Posted on 10/24/2003 12:53:53 AM PDT by archy
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:13:10 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Our laws, and the moral authority for the enforcement of those laws, comes from the U.S. constitution, the contract between governed and government that lawful authority shall intrude only so far into the lives and social wellbeing of those governed under it, and no further.
When that government abrogates the rights of those so governed, as by limiting or restricting their second amendment rights that are clearly not lawfully to be infringed upon, it not only degrades and makes moot and invalid that previously kept-to contractural agreement, but also negates the very source of its own lawful powers and legitimacy.
In those jurisdictions in which the constitution has been so suspended or abandoned, there is in fact no justice or constitutional law, and each person is indeed a law unto themselves.
If the government wishes to disregard a portion of the constitution promising me that they will not interfere with my personal activity and conduct in a category outlined in that constitution, the Second Amendment, for example, then there is no reason why I should particularly recognize their activities under another portion, such as Article Two, for example. Turn about is fair play.
You are indeed on your own, and there really is no fair system of laws or justice upon which you can reasonably depend any more. Once a portion of the constitution has become corrupt or invalidated, the entire document is moot. And you have no more moral duty to abide by it that the government which tore it to shreds by it's own constitutional excess in the first place.
-archy-/-
Which, to be consistent, would seem to apply to your atitude toward gun-confiscation laws.
See # 62.
archy-/-
They where guilty of having a gun in the city without a permit and firing the gun in the city. Since the law is wrong the right thing for them to do is keep their mouths shut.
How the hell do you know that?
How the hell do you know that?
True. He did. And Saint Thomas More obeyed his King even unto the point of death. As you’ll recall, our saint was executed for refusing to sign off on Henry’s remarriage — in other words, Henry commanded St. Thomas to swear to God that a lie was the truth. Since bearing of false witness is a violation of the Law of God, the King was telling St. Thomas to choose to whom his allegiance was greater: to the King of England or to the King of the Universe.
St. Thomas More made his choice: by refusing to swear to a lie — to render something unto Caesar that belongs only to God — he declared his allegiance to God above Henry. He broke the law. But he didn’t run, hide, or attempt to conceal his identity. Instead, he boldly submitted himself to due process — and got his head chopped off for treason. But even as he placed his head on the block he never said a word about injustice, rebellion, or the evils of the King. To the last breath he remained loyal to Cross and Crown. That’s why he is a hero and a saint. He did what was right, submitted his actions to justice, and took the consequences.
Ditto Socrates. Did Socrates hide? Did he run away? Did he raise a rebel army and overthrow Athens? No. He was a patriot and a pious man. He stepped into the midst of his judges and boldly said ”Here is what I have said and done. It’s up to you to judge my guilt or innocence.” They found him guilty and he drank the hemlock as the law required. That’s why he is a hero and renowned as the wisest of all philiosophers: He did what was right, submitted his actions to justice, and took the consequences.
Our Lord, of course, is the greatest example of a hero in all of history. He, being God, announced the Truth to mankind — and then meekly submitted himself to the judgment of pagan Pilate. Jesus Christ never hid out, slinked around, or tried to avoid the justice of the State. He took it — for all of us.
...disrespect to Caesar George III is disrespect to God
Yes. It was. Here is what God teaches us about government, in plain, unadorned form:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.Seems straightforward to me. I see nothing in this teaching to indicate that we’re allowed to break the law for a good purpose and then hide out to escape the consequences. How many times did St. Peter and St. Paul end up in the clink?For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he [the King] is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
[Romans 13:1-7]
We must, however, humbly stand before Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
Saint Peter humbly stood before Caesar. As for the Alamo, well, God will judge. Rebellion against authority is a sin, but sometimes it’s not clear who that authority is. (The government of Mexico, as you’ll recall, rebelled against its King and killed its Emperor.) Was Santa Ana a representative of the legitimate authority, or just a henchmen for the regicides that pirated the legitimate government of his country?
You can spin this any way you want, A.B., but in the end it all comes down to rebellion against authority — and that is something Christians are unambiguously commanded never to do. If the shooter in this case is a moral man, he’ll submit his actions to the judgment of a jury and let the chips fall where they may.
How the hell do you know that?
How the hell do you know that?
You are correct it is rebellion against authority. The authority WILL prosecute for at least shooting an unauthorized weapon in city limits. That means the authority would of rather let the ladies be murdered then have these two men save them.
What due process? Where do I find it? In court? Puleeeeeeze. I don't know about you, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. You're talking about the way things *should be* and I'm talking about the way things *are*. Pontificate about morality to the people running the meat grinder known as the American criminal injustice system, not me. When I go into a court run by these guys:
at least I know what I'm up against and I'll pass on their team's brand of "due process."
Matthew 26:51 says: "And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear." (Douay-Rheims).
What were these disciples of Jesus doing carrying swords around, when such conduct would, with little doubt, be prohibited by the Roman occupation?
Swords were not prohibited by the Roman occupation, nor could they have been. In Roman times, the government recognized the right (derived from natural law) of every freeman to provide for his own self-defense. Knives, daggers, and the short sword were openly carried and used by peasants and artisans of Jesus‘ day.
We live in a "free country," and we can't carry swords around in public, according to the laws, and in spite of Amendment II.
Laws vary from state to state. I carry a large knife on my person at all times (airplanes excepted)!
The Christians in Lebanon were persecuted by Muslim authority, and I doubt very strongly that God wanted it that way.
On what basis do you doubt it? From Egypt to Babylon to Rome to Russia, God has often allowed His people (Jewish and Christian) to suffer under persecution from unjust governments. All of the Apostles save one died as martyrs. Our Lord Himself was persecuted to death. Christianity is a religion of suffering. We are supposed to revel in our persecution — ”take up your cross (=suffering) and follow Me.”
Not all authority is just or venerable.
True, but rebellion is forbidden anyway. (Note: a “rebellion” against a government installed by a conqueror or that has usurped the actual government of a country by force or politics is not a rebellion at all, but a restoration. Restoration of legitimate government is a wholly just and Christian endeavor.)
"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People." (Declaration of Independence). A "jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution," and "Acts of pretended Legislation," are null and void as law.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not divinely inspired. A Christian is called to obey the law of the land no matter how unfair, unjust, or unpalatable those laws might be. The only laws we may rebel against are those that transgress natural law and/or demand we render unto Caesar those things that belong only to God.
To B-Chan, that's irrelevant. Apparently, it is subservience that he holds in higher esteem. (He'd make a wonderful student of Islam.)
Hey B-Chan, I bet your philosophy comes to crashing halt when Ceasar tells you to renouce your faith and to live in accordance with explicitly anti-Christian principles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.