Would like your opinions on this....a resolution before the UN that will make all member nations establish laws making 'blaspemy' unlawful. Criticism of Islam comes under the heading of blasphemy according to the UN.
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Blatently unconstitutional in the US on a couple of fronts. We have protections from freedom of speech, and we have a prohibition against the gov't from taking sides on religious issues.
[email protected]
Choir Loft
Seems to me such a resolution would make all religions other than Islam illegal. Since Islam claims to be the only valid religion, any belief or statement otherwise would be blasphemy and therefore punishable under the law.
It would make the beheaders knife very attractive for those who hold their religion dear above all else.
It might make atheistic nations like China look very attractive for believers of any faith.
As an aside, does the UN actually do anything anymore?
its me, hollering from the choir loft...
It would make the beheaders knife very attractive for those who hold their religion dear above all else.
It might make atheistic nations like China look very attractive for believers of any faith.
As an aside, does the UN actually do anything anymore?
its me, hollering from the choir loft...
Lol, I hope you meant protections FOR freedom of speech.River Jordan said:
That said, yes, it would be blatantly unconstitutional for the US government to introduce laws that prohibited one from criticising another's faith or religion, if that law favoured one religion over another. But what if it applied to all religions, including Christianity? It would deprive us of proclaiming truth about the falshoods of other faiths, and the dangers they pose for truth. Yet would an 'all faith' prohibition of criticism be a way of getting around constitutional arguments? But hey, Im from NZ, what do I know of the inner workings of those who interpret the law in the US. But from what I have read and studied, it would appear to me that the supreme court considered the costitution as a document written not with indelible ink on stone, but lightly applied pencil on paper easily erased if the circumstances see fit.It is not whether the UN does anything any more...the problem is with local govts who listen to and hang on every word that the UN says. It is what they do that concerns and affects me. Will Islam obey such a law? Of course not. Sharia law overshadows every other law. Sharia law stipulates that anyone who transgresses such law...including "blasphemy" aka criticism (even of genocide when done under the flag of 'defending Islam" and Jihad)is ripe for targeting and disposal. For example the recent incident in London where a group of Muslim youth bent on protecting what they deemed 'sacred', almost beat to death a Florida student studying in their "territory". They accused the student of not being "local". Yeah, right. Good though that they were found, arrested, and could face a long jail term.[email protected] said:
On that note, it might be interesting to add that in the dark ages the papacy also had similar attitudes as Islam. Anyone who would not bow to papal authority was persecuted and often killed if they didn't "repent". Those laws are canonical. They still stand. And trust me please when I warn that if Rome ever gains such influence today as she had then, she will practice the very same atrocities as she did then.
The pope is about to address congress. Among other things, what's the bet he proposes laws promoting the sacredness of Sunday. and at the same time demanding freedom of religion. Of course, it would be unconstitutional for him to ask the US to enact laws on religious grounds, but what if laws were passed to protect sunday on grounds of 'family values and tradition'? Mmmmm. Then if the UN laws against 'hate speech' and criticism of another's faith were passed in the US, anyone criticising Sunday laws would be targeted as transgressors against the law. Despite such laws being passed under the pretense of 'family values'. What then of the Sabbath keeper. What then of the honest Muslim observing Friday? What of those who would choose to honor no particular day being atheists and wanting to work? What then of freedom of religion? What then of freedom of speech? You can bet your bottom dollar that the churches would jump at any opportunity to promote and protect their sundays, and at the same time claiming to be defenders of free speech and upholders and protectors of the constitution.
Hi brakelite,brakelite said:
Whilst I share the same concern about the stupidity of the UN and it's attack on freedom of speech (to satisfy deluded Muslim countries, which make up the largest voting block in the UN), I disagree with your fear of the Pope and Sunday laws.
I attended Adventist meetings 30 years ago warning about impending Sunday laws, and none of this came to pass.
And the Catholic church is in decline anyway.
However, scripture gives numerous warnings about turning back to works of the law to determine righteousness. I suggest you beware of legalistic doctrine instead. The law is not of faith, Gal 3:12.
[email protected]
Choir Loft
I seriously doubt the Pope will address congress and suggest anything at all resembling what one might call 'traditional values' or 'religious policy'. His track record so far suggests the pontiff will rubber stamp legislation making gay-anything the primary life style of choice (it isn't already?). I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the coming months and years the chief cleric of the Roman church would advocate abortion, priestly marriage (nothing wrong with that - it's just against tradition), and some sort of apology for the defense of Christendom against Muslim invasion during the Middle Ages.
"Rome, Sweet Rome,
Be it ever so sinful,
There's no place like Rome."
- Malcolm Muggeridge
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
"Rome, Sweet Rome,
Be it ever so sinful,
There's no place like Rome."
- Malcolm Muggeridge
that's me, hollering from the choir loft...
Yep, good catch!brakelite said:Lol, I hope you meant protections FOR freedom of speech.
I don't think so. We have a very long legal history of allowing speech, no matter how offensive some may find it. It's why the Westboro Baptists are able to engage in offensive, hateful speech at funerals. Pretty much everyone is offended by it, but they still have the right to do it.
Mmmm, so you would agree that any UN inspired "hate speech" law would be entirely unconstitutional, even if applied equally to all?River Jordan said:
Mmmm, I wonder if we could one day expect an apology for the numbers of pedophile priests being hidden in parishes all around the world.[email protected] said:
Haz....do we make void the law through faith? God forbid we establish the law. this according to Paul in Romans....so if it is "legalistic" to follow God's law, then it is a good thing to be legalistic....
On the subject of the UN, do they care for the constitution of the USA or any other country for that matter? The constitution of the US is under attack by the politicians, who do not seem to follow it anymore...next step, UN troops patrolling the streets of America ,and the treasonous politicians swearing allegiance to the UN instead of the USA constitution...it unofficially happening already.
Remember Salvation is through the Son of God, His grace and commandments, and not the sungod/satan and his days of sunday, dec 25th and easter all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origins.
On the subject of the UN, do they care for the constitution of the USA or any other country for that matter? The constitution of the US is under attack by the politicians, who do not seem to follow it anymore...next step, UN troops patrolling the streets of America ,and the treasonous politicians swearing allegiance to the UN instead of the USA constitution...it unofficially happening already.
Remember Salvation is through the Son of God, His grace and commandments, and not the sungod/satan and his days of sunday, dec 25th and easter all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origins.
You are aware Article VI of the United States Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.River Jordan said:
In such, the U.S. Supreme Court is bound to adhere to decisions and ruling of the United Nations World Court, also know as the International Court of Justice having signed the UN treaty in June 1945 several months following the death of President F.D.Roosevelt in April of 1945. The US Senate ratified the UN treaty in July 1945 and the UN Charter began in force in October in 1945.
Of course the President's death must have been from natural causes since the President who was alert and active until just seconds after lighting a cigarette. No autopsy was performed and the cause of death listed was brain aneurysm. FDR's doctor stated that while in poor health, the death of FDR was unexpected.
The Amendments are not written in stone, Amendments can be repealed, altered or changed.brakelite said:Lol, I hope you meant protections FOR freedom of speech.
Yet in order to change the Amendment then it would only stand to reason that it would require the same process to change or alter an Amendment as it does to enact an Amendment. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was decided during the first term of President Thomas Jefferson, determined that IT should make the final decision for all branches of government, and that opinion has remained in force ever since.
As Thomas Jefferson stated, "The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
Source: http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1030.htm
IOW, federal law and treaties agreed to by the federal gov't trump state law.Forsakenone said:
Reid v. Covert 1957: a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,"
Um...ok. :huh:
Interesting guys, learning heaps, thanks. Keep it up.
If the supreme court can decide what is constitutional, or not, (a point which I gather has been a rather contentious one for a long time) then the make-up of individual members of that court would seem to be very very important indeed. And because such make-up is by appointment by the president, (ratified by the senate is that correct, or other way around?) then the character, political leanings, and spiritual leanings of the president would seem to me to have an over-arching influence on what passes as law in the country, with the judges reflecting the thoughts of the one who appointed them, to a more or less degree. Bear with me, I'm a kiwi so what is obvious to all of you in the US is not quite so to me down under.
Which is why I brought up the issue of freedom of religion. If the constitution is so easily erased according to the personal leanings of the president and various judges that make up the SC, then the future of Christianity and society as a whole in the US (and elsewhere as the saying goes; if the US sneezes everyone else wipes their face) then an Islam leaning president with a majority of Catholic judges places freedom of religion on a very precarious ledge. True Christians can expect trouble proclaiming their concientious truth when two opposing sides proclaim religious freedom for themselves,if having power, would deny it to everyone else.
If the supreme court can decide what is constitutional, or not, (a point which I gather has been a rather contentious one for a long time) then the make-up of individual members of that court would seem to be very very important indeed. And because such make-up is by appointment by the president, (ratified by the senate is that correct, or other way around?) then the character, political leanings, and spiritual leanings of the president would seem to me to have an over-arching influence on what passes as law in the country, with the judges reflecting the thoughts of the one who appointed them, to a more or less degree. Bear with me, I'm a kiwi so what is obvious to all of you in the US is not quite so to me down under.
Which is why I brought up the issue of freedom of religion. If the constitution is so easily erased according to the personal leanings of the president and various judges that make up the SC, then the future of Christianity and society as a whole in the US (and elsewhere as the saying goes; if the US sneezes everyone else wipes their face) then an Islam leaning president with a majority of Catholic judges places freedom of religion on a very precarious ledge. True Christians can expect trouble proclaiming their concientious truth when two opposing sides proclaim religious freedom for themselves,if having power, would deny it to everyone else.
Actually, determining what is and isn't constitutional is the primary reason the Supreme Court exists. It's basically their job.brakelite said:
The President nominates someone for the Supreme Court, and the Senate confirms or denies them.
No, passing laws is the job of Congress. The Supreme Court determines whether those laws are constitutional or not.
To a point, yes. But keep in mind, Supreme Court positions are for life while Presidents can serve two terms (8 years) at the most, so realistically most Presidents only get to appoint one or two Supreme Court justices. Some don't get to appoint any at all.
I'm not sure why you think the Constitution can be "so easily erased". That would take a pretty extreme set of circumstances, as well as a complicit public.
Again, I'm not sure how you get there from where we started.
Interesting that the case didn't even involve a treaty but rather an matter involving the legality of trying a U.S. Citizen under the UCMJ in a Military Court. Justice Black declared: "The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government."River Jordan said:
George Washington stated that in a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette on the issue of Presidential term limitations;
There are other points on which opinions would be more likely to vary. As for instance, on the ineligibility of the same person for President, after he should have served a certain course of years. Guarded so effectually as the proposed Constitution is, in respect to the prevention of bribery and undue influence in the choice of President: I confess, I differ widely myself from Mr. Jefferson and you, as to the necessity or expediency of rotation in that appointment. The matter was fairly discussed in the Convention, and to my full convictions; though I cannot have time or room to sum up the argument in this letter. There cannot, in my judgment, be the least danger that the President will by any practicable intrigue ever be able to continue himself one moment in office, much less perpetuate himself in it; but in the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity: and even then there is as much danger that any other species of domination would prevail. Though, when a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes. Under an extended view of this part of the subject, I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any man, who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally, most capable of serving the Public.
So considering the enactment of the 22nd Amendment, one can't help but wonder did it serve the government of the people good or the good of people in the government.
heretoeternity said:
And Christians do establish the law. We accept that the law is good, just and holy, Rom 7:12. And we admitted that we were deserving of death for failing to obey the law perfectly, as it requires, James 2:10. And thus we humbled ourselves and submitted to God's righteousness. We accepted God's mercy and grace, believing on Jesus, and in this our faith is counted for righteousness, Rom 4:5.
But the doctrine you follow is error in that you think "establish" the law means that we must obey it to prove or determine whether we're righteous or not. Thus we see that you judge righteousness by some minimum standard of obedience to the law. It's this that makes you legalistic. You judge righteousness by works of the law.
Scripture gives numerous warnings against turning back to the law to determine one's righteousness. We are only opposing ourselves if we continue to preach works of the law for righteousness. And this is the point I made to brakelite who is arguing for the same impending Sunday law that I had heard Adventists warning about 30 years ago.
Legalists are following the very thing that God has been warning us to avoid, that is righteousness by works of the law.
Remember that the law is not of faith, Gal 3:12.
The UN follows an evil agenda. How far reaching this evil goes is up to individual countries in what they allow.heretoeternity said:
But then scripture tells us that towards end times things will get worse and God will have to shorten the days or else even the elect will not be saved.
Haz you have your laws mixed up you should learn how to distinguish between God's law, then ten commandments, and the law of Moses the 613 sacrificiaql etc laws that ended at the cross...it's a common mistake by christians who have been filled with false teach such as you have been.
Jesus said in Matthew 24 the days would be shortened for the "elects" sake..in other words Those who have the testimony of Jesus and keep hIs COMMANDMENTS.as per Revelatrion.
Jesus said in Matthew 24 the days would be shortened for the "elects" sake..in other words Those who have the testimony of Jesus and keep hIs COMMANDMENTS.as per Revelatrion.
Here's the 10 commandments that you wrongly determine righteousness by.heretoeternity said:
2Cor 3:7-11
7 But if the ministration of death, WRITTEN AND ENGRAVEN IN STONES was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be DONE AWAY:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which IS DONE AWAY was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious
BTW, as you have failed to keep the commandments perfectly (James 2:10) since receiving Christ then that makes you a worker of iniquity. You have put yourself under the law and remember that WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS IT SAYS TO THOSE UNDER IT, Rom 3:19.
Christians, however, are NOT under the law (Rom 8:2, Rom 10:4, Gal 3:25, Gal 5:18, 1Tim 1:9). Thus we cannot be charged with its transgression/sin.
Rom 8:33
Who shall lay ANY THING (this includes sin) to the charge of God's elect?
You are right christians are not under the law of Moses, the 613 sacrificial, feast, festival, cleanliness, circumcision laws......
but are under the moral law of God, the ten commandments.....which God wrote Himself on the stone tablets, and the validity of which has been upheld by the teachings of Jesus, and all the Apostles including Paul....sin is transgression of God's law..the ten commandments according to 1st John..so if you do not follow the ten commandments you are sinning...and Paul says in Romans..do we sin more so grace abounds? God forbid....
Remember salvation is through the Son God, His grace and commandments, and not the sun god/satan and His days of sunday, dec 25th and easter all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origin.
but are under the moral law of God, the ten commandments.....which God wrote Himself on the stone tablets, and the validity of which has been upheld by the teachings of Jesus, and all the Apostles including Paul....sin is transgression of God's law..the ten commandments according to 1st John..so if you do not follow the ten commandments you are sinning...and Paul says in Romans..do we sin more so grace abounds? God forbid....
Remember salvation is through the Son God, His grace and commandments, and not the sun god/satan and His days of sunday, dec 25th and easter all of which are non Biblical and of pagan origin.
Similar threads
