It's apparently only acceptable to divide belief from the state if you are a Christian. It's apparently ok to exercise your right to religion unless you are a Christian. The courts say so. A judge ORDERED that Sharia law, which is muslim religious law, be applied in a civil court. That's tantamount to my being able to deny you franchise or have you stoned to death if you commit adultery.
Either religion has place in a secular court, or it doesn't. I don't happen to believe it does. I certainly don't hold people to my religious beliefs, standards, or punishments for transgressions against their dogma that I exact of myself. I don't even hold members of my own Faith to the same standards I set for myself. I believe that where I have been given much, much is required, and so I hold myself to high standards. You, well, you can only hold me to the highest standard you hold, which might be why I ignore you.
Just this morning, a friend of mine was assaulted for her thus far inability to keep religious resolutions. It is easier for one to call you out as a hypocrite than for him to change his life, because change can be painful and costly. He just wants to feel good about what he chooses to do (the beam in his eye) because he can draw attention to the mote in yours. Notice that he requires of you something he is unwilling to do himself. Such a man asks you to prove you are better, but this is a trap, because as soon as you err (which you will), he will take that as incontrovertible evidence that you are no better than he, which is not true. He is setting you up to be a scapegoat by which to justify his aberrant and abhorrent behavior, or as a Saint, which is impossible.
This judge, and the supposed 'friend' of my friend's, are holding people to unlawful standards. The Constitution either forbids the combination of church and state or it doesn't. Quite frankly, it says nothing about it. What it says is that you can exercise your Faith as long as those tenants do not rob others of their own inalienable rights. That's part of why we oppose radical fundamentalist islam, because it would deny you of rights without trial.
Quite frankly, any law foreign to the understanding of the parties involved is inappropriate. The article mentions German law. Why not Danelaw or the rights of Saxony? Why not the law of the Massachusetts Bay Colony or the Puritans? On Cape Cod, why can't I expel people with religious beliefs I oppose? Ah, because we are progressed, which means we bow to everyone else.
It is expressly repugnant in the eyes of God for men to take power over other men. He has always condemned slavery, hegemony, and monarchy. He knew that in granting a title of King to Saul that his chosen people were headed for bondage. Prescient the thoughts of James Madison who said, "If men were ruled by angels, no government would be necessary". Relevant the words of Christ, who said, "render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's". If a man commit a crime against God, let God hold him guilty before the tribunal. Civil code belongs in civil and criminal proceedings. Religious matters belong within the faith.
It is often debated the question of separation of Church and State. If you take Thomas More as an example the true danger is not that Religion shall infect the State but that State will co-opt the Church as a means to establish what God hath not wrought. Look at marriages by the Justice of the Peace, which is a long-standing breach against the sacrament of marriage, if you need more examples than this Florida case. Walk out if your church starts to dictate or suggest to you for whom or what you should vote. Inspiration and direction are matters of and subject to individual relationships with the Almighty.
No comments:
Post a Comment