Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Religious law in America? Could be.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Thats my opinion Donating Member (804 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-11 11:42 AM
Original message
Religious law in America? Could be.
One of the fears occasionally surfacing around here is that radical Islamists will take over some political jurisdiction in the United States, putting its citizens under Sharia law. Women will lose all their hard fought-for rights, be required to dress modestly including headscarves, and find it necessary to walk behind their husbands. But that, we are told, is the mildest part of Sharia law. Those who violate certain religious taboos would be subject to public stoning. There are obvious ominous results were this to happen. 1-The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be gutted. 2-The separation of Church and State would be obliterated, and we would be in a similar fix as was Salem during the witch trials, Blacks during slavery and Spanish heretics during the Inquisition.

There is not the remotest chance that this scenario could be produced anywhere in the United States. No one except the most paranoid anti-Muslims even suggests the possibility of such a development. The real threat is not from advocates of Sharia law, but from a significant contingent of Americans who advocate the adoption of Biblical law.

“Reconstructionism” has been around since the 1960s when a sect led by J. Rushdoony openly advocated replacing American law with Biblical law, drawing mainly from the Old Testament which includes such things as the death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy. While it has been denounced by leading conservative Christians, an adaptation of the notion has recently resurfaced in a somewhat less threatening form. Two current candidates for the Presidency seem to live on Reconstructionism’s borders.

Michelle Bachmann lifted from Rushdoony’s followers the notion that as a matter of law the government should be prohibited from collecting taxes in excess of 10%. In a book titled “Call to Duty,” which she recommends, the Civil War was depicted as a battle between the devout Christian South and the godless North, while it lauds slavery as a benevolent institution. Her academic hero is John Eldsmoe of Oral Roberts University, a devout Reconstructionist. She and overt Reconstructionists in the Tea Party hold that God has set the proper role of government, which does not include such things as public education or assistance to the poor. Instead God desires a Christian government in which an evangelical worldview is enforced. While she might never use the Reconstructionist label, her roots lie deep in that soil.

Rick Perry, while not as blatent in his support of Reconstructionist goals, stands clearly on the border of that movement. His unsuccessful April 22-24 “Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas” seems to assert that the State would be blessed by God if Jesus’ loving people prayed hard enough. Jesus has always been part of his anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-gun, pro-life agenda. His supporters include the American Family Association, which regularly denigrates gays and lesbians and other minority groups, and holds that the First Amendment applies only to Christians, and therefore Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques. Perry has declared “as a nation we must call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles.” His politically sponsored August 6 prayer rally leaned almost all the way toward Reconstructionism.

A few weeks back I published a piece concerning breaches in the wall of separation between Church and State. A score of responses suggested I had ducked the chance to be specific and to name names. So here they are. The real problem is not what these people believe. They have every right, and one would hope that all candidates had underneath their political proclivities some sort of ethical rootage. But when they openly declare clearly defined Christian doctrine as the basis for their political agendas, that wall has not only been breached, it has been dismantled. Bachman and Perry have a perfect right to hold what they believe to be faithful political perspectives, but to insist that their goal is to promote a narrow biblical view as the basis for national law, puts them on shaky unsupportable ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-11 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. No chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avebury Donating Member (455 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WingDinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-11 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sharia fear is BS, they want us to run out all foreigners, specially Mexicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-11 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. I am more afraid of Christianism because it is home grown, than any other flavor of religiousism
Don't think it can happen here? Look at what the Republicans have and are doing in Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas and elsewhere.
Look at the people that take Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and other escapees from the insane asylum as candidates for exemplary world leadership.

We should be scared to death at what our owners have in store for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Could not agree more!!
Those who say "Not a Chance" have not looked at what is going on in America...Just the idea that roughly 40% of Americans in the early 90's reject the Theory of Evolution & now that number is as high as +60% in some polls...The trend is backward not forward.

Texas & many other school districts doing everything they can to get around the law & teach religion as science in science class.

Look at our military, especially the most powerful branch, the US Air Force, and how Christianized it is...The Army is not far behind.

The trend is alarming to those who respect the fact NOTHING says it can't happen in the USA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w0nderer Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-07-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Nehemiah Scudder (if this goes on, revolt in 2100) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. +1
Edited on Thu Sep-08-11 08:37 PM by sarcasmo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. Anyone that thinks religious law could never happen
hasn't lived in the deep south, or more specifically a dry county.

Counties banning alcohol sales actually cause more drunk driving accidents, but any attempt to repeal them is strongly opposed by the local churches. Doesn't matter how many more fatalities a law causes, Jesus doesn't want your neighbor to buy beer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enuegii Donating Member (624 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yeah, it's funny how God can see exactly how they vote, but
can't quite seem to recognize them staggering into the liquor store for the third time that day over in the next town.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Courts can enforce laws about liquor sales, but they cannot
enforce laws concerning theology. It is just not the kind of thing that judges can do.

Don't worry about this.

Just because churches support a law doesn't mean that the law is a violation of the separation of church and state. After all, a lot of churches support the peace movement. And many churches support civil rights movements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. KnR n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GTurck Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
10. Let's hear it...
for Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The nuts who want Biblical Law better be able to live in glass houses without any stones around.
I tell people that Biblical laws would prohibit the eating of pork, seafood (Lev. 11), and chicken-fried steak, grains onto which a dead animal has fallen (Lev. 11:38). All are unclean and you are cut off from the people for eating them. Women must segregate themselves after childbirth and menstruation for 8 days - sorry Michelle and Sarah you can't run a country only 23 days a month.
So I want to be able to watch them live like a bronze age patriarch to be sure that they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blkmusclmachine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
13. These "Christian" Dominionists have been sowing their seeds since at least 1952:
Looks like the harvest is just about ready to come in. Pastor Perry could use the post-9/11 laws (unPatriot Act, etc.) to bring the Dominionists' goals to fruition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handmade34 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
14. ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC