Laws that do not serve justice are not lawful — as Alamo-Girl so beautifully illustrates here. She wrote: "In the case at hand, the courts, media and pro-abortion side are careful to call the unborn child, even a viable child, a fetus — and the killing, a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. But dehumanizing the unborn does not make it so, nor does using a substitute phrase making killing any less than what it is."
You can't make an unjustice just by "reinventing the language" and waving the magic wand of specious legal arguments.
Which is just to say that laws must be measured against the standard of justice in order to be truly lawful. So it seems to me that what we have here is not an argument between law and anarchy, but about whether unjust laws will stand in America.
And it is precisely because we don't want MEN deciding what "other guys need killing" that we have recourse to divine law, which is the foundation of American justice. Murder, as defined in the Bible, is the willful taking of innocent life. Roeder's act was certainly willful. But was Tiller an "innocent life?"
Just askin' — a conundrum for your reflection.
Which is just to say that laws must be measured against the standard of justice in order to be truly lawful. So it seems to me that what we have here is not an argument between law and anarchy, but about whether unjust laws will stand in America.
Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
Where do you draw the line. Who is deserving of execution, and who is not.