If your religion told you to do something or believe something that was not allowed in the constitution which would you follow?

For example, Hannity had a segment (a while back) about Sharia law and the Constitution and how Muslims believe in Sharia over the Constitution?

Is this right or wrong...?

Belief and action are separate things.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

If your religion told you to do something or believe something that was not allowed in the constitution which would you follow?

For example, Hannity had a segment (a while back) about Sharia law and the Constitution and how Muslims believe in Sharia over the Constitution?

Is this right or wrong...?

---

Hard to answer without specific examples. Obviously guys like MLK and many others have chosen religion or moral views over the existing law in the land.

Did Hannity even specify where Sharia Law and the Constitution conflict and how Muslims would disobey the Constitution?

I don't believe in most of the first amendment.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I don't believe in most of the first amendment.

---

This is exactly what I was getting at. I have been changing my beliefs about the constitution as I have gotten older.

Not really the OP's point, but the constitution should have required all laws requiring federal funds to implement them to have the tax for that particular law, and only that particular law, attached to that bill, and only that bill.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Who would put the US Constitution, a document written by men over 200 years ago, over a sincere belief in a law given by God?

I like the Constitution and all, but it's less important to me than the New Testament or the Torah.

---

I have always tried to balance freedom for others in my decision making. To allow people to have choice. But as I have gotten older I have questioned this. Why is "freedom" a concept I subscribe to over something I know to be true. And yes Muslims would say the same thing. And people will say that I am no different than a Muslim who wants sharia law instituted. They would tell me my truth is subjective and if everyone voted like this we would not be free. And to them I would say... You are right. At this point in my life I choose truth over freedom. There is a lot of abstract ideas in this but hopefully you get my drift.

Frok said:

---

Which is why I appreciate the first amendment. It prevents someone else from determining what truth is and forcing it on me.

---

I once was naive as you.

Well then enlighten me.

Quote:

---

At this point in my life I choose truth over freedom.

---

These aren't mutually exclusive though. I choose truth and also support freedom. Sometimes that freedom will be used in ways that are immoral. Sometimes that freedom will be used to reject the ways of Christ. But that is a choice that the individual should be free to make without coercion. It doesn't mean I value truth any less than freedom.

As for me, I hold no value in the Constitution. It's a piece of paper that gives the illusion of freedom.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

I have always tried to balance freedom for others in my decision making. To allow people to have choice. But as I have gotten older I have questioned this. Why is "freedom" a concept I subscribe to over something I know to be true.

---

Even if you "know" that your God's laws are the correct one, consider the value of humility. Or do the laws of your God grant the true believers the authority over others? Who are you to remove that choice or to impede anyone else's freedoms?

Why is freedom held as the highest value?

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Why is freedom held as the highest value?

---

Because it is the most respectful to the individual

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Why is freedom held as the highest value?

---

Who holds it as the highest value? In what context are people doing so? I think freedom in Christ is pretty freaking awesome. Freedom and faith aren't mutually exclusive. They aren't even in competition with each other. Of course, for me, my faith in Christ is paramount. That doesn't stop me from wanting freedom for others though, even if that freedom results in things I don't like.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

I have always tried to balance freedom for others in my decision making. To allow people to have choice. But as I have gotten older I have questioned this. Why is "freedom" a concept I subscribe to over something I know to be true.

---

Even if you "know" that your God's laws are the correct one, consider the value of humility. Or do the laws of your God grant the true believers the authority over others? Who are you to remove that choice or to impede anyone else's freedoms?

---

For example if someone is dying of a snake bite and I have anti venom. His freedom to choose is not above my duty to save him. He can kill himself on his own time. I will give him the anti venom.

The reason people hold freedom over truth is because they don't believe in ithe efficacy of the truth. Like the anti venom in my hypo they don't believe Christianity is the cure. But that's not my concern. My duty is higher than their choice at that moment. I will force the truth on them and they can then do what they want later.

I think the more you grow in faith the stronger this perspective becomes.

Let me ask you this Retired... Do laws have the effect of influencing belief?

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Let me ask you this Retired... Do laws have the effect of influencing belief?

---

No, I don't believe so. I can't imagine any law that's going to draw one closer to Christ. Christians using man's coercive institutions, however, is often cited as a major negative influence.

So what kind of theocratic laws are you wanting to enact? Can you give me some examples? Where are we ever charged with coercing people to the way of Christ? It seems odd to hold that given that even God does not coerce us to embrace Him. Case in point, the "rich young ruler" who Christ said would need to give away his possessions to follow Him. When he walked away, Christ didn't run over, grab him, and force him to give his stuff away. He let him make a free will choice.

RetiredAg said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Let me ask you this Retired... Do laws have the effect of influencing belief?

---

No, I don't believe so. I can't imagine any law that's going to draw one closer to Christ. Christians using man's coercive institutions, however, is often cited as a major negative influence.

---

Laws very much influence belief in a society because there are large swaths of people without a moral compass. This is a truth that gays know very well... Christians should be fighting for influence in all laws, governments, and organizations, regardless of whether it might encroach on someone's freedom. If Christians don't attempt to influence society someone else will.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Let me ask you this Retired... Do laws have the effect of influencing belief?

---

No, I don't believe so. I can't imagine any law that's going to draw one closer to Christ. Christians using man's coercive institutions, however, is often cited as a major negative influence.

---

Laws very much influence belief in a society because there are large swaths of people without a moral compass. This is a truth that gays know very well... Christians should be fighting for influence in all laws, governments, and organizations, regardless of whether it might encroach on someone's freedom. If Christians don't attempt to influence society someone else will.

---

We don't influence society through coercion. We don't influence society by getting our hands on man's power. We influence society by being the hands and feet of Christ. By being ambassadors of His Kingdom, here and now. By imitating the self-sacrificial love of Christ that was displayed at Calvary.

The temptation of political power was one Christ explicitly rejected in the wilderness. Political power = coercion, and we are not charged to coerce people to Christ. We are called to be a witness to Christ and the saving power of His love.

Political power is absolutely unnecessary to influence society.

And again, how do you reconcile coercing people to Christ (of course, ignoring the fact that coercion doesn't change hearts) with the non-coercive methods of Christ? Your position flies in the face of that. As already pointed out, the Prodigal Son and the "rich young ruler" are great examples of this.

Coercion is entirely unnecessary. Unnecessary and counterproductive.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

Laws very much influence belief in a society because there are large swaths of people without a moral compass. This is a truth that gays know very well... Christians should be fighting for influence in all laws, governments, and organizations, regardless of whether it might encroach on someone's freedom. If Christians don't attempt to influence society someone else will.

---

The Great Doc Daneeka, His Holiness, haven been granted moral authority by God Almighty Himself, shall have authority over his fellow man to mandate, upon threat of legal prosecution, that their moral and religious beliefs be in line with his understanding of God. . . .

Something like that?

My point is that there are masses of people who are like sheep and believe the morality of the law of the land. If you lead a horse to water and he drinks it on his own was the horse coerced.

Submit or die is wrong. We are not Muslims. I get it. But if you are able to subconsciously affect the masses and they end up believe of their own accord... Why is this bad?

If you fight for Christian influence in all organizations why is this bad?

Doc Daneeka said:

---

My point is that there are masses of people who are like sheep and believe the morality of the law of the land. If you lead a horse to water and he drinks it on his own was the horse coerced.

Submit or die is wrong. We are not Muslims. I get it. But if you are able to subconsciously affect the masses and they end up believe of their own accord... Why is this bad?

If you fight for Christian influence in all organizations why is this bad?

---

If you lead a horse to water and he doesn't drink, so you stop feeding it and beat it with a stick until it does drink, was the horse coerced?

It doesn't sound like you are suggesting submit or die. . . it sounds like you are suggesting submit or be flogged or ostrasized until you submit.

Doc Daneeka said:

---

My point is that there are masses of people who are like sheep and believe the morality of the law of the land. If you lead a horse to water and he drinks it on his own was the horse coerced.

Submit or die is wrong. We are not Muslims. I get it. But if you are able to subconsciously affect the masses and they end up believe of their own accord... Why is this bad?

If you fight for Christian influence in all organizations why is this bad?

---

You seem to conflate having influence with possessing power to coerce. Again, that is not the way modeled to us by Christ. His way is non-coercive, even knowing that many will reject it.

So what laws do you think will draw people closer to Christ? What are some examples of laws you'd enact that will have an impact on a person's heart?

Quote:

---

My point is that there are masses of people who are like sheep and believe the morality of the law of the land.

---

Then present the world with a clear alternative. Simply tweaking the ways of the world isn't providing that clear alternative. In fact, instead of bemoaning laws you don't like, I believe we are to look at these as opportunities to present a new way, not centered on coercive power, but on self-sacrifice, truth and love. Coercion is, IMO, a lack of trust in God and the power of the Spirit.

Also, do you want to address the 2 clear examples of the non-coercive way of Christ that I've presented?

You use the word coercion and that's wrong. If a store sets up an entrance that goes through a certain aisle first I don't consider that "coercion". That is a marketing tactic. We know for a fact, that laws influence the morality of certain people to and extent and that they end up believing in certain ideas. Why would Christians not attempt to influence all organizations like this. If influence can lead to true belief how is influence bad?

Doc Daneeka said:

---

You use the word coercion and that's wrong. If a store sets up an entrance that goes through a certain aisle first I don't consider that "coercion". That is a marketing tactic. We know for a fact, that laws influence the morality of certain people to and extent and that they end up believing in certain ideas. Why would Christians not attempt to influence all organizations like this. If influence can lead to true belief how is influence bad?

---

You keep using bad examples, when Christ already gave us clear ones. Laws are backed through coercion. If you violate the law, armed men seek you out and, depending on the severity of the infraction, either steals your money or throws you in a cage. If I didn't want to go through that particular aisle in your example, then I'm free to leave the store with no penalty.

Again, and I'm not sure why you continue to ignore this - Christ gave us example after example. He never coerced people to believe in Him. That would have been counterproductive. He did present a different way than the world offers. Some accepted, but most rejected it. He never called for them to be arrested or fined for rejecting His way. We see it in the parable of the Prodigal Son. We see it with the rich young ruler. His way isn't a way of coercion. The gospel isn't spread through the sword. It's not by political power that the world will know we're His followers. It's through our love....the self-sacrificial, non-coercive love of Christ that we're to be imitators of.

You have a wierd view of the bible. Are the things done by Christ the only way things are to be done? if Christ rode donkeys into town are we only to enter town on donkeys?

Let's be grown ups for a second

Didn't Christ say render unto Ceasar what is Caesars? Let's make Ceasar a Christian...