To: farmer18th
You must have an objection, then, to the Boston Tea Party.Uh, dude, you're running in circles here. First you get after Pryor for not following the law when he was, and then you say I must have had an objection to the Boston Tea Party when I clearly stated twice on this thread that I wished Pryor had stood up to the feds. Please try to make your arguments consistent with what the other person is doing or saying.
8 posted on
11/11/2003 11:53:02 AM PST by
dirtboy
(New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
To: dirtboy
Uh, dude, you're running in circles here
Not really. I think you failed to understand the point of the original post. We ARE a nation of laws, but when one set of laws violate a higher law, we have a holy obligation to disobey. Pryor just wasn't man enough--or Christian enough--to engage in the sort of righteous defiance that characterized Daniel, Cromwell, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Bonhoeffer and thousands of others. Pryor belongs with those appeasers of history who couldn't rise to the standard of truth.
To: dirtboy
The First Amendment clearly and simply forbids the federal government from making any laws in this area. Ergo, it is the Federal judges who are the lawbreakers in this instance.
Those like Judge Moore who are actively opposing their lawless orders deserve our support and protection.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson