On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:12:16 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:39:58 +0000 (UTC), David Hartung
wrote:

What if Kim Davis were a Muslim?

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?

If she were a Muslim, she wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

But if she were, by some freakish chance that a majority in her county
were Muslims themselves, they would have been equally bigoted and
discriminatory, and for the same reason: they rule their lives on the
basis of ancient superstitions written by people who were so ignorant
that they thought toads generated spontaneously from mud puddles.

And who seem to think that random writings in a book written by the
religious right constitutes "natural" law.

--
www.wescottdesign.com