(no subject)
So my Islam class has this online discussion going on right now about whether or not it should be acceptable for people to choose which religious text to be sworn in on in court. The following is a response I made to one guy's post. The blue text is the stuff I wrote.
This country was founded on Christian principles and the law was written under the framework of the beliefs of our founding fathers. How can anyone say that this country's legal system is secular? Maybe over time it has become more and more secular, but it did not start out that way.
That may have been the framework that they were working with when founding the country, but they were coming out of a setting that was fraught with religious persecution and they very carefully defined their government to avoid allowing anything of the sort to happen over here. They set up the separation of church and state to ensure that the government could not dictate to its citizens which religious beliefs they chose to follow. The range of those beliefs may have broadened over the course of time, but the basic situation is much the same.
As to whether or not the government is secular? Well, it is true that religion influences the people who vote for various political figures as well as the people who write and uphold the laws, because it is impossible to separate a person from his or her beliefs. On the other hand, the ideal which our country strives for is one where the legal system and the church are two separate matters, which to my mind make this country's ideal a secular system.
First of all, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that things have to be fair. This country is governed by the consent of the governed. The majority of the governed for 281 years and still today uphold the tradition of swearing on the Bible.
So just because a group is not a part of the majority, their religious beliefs are unimportant and not worthy of consideration? I think you'll find that an awful lot of people find that argument hard to swallow.
It is not the government's responsibility to make people feel better or to not "offend" them.
It is, however, the government's responsibility to see that everyone's rights are equally protected.
Are Americans the only ones in the world who have no right to have tradition?
You speak as if America consists of a single cultural group, where everyone comes from the same background and shares the same traditions. I hate to break it to you, but this is the "melting pot." This country consists of groups of people from every country on this planet, and each of them brought with them their own unique cultural traditions. The idea that any one of these traditions should take precedence over another is contrary to everything this country was based on.
I would not expect to go to a Democratic Islamic country and expect to be sworn in under the Bible. I would respect the traditions of the culture and abide by the rules they have in place.
Perhaps not, but a Democratic Islamic country would be one that identifies itself, quite clearly, as one that owes its allegiance to Islam. America is not a religious country; even if we do have a majority religion which has dominated our country for quite some time, that religion has always been set up as a separate matter from the laws that govern the state. As such, it is contrary to everything that the country stands for for us to insist that others follow the dominant religion in any way, shape, or form.
It's not a big deal anyway because Christians and Muslims worship the same God don't they? What difference does it make if you are sworn in under a different book that preaches the same teachings of the same God?
First off, you are assuming that everyone believes that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. This is not the case. There are a wide range of beliefs, and it is never safe to assume that what one person believes holds true to another person, even if they nominally follow the same belief system.
Secondly, who are you to say what is or is not a big deal to someone else? If someone considers a matter to be important, then it is his or her right and privilege to regard it as such. You have no right to dictate another person's feelings and values.
Thirdly, the two books may have similarities, but they do not by any means "preach the same teachings." If they did, they would be the same book. There are differences in the message, the phrasing, the cultural history, the belief system, the meaning ascribed to them both literally and figuratively...the list goes on and on.
Last but not least, you assume that this issue is one that is specific only to Christians and Muslims. Perhaps next week, a Hindu will find him or herself in a similar situation and choose to speak up. Maybe the time after that it will be a Wiccan or a Buddhist or some other religious tradition. The specifics won't make any difference in the overall question. This issue goes far beyond specific religious practices and encompasses the very basis of our legal system: is it or is it not allowed to dictate to someone what belief system he or she must live by?
Secondly, separation of church and state was meant to apply to government leaders and religious leaders being separate. How can a country function if there is no standard religion? How can a country operate if there is no framework for the laws for its people, no matter what religion, are to live by and follow? It can't. It opens the door for too much weakness. Things like political correctness, affirmative action, reverse discrimination, and other social movements that pollute our society enter and destroy the principles of our nation.
I beg to differ. Just because it does not operate under a religious framework does not mean that it operates under no framework whatsoever. Have you ever heard of the term "morality?" Morality is not a Christian term or a Buddhist term or a Hindu term or any kind of a religious term. It is, simply, a means of determining right from wrong. The legal system does its best to determine what is and is not appropriate to allow in our country. You obviously have a problem with these social movements. Other people may have a problem with the fact that the law forbids them sleeping with children and animals. The government has to walk a fine line and try and balance out all of the individual beliefs of the millions of people in this country and determine what is best for the whole, even if it means that some things that certain people believe are fine and good end up outlawed and some things that others believe are outrageous and wrong are perfectly legal.
Thanks to these movements, Hollywood for example has made things like homosexuality, divorce, and abortion (killing of innocent humans) mainstream and acceptable among the masses. All of which are prohibited in Islam and Christianity.
There you go again, taking your personal biases and shoving them on others. Just because YOU have a problem with homosexuality, divorce, and abortion doesn't mean that they're wrong. As for Islam, I can't really tell you what it dictates, but I certainly know of plenty of branches of Christianity that are fine with one or more of the above issues. And I'll just leave you to answer to the people like Matthew Shephard who are oppressed, tortured, killed, or in any other way molested or bothered because of their homosexuality or the PERCEPTION that they might be homosexual. I'm pretty sure the Bible is against all of that, too, and many of the people who commit that sort of crime are Christians doing it in the name of God. I'll leave you to answer to the women (or men, because there are certainly men in these situations, too) who are stuck in a miserable marriage, with their spouse beating them and risking permanent harm or death, just because divorce is illegal. I'll leave you to answer to the people who are depressed and suicidal because they are stuck in marriages that drain the life out of them. I'll leave you to answer to the victims of incest and rape who have to deal not only with the emotional harm that comes from the very act that created the child, but the physical presence of a baby for at least 9 months, if not longer. I'll leave you to answer to the women who die because of physical complications with the pregnancy or birth which could have been avoided if the child had been aborted early on. I'll leave you to answer to the women who are so desparate to rid themselves of the child that they go to unqualified people to attempt to abort it or try home methods and end up sick or dying themselves. Could you deal with the burden of all of that pain and death on your conscience? I certainly couldn't.
Personally, I think that anyone who has the audacity to complain about anything this country has provided to them, free of charge, should think twice about the implications of what they say or do. I have respect for differing opinions and am open minded about most subjects, but when it comes to the framework of the country for which I am willing to sacrafice my life to protect, I have a very low tolerance for the down-right ignorance and stupidity expressed by the people I have helped provide their freedom.
...So differing political views and discontent with a corrupt and unjust legal system are equivalent to stupidity and ignorance? If anything, I'd tend to say that anyone who is perfectly pleased with the way this country is being run is obviously not keeping up with the news, but even I wouldn't resort to name-calling just based on difference in thought.
I think we should keep the current policy because of tradition and legal congruence. Under what larger being will people swear on to tell the truth if we do away with all religious books in law, and what further harm to society is keeping the Bible going to create?
First off, who says we need to swear on a larger being? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Is it so unbelievable that someone could hold him or herself to the truth without some larger being breathing over his or her shoulder to frighten him or her into compliance? I would think that the threat of contempt of court would be equally effective, if not more so. And honestly, you can't tell me that people aren't lying in court DESPITE being sworn in to tell the truth.
Secondly, no one said we HAVE to get rid of all religious books in law. It was offered as one option, but not the only one. Another suggestion was that people be allowed to choose which religious text to swear on. This would go along with your idea that we need to have a larger being to swear on, and it would certainly be more likely that people feel accountable to the larger being if they were to swear on one they believe in, rather than one that a random religion to which they hold no alliance dictates they must swear on.
I would apply my opinion domestically only. Globally, there is no help for most regions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Globally, there is no help for most regions." Would you mind elaborating?
I recommend keeping the current policy and the hell with people's feelings. If they don't like it they can shut up or leave.
Well, you certainly seem to be taking this personally. Might I even say that your feelings are hurt?
Unfortunately, organizations like the ACLU are secularizing our country and attacking the very principles that our country was founded upon in the first place. And no one had better disagree with me because it will hurt my feelings and be unfair
...You DO know the meaning of the word "discussion," right? How about "debate?" Or "difference of opinion?" The whole point of this assignment is to get us interacting with people who have different beliefs and ponder and respond to their points of view. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but it is definitely not unfair for me to respond to your points and tell you that I disagree with them.
This country was founded on Christian principles and the law was written under the framework of the beliefs of our founding fathers. How can anyone say that this country's legal system is secular? Maybe over time it has become more and more secular, but it did not start out that way.
That may have been the framework that they were working with when founding the country, but they were coming out of a setting that was fraught with religious persecution and they very carefully defined their government to avoid allowing anything of the sort to happen over here. They set up the separation of church and state to ensure that the government could not dictate to its citizens which religious beliefs they chose to follow. The range of those beliefs may have broadened over the course of time, but the basic situation is much the same.
As to whether or not the government is secular? Well, it is true that religion influences the people who vote for various political figures as well as the people who write and uphold the laws, because it is impossible to separate a person from his or her beliefs. On the other hand, the ideal which our country strives for is one where the legal system and the church are two separate matters, which to my mind make this country's ideal a secular system.
First of all, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that things have to be fair. This country is governed by the consent of the governed. The majority of the governed for 281 years and still today uphold the tradition of swearing on the Bible.
So just because a group is not a part of the majority, their religious beliefs are unimportant and not worthy of consideration? I think you'll find that an awful lot of people find that argument hard to swallow.
It is not the government's responsibility to make people feel better or to not "offend" them.
It is, however, the government's responsibility to see that everyone's rights are equally protected.
Are Americans the only ones in the world who have no right to have tradition?
You speak as if America consists of a single cultural group, where everyone comes from the same background and shares the same traditions. I hate to break it to you, but this is the "melting pot." This country consists of groups of people from every country on this planet, and each of them brought with them their own unique cultural traditions. The idea that any one of these traditions should take precedence over another is contrary to everything this country was based on.
I would not expect to go to a Democratic Islamic country and expect to be sworn in under the Bible. I would respect the traditions of the culture and abide by the rules they have in place.
Perhaps not, but a Democratic Islamic country would be one that identifies itself, quite clearly, as one that owes its allegiance to Islam. America is not a religious country; even if we do have a majority religion which has dominated our country for quite some time, that religion has always been set up as a separate matter from the laws that govern the state. As such, it is contrary to everything that the country stands for for us to insist that others follow the dominant religion in any way, shape, or form.
It's not a big deal anyway because Christians and Muslims worship the same God don't they? What difference does it make if you are sworn in under a different book that preaches the same teachings of the same God?
First off, you are assuming that everyone believes that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. This is not the case. There are a wide range of beliefs, and it is never safe to assume that what one person believes holds true to another person, even if they nominally follow the same belief system.
Secondly, who are you to say what is or is not a big deal to someone else? If someone considers a matter to be important, then it is his or her right and privilege to regard it as such. You have no right to dictate another person's feelings and values.
Thirdly, the two books may have similarities, but they do not by any means "preach the same teachings." If they did, they would be the same book. There are differences in the message, the phrasing, the cultural history, the belief system, the meaning ascribed to them both literally and figuratively...the list goes on and on.
Last but not least, you assume that this issue is one that is specific only to Christians and Muslims. Perhaps next week, a Hindu will find him or herself in a similar situation and choose to speak up. Maybe the time after that it will be a Wiccan or a Buddhist or some other religious tradition. The specifics won't make any difference in the overall question. This issue goes far beyond specific religious practices and encompasses the very basis of our legal system: is it or is it not allowed to dictate to someone what belief system he or she must live by?
Secondly, separation of church and state was meant to apply to government leaders and religious leaders being separate. How can a country function if there is no standard religion? How can a country operate if there is no framework for the laws for its people, no matter what religion, are to live by and follow? It can't. It opens the door for too much weakness. Things like political correctness, affirmative action, reverse discrimination, and other social movements that pollute our society enter and destroy the principles of our nation.
I beg to differ. Just because it does not operate under a religious framework does not mean that it operates under no framework whatsoever. Have you ever heard of the term "morality?" Morality is not a Christian term or a Buddhist term or a Hindu term or any kind of a religious term. It is, simply, a means of determining right from wrong. The legal system does its best to determine what is and is not appropriate to allow in our country. You obviously have a problem with these social movements. Other people may have a problem with the fact that the law forbids them sleeping with children and animals. The government has to walk a fine line and try and balance out all of the individual beliefs of the millions of people in this country and determine what is best for the whole, even if it means that some things that certain people believe are fine and good end up outlawed and some things that others believe are outrageous and wrong are perfectly legal.
Thanks to these movements, Hollywood for example has made things like homosexuality, divorce, and abortion (killing of innocent humans) mainstream and acceptable among the masses. All of which are prohibited in Islam and Christianity.
There you go again, taking your personal biases and shoving them on others. Just because YOU have a problem with homosexuality, divorce, and abortion doesn't mean that they're wrong. As for Islam, I can't really tell you what it dictates, but I certainly know of plenty of branches of Christianity that are fine with one or more of the above issues. And I'll just leave you to answer to the people like Matthew Shephard who are oppressed, tortured, killed, or in any other way molested or bothered because of their homosexuality or the PERCEPTION that they might be homosexual. I'm pretty sure the Bible is against all of that, too, and many of the people who commit that sort of crime are Christians doing it in the name of God. I'll leave you to answer to the women (or men, because there are certainly men in these situations, too) who are stuck in a miserable marriage, with their spouse beating them and risking permanent harm or death, just because divorce is illegal. I'll leave you to answer to the people who are depressed and suicidal because they are stuck in marriages that drain the life out of them. I'll leave you to answer to the victims of incest and rape who have to deal not only with the emotional harm that comes from the very act that created the child, but the physical presence of a baby for at least 9 months, if not longer. I'll leave you to answer to the women who die because of physical complications with the pregnancy or birth which could have been avoided if the child had been aborted early on. I'll leave you to answer to the women who are so desparate to rid themselves of the child that they go to unqualified people to attempt to abort it or try home methods and end up sick or dying themselves. Could you deal with the burden of all of that pain and death on your conscience? I certainly couldn't.
Personally, I think that anyone who has the audacity to complain about anything this country has provided to them, free of charge, should think twice about the implications of what they say or do. I have respect for differing opinions and am open minded about most subjects, but when it comes to the framework of the country for which I am willing to sacrafice my life to protect, I have a very low tolerance for the down-right ignorance and stupidity expressed by the people I have helped provide their freedom.
...So differing political views and discontent with a corrupt and unjust legal system are equivalent to stupidity and ignorance? If anything, I'd tend to say that anyone who is perfectly pleased with the way this country is being run is obviously not keeping up with the news, but even I wouldn't resort to name-calling just based on difference in thought.
I think we should keep the current policy because of tradition and legal congruence. Under what larger being will people swear on to tell the truth if we do away with all religious books in law, and what further harm to society is keeping the Bible going to create?
First off, who says we need to swear on a larger being? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Is it so unbelievable that someone could hold him or herself to the truth without some larger being breathing over his or her shoulder to frighten him or her into compliance? I would think that the threat of contempt of court would be equally effective, if not more so. And honestly, you can't tell me that people aren't lying in court DESPITE being sworn in to tell the truth.
Secondly, no one said we HAVE to get rid of all religious books in law. It was offered as one option, but not the only one. Another suggestion was that people be allowed to choose which religious text to swear on. This would go along with your idea that we need to have a larger being to swear on, and it would certainly be more likely that people feel accountable to the larger being if they were to swear on one they believe in, rather than one that a random religion to which they hold no alliance dictates they must swear on.
I would apply my opinion domestically only. Globally, there is no help for most regions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Globally, there is no help for most regions." Would you mind elaborating?
I recommend keeping the current policy and the hell with people's feelings. If they don't like it they can shut up or leave.
Well, you certainly seem to be taking this personally. Might I even say that your feelings are hurt?
Unfortunately, organizations like the ACLU are secularizing our country and attacking the very principles that our country was founded upon in the first place. And no one had better disagree with me because it will hurt my feelings and be unfair
...You DO know the meaning of the word "discussion," right? How about "debate?" Or "difference of opinion?" The whole point of this assignment is to get us interacting with people who have different beliefs and ponder and respond to their points of view. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but it is definitely not unfair for me to respond to your points and tell you that I disagree with them.