By what right do rights trump laws?

Renew America ^ | 3-28-12 | Alan Keyes

[ReformationFan]

The headline read "3 in 4 say religious rights trump law." The article went on to explain that "In the Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll, nearly three in four Americans, 74 percent, said freedom of religion should be protected 'even if it conflicts with other laws.'" The juxtaposition of the headline and the explanation provide a perfect illustration of the way in which rights and freedoms are carelessly conflated these days, in a way that could have very damaging unintended consequences.

For example, if religious freedom per se trumps other laws, what about the so-called "honor killing" permitted by Islamic law in which a woman who has brought "shame" to her family is murdered to preserve family "purity"? Would the revival of human sacrifice, including the ritual slaughter of children, trump laws against murder? The ancient Greek historian Herodotus speaks of a people in the ancient near east who considered it a sign of reverence to eat the flesh of a dead parent as part of the ritual commemorating the death. Could neo-pagans seeking to revive this practice claim that their religious freedom forbids enforcing laws against the desecration of corpses in order to discourage their practice of cannibalism?

I think we can take it for granted that most Americans will react to these examples with feelings of revulsion. But as we know from the ongoing campaign to enforce acceptance of homosexuality, a small minority can use or abuse arguments that assert "rights" to demand acceptance of their behavior no matter how most other people feel.

[piytar]

Actually, /johhmy, a lot of us get it. We just don’t comment because you say what needs said...

[Sherman Logan]

The muslim religion is a religion by name only.

Classic example of trying to force other religions into a mold with which we are familiar. Jesus said to pay unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, which led to a tradition that the religious and secular areas of life are or at least can be separate.

Islam just isn't like that. It allows for no such separation.

That doesn't mean it is not a religion, just that it is a different type of religion than Christianity.

[JRandomFreeper]

And it's much safer to let ME say stuff that may bring a lightning bolt from on high. ;)

/johnny

[andyk]

Why would you say that Catholics are seeking special dispensation for themselves?

Well to be fair, it's not just Catholics - they are just front and center in the war waged by Obama against private enterprise. They seek to exempt themselves from rules that they should be opposed to as a general overreach of our federal government, and not based on the 1st amendment.

As I said in my post, I believe it is crazy to think that the 1st amendment was ever intended to exempt some people from the power and jurisdiction of the fedgov, and not others.

Their opposition accepts that the fedgov can tell other private organizations what insurance to offer, but not one of organized religion. I think that's a shame.

[ThunderSleeps]

Here's a 30 second thought experiment that shows how foolish, dangerous, and wrong the notion is that religious rights/beliefs trump laws.

What makes a religion? Someone's beliefs right? Well, how big does a religion have to be (in terms of followers) to be recognized for it's "rights?" After all, you don't want to discriminate. Suppose I declare myself a religion of one, and ordain myself. I can claim any old screwy thing is part of my "religion" and I have to be allowed to do it if religious rights trump laws.

In other words, as soon as you accept the notion that religious rights trump laws, all laws, ALL LAWS, become effectively null and void. More proof you have to be very careful throwing around the term "right"... However, the left sure seems to like to scream and yell about their "rights." Most of which translate into someone else claiming a "right" to our money/time/resources and claiming ever-growing control over our lives.

Religious rights transcending laws? No thank you, flawed premise rejected.

[ZULU]

Certain basic human rights - the kind laid out in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, the BILL OF RIGHTS and in the thoughts of the philosophers of the AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT which spawned America as a free nation, should ALWAYS trump ANY laws which conflict with them. These rights derive from God Himself, NOT from any damn court, damn TIN-HORN, GREENHORN Marxist President, or the Bolshevik stool-pigeons who advise him.

[Teacher317]

Well said, and concise. (My reply would’ve taken many paragraphs to make those vital points.)

[StonyBurk]

I read as an apology for the founding principles reflected in our Declaration of Independence— and likewise a reflection of
Locke who along with Montesquieu and Blackstone were among the most cited European writers —the “Sacred Writings”The
Christian Bible remains the most cited authority of the Founding era. But Locke ,Blackstone, Jefferson, and James Wilson all seemed on the same page that human laws are invalid if they contradict the laws dictated by God ,Himself. I believe Alan Keyes did not intend to suggest the Islamic system could compare to Christianity. But cited such examples- along with reference to the blasphemy of Gay Rights—as example of human laws that are violation of the rule of law as understood int he founding era.

[spintreebob]

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If a person commits murder, he still possesses his God given rights. But the government has the power granted by the constitution to abridge the rights of the murderer and take away his liberty and pursuit of happiness, and maybe even his life.

[spintreebob]

well said.

[spintreebob]

States, and all governments, have power. ... the power that we allow them to have.

[Lurker]

I lost any shred of respect I had for Keyes when his vanity foisted Senator Barack Obama on the formerly great State of Illinois.

[aruanan]

I lost any shred of respect I had for Keyes when his vanity foisted Senator Barack Obama on the formerly great State of Illinois.

Wrong focus. It was Jack Ryan who dropped out of the race and allowed Obama to become the junior senator from Illinois--though he was badly trailing Obama in the polls. And if Keyes was in there at all, it's because the IL GOP put him there. So first blame Obama for the dirty trick of getting Ryan's sealed divorce proceedings released by some partisan judge over the objections of both Ryan and his former wife, then blame Ryan for knuckling under Obama, then blame the IL GOP for thinking they had to come up with some black guy to replace Ryan to run against a somewhat black guy, then blame white voters for not bothering to turn out after Ryan was replaced with Keyes, then blame black voters for being so biased that they would never vote for a black Republican candidate, and then blame Keyes for not winning.

Formerly great state of Illinois? Maybe briefly back in Lincoln's day. The state has been a cesspool of political corruption since the latter 19th century without regard to political party. The Chicago political machine is the only remaining machine still operating since the 19th century in a big city.

[Lurker]

All of that is true. But Keyes, with his unconscionable vanity and ego, said yes.

And that makes President Barack Obama his fault.

[aruanan]

All of that is true. But Keyes, with his unconscionable vanity and ego, said yes.

And that makes President Barack Obama his fault.

I'm trying to think of an analogy here to what you're saying. It would probably be something like this: The drag-racing parents of a young teen ask him if his young Chinese friend Wang wanted to race their dragster in the big race the next day against Deng the Draggin' Slayer since their driver had been sidelined by an injury (suspected of having been inflicted by Deng and his crew) even though the most driving experience either kid had had was in Grand Theft Auto, and Wang, the young teen who thought he could handle anything, said, "Heck, yes! I'll give it a shot," suited up, went out, totaled the dragster, and lost the race.

Friends of the family questioned about the incident later said that the kid was really the one to blame because if he hadn't taken his friend's parents up on the offer and had not had such an overly high estimate of his driving ability he never would have wrecked the car. When it was pointed out that even if the kid had said, "No way, don't put that kind of pressure on me. I'm not a good enough driver for this kind of race and just because I'm Chinese like the other driver doesn't mean I've got a realistic chance," the other driver probably would have won because there wasn't anyone with the needed background and skill to fill in at the last moment, the same friends of the family responded by saying that, nevertheless, the other driver won because the kid, with his unconscionable vanity and ego, said yes and that makes the other guy winning the race the kid's fault.

Though this doesn't quite work because the winner of a drag race doesn't get across the finish line first because he gets more votes than the other guy from the spectators in the grand stand.