The Rule Of Law Only Matters When The Left Says It Does

Daily Caller ^ | 9/7/15 | Scott Greer

[markomalley]

Make no doubt about it: officials will go to jail if they refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The saga of Rowan County, Ky. clerk Kim Davis took a turn for a prison cell after a federal judge threw the book at Davis for turning away gay couples wanting to get married.

Naturally, Davis’s tribulations has become the latest and fiercest battle in America’s culture war. Her supporters say she’s practicing civil disobedience against an unjust Supreme Court ruling. Her detractors say she is undermining the rule of law and deserves jail time.

Oddly enough, the anti-Davis faction includes plenty of folks from the right as well as the unified consensus of the left. However, the Kentucky clerk’s conservative critics — which includes the judge who sentenced her to jail — don’t view her as a demonic bigot like her liberal foes. They simply see her act as a grave legal offense.

Conservatives cherish the rule of law, and rightly so. If no one respects the law, society will breakdown and anarchy will reign. In the eyes of those on the right, Davis must be punished for the sake of our social order.

Fair enough. Unfortunately though, we live in a society where its rules are regularly disregarded by those in power and by those on the left. Interestingly enough, those are the same folks who are the most enthusiastic supporters for throwing the Kentucky clerk in jail.

The same liberals who cheer on illegal immigrants, felons and rioters have suddenly found their inner appreciation for the law and demand the state punish Kim Davis to the fullest extent. The unbridled glee that accompanied Davis’s arrest revealed the left loves enforcing the law — when it punishes their ideological opponents.

However, when the rule of law goes against sanctuary cities and other “noble” causes, the left occupies the high moral ground and says they are practicing civil disobedience in refusing to enforce the unjust laws of the federal government.

Hypocrisy is too weak of a term to describe the left’s support of Davis’s prosecution.

Nobody has died because Kim Davis told a gay couple she won’t give them a marriage license. People die because sanctuary cities refuse to abide by federal law. Taxpayers also have to foot the bill for the services and benefits illegally obtained by those sheltered in these disobedient cities. The only real cost to taxpayers in l’affaire Davis is her prison stay.

The left also doesn’t seem too concerned with Hillary Clinton’s clear violation of federal law concerning emails — even though that “oversight” could have jeopardized national security. But don’t expect Hillary to face the same consequences as the lowly rural Kentucky clerk.

However, the Democratic presidential frontrunner does have the audacity to approve the arrest and detention of Kim Davis as she offers condescending explanations for why the law need not apply to herself.

It’s abundantly clear that the left has no concern for the rule of law. They want to see Davis in jail to send a message to those last hold outs in the culture war: “We control the state, and we will use it against you.”

The whole ordeal was engineered to prove this point. The denied couple came to make an example out of the Rowan County clerk, knowing full-well they’d get the enthusiastic support of the legal system and national media.

Conservatives should understand then that the Davis saga is not about upholding the rule of law. It’s a mop-up operation against those resisting America’s cultural transformation.

If we lived in a society where all of our laws were respected, it would be right to throw this one official in jail. But when the highest officials in our country flout immigration law and national security protections, why should we be outraged when a Rowan County clerk decides not to do a small part of her job due to her conscience?

President Obama’s executive amnesty, Hillary Clinton’s email shenanigans and sanctuary cities actually jeopardize the security of America. Kim Davis’s defiance doesn’t.

When our ruling class feels no need to respect the rule of law when it suits their interests, we shouldn’t be shocked when a minor official does the same thing. The conservative judge who imprisoned Davis is upholding the will of the left more than he is upholding the law.

If we imprisoned the mayors of sanctuary cities and Hillary Clinton, then it make sense to crack down on this one county clerk. But we don’t.

However, jail time is doing more for Davis’s cause than any other possible act. She could’ve remained a recalcitrant bureaucrat in the public view’s, but now she’s a martyr for the cause of religious liberty. All thanks to the uncompromising zealotry that defines modern-day progressives and the witless obedience that defines modern-day conservatives.

Some may say the true act of civil disobedience for Davis would’ve been to resign. That would’ve only been a gift to same-sex marriage supporters and would constitute grudging acceptance for the new law of the land. By not resigning, she has forced the issue out in the public square which would’ve never happened if she quit her job quietly.

It is true that if we want the rule of law to, well, rule, Davis should sign off on papers recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples or go to jail. But, in that case, the mayors of sanctuary cities and Hillary Clinton should go to prison as well.

Otherwise, we’re just enshrining into leftist hypocrisy into our legal code.

[markomalley]

While Greer has a good point, the larger point is that the court order Davis refuses to enforce is a violation of the natural law.

[Olog-hai]

Why is it that Bunning is a conservative because the NY Times says so . . . ? That one is confusing.

[Boomer]

Libs routinely break our laws. One just needs to look at obozo’s illegal actions while in office.

If Davis deserves to be in jail so does obie and the shrill one. No one is above the law; or are they?

[fwdude]

The order is also one to violate actual legislation, both state and federal.

[chajin]

“An unjust law is no law at all.” - St. Augustine, via Martin Luther King, Jr.

[jsanders2001]

>!Why is it that Bunning is a conservative because the NY Times says so . . . ? That one is confusing.

He sure isn’t if you look at his record. Forcing students to take gay semsitivity training doesn”’t sound too conservative too me nor does jailing a clerk for refusing ti issue marriage certificates to gay couples. And there are other cases he’s ruled in where he appears to be for the homo agenda and against Christians. I think this whole event was orchestrated and they knew she wasn’r going to signnoff on their marriage certificates and that she would go to jail. Why else would the Humans Right Campaign, the largest gay rights group of its kind in the world that’s funded by George Soros buy the domain name, www.freekimdavis.com, the day BEFORE she was put in jail. Why would 4 gay couples appear BEFORE noon on September 4th; one of the couples driving from a completely different county to get married, complete with film crews at the Rowan County Courthouse to apply for a marriage license when some had been turned away before? What are the odds of 4 gay couples appearing at the courthouse before noon on any other day? Very slim.

This was all a setup and Soros fingerprints, David Bunnings past anti-Christian and pro-homo rulings had everthing to do with the reason why Kim Davis sits in jail today. I bet you an interview with his deputy clerk and staff will indicate that he was contacted about this Kim Davis long beore she ended up in jail. This whole scenario smells like one big SETUP.

[madprof98]

Oddly enough, the anti-Davis faction includes plenty of folks from the right as well as the unified consensus of the left.

Oddly??? No way. The "folks from the right" NEVER stand together. Only the left does that. Which is why they are winning big-time.

[spirited irish]

Please explain how the court order Davis refused to enforce is a violation of natural law.

[jughandle]

How in the world is not issuing a gay “marriage” certificate worthy of jail time with no bail?? I’d think the MOST would be terminated from that job..

[gusopol3]

It’s not a “job, “ it’s an elected office. There is no current marriage law in Kentucky because the US Supreme Court invalidated all the laws in states that defined marriage as a union (only) between a man and a woman. ( Huckabee makes this point greatly in interview with Snuffleupagous). Kim Davis not only did not issue licenses to same sex couples, she did not issue to heterosex since the Supreme Court ruling, that why two heterosex couples also sued her. Any of those couples could have driven to the next county to obtain their licenses. Kim Davis merely asked the judge to remove her name from the license or that some other ruling authority do that. She is standing for the rule of law, it is the Supreme Court and the federal court that are lawless, arrogating to themselves the right to make law.

[ripley]

“Libs routinely break our laws.”

Comrade!

“Libs” can do no wrong because they further the revolution and one can do no wrong when furthering the revolution.

Long Live the Revolution!!! (The issue is not the issue, the issue is the Revolution)

/S/

IMHO

[T-Bird45]

Excellent and succinct summary of the situation that takes a bunch of the fire out the arguments presented so vociferously by the Butt Brothers and Carpet Munchers. This is especially telling in the discussion about “rule of law” position taken by many. I think those on our side need to repeatedly hammer the details you’ve given, a la Huckabee. I don’t generally care for him but you can’t overlook the strong points he made with Georgey.

[The_Reader_David]

The Rule Of Law Any Concept, Ideal or Fact Only Matters When The Left Says It Does. Or so the left, the media included, would have you believe.

[Mase]

Bookmark

[Diamond]

Please explain how the court order Davis refused to enforce is a violation of natural law.

The Order can be said to be a violation of natural law in the same way and on the same grounds as Thomas Jefferson's statement that "when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."

The Order effectively commands her to endorse, cooperate with and participate in unrighteousness and wickedness. It is a morally and ethically dyslexic collective product of reprobate minds. For her part, she does not give her consent to their revolution and is simply refusing to participate in, cooperate with, or endorse it.

Judge Bunning's Order and the SCOTUS Opinion on which it is based are odious perversions and abuses of the law because they subvert the law from its true purpose, which is the maintenance of justice via the punishment of the wicked. Inverting the law to reward the wicked and punish the good is not justice. It is an ultra vires act of despotism and tyranny.

The following was written about 479 years ago, long before Anthony Kennedy, et al decided to rewrite natural law:

32. But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates—a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree (Dan. 6:22), because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power.

On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions (1 Kings 12:28). With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet (Hosea 5:11). So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining anything imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows, or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants.

I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are contemned. As Solomon says, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death” (Prov. 16:14). But since Peter, one of heaven’s heralds, has published the edict, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires, when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional consideration (1 Cor. 7:23), that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.
John Calvin - Institutes 4.20.35

Cordially,

[markomalley]

Spirited Irish posed the following question: Please explain how the court order Davis refused to enforce is a violation of natural law.

Diamond proffered a solution featuring the writings of John Calvin.

I, personally, prefer to provide an answer using philosophy and legal theory, as opposed to a theological answer to a philosophical question. Theology and natural philosophy should agree with each other.

A natural law definition of marriage would be the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.

This is a natural law definition as compared to a theological definition as the truth of the definition can be discerned through the use of right reason and by observing biological functions of man (i.e., observing the created order).

As Cicero said,

For there is but one essential justice which cements society, and one law which establishes this justice. This law is right reason, which is the true rule of all commandments and prohibitions. Whoever neglects this law, whether written or unwritten, is necessarily unjust and wicked.

Why is the marriage definition given above in accord with right reason?

It should be pretty obvious. Unless we're dealing with some sort of artificial technological development, the continuance of the species requires men and women to produce offspring. Stable (lasting) unions are biologically needed due to the length of time needed for offspring to develop sufficiently prior to moving off on their own. In addition, one can see a long-lasting bonding effect through the actions of a number of hormones in the body, most noticeably oxytocin and vasopressin.

Why would sodomite unions be in violation of right reason?

Because they are inherently sterile. Without the use of artificial reproductive technology, there is absolutely no way that offspring could be produced without such a union.

The judge, himself, acknowledged that he supported a violation of natural law when he said:

“The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”

Had the judge believed that the order of the court in Obergefell was in accordance with the natural law, why would he make that statement?

[Diamond]

Theology and natural philosophy should agree with each other.

Yes, and in this instance they do. "The laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

This is a natural law definition as compared to a theological definition as the truth of the definition can be discerned through the use of right reason and by observing biological functions of man (i.e., observing the created order).

Agreeable to me as well.

The judge, himself, acknowledged that he supported a violation of natural law when he said:

“The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”

Had the judge believed that the order of the court in Obergefell was in accordance with the natural law, why would he make that statement?

Exactly. One of the most shocking statements he made. The Whole Republic was built on the concept of Natural Law, and/or a Higher Law.

If the judge wants to have only his positive law then he will find no place or source for rights that are inalienably endowed by the Creator.

Cordially,

[spirited irish]

Thank-you Diamond and markomalley for your beautifully and logically reasoned responses. Up to a year ago I firmly favored mm's approach in my apologetics ministry (and still do), but in light of the rising tide of destructive subjectivism and its constant companion irrationalism marching militantly through much of the Christian Church and our socio-political culture, Diamond's response speaks strongly in terms of what is actually happening (Judges 2:10-13). It appears to me that 'right reason' is dead among much of the population, including certain theologians, jurists, political leaders, media talking heads, and intelligentsia.

Consider for example that in post-Christian paganized America, Bruce Jenner's highly publicized and celebrated path to self-realization exemplifies the evolution of man through perpetual rebirth, make-overs and rebrandings of man's fluid, ever evolving nature. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, America's version of the Aztecs, routinely harvest heads, livers, hearts and other body parts of aborted babies for 'scientific' research while mass man pleasers such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell admits he's unwilling to put forward a bill to stop these heinous and depraved acts of evil because Obama, who supports what Planned Parenthood is doing, won't sign the bill. Similarly, and with respect to Kim Davis, the Christian Kentucky clerk who was ordered to jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to 'self-realized' same-sex couples, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he can see both sides in the case but that “the Supreme Court has ruled” on the issue and “it is the law of the land.” (Donald Trump on Kim Davis Case: 'The Supreme Court has Ruled,' David Sherfinski, Washington Times, Sept. 4, 2015)

Darwinism in particular and other spiritual evolutionary conceptions (i.e., Eastern oriented Teilhardism) in general are forms of subjectivism that are now deeply entrenched throughout academia, science, law, politics, certain seminaries and the minds of millions of Americans. As evolution implies continuous change it is a form of both relativism and deconstruction that on one hand serves up an anti-creation account – an inverted exegesis that reduces man in the spiritual image of the Holy Trinity to evolved ape---and with the other argues that since humanity has evolved from lesser to greater biological organisms, the same change process is in play in the area of truth, morals, natural law and biblical infallibility. Therefore, all that can be known at present – and forever – is that there is no absolute or fixed certainty. By 1951, this insanity-inducing claim had already contaminated America's Supreme Court. In "Dennis et al. vs. U.S." Chief Justice Fred A. Vinson observed:

"Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes ....all concepts are relative." (The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, George H. Nash, p. 37)

With respect to natural law, in John Heiders' 1985 book, "The Tao of Leadership: Leadership Strategies for a New Age," as popularized for the business community, Heider teaches executives the wisdom of 5th century B.C. Chinese nature sage Lao-Tzu. Lao's wisdom is grounded in pantheist monism, hence among the foundational natural law principles taught by Herder is this one: "I am one with everything else" and "all creation is a single whole that operates according to a single principle."

Pantheist monism means all is one, for example, World Soul, Quantum Void, Brahman or Extraterrestrial Presence. From the "one substance" emanates a divine life force (source of natural law) uniting all creation, therefore all is god.

In Dr. Peter Jones recently published book "The Other Worldview," he observes that the millennial generation is the first to be immersed from birth within a coherently anti-biblical, occult evolutionary pagan system:

"In many areas of the United States and in its educational institutions, this generation has been given a worldview based on the presuppositions of paganism and an outright rejection of God, the personal Creator. For many young people (occult pagan) voices have drowned out serious consideration of the Christian worldview, which is now vilified---as the source of all kinds of evil. Thus, traditional Western culture is under siege, and the immediate casualties are the millennials, who have unwittingly been seduced by aging progressives." (p. xvii)

How can we speak to a generation steeped in old occult paganism dressed in new clothes? Dr. Jones answer (and mine) is by a robust God-honoring cosmology and by a thorough unpacking of the meaning and essence of the pagan "lie" in order that we may then show the full extent of the Way, Truth, and Life---the only way forward. Jones comments:

"We Christians need a deep understanding of both the gospel and the pagan system around us---the system into which the gospel speaks and which it unequivocally judges so that it may fully redeem."

[markomalley]

Darwinism in particular and other spiritual evolutionary conceptions (i.e., Eastern oriented Teilhardism) in general are forms of subjectivism that are now deeply entrenched throughout academia, science, law, politics, certain seminaries and the minds of millions of Americans.

You should look into Integral Theory, as proposed by Ken Wilber, for insight into the modern "Wisdom of Men" that is infiltrating modern philosophical and, I fear, theological thought. An overview is in his book, A Theory of Everything.

I have seen this philosophy integrated into Pope Francis' Laudato Sí (see the sections on Integral Ecology). The trouble is that this flies in the face of traditional Catholic teaching and falls square in the middle of Modernism, as so eloquently defined in St Pius X's Pascendi. I wonder how much this "integral theory" has infiltrated into evangelical groups, particularly many of those Mega-churches.

[spirited irish]

I'm familiar with Wilber's integral theory grounded in monism (the antithesis). In our own time, the antithesis of the Revealed Word remains substantially unchanged from what it was in Paul's time:

"Paul was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" Others, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,"-- because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?… "(Acts 17:18-19)

The Stoics and Epicureans were the two most prominent schools of nature philosophy/nature science/nature religion of that time. Theirs was an atheistic scientific worldview predicated upon a one-dimensional universe (monism) of animated (evolving) physical matter or psychic energy (spiritualized matter). They were the physicists of their age.

Whether matter and energy are held to be eternally existing or spontaneously generated (Cosmic Egg/Big Bang) matters not since the common point of departure for all worldviews grounded in matter and energy is metaphysical nihilism,

"... This position has been held by philosophers such as Parmenides, Buddha, Advaita Vedantins, and perhaps Kant (according to some interpretations of his transcendental idealism). Blob theory can also be considered very closely aligned with mereological nihilism (there are no parts and wholes). Obviously if metaphysical nihilism is correct, empirical reality is an illusion." (What is Metaphysical Nihilism? OpenTopia.com)

When Pope Francis addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the Vatican he affirmed the Big Bang and evolution (metaphysical nihilism), thereby standing against the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo and faithful creationists and with those who reject the Creation account of Genesis as written. Moreover, he endorsed the view that extraterrestrial life,

"....which he refers to as “beings of the universe” - has evolved in ways that is consistent with the plans of “God the creator.” He explained how the Catholic Church views the Big Bang and evolution as scientific processes underpinned by “the plan of the creator.” Pope Francis has officially moved the Catholic Church away from the idea of “God the creator..." (Pope endorses evolution of alien life & UFO activity as part of God's plan, Michael Salla, The Examiner, Oct. 28, 2014)

It isn't so much Wilber's theory moving into Evangelical churches, and some Reformed, so much as it is Hugh Ross's progressive creationism.