- Dec 18, 2012
- 4,571
- 7,528
- 1,930
- Banned
- #1
https://steemit.com/omar/@munkle/la...n-devout-jews-uphold-constitution-and-us-laws
Law of Moses Says Girls Must Marry Their Rapist, So Can Devout Jews Uphold Constitution and US Laws?
The question has been asked, can an elected US Representative who happens to be Muslim be faithful to an oath to uphold the US Constitution? That is because some insist that Sharia Law and the Constitution are incompatible. The kerfuffle arose most recently when Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro was taken to task for suggesting that because Rep. Ilhan Omar was Muslim, she could not be faithful to her oath to uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Pirro said:
"Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which is in itself antithetical to the U.S. Constitution?"
The simple answer to this would be to merely point at the many Muslim majority countries which have long histories of secular government and law. If being a Muslim and secular law were incompatible, these types of countries would not exist.
Turkey, Indonesia, Kosovo, and Albania are a few examples of Muslim majority states that do not practice Sharia Law. Indonesia, although it has the world's largest Muslim population, recognizes six official religions.
Thus, the contention that a devout, practicing Muslim is fundamentally at odds with the US system of Constitutional law is false, and it equates all Muslims with the extremist elements which push for theocratic states whom, ironically, been funded and supported by the US and Israel as opponents to secular regimes such as that of Bashar al Assad's in Syria.
But to delve into the question further, how many other religions could be interpreted to be fundamentally at odds with our familiar system of Constitutional and common law? Is a devout Jew who adheres to the Torah, in which the Law of Moses is described at great length as the supreme law of the "One God," in the same predicament?
For example, among the 613 Commandments commonly accepted as emanating from the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, are the strictures:
"If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die"
Of course it would be ridiculous to say that all devout Jews favor the stoning of unmarried couples who have had sex. The fact is that all religions are subject to the interpretation of their adherents, more literal or less, more severe or less severe. If Sharia Law were the inevitable outcome of a Muslim majority or even a determined Muslim minority, then countries like Turkey would not exist. No one is getting stoned in Turkey or being forced to grow their beards.
Where we do find such extremist interpretations, they are more often than not propagated by extremist radical factions which have their origins in US foreign meddling for the purpose of toppling legitimate secular governments, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, an outgrowth of the Mujihadeen supported by the Carter administration, or ISIS in Syria
Law of Moses Says Girls Must Marry Their Rapist, So Can Devout Jews Uphold Constitution and US Laws?
The question has been asked, can an elected US Representative who happens to be Muslim be faithful to an oath to uphold the US Constitution? That is because some insist that Sharia Law and the Constitution are incompatible. The kerfuffle arose most recently when Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro was taken to task for suggesting that because Rep. Ilhan Omar was Muslim, she could not be faithful to her oath to uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Pirro said:
"Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which is in itself antithetical to the U.S. Constitution?"
The simple answer to this would be to merely point at the many Muslim majority countries which have long histories of secular government and law. If being a Muslim and secular law were incompatible, these types of countries would not exist.
Turkey, Indonesia, Kosovo, and Albania are a few examples of Muslim majority states that do not practice Sharia Law. Indonesia, although it has the world's largest Muslim population, recognizes six official religions.
Thus, the contention that a devout, practicing Muslim is fundamentally at odds with the US system of Constitutional law is false, and it equates all Muslims with the extremist elements which push for theocratic states whom, ironically, been funded and supported by the US and Israel as opponents to secular regimes such as that of Bashar al Assad's in Syria.
But to delve into the question further, how many other religions could be interpreted to be fundamentally at odds with our familiar system of Constitutional and common law? Is a devout Jew who adheres to the Torah, in which the Law of Moses is described at great length as the supreme law of the "One God," in the same predicament?
For example, among the 613 Commandments commonly accepted as emanating from the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, are the strictures:
- The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed — Deut. 22:29
- Men must not shave the hair off the sides of their head — Lev. 19:27
- Men must not shave their beards with a razor — Lev. 19:27
- The courts must carry out the death penalty of stoning — Deut. 22:24
- Not to tattoo the skin — Lev. 19:28
"If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die"
Of course it would be ridiculous to say that all devout Jews favor the stoning of unmarried couples who have had sex. The fact is that all religions are subject to the interpretation of their adherents, more literal or less, more severe or less severe. If Sharia Law were the inevitable outcome of a Muslim majority or even a determined Muslim minority, then countries like Turkey would not exist. No one is getting stoned in Turkey or being forced to grow their beards.
Where we do find such extremist interpretations, they are more often than not propagated by extremist radical factions which have their origins in US foreign meddling for the purpose of toppling legitimate secular governments, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, an outgrowth of the Mujihadeen supported by the Carter administration, or ISIS in Syria
