Why a Bad Supreme Court Decision May Require Civil Disobedience

[Pat_M]

Why a Bad Supreme Court Decision May Require Civil Disobedience
stream.org/bad-supreme-court-decision-may-require-civil-disobedience/

"…Massachusetts might have used force to stop Catholic charities anyway, just as lone florists and bakers are being driven to bankruptcy in other states. But what would happen if, instead of quiet retreat, many thousands of individuals, agencies, charities, churches and schools all came together, prepared, prayed and peacefully refused to countenance a Supreme Court decision that violates not only our highest legal document, but the laws of Nature and Nature’s God?

“Perhaps we would see our culture step back from the brink of insanity, or perhaps we would suffer in the face of injustice. Whatever the outcome, the hour is late. It’s past time for us to get ready.”

 

[WillyAL]

…refused to countenance a Supreme Court decision that violates not only our highest legal document…

Although you might not agree with it, a Supreme Court decision, by definition, does not violate our highest legal document.

 

[Pat_M]

Although you might not agree with it, a Supreme Court decision, by definition, does not violate our highest legal document.

Well, I see what you’re saying, that the Supreme Court has the last word. But if we look at it that way, then “by definition” the Dred Scott decision did not violate the constitution either. I think what the author meant (he is a lawyer) was that the Supreme Court would violate the constitution if it “finds” a new right to gay marriage in the constitution, because it would be wrong, just like Dred Scott was wrong and, over time, has been admitted to be wrong even by Supreme Court justices.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The Supreme Court doesn’t have the final word. Its existence isn’t even assured,
…let alone its ever-changing ‘opinions’.

In terms of human, (earthly) political power, the final word is up to the will of the majority - one way or another. Either by democratic or violent means or a combination of both.

And in politics, the world is run by those who show up!

So if biblical theists surrender their entitlement to be heard and abandon debate in the public square, or capitulate to what their opponents decree is “being on the right side of history”, then they have nobody to blame but themselves.

I for one, am not going to be silenced. And I am not going to be told by any human being, (who happens to be a Supreme Court judge) that my God-given spiritual identity is trumped by someone else’s sexual inclinations.

As Christian human beings, 2.3 billion, we have the, autonomy, the equality and the right to exercise our free conscience and our culture of religion.