Nebraska Senate Nominee Says Religious Beliefs Can Justify Breaking Any Law - Galt's Gulch

Remove this ad.

0

Nebraska Senate Nominee Says Religious Beliefs Can Justify Breaking Any Law

Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 7 months ago to Politics

6 comments | Share | Flag

Add Comment

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

2

Posted by jbrenner 10 years, 7 months ago

The headline is not what the candidate said. The link goes to a web site intending to smear the candidate and puts words into his mouth that he did not utter in order to accomplish their political objective: make abortion easy and taxpayer subsidized. A paraphrase of what the candidate said would more accurately say that he is not going to follow a law that was intended to violate his religious beliefs, in much the same way that certain "laws" like Directive 10-289 in Atlas Shrugged were written to force certain people into a Hobson's "choice".

Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink
- Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
- 2
  
  Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
  
  A law which requires one to violate one's religious beliefs is an unConstitutional law...
  
  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
  - 1
    
    Posted by jbrenner 10 years, 7 months ago
    
    Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean that such laws are not passed by Congress, enforced by those who wish to oppress us, and ignored by the Supreme Court.
    
    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
- Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
- 0
  
  Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 7 months ago
  
  Here's the thing though: people have religious beliefs about literally everything. If you allow religious belief to trump actual law, then people could simply sidestep any law simply by claiming that the law violates their religion. The phrase, "he is not going to follow a law that was intended to violate his religious beliefs," is essentially a free ticket to violate any law. Maybe you and he don't realize that that's what he's saying, but that is the logical conclusion of his statement.
  
  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
  - 1
    
    Posted by jbrenner 10 years, 7 months ago
    
    The passing of certain laws in the past generation, along with the selective enforcement of other laws, has lessened everyone's respect for the rule of law. The reason for such a lack of respect for the rule of law now is that we no longer have the rule of law, but the rule of lawyers.
    
    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink
  - 1
    
    Posted by jbrenner 10 years, 7 months ago
    
    As is hidden below, Hiraghm nails it. A law that requires one to violate one's religious beliefs is unconstitutional. Would you follow Directive 10-289 if it were passed? I wouldn't. I would tell the government that they could stick that law where the sun doesn't shine.
    
    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink

Comment hidden.