> > Not only that. I despise the idea of using any kind of religious based > law, > even if it were to regulate how people use their latrine.
All law is morality based. The distinction between religious and secular is something of a canard. Even secular law has some basis in religious beliefs. "Endowed by our creator" ... "one nation under God" ... "God save the queen"...and all that. And most overtly religious laws, like Sharia and the theocracy of the Old Testament, end up having to deal with mundane things, like who will collect the garbage or clean the latrine, at some point. I object to mixing incompatible systems knowingly. It's more important that a people live peaceably with their traditions and beliefs than that everybody believe and do the same thing. I object to certain systems on the basis of their metaphysical grounding (some religious, some secular), but don't care if someone else wants to live in such a system (somewhere else) as long as they don't want to slit my throat because I disagree. I do want to agree with the essence of your statement, Helio, but it's just not practical, precisely because law is basically state-enforced morality. Somebody's morality will win on election day. I think the bigger problem is making the law more about the mundane stuff and less about the moral stuff if at all possible. But when a judge plucks a new constitutional right out of his arse, imposing it on the legislators of all fifty states, contrary to the mores of the times, then there will be a reaction. It's sad but the reality of human affairs is that people don't agree on most things, and will find a way to disagree about the rest, when you're forced to debate stuff. Just look at OT as a microcosm of this problem. ;-) I was happily drifting into a more or less apolitical state until the election rolled around. I look forward to returning to it after November 4.... ...ah, who am I kidding! ;) - Bob > > HW > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > We agree mixing Sharia law with any form of Western constitutional > law as > > inherently contradictory, and detrimental to the latter. As far as I > know, > > this is all Helio agrees with me about. It has zip, nada, zilch to do > with > > hate--I think your obsession on this topic says more about you and > your > > hyper-judgmental-ism than it does about either of us. > > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
