Skip to comments.By what right do rights trump laws?
Posted on 05/28/2012 6:21:53 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Liberalism - same thing.
Loss of critical thinking skills has wrecked the country.
Even with Keyes, which is surprising. In the article, he actually tries to equate gay "rights" with allowing murder. What rot.
The limitations on religion come from the definition of religion. Under the 1st Amendment, the definition of religion does not include allowing the killing of non-believers, or the enslaving of women or non-believers.
"Gay rights" are unconsitutional in that they are special rights designed solely to benefit people depending on who they like to f**k. Needless to say, there isn't a whole lot of historical legal support for such an argument, except against gays. However consider the pissy solution gays have come up with - they were harmed by laws illegalizing them, so they are trying to hurt their own society by illegalizing it in favor of them. It never occurs to these morons that imbalance is imbalance - or that they are trying to destroy a country that did acknowledge their sexual freedoms (despite the loathing of many of its people for them), rather than just destroying them like everywhere else.
Fact is, most, if not all, of the "modern" legal issues came about by the misuse or selective enforcement of laws that were already on the books. But instead of dealing with that issue of corruption, it was spun into getting ignorant people to believe that we needed a whole new set of laws for each issue.
Accepting that concept is where we went off the cliff.
The muslim religion is a religion by name only. This religion should be listed as a subversive organization. Their stated duty is to overthrow the United States government and establish their on in it’s place.
Me, too. The logical and philosophical fallacies in this piece are stunning. Sigh.
Hint: A right to be left alone - not forced to do something such as pay for abortions - is entirely different from a right to kill someone under the rubric of “religion.” In every respect.
First, only individual persons have rights.
States do not have states rights.
Churches do not have rights. The individual persons in those churches are the possessors of rights.
Businesses don’t have rights. The individuals involved in that business have rights.
Second, rights come from God/natural law. They do not come from government. The actions of individuals in government and individuals in other institutions can abridge/violate those rights. But they can’t “take them away”.
The Constitution provides for ‘abridging’ those rights with due cause and due process. Thus certain rights can be abridged upon probable cause.
So when new laws or stated policy violate those Constitutional GUARANTEES --
At that time -- those who wrote them, passed them, signed them, and/or adopted them, etc...have made an error!
BY DEFINITION AND "FOUNDATIONAL" PRINCIPLES AND PRECEDENT:
THEY ARE PLAYING OUT OF BOUNDS
All this smoke screen and BS about "the rights don't trump laws"...
... the RIGHTS were established at the get-go...
Therefore... the correctly framed surmise is stated thusly:
THESE LAWS(POLICIES).... CANNOT... TRUMP OUR RIGHTS....
You built an upstairs addition to the side of your house...
...but it was cantilevered to far outside the strength of the vertical structure points supported by the foundation...
....and it wasn't initially setback correctly from the property line...
So it lets go and falls to the ground soon after it is painted and furnished... no one was injured.... BUT...
--With some of the debris flopping over into the neighbor's yard.... it damaged his fence on the way down....
Would you then say...
"THE ROOM HAS PRIORITY OVER THE FOUNDATION!!"
"WHY DIDN'T THE FOUNDATION SUPPORT THE NEW ROOM ADDITION--THAT'S NOT FAIR?"
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say:
THE NEW ADDITION WAS BUILT TO FAR OUTSIDE THE FOUNDATION!!
THE BASIC STRUCTURE COULDN'T HOLD THE WEIGHT OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION... --or--
THE WHOLE DARN THING WAS TOO FAR OVER THE PROPERTY LINE TO BEGIN WITH......
The preezy should:
(1)IMMEDIATELY-- CLEAN UP THE MESS HE MADE...
(2) FIX THE FENCE AS GOOD AS NEW....
--AND-- MOST OF ALL
3) LEARN TO MAKE NICE WITH THE NEIGHBORS---
THE HE WON'T GET SUED!!!
Just my $.02
Have a nice day...
Don’t get me started.... ROFL
At the risk of getting flamed, I’m going to weigh in on this discussion.
Alan Keyes forgets the one rule that is common to most religions (Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism)... Life is sacred and is to be protected above all else.
Judaism teaches that one is allowed to violate virtually any religious edict in order to protect life. I’m sure that other, reasonable, religions do the same.
Once you get that in your head, the rest of the article is easy to parse.
Honor killings - no
Abortion - no
Eating the dead flesh of your parents - gross but does not violate the overriding goal of protecting life
“Just” War doctrine - situaiton requires careful analysis (can do more harm than good)
Peyote or “magic mushrooms” - no... damages the user, can hurt others if the user drives, has access to weapons, etc.
Protecting life can be the yardstick by which we measure actions taken in the name of religion.
I say that a lot around here, but no-one seems to hear. I'm glad someone gets it, and I'm not kicking that dead whale down the beach by myself.
A lot of Muslim morals are not against the law and we would have no business forcing them to act immorally. I don’t know if they beleive in birth control and abortion or not. They can not murder, mutulate, enslave or terrorize people in America. Neither can Christians. Neither can atheists. Neither can homos, atheists, Satanists, earth firsters nor vegans.
Obama pardoned Muslims from health care mandates in the Bill no one read. He did that because he knew it was a violation of their religious freedom to place immoral health care mandates on them.
Homos should find some respect for religous freedom and back off. People don’t have to approve of their sexual behavior and lifestyle nor do people have to redesign heterosexual family and marriage into a homosexual thing. People don’t even have to like homosexuals or anyone else.
Christians are not going to be bossed around by homos and they are not going to use government force to redefine other people’s religion to serve their own perversions. If this were the case, we could have murder activists fighting against religion for rejecting murder.
Freedom of religion is protected under the constitution. Sexual behavior or any behavior is not assigned rights in the constitution. The people get to decide what they beleive and value, not the government and not atheists.
“Catholics should be opposed to this overreach of federal power regardless - not seeking special dispensation for themselves.”
Why would you say that Catholics are seeking special dispensation for themselves?
Beg to differ.
Rights are absolute and cannot be abridged.
However, not every claim that "rights" apply is valid. People often try to claim that a certain practice is protected by a right when it is not.
Thus, to use the cliche, the right to freedom of speech does not protect (falsely) crying "Fire" in a theater. It is speech, but not protected speech.
The First Amendment was never intended to apply to mohammedism, hinduism, or any of that whacko crap.
It was intended to apply only to Christianity and Judaism. You know, the real religions.
Actually, /johhmy, a lot of us get it. We just don’t comment because you say what need said...