Sharia Law, and SBC Resolutions at the Annual Convention

[Stephen Fox]

Our friend BDWeaver does good work here:

http://www.baptiststoday.org/weavers-we ... nt13000476

[Sandy]

Sharia law is essentially in direct opposition to the guarantee of first amendment rights in the constitution. There's no way they can exist together in a free society. This is one of those cases where the constitution must supercede a religious principle, as in the rulings where Mormons were no longer allowed to legally practice polygamy.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Are Rabbinical Courts unconstitutional too, Sandy?

We've had those for 100+ years here in the US.

If someone wants to voluntarily submit themselves to a religious authority - fine. That's perfectly constitutional. It's not like the decision of the religious court is legally binding.

I don't see how "Sharia law" or the Rabbinical courts of the Orthodox Jewish communities is any different from fundamentalists who submit themselves to the authority of their church via church discipline, etc. etc. Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints sure do submit themselves to their own distinct set of religious laws with the elders functioning as the magistrate in their communal setting. Last I checked, the Amish are still free to ban members of its community from communicating with other family members who have been excommunicated, etc.

I think people here in the USA don't understand what Sharia law is about. "Sharia" in the US is going to look a bit different than "Sharia" in the MIddle East. Obviously, the laws of our nation are supreme.

[Sandy]

The problem with allowing people to submit to some kind of religious law, as an act of their own religious freedom, is when that submission sometimes comes into conflict with the law regarding certain acts prescribed for those who violate the religious law. The Mormons, for example, have a principle related to their doctrine of blood atonement, stemming from their belief that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to atone for all sin, partucularly the sin of murder, and that the sinner must atone with his own blood. It wouldn't be a good idea to allow the church to exercise this rule of religious law, and so the church officially outlawed its practice, as it did with polygamy, though there are renegade groups which continue to practice both.

Sharia law invokes the death penalty for a number of offenses, or advocates punishments which would be considered cruel and unusual, and which would not involve any violation of civil law. It wouldn't be possible for someone to submit to it and not have their civil rights violated.

I think a lot of what we are seeing now involves some kind of hysteria spread in the wake of 9-11, and of all the rumor mongering and lying that has gone on about President Obama's supposedly being a closet Muslim. That's the sort of thing that demonstrates an appalling ignorance of the constitution, of the general functioning of the US government, and of world events in general, not to mention a mountain of evidence which indicates otherwise. It's just more tea party extremism.

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/southern-bap ... -cms-17980

Could somebody have SBC Resolutions Committee and Jeffress read Mark Noll's Review of God's Own Party in current www.tnr.com