4 ms·

Here is a quote from George Washington sent to a Jewish congregation in Newport, RI while he and Thomas Jefferson were promoting what is now the 1st amendment.

Here is a quote from George Washington sent to a Jewish congregation in Newport, RI while he and Thomas Jefferson were promoting what is now the 1st amendment. Although Rhode Island had ratified that amendment, "Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Georgia were still debating the amendments in August of 1790 when the President visited Newport." "For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." [1] [1] http://www.tourosynagogue.org/history-learning/gw-letter http://www.tourosynagogue.org/history-learning/gw-letter

forrestthewoods 11y ago
What if they support Sharia law in place of American law?
- transfire 11y ago
  This is really a false argument. The way it works is this. In so far as Sharia law is compatible with county, state and federal laws, it can be practiced. In so far that is not, it cannot. It's that simple. Many small regions have their own local laws, e.g. suburbs, condos, Mormons, Amish, etc.
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    Ok. And portions of Sharia law are not compatible with country, state, and federal laws. There are people who believe that full Sharia law should apply to Muslims. And some who believe that full Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims as well. I would consider these stances to fall foul of "giving it on all occasions their effectual support". Now on one hand everyone supports potential laws that are not laws. That's how new laws get passed. Something wasn't legal. The public said it should be. And it was. For example gay marriage. On the other hand some people think it should be legal to murder an apostate. Codifying these differences in language is difficult. But that doesn't mean they aren't different and should not be treated as such.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      What -precisely- are you trying to say? Stop for a few minutes and try to distill your argument to its essence, then take some time writing an explanation of that argument as clearly as you are able to.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        This is amusing. Apparently people took umbrage at an earnest suggestion that a fellow stop for a few minutes to collect his thoughts and phrase his argument in a way that makes it maximally effective. :D
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 11y ago
  About the same as when Jewish people support Beth Din in place of American law - it's fine so long as American law is also respected. (There are problems with religious legal systems of women not being able to get divorces; of abused women not getting help and support; and of abused children not getting help and support and the abusers not facing justice).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - forrestthewoods 11y ago
    That's a lot of dancing to avoid condemning hateful, repressive beliefs. We condemn hateful, racist bigots all the time. Rightfully so. Just because said hate is derived from religion does not excuse it from condemnation.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > That's a lot of dancing to avoid condemning hateful, repressive beliefs. I guess I missed the dance party. All I see is the statement: "Any US citizen may maintain their own practices just so long as those practices are compatible with US law." Seems pretty simple and clear to me.

forrestthewoods 11y ago

What if they support Sharia law in place of American law?

transfire 11y ago
This is really a false argument. The way it works is this. In so far as Sharia law is compatible with county, state and federal laws, it can be practiced. In so far that is not, it cannot. It's that simple. Many small regions have their own local laws, e.g. suburbs, condos, Mormons, Amish, etc.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  Ok. And portions of Sharia law are not compatible with country, state, and federal laws. There are people who believe that full Sharia law should apply to Muslims. And some who believe that full Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims as well. I would consider these stances to fall foul of "giving it on all occasions their effectual support". Now on one hand everyone supports potential laws that are not laws. That's how new laws get passed. Something wasn't legal. The public said it should be. And it was. For example gay marriage. On the other hand some people think it should be legal to murder an apostate. Codifying these differences in language is difficult. But that doesn't mean they aren't different and should not be treated as such.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    What -precisely- are you trying to say? Stop for a few minutes and try to distill your argument to its essence, then take some time writing an explanation of that argument as clearly as you are able to.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      This is amusing. Apparently people took umbrage at an earnest suggestion that a fellow stop for a few minutes to collect his thoughts and phrase his argument in a way that makes it maximally effective. :D
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 11y ago
About the same as when Jewish people support Beth Din in place of American law - it's fine so long as American law is also respected. (There are problems with religious legal systems of women not being able to get divorces; of abused women not getting help and support; and of abused children not getting help and support and the abusers not facing justice).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  That's a lot of dancing to avoid condemning hateful, repressive beliefs. We condemn hateful, racist bigots all the time. Rightfully so. Just because said hate is derived from religion does not excuse it from condemnation.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > That's a lot of dancing to avoid condemning hateful, repressive beliefs. I guess I missed the dance party. All I see is the statement: "Any US citizen may maintain their own practices just so long as those practices are compatible with US law." Seems pretty simple and clear to me.