Lots Of Anger Over Questions On ‘God’s Law’

[W!nston]

Lots Of Anger Over Questions On ‘God’s Law’
CapitolHillBlue | By Doug Thompson | Septermber 9 2015

A fair amount of passionate wrath of Christians angered by my column about what I believe is the misuse of religion by those who claim “God’s law” overrides the law of the land and must be followed without question or verification,.

Many assumed that since I wrote a piece that raised questions about the practice that I must — of course — be an atheist.

The column, at no point, indicated what I — myself — believed in. It simply reported questions that I felt could, and should, be raised. As for my more specific beliefs on deities, they are none of your business. My religious beliefs are my business and not yours.

I do not believe in organized religion. That does not mean that I don’t believe in God. I feel that organized religions are business enterprises that twist the words of God for personal and commercial gain. I have debated that belief many times over the years with ministers, at meetings and on TV and the Internet.

The mistaken assumptions of my atheism comes as a surprise to a my minister friends — Christians, a couple of rabbis, a handful of priests and others — who enjoy debating religion when we gather, have lunch or drink coffee. I carry a 21-year chip from Alcoholics Anonymous, a recovery group based on religion.

I’m also a newspaperman. Have been one for more than half a century, except for a decade-long venture into the dark side of life as a political operative. Legendary Chicago newspaperman Findley Peter Dunne once wrote that it is the role of a newspaperman to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

If Tuesday’s column, The Terrorism of God’s Law, afflicted some of you then perhaps you are too comfortable in your assumptions. It’s my job to raise questions in the minds of readers. Mission accomplished.

While a few readers seized on a typo (corrected) on the year of the bombing of the World Trade Center, more than a few made incorrect assumptions about me, this web site, or the focus of the article.

I laughed at the assumption by one complainer that Capitol Hill Blue is a “new web site.” In fact, CHB is the oldest political news site on the web — established on October 1, 1994. We will be celebrating our 21st birthday in a few weeks.

Others demanded I be fired for what I wrote. That’s difficult. I own the place. The only person who can fire me is me. Ain’t gonna happen.

Several assumed I’m a “liberal” or a “Democrat.” Wrong again. I’m a political agnostic. I’ve never registered with any party, I vote for the person not the party and my beliefs are all over the place. I’m a gun owners who often carries a concealed weapon (legally), a man who believes in a woman’s right to choose and the right of anyone to marry or have sex with members of the opposite or same sex. I’m pro-business on many issues, support capital punishment and oppose legalization of drugs, including marijuana.

The column byline stated the article was an opinion piece. Apparently some of you missed that part. I wrote my first newspaper column for The Roanoke Times in 1966. Been writing opinion columns ever since. My newspaper career began when I sold my first news photo to The Farmville Herald in 1959. Started working for a newspaper, The Floyd Press, in 1963. Joined The Roanoke Times in 1965.

One poster, whose comments were not cleared by our spam filter, suggested “your mind is destroyed by too many blowjobs performed on your gay buddies.” That came as a surprise of my wife of 35 years. Yes, I have several gay friends but I’m a flaming heterosexual. Always have been. I do support gay rights and gay marriage. Always have.

As a newspaperman who also writes for the Internet, shoots photographs for publication in print and online and shoots video for TV stations and the Web, I approach all assignments with an open, but speculative, mind. My first City Editor once told me: “If your mother says she loves you, confirm it with a second source.” Over the years, I have found that ignoring that piece of advice can cost you. The only retractions I have had to write came from pieces that were not confirmed with a second source. My bad.

My skepticism applies to religion as well. Much of what is preached by ministers and other members of the clergy is thinly sourced, often third-hand information. The Bible is touted as “the word of God.” In my opinion, it is the word of individuals who quoted others about what God might have said, assuming that anyone actually talked to any deity. It is a book of tall tales with stories about parting seas and other natural phenomena. Both the Old and New Testaments talk of water turning to wine, demons spouting threats and warnings, men walking on water and unassisted ascensions into the skies.

Imagine the responses if any news media source reported such as part of today’s news. Let’s see the video.

In 1977, I took part in a panel discussion in St. Louis on news media and religion. The panel had a protestant minister, a priest, a rabbi, an atheist and myself. One member of the audience asked the priest: “Father, why are there so many religions?”

His response: “In many cases, it depends on what portion of the Bible you choose to accept as gospel or if there is another doent you find as a holy guide.”

That brought a question from me: “Father, if you are saying it is acceptable to accept or not accept parts of the Bible, how can you then disregard the atheist here who chooses to not accept any holy book or religious belief?”

He paused and then replied: “I don’t know. I can only answer that I believe. Others should make their own choices.”

Lots of talk about freedom of religion but not much about freedom of choice.

Too bad.

SOURCE

I found this editorial piece interesting, funny and it hit the nail on the head about organized religion.

I thought some of you might agree or maybe not

I think my favorite quote from it is this:

I do not believe in organized religion. That does not mean that I don’t believe in God. I feel that organized religions are business enterprises that twist the words of God for personal and commercial gain.

 

[gb2000ie]

Thanks for sharing, interesting indeed, and the bit that caught your eye is the same bit that caught my eye - totally agree with the about organised religion, though I disagree about God - put me firmly in the agnostic camp - I know I don't know, and that's all I know when it comes to there being a God.

B.

 

[topdog]

He paused and then replied: “I don’t know. I can only answer that I believe. Others should make their own choices.

Well, personally, I am Christian but that's the most intelligent statement I've heard on religion in a while. Particularly the "I don't know" part.

 

[tiogilito]

Well, my take on "God's law" is this: If you believe something is God's law, please follow it, but with one restriction: whatever you do must not ever affect even slightly those people who do not share your belief.

When we get to a situation that YOUR "God's law" tells OTHERS, people who do not share your belief what they may or may not do, I get very ratty.

In Europe we have both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion, and it took us centuries to get that far.

But now we are quite happy to put this hard earned right at risk... as often we have forgotten how hard these rights were won. Separation of Church and State, what a great idea. How does that square up with establishing sharia courts who openly discriminate against women and gays, approve the beating of wives and children?

 

[fkboy1]

The REAL Laws of God:

# Love ALL creation (including yourself) & Love it Unconditionally
# Do not judge anyone but yourself
# Drop the 'E' & let it 'GO'
# Live & Let Live
# Have fun, be happy, enjoy your life experience and help others enjoy theirs.
# All else is Crap

PS: These 'Laws' may be detrimental to Organized Religion......and I hope they are! :thumbs up:

 

[tiogilito]

While we are at it... I have some questions for the big boss, God himself....

a) Why did you make men with nipples? And what's the point of malaria?

b) If you want people to follow your law, why do different people have so many contradictory versions of it?
Did you not want to express yourself clearly? Then, it, seems you don;t really care or you enjoy messing up people's lives? So how does that make you "good"?
Or is it you COULD not express yourself clearly? How then are you all powerful?

c) I always wondered about this... Being all powerful, can you make a rock which is so heavy you cannot lift it up?


And finally I have some questions for Allah too... So, Allah, good Muslim MEN get 72 virgins. And women? All they get is a job. They can work as a "virgin" for free for all eternity.

Do you not believe in equality? I mean, what kind of reward is a job like that? Why not just get a job as a proper prostitute, get paid, have holidays, have a hobby like gardening... ? I mean Bangkok really out-competes you there Allah! They even have a union there for prostitutes!

Maybe you don't really understand what women want: They like one or two hunks, a cook, a chauffeur, diamonds and shoes. No woman ever has enough shoes.

So, given your total cluelessness about women, maybe you are gay? Or maybe you just don't out enough?

 

[topdog]

The REAL Laws of God:

# Love ALL creation (including yourself) & Love it Unconditionally
# Do not judge anyone but yourself
# Drop the 'E' & let it 'GO'
# Live & Let Live
# Have fun, be happy, enjoy your life experience and help others enjoy theirs.
# All else is Crap

PS: These 'Laws' may be detrimental to Organized Religion......and I hope they are! :thumbs up:

Of course, these rules should be the point of religion. (But often isn't.) Your list us very similar to a message Barack Obama gave in 2009:

We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’ The Torah commands, ‘That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.’ In Islam, there is a hadith that reads ‘None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.’ And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule – the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

It is an ancient rule; a simple rule; but also one of the most challenging. For it asks each of us to take some measure of responsibility for the well-being of people we may not know or worship with or agree with on every issue. Sometimes, it asks us to reconcile with bitter enemies or resolve ancient hatreds. And that requires a living, breathing, active faith. It requires us not only to believe, but to do – to give something of ourselves for the benefit of others and the betterment of our world.”

 

[gb2000ie]

In Europe we have both freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion, and it took us centuries to get that far.

This I agree with.

How does that square up with establishing sharia courts who openly discriminate against women and gays, approve the beating of wives and children?

Can you give me some links to back that up? I am not aware of any nation in the EU where citizens do not have the right to choose to use the secular courts.

I believe some people have the right to choose sharia courts in some situations (arbitration-like situations I think), but they can't be forced on anyone. Is that not how you balance freedom of religion with freedom from religion?

But, if you have evidence that there is a country in Europe that has granted sharia courts a power over the government and the judiciary, please link me to the relevant legislation.

B.

 

[tiogilito]

Yes, IN THEORY of course you can choose, in England.

The reality is quite different, sadly...

Suppose the following situation. A Muslim man takes a second wife, and "marries" her in a mosque. Later, for what ever reason she wants to have a divorce. She cannot go to a secular court because in English law she is not married so there is no divorce to grant. This means obviously also no maintenance.

So she has no option but to resort to a sharia court. But the rules for divorce in Islamic law are very different: while a man is legally divorced by simply saying the word "talaq" (divorce) three times in front of his wife, and no further action is needed, for a woman she needs the consent of her husband or she needs to prove that her husband did not try to have sex with her for more than 3 months. Remember also that the word of a woman counts half of the word of of a man, so if the husband contradicts her, he will always be believed no matter what. Also, the only settlement in a divorce she is entitled to in sharia is the wedding gift she received (called marh)

The same applies to women who did not register their marriage with in a civil office, and most Muslim marriages never get registered. Muslim men know this and avoid it like the plague.

I know two English women who each married a Muslim, and they found out that they cannot get a proper divorce. All they could do was to run and hide.

And seriously, can you imagine an abused Muslim woman go to an English court to get a divorce? She would be disowned by all her family and friends, and her very life would be in danger for "dishonouring" the family.

So in many case the idea that the use of such courts is like a voluntary thing is quite misleading.

In case you wanted proof that a husband may beat his wife in Islam, here are some sources:

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Contemporary translations sometimes water down this word, but it is the same one used in verse 8:12 and clearly means 'to strike'.

Qur'an (38:44) - "And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath..."

From the Hadith (saying and actions of Mohammed, the second most important for beleifs and laws in Islam after the Qur'an...):

Bukhari (72:715) - A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being "greener" than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband,but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.

So this source says Mohammed approved of wife beating.

Muslim (4:2127) - Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."

And this one says he did it himself.

 

[tiogilito]

many countries say they have a separation between church(es) and state, only one really applies this principe : France !
Germany, England and Sweden don't even pretend ...

yes, one of the better things Robespierre et ses potes came up with, and France really does have the better system for that. In Germany they collect church contributions through taxes, would you believe... but in return churches in Germany are also doing rather a lot more in terms of social work than for example in England.

In the UK, the Queen in the nominal head of the church, but she may not be involved in politics. Many here are find is outdated that any Church of England bishop has a seat in the house of Lords. But, at the end of the the house of lords is really little more than a regular geriatric fancy dress party...


In reality, the UK is one of the least religious countries in Europe, and ignorance about Christianity is really quite surprising...

By comparison, religion in Germany or France is a lot more important than here. But you are right, we are sticklers for silly traditions much more so than in France.

 

[gb2000ie]

Yes, IN THEORY of course you can choose, in England.
...

What you describe is a failure of law enforcement, not a problem with freedom of or from religion.

Forcing people into contracts against their will is not legal in the UK - it is a crime!

It strikes me as odd that those against freedom of religion for Muslims, are not against the same freedoms for Christians. When is the last time anyone spent time insisting Cannon courts are a threat to freedom?

No - the problem is not that the law allows people to choose religious courts, it's that the authorities are tolerating women being denied their legally 'guaranteed' rights.

B.

 

[tiogilito]

What about religious courts that sanction the beating of women and the stoning of homosexuals? Do the belong into a European country?

If you got married in a church, you automatically get registered in the civil registrar's office. That means you can get a divorce when you need to. You do not need to use a clerical court. The Church might not be be happy with you if you do that, but they cannot do anything to you.

This simply is not the case for a Muslim marriage. The sharia court cannot be avoided, as almost always registration has not taken place, as iT explained above.

The problem is not that the law allows people to choose religious courts, it's that the authorities are tolerating women being denied their legally 'guaranteed' rights.

Yes exactly. We should only have one law for everybody. The consequence of your statement is that you cannot approve of sharia courts, as that is exactly what they do.

 

[gb2000ie]

What about religious courts that sanction the beating of women and the stoning of homosexuals? Do the belong into a European country?

According to the law, no religious court is above the national (or international) law.

If a religious court does something illegal, it is criminal, and should be persued by the authorities.

We saw the danger of not doing this when the Catholic church decided to deal with child abusing priests through their religious courts, and not report the abuses to the civil courts.

The problem is not that the church has courts, but that the Church's courts broke the law!

If you got married in a church, you automatically get registered in the civil registrar's office. That means you can get a divorce when you need to. You do not need to use a clerical court. The Church might not be be happy with you if you do that, but they cannot do anything to you.

That is an anachronism caused by the close relationship between Christian churches and the British state!

This simply is not the case for a Muslim marriage. The sharia court cannot be avoided, as almost always registration has not taken place, as iT explained above.

The problem is not that sharia courts exist, it's that men are being allowed enslave women by the UK civil authorities.

Yes exactly. We should only have one law for everybody. The consequence of your statement is that you cannot approve of sharia courts, as that is exactly what they do.

No - the hierarchy is very clear in the law, national courts out-rank religious courts, be they sharia or cannon. Religious courts are not above the law, at least in theory, and if they are in practice, that is a law enforcement issue, not an issue with the law itself.

To have freedom FROM as well as freedom OF religion, you need to allow the institutions of all religions to exist, but, you must ensure they do not break the law of the land, because that law trumps all religious laws.

B.

 

[tiogilito]

Now here is rub with that idea... Canon Law is about how the church governs itself and its members. It does not even propose traditional punishments as imprisonment. A priest who abused children is in cannon law forbidden to exercise his office. It is them for the CIVIL law of the country to deal with the criminal offence.

Sharia is very different. Islam does not know any separation of the secular and the religious. Islam, Muslims will tell you is not really a religion, but a complete system of life, making rules about anything and everything down to the smallest detail, such as with which foot you must enter the toilet.

If a Christian does something again canon law such as reject some doctrines, he can be excommunicated.

If a Muslim does something that is forbidden in Islam, the punishment can be very real, from whipping for drinking beer to stoning for adultery, or beheading for leaving Islam.

In other words, canon law neither replaces nor contradicts civil law, but Sharia very much makes the claim that is must replace civil law. To a Muslim Sharia is DIVINE, so very much superior to man-made laws, specially those made by unbelievers.

So can we really afford to tolerate a legal system that loudly and clearly demands that our own legal system must be abolished?

There are a great many areas in which sharia contradicts our law, so how can allow it to co-exist? I thought we should have equality before the the law?

In fact, in Europe, as far as I know, it only in the UK where we actually have such nonsense.

 

[gb2000ie]

Now here is rub with that idea... Canon Law is about how the church governs itself and its members. It does not even propose traditional punishments as imprisonment. A priest who abused children is in cannon law forbidden to exercise his office. It is them for the CIVIL law of the country to deal with the criminal offence.

If only the Christian churches did cooperate with civil authorities and treat child abuse as a civil offence

Also, it's not that long since canon courts sentenced people to death in spectaculary horrible ways.

Sharia is very different. Islam does not know any separation of the secular and the religious. Islam, Muslims will tell you is not really a religion, but a complete system of life, making rules about anything and everything down to the smallest detail, such as with which foot you must enter the toilet.

So like what you can eat on what days? All churches have a history of this kind of thing. You might have a look at Jewish laws, and the Amish, very similar indeed.

If a Christian does something again canon law such as reject some doctrines, he can be excommunicated.

True today. But again, not long ago things were very different.

If a Muslim does something that is forbidden in Islam, the punishment can be very real, from whipping for drinking beer to stoning for adultery, or beheading for leaving Islam.

Not in Europe! No sharia court in the UK can legally execute anyone!

In other words, canon law neither replaces nor contradicts civil law, but Sharia very much makes the claim that is must replace civil law.

You might need to refresh yourself on the details of how the Catholic church authorities dealt with the child abuse scandals. They very much considered their own courts above petty local laws.

Just like any sharia court that thinks it is above the law, they are both wrong. The law is clear.

To a Muslim Sharia is DIVINE, so very much superior to man-made laws, specially those made by unbelievers.

To a Catholic ....

Just look at the infamous Kim!

All religious people BELIEVE their faith is above the law, but they are deluded as a fact of law.

So can we really afford to tolerate a legal system that loudly and clearly demands that our own legal system must be abolished?

In a free country, they are absolute free to demand what ever they want to demand. They just won't get their way!

If you believe in democracy and free speech you absolute have to 'tolerate' speech you don't like!

There are a great many areas in which sharia contradicts our law, so how can allow it to co-exist? I thought we should have equality before the the law?

Err ... sharia does not 'co-exist', it is CLEARLY subordinate to British law!

In fact, in Europe, as far as I know, it only in the UK where we actually have such nonsense.

No, you don't even have it in the UK - there are no sharia courts that are equal to British law, let alone superior to it.

B.

 

[tiogilito]

So it seems you support the existence of sharia courts which some have no choice but to use. I pointed out that sharia enshrines the worst kind of discrimination, against women and against gays, to mention but some. How can anyone not be horrified that we allow tribunals that open support wife beating and child abuse (the age a "woman" may be married off in sharia is 9, and her parents may give consent for her.).

So me such institutions are iniquitous and utterly abhorrent. Call me old fashioned, but I actually believe that all should be equal before the law, and there should be the same law for everybody. Things like sanctioning child abuse, wife beating and discriminating are shameful to allow, and making this acceptable for SOME people in the UK dehumanises them by holding them to a much lower moral standard that ourselves.

Perhaps you find this clip interesting



The judge is no other than the well known Anjem Chowdry, the guy who "trained" the Woolwich murderers, and who has recently been found to recruit for ISIS.

 

[gb2000ie]

So it seems you support the existence of sharia courts which some have no choice but to use.

WRONG - the laws of the UK give everyone the right not to go anywhere near those courts.

It's the fact that some people are effectively enslaving women and preventing them from accessing their legal rights that's the problem!

The law is fine, the enforcement of the law sucks!

B.

 

[skyward]

WRONG - the laws of the UK give everyone the right not to go anywhere near those courts.
...

The law is fine, the enforcement of the law sucks!

B.

One thought that strikes me is that state law may be effective at controlling:

1. A private individual, with limited means.

2. A small group, eg. a family, with limited means.

3. A corporation or company. However large companies have vast resources and even a single corporation may have enough clout to change a law that is inconvenient to them.

4. A wealthy private individual. However, depending on their wealth and connections, they may be able to twist the law to their own advantage. Think Bob Durst. Still free as a bird!

5. A large, extremely tight-nit community of individuals?

For no. 5, I am thinking of the Church of Scientology. Amazing that they were able to practically force the IRS to grant them tax exempt status. Basically members of the 'church' started to sue the state for a myriad of reasons, but they sued as individuals, each in their own right. The result was that the 'system' started to clog up. In other words they were able to cripple the law. And they won!

So if you are a scientologist, there is another law you to follow. I have no doubt that they use brainwashing. But then doesn't the state try to do that also? Albeit using 'soft' methods like media propaganda, tight control of the education system, etc.?

Maybe that's why enforcement has to be limited, if the law of the land becomes too over-bearing and prescriptive then it just ends up driving people into one group or another to escape what they perceive as state opression...

For example imagine someone leaves a religion because they don't like the rule about having to wear a certain hat or dress. He or she can seek the protection of the state if they need to. But, having left the religion, they join a nudist colony (stranger things have happened!). But now they find the state is the enemy because it tells they they must wear clothing in some contexts. Even if they only practice nudism in the family home, a social worker may object, feeling that nudism is not acceptable for the children of the home. :/

So whether you want to live a very conservative or a very liberal life, at some point along the spectrum you will probably come to see the state not as saviour, but as oppressor. Most people I think try to position themselves in the center of the spectrum for a quiet, if dull life. But then, does that just mean that the state has kind of pushed them into another kind of box?

 

[skyward]

Another interesting group to discuss is the Travelling Community. Some feel that women are very oppressed, and there are other issues like if children are not sent to school. An entire travelling community will actually up and disappear in order to keep children away from 'the clutches of the state', as they see it. Even when the child ends up in a classroom for however short a time, they may stubbornly refuse to learn to read or write, feeling it is just a huge constraint on the mind. In a sense having to write things down can weaken natural memory etc so they have a point.

The Roma culture has existed for centuries and centuries, Hitler tried to exterminate them, Stalin try to ban them from travelling... but it is an extremely resilient culture.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if an individual wants to leave a group then fine they should be able to seek the protection of the state, but at the same time it's wrong when the state tried to oppress or even eradicate a minority culture.

The Travelling Community may be technically non-complaint with a whole host of laws, but perhaps the wiser states have learned it is better to minimise enforcement.