So, really no difference between Theonomy and Sharia?

[salex]

OK the Reconstructionist Theonomist Facebook page says it is a public site, but i'm still going to parphrase

The question is related to Bill Cosby and goes like this.

How would the accusations against Bill Cosby play out in a theonomic state. Would the women be charged with slander, since they didn't press charges at the time? Would there be a statute of limitations on rape>

Answers (not a lot of people responded)

But, since there is no evidence there is no crime

AND if the witness / accuser is proven false, they should get the same punishment as the person they accuse would have got if found guilty.

And my favorite-- Since they did not "cry out" they can't cry rape now. And if they were not married or virgins the rape laws in the old testament don't really neccesarily apply to them. Plus, all they have is their own testimony, so can't really believe them.

One person disagreed and said "Oh, I think even non virgins and unmarried people could be raped...."

What I find sort of sickening is that these same people are the ones passing anti sharia laws but they clearly dream of a world that lives by them.

Certainly rape reports would go down if the woman could be stoned / imprisoned if the rapist was not found guilty. And the cry out thing annoys the crap out of me. The women in question say they were drugged, and threatened after. I know a woman who, as a 12 year old virgin, was raped and was told that 1) if she told, he would kill her family and 2) if she told, he'd do it again. SO, she didn't tell/cry out. So according to these assholes, she wasn't raped and might have been complicit (a stoneable offense to these assholes.)

Oh, and one of the leaders of this lovely group is Nathaniel Darnell, and there are Servens and Botkins and and other names you'd recognize in the mix.

I view them as a great evil on the land.

[anjulibai]

Just an FYI, sharia is NOT responsible for the horrific.things done by Islamist fundamentalists like ISIS.

Sharia is the general law that covers what Muslims are required by Allah to do.

There are different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, called fiqe (sp?) That interprets Sharia. This is done by Islamic judges called Ullama (sp?).

What one judge says is required is not the same as another judge. That's why there have been soooo many Islamic scholars who have come out as saying the actions of Islamist fundamentalists are against Islam - in their interpretation, it's the Islamists who are violating Sharia.

Those laws in the US wanting to ban Sharia would in actuality ban Islam itself.

People get this wrong about Sharia all the time. I blame sloppy and lazy reporting by the media.

Sorry for the lecture, this annoys me any time Sharia is brought up.

[anjulibai]

But yes, there is not much difference between what ISIS wants and what Christian theocrats want.

[Arete]

I'd say ISIS and the theonomists represent the same type of fringe in both religious traditions. And they really are fringe beliefs.

[FundieWatcher]

"But yes, there is not much difference between what ISIS wants and what Christian theocrats want."

Agreed. The only difference is ISIS has power and land. But what they want is similar.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Well, Isis murders non Muslims. Do Christian theonomists want people of other religions put to death?

[FundieWatcher]

"Do Christian theonomists want people of other religions put to death?"

If history is any indication.. Christians sure have killed for their beliefs. Of course we don't know what they would do if they came into power somewhere, safe bet it wouldn't be too pleasant for non Christians and any female.

[FeministShrew]

I was raped by my best friend's husband (and I condsidered him a friend, too). She was out of town, he was supposed to be working out of town. I went to feed their pets, & he was there. They had no close neighbors, so "crying out" was only making him angry. He was a big guy, no way could I fight him off, and fighting him was making him angrier. He told me "If you fight me I will hurt you. This is going to happen." So I stopped fighting & he did what he wanted.

I was married, but I guess according to them I'm just an adulterous slut, not raped at all.

[salex]

Just an FYI, sharia is NOT responsible for the horrific.things done by Islamist fundamentalists like ISIS.

Sharia is the general law that covers what Muslims are required by Allah to do.

There are different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, called fiqe (sp?) That interprets Sharia. This is done by Islamic judges called Ullama (sp?).

What one judge says is required is not the same as another judge. That's why there have been soooo many Islamic scholars who have come out as saying the actions of Islamist fundamentalists are against Islam - in their interpretation, it's the Islamists who are violating Sharia.

Those laws in the US wanting to ban Sharia would in actuality ban Islam itself.

People get this wrong about Sharia all the time. I blame sloppy and lazy reporting by the media.

Sorry for the lecture, this annoys me any time Sharia is brought up.

I appreciate it, as I HATE it when people (including myself) use the phrases wrong, and I spent (wasted) a day not long ago warning a clueless person who wanted to start bulldozing mosques in the USA and get rid of non christians... (see also slippery slope)

So what is the term I should use for the "justice" in various regions that ends up imprisoning or killing the raped, and doesn't believe women if a man testifies otherwise?

Other than archaic?

[salex]

Well, Isis murders non Muslims. Do Christian theonomists want people of other religions put to death?

Rushdoony is quoted as saying that "Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one's virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case."

And what is marvelous is that many Christians would fall under the idolatry or apostasy, and likely all/most non christians.

[Anny Nym]

Just an FYI, sharia is NOT responsible for the horrific.things done by Islamist fundamentalists like ISIS.

Sharia is the general law that covers what Muslims are required by Allah to do.

There are different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, called fiqe (sp?) That interprets Sharia. This is done by Islamic judges called Ullama (sp?).

What one judge says is required is not the same as another judge. That's why there have been soooo many Islamic scholars who have come out as saying the actions of Islamist fundamentalists are against Islam - in their interpretation, it's the Islamists who are violating Sharia.

Those laws in the US wanting to ban Sharia would in actuality ban Islam itself.

People get this wrong about Sharia all the time. I blame sloppy and lazy reporting by the media.

Sorry for the lecture, this annoys me any time Sharia is brought up.

Out of curiousity, to what laws are you refering?

[anjulibai]

I was raped by my best friend's husband (and I condsidered him a friend, too). She was out of town, he was supposed to be working out of town. I went to feed their pets, & he was there. They had no close neighbors, so "crying out" was only making him angry. He was a big guy, no way could I fight him off, and fighting him was making him angrier. He told me "If you fight me I will hurt you. This is going to happen." So I stopped fighting & he did what he wanted.

I was married, but I guess according to them I'm just an adulterous slut, not raped at all.

I am so sorry this happened to you.

[anjulibai]

Out of curiousity, to what laws are you refering?

There have been a number of states that have tried to outlaw Sharia. I think Tennessee and Kansas, but I don't remember any specifics.

Also, I looked up the spelling, and it's fiqh and ulama. Sorry about that.

[anjulibai]

Okay, Oklahoma had a law banning Sharia that was struck down by the Supreme Court, but I do remember some other states trying to outlaw Sharia.

Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee have bans, but they are unconstitutional.

[Anny Nym]

Okay, it may be a translation problem on my side, but doesn´t something hat to be in place first to get banned?

I don´t get that right now. What are they banning? I can´t imagine either Sharia law or Old Testament law is in place acting as official juristiction in the USA (or any other country with seperation of government and religion)... so, what are they banning from what?

[FundieWatcher]

Banning it from ever happening.

[anjulibai]

Okay, it may be a translation problem on my side, but doesn´t something hat to be in place first to get banned?

I don´t get that right now. What are they banning? I can´t imagine either Sharia law or Old Testament law is in place acting as official juristiction in the USA (or any other country with seperation of government and religion)... so, what are they banning from what?

I'm not sure where you live, but banned her in the US means it's illegal to practice it.

Meaning, they essentially tried to make it illegal for Muslims to practice their own religion.

[Anny Nym]

I'm not sure where you live, but banned her in the US means it's illegal to practice it.

Meaning, they essentially tried to make it illegal for Muslims to practice their own religion.

Isn´t that hard to control if the Sharia itself is loosely based and interpreted by many different people?

Letssay the topic diet: If Sharia regulates muslim dietary rules including "no Bacon!", if the whole Sharia itself is illegal to practise, then it would be illegal to not eat beacon...

A entirely different topic would be to ban religious laws from taking any ground in courts (or any kind of juristiction).

Which is a ver good thing actually... except one really really really likes theocratic absolutism, then probably not.

[salex]

In Kansas, they fanned the hysteria because some court case in Wichita was pending where the divorce was being argued that they split their property based on what some state politician was saying was sharia law. The problem with that is that, even if it was, since it was being settled in a state court, it had to fall within state law either way. to me, banning islam religious law is like banning RC or Jewish rules on divorce..... and only really count if the people involved go with htose. Otherwise, the secular laws are what take precedence. ONe can be divorced by the state but not by one's church.

huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/kansas-governor-signs-bil_n_1547145.html Here in Brownbackistan, it passed and was signed into law after sharia was removed and "foreign" was inserted.

"Hooper said legislators have often referred to sharia law in supporting such legislation, but he said they take the word out of the bill to stave off legal challenges. The Kansas bill does not mention sharia."

I find it amusing that Brownback signed this when he looks toward The Vatican City for direction on the way laws should be enforced and enacted. (Not to mention his Calvinist Judges)

I have yet to figure out Brownback's actual religion, unless it is Right Wing Pandering and Political Expediency. He's been a methodist, an Opus Dei Roman Catholic and some Evangelical something or other, and lived with The Family while in DC (and roomed with Former IHOP and all around religious nutter Lou Engle.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516

You too might be a bit concerned about the right wing religious politicians if you lived in my state!

[anjulibai]

Isn´t that hard to control if the Sharia itself is loosely based and interpreted by many different people?

Letssay the topic diet: If Sharia regulates muslim dietary rules including "no Bacon!", if the whole Sharia itself is illegal to practise, then it would be illegal to not eat beacon...

A entirely different topic would be to ban religious laws from taking any ground in courts (or any kind of juristiction).

Which is a ver good thing actually... except one really really really likes theocratic absolutism, then probably not.

Well, yeah...

Doesn't mean people won't try to do it.

Not sure what is so hard for you to understand about this.

[Coco]

In Kansas, they fanned the hysteria because some court case in Wichita was pending where the divorce was being argued that they split their property based on what some state politician was saying was sharia law. The problem with that is that, even if it was, since it was being settled in a state court, it had to fall within state law either way. to me, banning islam religious law is like banning RC or Jewish rules on divorce..... and only really count if the people involved go with htose. Otherwise, the secular laws are what take precedence. ONe can be divorced by the state but not by one's church.

huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/kansas-governor-signs-bil_n_1547145.html Here in Brownbackistan, it passed and was signed into law after sharia was removed and "foreign" was inserted.

"Hooper said legislators have often referred to sharia law in supporting such legislation, but he said they take the word out of the bill to stave off legal challenges. The Kansas bill does not mention sharia."

I find it amusing that Brownback signed this when he looks toward The Vatican City for direction on the way laws should be enforced and enacted. (Not to mention his Calvinist Judges)

I have yet to figure out Brownback's actual religion, unless it is Right Wing Pandering and Political Expediency. He's been a methodist, an Opus Dei Roman Catholic and some Evangelical something or other, and lived with The Family while in DC (and roomed with Former IHOP and all around religious nutter Lou Engle.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516

You too might be a bit concerned about the right wing religious politicians if you lived in my state!

That's terrifying, politicians and lawmakers permitted to change words to hide malicious intent. In this case it helped the people divorce according to their religion but... theonomists say they want to rule by religious beliefs. So then what protects citizens from the lawmakers changing wording so that anything goes. I'm not naive enough to think that this doesn't happen already, but when it's done based on shifty religion feelings and includes actual death penalties for difficult-to-prove "crimes", or blaming the weak, wow. We can't let that happen.

[salex]

I discovered the theonomist I was talking to was a woman, which might be worse than thinking she was a male, since she can't find a punishment listed in the Bible for a man who rapes an unmarried non virgin--- so if that happens, no punishment is likely per the bible. Women should not be exercising independent control over their sexuality. God has established whether a sexual act is sinful or not. The woman's consent to it does not determine whether or not it is sinful. And if God didn't specifically name a punishment for an act or sin, then there isn't one, and men shouldn't be going around creating laws that aren't covered specifically in the bible (OT in this case).

Oh, and if a man doesn't want to marry his daughter off to a rapist, he should make sure she is never in a position to be raped... since marrying the victim is the punishment for rape in the OT.

:angry-banghead:

[FJismyheadship]

I was raped by my best friend's husband (and I condsidered him a friend, too). She was out of town, he was supposed to be working out of town. I went to feed their pets, & he was there. They had no close neighbors, so "crying out" was only making him angry. He was a big guy, no way could I fight him off, and fighting him was making him angrier. He told me "If you fight me I will hurt you. This is going to happen." So I stopped fighting & he did what he wanted.

I was married, but I guess according to them I'm just an adulterous slut, not raped at all.

Did you tell your friend? Is she still married to the ass? That is terrible. I'm so sorry you went through that.

[Disengaged]

The very, very cynical part of me wonders if, since the people pushing sharia bans are usually the same people trying to weaken the separation of church and state with regard to christians, this isn't an attempt head off competition in their newly establish state level theocracies.

I honestly hope their real motivation is 'ignorant and fearful', or vote seeking among the same.

[salex]

The very, very cynical part of me wonders if, since the people pushing sharia bans are usually the same people trying to weaken the separation of church and state with regard to christians, this isn't an attempt head off competition in their newly establish state level theocracies.

I honestly hope their real motivation is 'ignorant and fearful', or vote seeking among the same.

Yes, I believe this is the case.

Here is a guy who is suggesting that while the feds can't, states can ban specific religions....

Scares the crap out of me, because I saw how many people on my Fakebook were cheering and liking this, with no thought of short or long term outcomes or how it will utterly change the country. WHich is, of course what they really want, I guess because they think their particular dogma will be the Official Christian Dogma....

I suspect tea partiers are all in on this one.

freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/time-states-ban-islam/

And, in Oklahoma .tulsaworld.com/news/government/oklahoma-lawmaker-john-bennett-doubles-down-on-anti-muslim-vitriol/article_13fdbb7c-eef9-5368-b4aa-12d56ea139d7.html