XPost: soc.retirement, misc.survivalism

What if Kim Davis were a Muslim?
What kind of gun would she use to defend her religious liberty?


There has been a lot of media coverage of the case of Kim Davis,
the county clerk in Kentucky who has been jailed for refusing to
issue marriage licenses to gay couples for religious reasons.
Everybody is coming down on one side or the other as if there is a
clear mark of demarcation. But this is a complicated case. It is
the clash of the rule of law, natural law, ethics, conscientious
objection, and civil disobedience.

Under the rule of law the laws must be obeyed and enforced. Under
natural law same-sex “marriage” does not exist. Under ethics there
is no obligation to obey an unjust law, and sometimes a duty to
disobey it. A person’s well-formed conscience is inviolable and
the First Amendment is supposed to protect conscience rights.
Anyone who engages in civil disobedience must accept the
consequences of their actions.

This is a textbook case of the quagmire a society gets itself into
when its civil laws are not in accord with natural law. Adding to
the confusion is that this case is being prosecuted rather than
seeking an accommodation for the clerk. There have been other
cases of the law being ignored or broken by elected officials, but
they didn’t cause a stir.

Our own attorney general refused to defend Virginia’s marriage law
which was enshrined in the state constitution, even though he
campaigned under the guise that he supported the law. But he’s not
in jail. He didn’t even get disbarred.

The sanctuary cities are in violation of Federal law. This policy
caused at least one innocent person to be murdered by someone who
didn’t deserve sanctuary. But so far nobody has been prosecuted.

So why is Kim Davis being prosecuted for violating the law under
these circumstances? Is it because she’s a Christian? What if she
were a Muslim?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)