Skip to content

Random thought: what is your obligation to follow a law you find immoral?

Or unconstitutional?


  1. Depends on HOW immoral. but, generally speaking, not much obligation.

    If it is a little thing, I would say “don’t get caught”

    Or better, if at all possible, try to find a middle ground that skirts the issue.

    If the above two are impossible, then capitulation while objecting is a possible recourse. (Such is the case when dealing with things like prayer in schools, where in many cases, Christians have to pray before and after school – cause the government can’t read or has no spine.)

    If it is a big thing (and this would have to be a REALLY big thing), then maybe it is time for civil disobedience.

    Most important, though, don’t fall on your sword for something that is not life and death.

    Posted on 01-Jul-10 at 22:33 | Permalink
  2. dw

    That;s a slippery slope. Can an athiest have morals? A marxists or Muslim? Who’s morals trump? The Politician’s and the legislation he passes?

    I just saw a new argument and level of understanding the ‘Separation of Church and State’ and it supports the Fed.

    Posted on 02-Jul-10 at 02:42 | Permalink
  3. An atheist cannot, by definition have morals. And to be a marxist, you have to be an atheist. Muslims, I guess, can have morals. Which ones depend on which of the Islamic writings you are going by. Early Koran, Late Koran, Early Hadith, Later Hadith, etc.

    In the US, when we say morals, we still mean Judao-Christian moral law, although in the last 50 years, we have gotten to where no one really learns about that any more, and as a consequence we are moving into a squishy quasi moralistic, post modern, feel good syrup that would please the atheists.

    Posted on 03-Jul-10 at 12:24 | Permalink
  4. dw

    I know for a fact that atheists have morals. That ‘by defination’ vague default Christian validation of your view is how the Marxist has a field day attacking your view and he will win every time if you are in fact open minded. How can Judeo Christian law govern over diversity without either strife or tyranny. How will the Marxist govern the diversity monster he has created? It’s a no brainer.

    I did one ask an atheist associate professor of philosophy what the source of his morality was and he did get offended believing I was a Chrisatian but he wholly supported Christianity because of his morals and that was why I asked.

    And just as a Christian has specific morals that guide his political views and voting so goes with the Marxist that likewise has morals. I have talked to Marxists that are in fact intelligent and responsible men that give time and money to their cause regardless of how ignorant I believe their views are. But the above is dialog and I think we are way past dialog as it even forces me to back peddle.

    What we want will not happen without the same violence our forefathers used. And one of the forefathers noted that this freedom lost will never be regained. I also believe this nation is an anomaly.

    The topic is taxes. And Tax sparked the revolution and is also the banner of the American Marxist even if he does believe he is only a socialist.

    What we want to save and preserve cannot be defended with intellectual dialog in a free and open society.

    What we want to preserve has natural ideological enemies. You want to quarter occupation troops in your house. If their is no law against them being there, or the laws puts them there eating your food and porking your daughters and you claim to be law abiding…?

    We don’t have what it take to preserve what we inherited.

    Posted on 04-Jul-10 at 18:43 | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *