Great Britain or Little Iran?

[LadyShea]

yguy, you do understand that arbitration is widely used in the US, and also enforced? Did you know that here two parties can choose legally binding Christian Biblical based mediation and arbitration?

6. Can Christian conciliation result in a legally binding agreement or decision?

Yes, if you and the other party so desire. Agreements reached through private negotiations or mediation may be documented in legal contracts or stipulations. Arbitration decisions are legally binding and can be enforced as a judgment of a civil court. http://www.peacemaker.net

What's the difference with allowing two parties to choose Sharia based mediation and arbitration?

I agree that Islam and Sharia law are nuts...but no more so to me than Christianity and Biblical "law".

[yguy]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I agree that Islam and Sharia law are nuts...

I said nothing about Islam.

but no more so to me than Christianity

You don't understand Christianity well enough to make such a judgment. You have some excuse, since so many professing Christians obviously don't either.

and Biblical "law".

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing, since not a single book in the Bible represents itself as law.

Speaking less strictly, I would agree that modifying the legal system to cater to people who think wearing polyester ought to be a capital crime would be similarly insane. However, to say the same about more fundamental laws like the 10 C's is to say America was founded by lunatics.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by yguy

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing, since not a single book in the Bible represents itself as law.

Have you read the Bible? The ten commandments? Deuteronomy (which actually means "second law")? Granted most of the laws in it are from the Old Testament, stemming from the Jewish tradition, but Christianity is ostensibly a continuation of Jewish faith, only believing that the savior of the Bible already came to earth as Jesus Christ. Can't recall off the top of my head if anything in the New Testament reads directly as a law, or if they can just be interpreted that way.

The Old Testament, on the other hand, is rife with actual laws.

yguy's as adept at biblical interpretation as he is at other things. Once again, welcome to , Kael, and brace for hilarity.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Kael

The Old Testament, on the other hand, is rife with actual laws.

Obviously, but the books themselves are presented as history, not law. Leviticus, for instance, is almost nothing but laws, but the book nowhere commands the reader of Leviticus to obey them. It therefore has no more force of law than a book on US history that quotes the 18th amendment.

[D. Scarlatti]

It's those less fundamental laws that aren't Biblical law (because there's no such thing).

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by ytroll

the book nowhere commands the reader of Leviticus to obey them.

Nope, nowhere and not at all.

[D. Scarlatti]

By the way, this isn't law either, because nowhere is anybody "commanded" to obey it:

940.01(1)(a)

(a) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony.*

* Punishments may vary from plagues of locusts.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

It's those less fundamental laws that aren't Biblical law (because there's no such thing).

Sorry, D, you lost me. No such thing as 'less fundamental laws' or no such thing as biblical laws? I'm inclined to assume you mean the former, since you've demonstrated a sound mind before, and I don't think it's likely you'd agree with yguy without suffering some kind of stroke or something... Just clarifying.

Originally Posted by yguy

Obviously, but the books themselves are presented as history, not law. Leviticus, for instance, is almost nothing but laws, but the book nowhere commands the reader of Leviticus to obey them. It therefore has no more force of law than a book on US history that quotes the 18th amendment.

This is some wacky logic... The books of the Old Testament that relate laws, esp. Leviticus and Deuteronomy, are laid out specifically as laws, not as histories of laws. Leviticus may not issue a direct command to anyone reading to follow the laws found therein, because the laws within it are for the Levites, the priests, not for whoever happens to read it. They are pretty much exactly like ancient predecessors to a modern book of Law. These books are the lawbooks of Jewish tradition, both the faith and the culture, that's all there is.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Kael

Sorry, D, you lost me. No such thing as 'less fundamental laws' or no such thing as biblical laws?

Just pointing out yguy's typical mealymouthed, self-contradictory ridiculousness. There's no law, but there's more fundamental law, which means there must be less fundamental law, but there's no law to begin with, etc. He's just trolling as usual.

And U.S. law doesn't command anybody to do anything either. As you can see from a typical criminal statute, certain behaviors are identified as worthy of certain punishments. But, in that example, there is no "command" not to intentionally commit homicide.

It says, essentially, that if (and when) you do, you can expect the following penalty.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

I said nothing about Islam.

You don't understand Christianity well enough to make such a judgment.

And yet, you understand Sharia...

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Kael

This is some wacky logic... The books of the Old Testament that relate laws, esp. Leviticus and Deuteronomy, are laid out specifically as laws, not as histories of laws.

You remind me of a guy who tried to convince me the Bible couldn't be the Word of God because it had a lie in it; specifically, the lie told to Eve by the serpent. And just as the book of Genesis cannot be called false because it correctly represents a lie as spoken by an individual, neither can Leviticus be called law merely because it contains laws that governed a specific group of people during a certain epoch.

These books are the lawbooks of Jewish tradition, both the faith and the culture, that's all there is.

That is by the consent of the Jews, and indicates nothing about the intent of the author.

But even discounting all that, the Bible was compiled by Christians who presumably had no particular desire to see Jewish law implemented, so to say Leviticus is part of Biblical law makes no sense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by yguy

You don't understand Christianity well enough to make such a judgment

I stated an opinion, I even qualified it with "to me".

Originally Posted by LadyShea

but no more so to me than Christianity

I was a Christian in the past, so do understand it well enough to form a personal opinion about it.

Originally Posted by yguy

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing, since not a single book in the Bible represents itself as law.

Hence my putting the word law in quotation marks.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Biblical "law"

How about if I change that to Biblical guidelines. It still makes my point. Is that better?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was a Christian in the past, so do understand it well enough to form a personal opinion about it.

Your opinion about what it means to be a professing Christian may have some value, but it hardly means you have any understanding of Christianity.

How about if I change that to Biblical guidelines. It still makes my point. Is that better?

As far as clarifying your meaning, yes; but as far as making sense, you're still calling the founders of this country lunatics.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by yguy

As far as clarifying your meaning, yes; but as far as making sense, you're still calling the founders of this country lunatics.

Before we go too far down this baseless assertion road, try this from a divine at the Quartz Hill School of Theology.

[LadyShea]

As far as clarifying your meaning, yes; but as far as making sense, you're still calling the founders of this country lunatics.

Not all were Christians. Some were, some weren't. And anyway that has fuckall to do with your own topic, or my original point.

Let me make my point in the form of a question. Do you think it's acceptable for Christians to be allowed to choose Biblical based legal arbitration?

If so, why is it problematic for Muslims to be able to choose Sharia based legal arbitration?

Keep in mind that neither are compelled by the respective governments. They are simply options in civil cases.

[D. Scarlatti]

Some of the founders of this country were indeed lunatics.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not all were Christians. Some were, some weren't.

Oh, please. The overwhelming majority of the signers of the DoI and Constitution were professing Christians. Whom do you think they were mainly representing? Hindus?

Let me make my point in the form of a question. Do you think it's acceptable for Christians to be allowed to choose Biblical based legal arbitration?

I see no reason for the court system to be involved in that. If they want that kind of arbitration, let them hire one privately if it's a civil matter.

[LadyShea]

Oh, please. The overwhelming majority of the signers of the DoI and Constitution were professing Christians. Whom do you think they were mainly representing? Hindus?

Several, if not most, were Deists as were many of the more educated at that time. Please read the link Godfry provided .

I see no reason for the court system to be involved in that. If they want that kind of arbitration, let them hire one privately if it's a civil matter.

The whole point of arbitration is to keep civil cases out of court. It is used very frequently in the US, and if you want Christian arbitration you would privately hire the arbitrator.

The Sharia thing in your OP appears to be similar...simply a voluntary arbitration option.

So, what's the problem with it?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by yguy

You remind me of a guy who tried to convince me the Bible couldn't be the Word of God because it had a lie in it; specifically, the lie told to Eve by the serpent. And just as the book of Genesis cannot be called false because it correctly represents a lie as spoken by an individual, neither can Leviticus be called law merely because it contains laws that governed a specific group of people during a certain epoch.

You're not making a lick of sense. I'm not saying the Bible can be called law, I'm saying it contains laws, something you refuted. The Code of Hammurabi contains laws, too, in exactly the same manner. That is all I am stipulating.

That is by the consent of the Jews, and indicates nothing about the intent of the author.

Of course it's by their consent, that was the whole point of Biblical law being brought into the discussion. Any in the US so inclinded can consent to have their civil disputes arbitrated according to Biblical law. That's all the point was, and it directly requires the consent of the involved parties.

But even discounting all that, the Bible was compiled by Christians who presumably had no particular desire to see Jewish law implemented, so to say Leviticus is part of Biblical law makes no sense.

I think your Bible history is a bit rusty. The Old Testament (OT) is lifted almost directly from the Jewish Tanakh (the first part of which is the Torah, the first 5 books of a modern Bible), and suffered very little alteration, addendum, or deletion at any of the Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were largely concerned with what would become the core books of the New Testament (NT), the foundation of the Christian faith. The NT and the teachings of Christ therein are held to surpass, fulfill, and expound on the laws and commandments set forth in the Tanukh, as the Christian faith is ostensibly a direct continuance of Judaism, just purported to be the next step in the divine covenant with God. They had no desire to keep Jewish laws in place, no, but neither did they have the need or desire to alter them, as the NT overrides them by default.

I chanced once to have the opportunity to flip through a translation of the Tanukh, and aside from differences in idiom and diction, it is virtually identical (especially the Torah portion) to a modern Bible. Perhaps someone here with a more intimate understanding of the Tanukh can clarify, I didn't spend all that long with it.

So, again, the Bible contains laws, this isn't disputable. The laws that are found in the OT of most modern Bibles are virtually identical to the laws in the original Hebrew Tanukh. Mildly debatable, depending on how picky you want to be, but still, a solid point.

If a system is already in place that allows consenting parties to have their disputes resolved according to these laws, why then does it follow that a similar system allowing consenting parties to have disputes resolved according to any other religious law is a horrible thing? The only way it would follow is if you accept the premise that the already existing system, covering Christian and Jewish law, is a bad thing.

You're certainly welcome to think that, but it seems pretty intolerant of you.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Several, if not most, were Deists

What the hell do you mean, "if not most"? I defy you to provide evidence that even 10% of those who signed the DoI and/or the Constitution were either Deists or Unitarians.

as were many of the more educated at that time.

What does that have to do with anything?

The whole point of arbitration is to keep civil cases out of court. It is used very frequently in the US, and if you want Christian arbitration you would privately hire the arbitrator.

If the arbitrator's decision is enforcible through the courts, such that the court is obliged to ignore any conflict between "biblical law" and civil or criminal law, I'd say that's a problem.

So, what's the problem with it?

Read the first paragraph in the article.

Where is all the concern for church/state separation all of a sudden, anyway?

[LadyShea]

As to the Founding Fathers, I refer you again to this link Godfry provided Quartz Hill School of Theology

If the arbitrator's decision is enforcible through the courts, such that the court is obliged to ignore any conflict between "biblical law" and civil or criminal law, I'd say that's a problem.

It's enforceable because the parties agree and voluntarily consent to adhere to the decision, so it becomes like a contract. If they do not want to adhere, then they would not consent to it.

Also, the decisions must remain within the framework of state and Federal laws. They can't just make shit up.

Read the first paragraph in the article.

Read the rest of the article. Specifically this part

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said that sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals under a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Where is all the concern for church/state separation all of a sudden, anyway?

If judges or governments were forcing religious based arbitration on parties who did not want it, that would be concerning.

That's not the case when 2 parties in a civil dispute choose it.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by yguy

What the hell do you mean, "if not most"? I defy you to provide evidence that even 10% of those who signed the DoI and/or the Constitution were either Deists or Unitarians.

You're such a lazy bastard

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Watser?

You're such a lazy bastard

And, don't forget duplicitous. He's that, too.

And when I was kind enough to post him an article from a scholar in the field. Ah, well, here's his conclusion:

Conclusion

Certainly many of the early immigrants to the New World came for religious reasons - often to escape persecution. However, they were not interested in religious freedom for anyone other than themselves, and often turned around and persecuted others who had slightly different viewpoints.
As Pastor Richard T. Zuelch pointed out in his letter to the Los Angeles Times on August 14, 1995:

Gordon S. Wood, in his 1992 book, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," states that, by the 1790's only about 10% of the American population regularly attended religious services - to quote just one statistic. Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national commitment to Christianity!

It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation. That there were strong, long-lasting Christian influences involved in the nation's earliest history, due to the Puritan settlements and those of other religious persons escaping European persecution, cannot be denied. But that is a long way from saying that colonial leaders, by the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, were intending to form a nation founded on specifically Christian principles and doctrine.

We Christians do ourselves no favor by bending history to suit our prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. Rather than continue to cling to a "Moral Majority"-style fantasy that says America is a Christian nation that needs to be "taken back" from secular unbelief (we can't "take back" what we never had), it would be much healthier for us Christians to face reality, holding to what Jesus himself said in the Gospels: that Christians should never be surprised at the hostility with which the gospel would be greeted by the world, because most people would fail to believe in him, thereby strongly implying that, in every age and country, Christianity would always be a minority faith. (Rev. Richard T. Zuelch, Letter to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, August 1995)

The United States is not, by any stretch of the imagination a Christian nation today, nor has it ever been, nor was it ever intended to be. The Religious right (or left) would do well to stop looking for the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth.

It seems yguy is at odds with his own kind.

Not surprising, considering that Puritans were cutting the tongues, tarring and feathering, and running out of town Friends, Baptists and all manner of perfidious heretics. Maryland explicitly accepted Roman Catholics, who were repressed in other colonies more dedicated to Anglicanism or Congregationalism. It is true that many colonies had 'established churches', but this came under considerable pressure prior to the Revolution, thanks to Jefferson and the Virginia constitution, which explicitly disestablished the Anglican church in Virginia. This was the same Thomas Jefferson who had dismissed the Jesus of the New Testament as a construct of superstition and rewrote the entire New Testament, expunging those parts he considered to have be invented. As the colonies became states, most followed suit. At the time, there was a strong desire to unlink governments, being state governments, from the sponsorship of a single denomination (which is 'establishmentarianism'). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the final state of the union to disestablish the state church, Congregationalism, in 1834.

For me, this shows that at the time of the establishment of our nation, there was a widespread desire to unlink governance from worship...worship being so various and the growing denominations being those not 'established'.

[LadyShea]

that Christians should never be surprised at the hostility with which the gospel would be greeted by the world, because most people would fail to believe in him, thereby strongly implying that, in every age and country, Christianity would always be a minority faith.

Well, it's certainly not the minority faith in the US.