Browse By

Republican Presidential Contender Bobby Jindal: Religious Law? Only if it’s My Religion.

Republican presidential candidate Bobby Jindal on people who want to impose Islamic legal standards on Americans:

“We do insist that folks should not come into our country and use the freedoms we give them to undermine the freedoms we grant to everybody. So in other words we shouldn’t tolerate those who want to come and try to impose some variant or some version of Sharia law.”

 

Republican presidential candidate Bobby Jindal on Kim Davis, who is using her government position to impose Christian legal standards on Americans:

“I don’t think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it’s wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners.”

27 thoughts on “Republican Presidential Contender Bobby Jindal: Religious Law? Only if it’s My Religion.”

  1. Larry says:

    It’s simple.

    Hypocrisy.

  2. ella says:

    What I say is that the Supreme Court made a decision which limits religious liberty in this country. An attorney should approach the bench with the fact that the United States Government has no right to make law concerning religion. Therefore they had no right to make a decision which effects religion, religious beliefs, or the religious beliefs of citizens.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Two questions for you, Ella:

      1. What’s your opinion on the consistency of Bobby Jindal’s two positions?

      2. Should it be acceptable for an Islamic county clerk to refuse to issue marriage licenses to people in a county if their marriage isn’t in accordance with Islamic principles?

      1. ella says:

        Let me start with “2.” When in a nation that has freedom of religion, and the established dominant religion is different from your own, you should expect to experience these differences publicly. There should be an understanding between the Islamic county clerk from the beginning. Since that person accepted the position with foreknowledge of the differences, he should either complete the transaction as it is presented or have staff hired who can and are willing to do so. But the Islamist should not be forced to comply with something that will defile him/her morally. These offices always have someone else on staff who can perform these duties, say when the clerk is sick and absent. Since the decision made by the Supreme Court is in defiance of religious statues long established in this nation, they are in error or deliberately removing established standards of the nation.

        “We do insist that folks should not come into our country and use the freedoms we give them to undermine the freedoms we grant to everybody. So in other words we shouldn’t tolerate those who want to come and try to impose some variant or some version of Sharia law.”

        Back to “1.” I have partially answered that it seems. He is right, Sharia law is Islamic and a law of many traditions. That said many of those traditions are not taught in this country, but then Christians’ are lacking these days which makes the situation a bit touchy. Since there are so many that simply live ‘for the moment’ or are living lives outside any basic law other than their own wishes, those need to be represented as well as others. But the religion on which this nation was established was and is Christianity. We should not allow other religions, of any nature, to surpass that. To do so is to cut the final pins out from under the foundations. Or topple the nation as it once stood. That is the basis of “take” the nation” without firing a shot.” So it really depends on whose side you are on. And that is the whole point. Do you have a side?

        1. Mark says:

          ella,
          You and others so often say that our country was founded on Christian principles. I’d like to know exactly what uniquely Christian principles you think the United States was founded upon. I’d like some specific examples (preferably from the Bible) of these foundational principles that are not present in other religions.

          1. ella says:

            All men are created equal.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            Hi, Ella. Mark asked for a uniquely Christian principle. The equality of humanity is not a uniquely Christian idea. As the following web page documents, that principle is also articulated by multiple secular philosophies and at least nine religions.

            http://www.religioustolerance.org/humequal.htm

          3. ella says:

            Whoa, I am sorry, I thought he asked for a uniquely non-Christian principle. That is not a Christian principle. No where in the Bible does it suppose that all men are created equal. Not in any way other than all come short of being perfect. (no matter how much you think you are perfect) And it is true there are many other philosophies and religions that incorporate the same principles. However there is the reverse, such as the Communist Manifesto (1964 I believe) which outlines the negative of the 10 Commandments. Satanists, Some Atheists, though many of them also embrace many of the same principles. The point is that the other religions also have developed traditions, some have become laws, that are in opposition to the Christian laws, which this country is based on. So in that some of their laws apply, some do not. Marital relationships between same sex couples or groups, are not a part of Christian law. In fact is not allowed for many reasons. Among them are that man and woman marry to have children if they can and for companionship. In some cases to develop very deep relationships which have nothing to do with sex. It has always been known that health reasons are involved concerning the conjugal relationship. If companionship is all that is involved then marriage is not required, or in many cases desired among man and woman. And certainly not among same sex, it simply isn’t a part of platonic relationships. Faking a parental relationship in same sex marriages by introducing children born of woman, is just that faking a real marriage.

          4. Mark says:

            ella,
            You never answered my question.

          5. ella says:

            Okay, I have read the first article (you know when I haven’t) and Jindal is, in my opinion just telling it like it is. For instance:

            “Well, Megyn, we’re talking about who do we let into our society, into our country. If you want to see where this is happening, look to Europe. We shouldn’t be blindly following Europe where you have second and third generation immigrants that don’t assimilate, don’t integrate, don’t consider themselves parts of that society. In America, we want people who want to be Americans. We want people to come here. We don’t say you have to adopt our creed or any particular creed. But we do say if you come here, you need to believe in American exceptionalism. I believe you need to learn English.”

            I completely agree with Jindal. It is a perspective you seem not familiar with.

            The second article did not include Jindal, that I recognized, but was mostly Huckabee and a few other candidates who seemed more worried about thier political appearance.

          6. Mark says:

            You have described several non-Christian ideas that have become law and accepted in the US, but you have not given any uniquely Christian ideas that have been incorporated into the founding documents of our Constitution and laws.

          7. ella says:

            Back to it. I am thinking about it. As there are no unique thoughts in this world, it is a case of working with what had not been done at that time. Freedom of Religion was not new, but governments enforced their own ‘state’ religions, even the Greeks, whose Democratic philosophy our Constitution is based on. It was a majority rules governing style, even in acceptance of gods. India had many gods, almost family in nature, at that time (of the Greeks), Hindu at the time of our Constitution’s writing., I believe. Although Muslims were traveling in India then, they were not accepted. Does that fit?

          8. ella says:

            Read St. Mark chapter 7. In that chapter Jesus shows that he does not help only the Jews. And then in another book the soldier, Saul, becomes a disciple to Jesus, for the purpose of going out to people of all other religions to teach them about God. Then on the Mount where he gave the famous sermon on the mount, He states that not all of the people there would do as He taught, which was just a statement. That these people with other religious ways surrounded them was not of concern. If they listened and decided to go their own way, so be it. Freedom of Religion is a Christian ethic that is incorporated in the Constitution, if it still stands.

          9. Mark says:

            ella,
            I do not think freedom of religion is a Christian ideal. There are far too many references in the Bible that condemn people who do not profess the ‘correct’ faith. While you cite examples of early Christians aiding non-Christians, their motivation primarily came from attempts to “convert the heathens”. This is especially the case with Saul. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus specifically says that anyone who hears his words and does not obey is a fool. That’s hardly an acceptance of other religions. It’s more of a damnation.

            The first Amendment to the Constitution forbidding the government from establishing a state religion was a reaction to the horrible examples of state religions up until the late 1700s. From the 12th to 17th centuries religious warfare killed millions in Europe and destroyed economies. Some of my ancestors were members of the Anabaptist movement in Switzerland during this time. Many of them had to flee to Germany to avoid government persecution. The wars between Catholic and Protestant churches caused huge migrations of people as they fled their homelands seeking lives where they could worship freely. We can find numerous examples of religious groups seeking sanctuary in America, many fleeing from the Church of England (e.g. the Pilgrims on the Mayflower in 1620). The history of theocratic colonies in New England proved to the framers of the Constitution that an established religion could play no part in the new nation. Remember the Salem Witch Trials? The first colonies on Long Island and especially in Connecticut were openly theocratic. Others of my ancestors helped to found these colonies (e.g. New Haven and Branford, CT), but had to depart when they could no longer worship as they wanted. Many of them departed Connecticut to establish their own colony in Newark, New Jersey, forming another theocratic government.

          10. ella says:

            That all sounds right, I haven’t thought about it in a long time. Some of my family got caught up in the Catholic/Protestant executions in England. But the edict to not establish religion, was for the purpose of not establishing a state religion, not to say that people could establish religions that did not include God. As with all immigrants, they brought their bad habits with them and just continued with business as usual, or as you point out, just got worse, i.e. the Salem witch burning and drowning. Those are examples of men taking over a religion for their own purposes and a valid point to not establish a state religion. But tolerance is about all that can be expected between people of differing religions, or sects within a religion. That has been proven time and again. That is why it was established as it was, everyone has the right to worship God in their own way, individually are free to choose for themselves. In theory. The Biblical part I mentioned does concern the teaching, but recognizes that there are people who have their own way and will not change. A case of live with it, no matter how you feel about the other persons way of life. If you cannot change it, then go your own way. Of course Saul really was a special case. He completed his mission to the best of his ability.

            But I was not looking for something that was in the Constitution that established state religion, but that was within the Biblical context, something that would tie Christianity to the establishment of the Constitution in the manner of construct. Most of the men who wrote it were Christian. Benjamin Franklin was an atheist, for a non Christian example. So there were certainly men there which did not care for religion.
            But those other examples (all bad) that you gave, illustrate that people did come here in order to be able to worship freely, to establish a place of worship for themselves without persecution. To be able to live their lives within the borders of their beliefs without fear or being forced or coerced into doing anything against that faith. So that necessarily is included in the framing of the Constitution.

          11. Mark says:

            ella,
            I agree that most of the men who wrote the Constitution and founded our government were Christians. However, I still have not seen any examples of Christian doctrines or beliefs that formed the foundation of our government.

            I also agree that the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion, but does not prohibit individuals from practicing their own religions in their private lives. Where we come into conflict is when individuals, acting in a governmental role, attempt to use their position to advance their religious beliefs and force others to consent.

            The conflict between an individual’s private life and his/her public life is what has come into play with Kim Davis. In her private life she is free to condemn homosexual marriage as a sin. However, as a government official she has no such right to do so, and may not use the powers of her office to promote her personal religious beliefs.

          12. J Clifford says:

            All of the men who wrote the Constitution wore shoes.

            Nonetheless, the Constitution does not contain any provisions establishing special rights for shoes, or declaring that the United States is an officially shoe-wearing country, or make it so that only people who wear shoes can receive government services.

        2. Jim Cook says:

          By your standard for the hypothetical Islamic person, the Christian Kim Davis *should* face legal consequences, because the hypothetical Islamic person in your example has the obligation to allow non-Muslims to conduct their business with the government by non-Islamic codes. Kim Davis, on the other hand, used her government postition to insist that everyone under her jurisdiction had to follow her Christian code. There is the difference for you.

          1. ella says:

            If that was the case, then I agree with you, that was a mistake on her part. By Christian standards, others are allowed to do as they wish. If it is possible for them to convert, then let it be so. If we are to become a multi-religion nation, and that never really works out well, consider India’s past, then we need to be prepared for these circumstances. Kim I do not blame, she is reacting to a deep seated moral code as well as religious dictates. She shouldn’t be imprisoned for it though. That is equally wrong. Simply suspending her work activities until other arrangements could be made for workers who could comply would have been best. As that has been done, there is no further reason for her being chastised. But it would help if her preacher would explain to her why she was wrong to react that way.

            There is the other point though, that the Supreme Court did legislate a law. No church that agrees to such is Christian, in my opinion, but has stepped aside to bring it more customers to their sect.

        3. Jim Cook says:

          Ella,

          Thank you for responding to my question #1. My interpretation of your response, in a nutshell, is that Bobby Jindal is not being consistent and should not be consistent, because in your opinion Christian principles are fundamental to the United States and Islamic principles should not be allowed in. Is that an accurate description of your belief?

          1. ella says:

            No, simply that Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States as Islam is the dominant religion in say Iran or Iraq. When there, Christians are expected to follow the laws of Islam in public places, but they have a way to comply with our needs. In the United States, if they are to have any respect for us, they should follow the law of Christianity in public and we should have a way to comply with their needs. There should be no line in the middle where people cannot get along at all. So he is right.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            A system in which all people in a nation should have to follow the religious laws of the dominant religion of a nation is called theocracy. It is a system with which I and the United States Constitution firmly disagree.

          3. ella says:

            It is not a Theocracy as it was developed. Remember that all people had the right to worship God however they wish. But as that is what the Government bases, or based, its’ system on, in a way you are right, but the government did not have the right to interfere with any ones religious beliefs, which made it different from a Theocracy. No it has that right, as the clerk was arrested and jailed for practicing her religion, albeit at work for the County. She was, to her way of thought, following her beliefs and State law. Which it is still State law there. But as I understand it, she simply stopped issuing licenses for marriage. She could have gone on with the rest of the people. The law was in error arresting her and jailing her, in my opinion, and if they had a lawyer worth his salt, there would be repercussions…all the way to the Supreme Court. Since these things will happen, her pastor should explain to her why she should not interfere with what will be. And, as they have wisely done, have someone who has different beliefs and morals, be responsible for attending to the homosexuals.

          4. J Clifford says:

            Ella, the right to worship “God”, the deity of only one small set of religions, is not religious liberty. You might as well say that freedom of speech is “the right to praise the government using whatever words you choose”.

          5. ella says:

            Okay, it is your turn to make no sense.

          6. ella says:

            “Ella, the right to worship “God”, the deity of only one small set of religions, is not religious liberty.”
            One small set of religions that worship God, is that what you mean? And what are the other many religions that do not worship God?

            But as to that “…one small set of religions…” of those that are Christian in 2010 they were spread over the globe and 36% plus were in the USA. There were, at that time, 2.18 billion Christians.
            http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/

  3. ella says:

    This is something that will lead you to a better understanding of how Christian principles are at work in state law. That all men are created equal is in the Bill of Rights, a founding document. There are many other religions, that also incorporate principles that are included in the Christian religion (I am referring to the Biblical, not as many sects in this country relate parts as they interpret them, or as they find more expedient.) Islam is a religion that is born of the Jewish faith, and relates back to Abraham. But they have developed traditions and laws that go beyond the Jewish. Although not as pronounced, however, long have English and European women worn veils and long capes were worn to cover clothing worn indoors. Those things are traditions.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/huckabee-court-clerk-only-law-shes-following-kentucky-law

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!