you object to, then please present it. It is usually in the form of "This, this and this is true, therefore this follows as a result."

If you have a valid point to make, this should be easy for you."


Louis,
Please forgive me for being so shallow,but I am not quite following your comment. Could you please state it another way? Try to be a little more specific.

In studying The so-called holy Quran and the Hadith one can not only learn about Islam and Shariah Law, but also about the similar morality of the Darwinian Humanist religion with it's "Institutionalized Atheism" through our education establishments onto most of our citizens. False religion and institutionalized atheism are both unhealthy and unjust for Western Society. Just look at the consequences of these all around us now.

Perhaps now Western Courts will also start using the holy Quran to swear, ” So help me Allah,” or the Humanist Manifesto to swear, "So help me Darwin's Theory,"with it's Living Tree Evolving Society interpretation of Law.

Institutionalized Atheism has the same morality and is the new Western Culture. The new character of Western Civilization. The Atheists think they have won the culture war, but it is up to us to wake up and turn the tide. Rebecca Hagelin writes in her book, HOME INVASION, "Why would we engage in this battle? Why would we take these bold steps? Because we love our kids. Because they are depending on us to protect them. Because it's the right thing to do. And because we can win."

I can't believe that people are actually suggesting there’s equivalence between Sharia law and Judeo-Christianity and by thus insinuating that the latter is detrimental to our country.

Hello! Judeo-Christianity IS our national heritage. Read your history!!! Read the founding fathers!!!

Interesting lectures by Vishal Mangalwadi's at The MacLaren Institute http://www.maclaurin.org/mp3_group.php?type=The+Heretics+Series
May I also recommend From Tyndale to Madison: How the Death of an English Reformer led to the Bill of Rights by Michael Farris. Maybe even educate yourself a bit at Wallbuilders.

I've heard Mangalwadi before and really enjoyed his lecture. Thanks so much for the link! Since he's from India, it's really interesting to hear his perspective on Western Civilization.

"Wow" is right. So many comments and not one even mentions the real problem with GB that has brought sharia law to their land: fierce political correctness and multiculturalism. This is how a minority can bully a majority into getting anything it wants.

Melanie Phillips, author of _Londonistan_, predicted just such a development after the London bombings over 3 years ago.

The tie-in to the U.S. is that we are not far behind in the PC thinking that allowed this to happen.

Diversity training sensitivity classes that are mandatory.....Fines for "hate Speech" even jail time....

You are under a secular fundamentalist shiria law already America.
Or has the water been boiling so slowly you haven't noticed?

ELWIRA, perhaps you should have asked Gary where he got his information from before dismissing it because he is exactly correct. Greg posted an article on this site about values clarification which WAS implemented in the classroom:

"In order to keep morality out of schools the state of Massachusetts put this idea into action by institutionalizing moral relativism through various values-neutral instruction techniques. The most well-known, values clarification “…does not teach a particular set of values. There is no sermonizing or moralizing. The goal is to involve the students in practical experiences, making them aware of their own feelings, their own ideas, their own beliefs, so that the choices and decisions they make are conscious and deliberate, based on their own value systems.” A concerned parent cried: "You’re teaching my kids that when they must decide critical issues of right and wrong, it’s simply up to them.” The teacher’s response: “we’re careful to let the students know that it’s up to them to decide what to do. This is values free instruction. We’re neutral.” Problematic in theory, this was proved when a class announced that they valued cheating and wanted to be free to engage in it on tests. The teacher stated cheating was prohibited since it was her class and she was opposed to cheating. She continued “in my class you must be honest, for I value honesty. In other areas of your life you may be free to cheat.” When affected by the consequences of relativism, the teacher imposes her morality on her students thus contradicting herself. In the words of Gregory Koukl: “at worst, the teacher’s lesson is that power is the ultimate element in morality, that might makes right. Technically, this is called the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum or to paraphrase Mao Tse Tung: persuasion from the barrel of a gun.”

Carmine,
"Presumably this is why the Brits have attached a proviso: “provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."

a proviso does nothing when women have to accept.

Can anyone give me a second source for this story? I have been unable to verify it. Nothing on BBC or WND or NYT or LT. I do not want to look like an idiot if I repeat this and it isn't entirely true.

Chris - your comments about Carmine were unduly harsh. Do we Christian apologetics really respond like that?

The comments to this entry are closed.