“We are deeply disturbed over the sentencing today of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag to death by hanging for apostasy. We are also deeply concerned by the flogging sentence for adultery. We understand that the court sentence can be appealed,” the U.S. said in a statement.
“We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/pregnant-christian-to-die-for-refusing-to-convert/#wyWlOA7BY3Lj9Et7.99
“We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/pregnant-christian-to-die-for-refusing-to-convert/#wyWlOA7BY3Lj9Et7.99
“We are deeply disturbed over the sentencing today of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag to death by hanging for apostasy. We are also deeply concerned by the flogging sentence for adultery. We understand that the court sentence can be appealed,” the U.S. said in a statement.
“We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/pregnant-christian-to-die-for-refusing-to-convert/#wyWlOA7BY3Lj9Et7.99
“We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/pregnant-christian-to-die-for-refusing-to-convert/#wyWlOA7BY3Lj9Et7.99
“We are deeply disturbed over the sentencing today of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag to death by hanging for apostasy. We are also deeply concerned by the flogging sentence for adultery. We understand that the court sentence can be appealed,” the U.S. said in a statement.
“We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/pregnant-christian-to-die-for-refusing-to-convert/#52dtlz6IYuTKvcDt.99
“We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/pregnant-christian-to-die-for-refusing-to-convert/#52dtlz6IYuTKvcDt.99
Statement from the US State Department to the government of Sudan: "We are deeply disturbed over the sentencing today of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag to death by hanging for apostasy. We are also deeply concerned by the flogging sentence for adultery. We understand that the court sentence can be appealed... We continue to call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, a right which is enshrined in Sudan’s own 2005 Interim Constitution as well as international human rights law."
Yet right here in the United States, our own government does not respect the right of its citizens to freedom of religion, a right enshrined in our own Constitution. For example, Elaine Huguenin has been ordered to pay two women $7000.00 because she declined to photograph their "commitment ceremony." Her mistake was to tell them that she was declining because her Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message being communicated by the ceremony. Perhaps she should have lied and simply said she had a scheduling conflict. But of course that would have also been in conflict with her Christian beliefs. The Supreme Court has recently refused to consider the appeal of this case.
In another example of hypocrisy, the public ourcry against the kidnapping of 300 Christian school girls by Boku Haram, the Nigerian Islamic terror group, has been deafening and our government has responded by sending in investigators. Yet over the past 5 to 10 years, this same group has murdered around 3000 Nigerian Christians by bombing churches. They seem to especially like setting off bombs on Easter Sunday morning. Yet there has been virtually no outcry against these atrocitites. Only recently Boku Haram kidnapped 50 Christian boys and the story bearly made the news. Has this terror group finally crossed some kind of "political correctness" line by kidnapping girls?
The other day, I heard a liberal commentator say that if we locate these Nigerian girls (which is unlikely), we should immediately send in special forces to rescue them. His conclusion was, "The hell with national sovereignty." Okay, then why shouldn't we do exactly the same thing for Meriam Yahya Ibrahim Ishag? Or for every other female victim of kidnapping or religious persecution anywhere else in the world? The hell with national sovereignty. Yet, what would be our response if another nation violated our national sovereignty? This is what happens when people allow passion to overtake reason.
Certainly the Nigerian kidnappings were horrible, but there are a lot of horrible things going on in the world. Let's at least be consistent. Hypocrisy is also a horrible thing.
13 comments:
It's funny in that I ask myself that same question when I hear these people say we should send special forces into a sovereign nation uninvited. I heard John "Iraq will be a piece of cake" McCain suggest such a thing. I wonder what he and all the others would think if China sent special forces into the USA to rescue some Chinese diplomat or something. those people would scream bloody murder. Not to mention they seem to think our military can do whatever whenever at the drop of a hat.
As for Elaine, that was a New Mexico law she broke, not a federal law. Are you wanting the feds to dictate to the states even more rules/regulations?
My point is that by refusing to hear this case, the Supreme Court(representing the federal government) is agreeing with New Mexico. This was an outrageous violation of both freedon of speech and freedom of religion; yet we hear no outcry from the federal govenment demanding that New Mexico uphold the constitutional rights of this woman. Why? Because it would not be politically correct.
"Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a
valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
Justice Scalia, 1990, Oregon vs. Smith
One of the few opinions I tend to agree with of his. If you're in commerce, then you serve the public and check your religion at the door.
It is not "religious belief" I'm taking about; it is biblical belief. Religious belief can justify flying a plane into the twin towers. Biblical belief forbids such acts but does inform us that sexual immorality is sin and must not be encouraged.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other" (John Adams).
“We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God" (James Madison).
where is the "avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry" in this topic of conversation?
argue if you want that gays/sexual orientation should not be a protected class if you want. Heck, I might even agree with you on that, but if a person is in commerce, that person should have to obey the law or pay the price.
John Adams also agreed with a treaty that says in part, 'As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,.....'.
The Madison quote is bogus. You will not find a reputable Madison scholar or biographer that can find that quote among his writings. David Barton is neither of those.
The bright side here. Once I move to SC I need to be careful who i spout this libtard stuff to. :)
I don't think anyone should have to give up their rights under the Constitution just because they're engaging in commerce. That's ridiculous. Also, there's a big difference between legal and moral. In my book, moral trumps legal, though that may sometimes mean having to pay a price. Daniel broke the law and ended up in a lion's den. But in the end, everything turned out okay for Daniel whereas the one who enacted the law got in big trouble with God. I would rather be in trouble with man than with God.
What right did this woman give up? She may have had a moral dilemma, but what specific constitutional right was she deprived of? If she believes as you, that moral trumps legal, then yes, that sometimes means you pay a price. She paid the price.
This woman did not give up her rights. She held fast and put her morality above the legality. And she paid the price! But any government that coerces its citizens to compromise their moral values is inherently evil and needs to be altered. As Mark Twain said, "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they may think expedient. This means that the citizen who thinks he sees that the nation’s political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor."
Are you now saying her constitutional rights were not violated? Now it sounds like you want to impose your morals on all of society via a legal instrument like a constitution. Isn't that what they do in all these Islamist states? Dave, there are a lot of people, me being one, that does not want the bible running their life 24 x 7. Maybe that's why the word god is nowhere to be found in our constitution. Seems to me your issue is with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment interfering with your interpretation of the 1st amendment.
On another note, Mark Twain did not originate that quote you have in your post. He may have said it at some point in his life, but it's not his. Also, always remember one thing when you quote these founders. First and foremost they were all politicians. Like today, they would say exactly what people want to hear. Heck, John Adams was in Europe when the constitution was written, so how he knows it "was designed only for a moral and religious people" is just a political speech. I doubt there are minutes anywhere saying that.
I am not saying that the Bible should be imposed on anyone. I am only saying that I should be free to live out my biblical beliefs, which are not a treat to anyone, and should never be coerced by the government to go against my beliefs. The government penalized the woman in New Mexico for standing by her beliefs. This should be easily recognizable as an unconstitutional intrusion on her freedom. Sadly, the Supreme Court has now refused to hear her case, which is tantamount to the government endorcing such coercion. This may seem like a small matter to you, but you ought to be very concerned about the principle. Any government that can threaten me with penalities if I refuse to violate my biblical beliefs is a danger to everyone.
I am not saying that the Bible should be imposed on anyone. I am only saying that I should be free to live out my biblical beliefs, which are not a treat to anyone, and should never be coerced by the government to go against my beliefs. The government penalized the woman in New Mexico for standing by her beliefs. This should be easily recognizable as an unconstitutional intrusion on her freedom. Sadly, the Supreme Court has now refused to hear her case, which is tantamount to the government endorcing such coercion. This may seem like a small matter to you, but you ought to be very concerned about the principle. Any government that can threaten me with penalities if I refuse to violate my biblical beliefs is a danger to everyone.
Court says no and I think Scalia made it rather plain as to why. Should polygamy be legal. Should Muslims be able to behead their wife? The courts have drawn and are still drawing the line, but have been somewhat consistent overall.
And by the way, the government penalized the woman for breaking the law.
Tom, you're great at not listening to what I'm saying. I don't think the Constitution requires us to tolerate Islamic law. That's not a genuine relgious faith; it is an evil ideology and ought to be designated as such. The Mormons do not base their polygamy ideas on the Bible. I am only in favor of biblical morality (aka natural law). But don't be too surprised if the courts rule that polygamy is legal. Now that marriage has been defined by the state instead of the Bible, it can be defined any way some perverted judge decides to define it, and no one can do a thing about it. Passing a state constitutional ammendment can't stop it. Only an ammendment to the US Constitution could and that will never happen. I predict within 10 years polygamy will be legal.
As for the woman in NM, the law required her to violate her biblical beliefs. She was punished for refusing. You can look at it any way you want, but that law clearly violates both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The Supreme Court should hang their heads in shame.
Post a Comment