Subscribe:

Follow AforFaith on Twitter

MY OTHER BLOGS–RECENT POSTS:

Categories

-Sharia Law ‘Islamic Tribunal’ Operating in Texas?

by Dr. D ~ January 29th, 2015

Islamic-Tribunal-Dallas-e1422454658133

(Image from Islamic Tribunal website)

A voluntary Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law is now operating in Texas. Here is the story from Breitbart News:

An Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law in Texas has been confirmed by Breitbart Texas. The tribunal is operating as a non-profit organization in Dallas. One of the attorneys for the tribunal said participation and acceptance of the tribunal’s decisions are “voluntary.”

Breitbart Texas spoke with one of the “judges,” Dr. Taher El-badawi. He said the tribunal operates under Sharia law as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution.” El-badawi said their organization is “a tribunal, not arbitration.” A tribunal is defined by Meriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a court or forum of justice.” The four Islamic attorneys call themselves “judges” not “arbitrators.”

El-badawi said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters. He said they also resolve workplace disputes.

Also another Breitbart article confirms that the tribunal will be exclusively following Islamic law even if it conflicts with American law:

When asked what he would do when Islamic law conflicted with American law, El-badawi said: “We follow Sharia law.”

Read the whole article which informs about how similar Sharia courts have conflicted with British law and have consistently mistreated women in the process. Also read the original article about the Texas tribunal.

Here’s a link to the Islamic Tribunal website for more information.

Response: What bothers me about this development is the establishment of a parallel legal system in America that does not recognize the Constitution or respect American law or our legal traditions. Everyone is suppose to be equal under our system but that is not the case under Islamic sharia law. Women and children have far fewer rights under sharia.

From my perspective, it would be tragic for American Muslim women to be persuaded for religious reasons to ‘voluntarily’ accept divorce arbitration from a court that would be obviously stacked against them. 

Voluntary alternative legal resolutions are within the law. mediation, arbitration, and alternative small claims courts are used by Americans all across the country. So the legality of the ‘Islamic Tribunal’ is unfortunately not in question.               *Top

-California Bans Judges from Boy Scouts

by Dr. D ~ January 28th, 2015

th

The California Supreme Court has banned all state judges from belonging to or participating in the Boy Scouts. Here’s the story from CitizenLink:

The California Supreme Court says no state judge may belong to the Boy Scouts of America. That’s because the group does not allow openly homosexual scout leaders and the state high court says that’s discriminatory.

Part of a code of ethics passed in 1996, the rule is supposed to protect a judge’s impartiality. A group of more than 100 attorneys spoke out against the decision.

“The proposal creates an unconstitutional test for public office,” they wrote in a letter, “threatens the constitutional rights of California judges, and states unabashedly that it is designed to punish the Boy Scouts of America by prohibiting California judges from participating in that group’s activities.”

Response: This ruling is going to be challenged in Federal court. Nevertheless, watch out for similar legislation and rulings in your own state.

For now, participation in churches and religious groups with similar restrictions on homosexual leaders is exempted. Look for that to change in the future if this ruling is successful. Even now in the present environment, it is really difficult to see how a conservative Christian could ever be appointed and serve as a state judge in California.

A Muslim or two with similar views toward homosexuality might get appointed in the name of diversity and it will still be open to ‘Christians’ who belong to liberal churches and turn their backs on the Bible and traditional Christian teaching. Nevertheless, a ‘pro-homosexual test’ is now in place in the state.          *Top

-Michelle Obama Draws Criticism for Not Wearing Head Scarf?

by Dr. D ~ January 28th, 2015

The President and the first lady cut short their visit to India in order to give condolences and greet the new king in Saudi Arabia. The local Saudi TV actually blurred the image of Michelle Obama in their newscasts and criticized the first lady for not wearing at least a scarf. Traditional head covering for women is required by law in that Muslim country.

Any other women visiting the country who did likewise would find themselves in a Saudi jail and maybe even receive lashes. Which has happened to American and Western female executives in the past.

Response: Hooray for Michelle! This is one of the few times that I am actually proud that Michelle Obama is our first lady. You can bet that the bowing President Barack probably wanted her to defer and submit to the Muslim custom. Not only did Michelle refuse to wear head coverings but apparently persuaded others in the American entourage to do likewise.

It is not surprising that Michelle received criticism in Saudi Arabia and around the Muslim Middle East for the ‘oversight.’ However it is the ‘non-plus’ reaction in the American media and downright chagrin among many on the Internet and in social media that is shocking to me. Michelle should be congratulated for standing up for woman’s rights in a place where there are none rather than being questioned. At least she is consistent.              *Top

-Should a President Lead America Spiritually?

by Dr. D ~ January 26th, 2015

On at least a dozen occasions President Obama has said that he has relied upon his Christian faith and has turned to God for guidance in leading the country. No journalist has directly questioned whether that was a good idea or not. Presidents have been doing that in various ways since Washington. Literally hundreds of examples may be given where a president in the past has asked to country to pray. In fact anytime a President concludes a speech with-“..May God Bless America” he is really offering a short prayer.

Here is just one poignant example from a president who is still a liberal icon and has never been accused of being too ‘religious.’ FDR asked the country to join him in prayer on D-DAY during WWII (See video above):

My fellow Americans, I ask you to join me in prayer. …

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.  …

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

<Read the whole prayer>

This is just one famous example which remains a bone of contention to some today. Some academics and even some Christians who theologically and philosophically oppose all war may question whether we should be asking for God’s help in killing others in battle. Nevertheless it is just one famous example of a president spiritually leading the country in a time of great need.

I bring this up because over the weekend, George Stephanopoulos, host of “This Week”, questioned Gov. Bobby Jindal whether it’s the “job of the president to lead a spiritual revival.” Jindal had attended a Christian prayer rally- “The Response” on Saturday and had called for spiritual revival in America. Gov. Jindal responded to the challenge:

“It is a time-honored tradition, going back to our nation’s founding, for our presidents, for our leaders to turn to god for guidance, for wisdom. George Washington did it, Abraham Lincoln did it, Harry Truman did it,” he said. “So, absolutely I think this idea of praying to God for wisdom and guidance is as old as our country.”

Jindal noted, too, that America is a diverse country with a majority Christian population, but that “we don’t discriminate against anybody” and “we believe in religious liberty.”

Response: It should be noted and understood that George Stephanopoulos is actually a Democratic Party strategist masquerading as a journalist. In the last presidential election cycle Stephanopoulos used his position to initiate the ‘War on Women’ issue that found considerable resonance among young women voters and was in actuality a war against Republican candidates.

I believe that Stephanopoulos may be initiating another key Democratic partisan issue for the 2016 campaign. Watch for ‘journalists’ to start questioning whether Republicans that are ‘too religious’ like Gov. Jindal are fit to lead our increasingly diverse and secular nation.            *Top

-New York Magazine Celebrating Incest?

by Dr. D ~ January 22nd, 2015

7229-MA-1-hires

An interview in the January 15 edition of the New York Magazine entitled- “What it’s Like To Date Your Dad,” seems to be looking for love in all the wrong places including incest.  In fact, the 18 year old woman who was interviewed in the article celebrated losing her virginity to her father and planned to marry him, have children, and spend the rest of their lives together. The question that seemed to be raised in the article is why their loving relationship should be judged by other people since both of them are consenting adults:

What’s your response to people who just can’t get their head around your relationship?
I just don’t understand why I’m judged for being happy. We are two adults who brought each other out of dark places. People need to research incest and GSA because they don’t get it and I don’t think they understand how often it happens.

The ‘loving’ couple plan to move to New Jersey where consenting incestuous relationships between adults are supposedly legal. Also according to the article, the couple is already planning their wedding even if it is not legally recognized anywhere.

Response: So now the progressive drumbeat may begin for incestuous ‘loving’ relationships and marriage? Forget the fact that incest has literally ruined the lives of thousands of people. Nevertheless, consensual incest may now join an already active push for the legalization of polygamy and polyamory.

Seven years ago, same-sex marriage became an active issue in California when Prop 8 was being considered. Many Christians at the time voiced a concern that the legal re-definition of marriage might open the door to other alternative marital relationships like polygamy, and maybe even other kinds unforeseen ‘loving ‘ relationships including incestuous relationships.  That position was made fun of at the time by the media, liberal progressives, and the LGBT opposition.

Since that time I have read hundreds of articles supporting the future legalization of polygamy and polyamory (group relationships) asking for rational reasons why that should not happen in light of the legalization of same-sex marriage. After all, there are thousands of ‘loving’ families or groups living in committed alternative relationships that also should not be discriminated against and have full access to the benefits of legal marriage. How can any of these folks now be rationally denied?

In fact you can also find literally thousands of online articles and websites supporting what they are now calling- ‘Full Marriage Equality’ which would include:

The right of any and all consenting adults to legally marry regardless of number, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or family relationship.

From a progressive evolutionist world view, since we were descended from monkeys, why should we be restricted by outdated religious beliefs and made-up conventions of the past when we should be free ‘to evolve’ into what ever types of relationships we may want in the future?

Today it is same-sex marriage, tomorrow it may be equal rights for all consenting adults, but in many Muslim countries it is alright for men to marry pre-teen girls and what about those who support man-boy relationships?

The point is, same-sex marriage is just the beginning and who knows what different kinds of ‘loving’ relationships will be supported and condoned in the future if America continues to become more secular and less religious. What will the dominant American culture expect Christians to accept in the future? One can only hope for another awakening and revival for our country or the cultural marginalization of conservative Christianity will increasingly become a reality in the near future.            *Top

-SCOTUS to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage

by Dr. D ~ January 20th, 2015

The Supreme Court has finally agreed to rule on same-sex marriage and resolve the mixed rulings on it in the lower courts.

For a long time the current justices were in favor of the issue being resolved in the individual states but since Circuit Courts have substantially taken over the issue and have ruled on it in different ways, the Supreme Court must now consider it in order to resolve the lower court rulings. From Religion News:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday (Jan. 16) to resolve the national debate over same-sex marriage once and for all.

The justices agreed to consider four cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. They will be consolidated and heard together.

That sets up a schedule under which the court likely will hear oral arguments in April and issue a ruling before its current term ends in late June.

The justices’ hands were forced by a split among federal appellate courts after the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld marriage bans in those four states last November. While gays and lesbians can marry in 36 states, most recently including Florida, the practice is banned in those four states, along with 10 others.

<Read the whole article>

Also see the video above from CitizenLink and read their short article and another here.

Response: The whole redefinition of marriage started with a judicial activist ruling in Massachusetts and has substantially been spread by the decisions of  liberal judges rather than by the voice and vote of the people. In a few states the legislatures voted it in but in most cases the courts ruled against state decisions and the votes of the citizens.

The Supreme Court has substantially stayed out of the battle up to now. SCOTUS did rule against DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) but otherwise has refused to resolve the issue once and for all preferring it to be decided on the state level. Now they must act to resolve the mess made by mixed Circuit Court rulings over different state decisions.

How will it be resolved? It is anyone’s guess but Justice Kennedy is usually the swing vote in this court. Unfortunately he seriously considers European law and international precedence in his decision making. Eleven Western European countries have already allowed Same-Sex marriage so the current European trend to accept it might play into the ultimate decision made by SCOTUS later this year.              *Top

-Muslim Riots and 23 Churches Burned in Continuing Protests Against Charlie Hebdo

by Dr. D ~ January 19th, 2015

Muslim protests and riots escalated over the weekend in opposition to the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo which featured a cartoon of Muhammad on the cover. In Niger, at least 5 were killed and  23 churches were set on fire by irate Muslims following the prayer services at the Niamey Grand Mosque in the capital. UPDATE: The Count is now at 45 churches Torched.

The full extent of the different Muslim riots and protests are far too extensive to be adequately covered or updated on this site. Nevertheless there were reports over the weekend of protests and serious rioting in the following Muslim dominated countries:

Niger

Pakistan

Jordan

Senegal

Mauritania

Palestinian Territory

Lebanon

Syria

Sudan

Somalia

Yemen

Algeria

Mali

Response: Apparently all of these real Muslims in real Muslim dominated countries misunderstand the real nature of Islam and are all guilty of ‘hijacking’ the ‘Religion of Peace.’ Either that or the Western politicians, liberal journalists, and apologetic academics, who claim that the terrorists don’t understand or represent the ‘real’ nature of Islam, are the ones who are wrong. Which is more likely?

Actually there are hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims around the world that would never hurt anyone. Nevertheless the tens of millions of Islamists who do support violent jihad readily cite  the Quran and the sayings and actions of Muhammad as the basis for their cause. It is time to face the truth in the West, the radicals are also real Muslims that represent a substantial number of believers in Islam. They are not ‘hijacking’ the religion if they are following the example that Muhammad set. We may wish it to be otherwise but historically Islam has never been a ‘Religion of Peace.’

Meanwhile all around the world, even in the West, the calls for limitations on free speech when it comes to Islam are also escalating. Funny thing, no one ever suggested that there should be limits to free speech when the same French newspaper was making fun of Christianity and slandering the Jews.              *Top