Legal Reasoning And Religious Dictations

1) The written law is a collection of the five books of the Hebrew bible and contain the biblical laws for Judaism. It is believed in rabbinic theology that the Torah was created by God and comes from Heaven. It contains the writings of Moses. The oral law was transmitted orally from generation to generation by messengers to carry out the traditions. It explains how the written Torah is to be followed. Put in simple terms, the written Torah is the sound basis of Judaism and the oral law is the explanation that things may not be as literal as they seem in the written law. I would believe they are dependent, as the oral law explains the works and meanings of the written Torah.

Though Canada is officially a multicultural country, it has not resulted in complete religious toleration or separation from Christian values and preference of the state. Through observation of the ongoing, nationwide debate regarding sharia law, this can be seen. Since the early 2000s, a common area of contention amongst Canadians has revolved around the debate of whether or not Sharia law should be included in Ontario family tribunals. Sharia law is used to describe Islamic law as according to the Qur’an. Some Canadian Muslims believed that the addition of sharia law would help better integrate Canadian Muslims into society. While previously, other forms of religious arbitration were permitted in Ontario, the attempt to include Sharia law in the early 2000s played an vital role in the Ontario government’s decision to ban all forms of religious arbitration, (Reitz, Banergee, Phan, & Thompson, 2009, p. 700). Consequently, the Family Statue Law Amendment was introduced in 2006 by the Ontario government in order to ensure that the was ‘one law for all’. This legislation effectively banned all faith-based arbitration by instituting that all family law arbitration in the province would be conducted the same as it would be for any other Canadian, (Berger, 2015, p. 52). Conversely, prior to this amendment, religious arbitration was permitted in Ontario. However, when religious pluralism began

people can make their own decisions, independent of the religious leaders, provided reason is invoked in

2. “The central idea of the Requirement—summoning people to acknowledge a superior religion or be attacked—is thus the same as the core of the summons as understood in the Islamic legal tradition of the Iberian peninsula” (pp. 78).

While these people looked for peace, Islam welcomed them with open arms telling of equality and harmony. This appealed to the people and thus led to more Islam believers by showing how peace and harmony was present in the ways of Islam.

“... Religion may be protected… defend the lands of Islam… enforce legal penalties… God’s truth may prevail over every religion (Doc E).” The laws in the law book are made to protect people and let conquered lands to practice their own religion, so they seemed fair to others. For example one law is “defend the lands of Islam.” People want to be protected and Muslims were ordered to protect certain lands, as a result people wanted this protection and moved to these places. Another example is “Religion may be protected.” Some people didn’t want to change religions but were under Islamic rule. This law would appeal to them because they would not have to try and overtake the Muslims, so they could have their way. More peace would be achieved and more people would be attracted to Islam, hence making it

Notably, as Muhammed standardized the Five Pillars of Islam for the “umma,’’ or community of faithful, multiplying followers stayed true to his legal doctrines. Ever since early Islam, the ‘’Sharia’’ stabilized the cults law, even if it combated Greek, Persian, and Indian nations. Along with cultural topics, the Sharia gave

Abstract — Religious influence on judiciary, especially when it comes to Supreme Court Justices, is a complicated issue, and it has been controversial in U.S.. Talking about judgement for the influence, it’s not all-inclusive by only dividing them into liberals and conservatives, instead, a comprehensive approach is to focus on specific cases.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The state can't compel supported religious action on its nationals by constraining them to pick amongst participation and their own particular intrinsically secured rights.

Over time, this has been interpreted as the government can neither impose a state religion upon you nor punish you for exercising the religion of your choice. Thenceforth, you may express your opinions, write and publish what you wish, gather

The Canada (Attorney General) v. Big M Drug Mart (1985) case is an example of a case that could not be tolerated because it began to harm people around. The moment it harms people is when it should not be tolerated. They found that the government could not force individuals to conform to religious practices or follow certain religious beliefs (Canada v. Big M Drug Mart, 1985). Also, in the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Edwards Books and Art (1986), we notice that the state has the duty of religious neutrality. It applies back to being tolerable with religions and having the state stay neutral between religions and society. Therefore we should be tolerating all religions and not excluding religions because one should not feel obligated to compel to certain

The Qur’an stated that God does not love aggressors. The Qur’an stated that you should fight for the sake of God against those that fight against you, but only if they attack first. Upon being attacked, you should slay them where you find them and drive them out of the places from where they drove you; fight against them until God’s religion reigns supreme. For nonreligious violence, the Qur’an stated mankind has the right to guard himself against evil, but only if the means are just; one should not devour one's property by unjust means or be the first to attack.

In “Reasonable Religious Disagreements,” Feldman discusses the role of intolerance and relativism in argumentation in regards to how epistemic peers who have a share of the same evidence reasonably maintain their own belief, all the while, maintaining that the other party of the disagreement is reasonable in their belief as well. This essay will concentrate on the benefits of Feldman’s observation and the benefits of critical thinking in argumentation as well as elaborate on the main reason as to why people so desperately agree to disagree in relation to media coverage.

Christians make up over seventy percent of the United States population today, yet there are many arguments over whether or not Christian practices should be used in public places. One of these public places includes the courtroom. In court, a person is required to either make an oath, or to make an affirmation. An oath will acknowledge that God will judge that person on whether or not they are lying, whereas an affirmation is just a promise in a sense. Many people believe that the oath should be removed completely from the court system. The oath, in fact, should not be removed from the system because United States’ oaths, laws, and

Philosophers base the idea of objective morality on the assumption that some moral ideals are universal and should be the moral responsibility of everyone. Subjective moralists counter this argument by explaining that each moral decision is independent because each moral situation is unique to its own conditions. Ultimately, these two views shape the nature of moral philosophy and theology, each describing the different natures of morality (Hammond). These two theories have a large impact on the thinking process of humans on an everyday basis. This process then leads up to a person valuing different things more than others. The separation of objective and subjective theories all boil down to whether or not a theory is universal or not. A subjective theory has an absence of universal truths, and an objective theory has universal truths. Two vary popular theories that will take part in my research were the Divine Command Theory, and Natural law theory. Two theories that may seem similar, but in fact are very different.