I figure you figure a lot of BS carl

When the law is unjust

Each man/woman has to decide for themselves when it is time to break the law.

What I wonder is where in the US constitution, or in any state constitution, does it say a government entity is responsible for our health? Either as an individual, or collectively? All these mandates seem to come from the idea the state must protect and provide for our health. If we have individual rights, should we not also have individual responsibilities?
Don' go bringing up Medicaid andMedicare. Those programs only pay for the health care.

On a slightly different, but relevant topic, I maintain there are only 2 true sources of "rights ". Those you may exercise with the permission of your neighbors, and those you hold, exercise by force.
mt

Gotta keep it in 2nd gear. I'm a habitual roller through stop signs on our rural roads. Saves wear on the clutch.

Men should be free and governments should exist only with the consent of the people. Because that is true, there is a moral contract between the governed and the governing. It says that as long as the rules are reasonable and just, we will follow them. When the government is no longer reasonable or just or if it exist without the consent of the people, I have no moral obligation to follow the law.

Intresting responses thanks everyone.

What would you tell Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego?

Martentrapper, This is what socialist's use to justify socialism

While this is true it is also a two way street and if the citizenry is to expect a moral and just administration of law they themselves should be moral and just in their own daily lives.

After all we do get the government we deserve as it is a government of WE the people.

What they did was fine. The king told them to worship a false idol and they refused. Pretty clear cut case of a good time to break the law when the government tells you that you can't worship as you see fit, or you can only worship certain gods. Kinda like how the government is telling churches they can't gather in person right now, or in the few places they can, they can only worship in certain ways.

The difference between then and now is that people were willing to get lit on fire for it, now most people shrug their shoulders and go along with it.

When you fully understand what you are doing, who it might hurt, and are willing to accept the consequences.

Where in the constitution is God mentioned??
Don't look you won't find it.

God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence though.
There it is that the 3 unalienable rights given. Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[/quote]


Where in the constitution is God mentioned??
Don't look you won't find it.

God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence though.
There it is that the 3 unalienable rights given. Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.[/quote]


We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”

My mistake I always took Creator to mean God. Especially since he is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. I guess your creator could be interrupted in many different ways in modern society. From your mother to pond scum. I'm sure the founders never envisioned a society where people were gender confused, or the many other problems our social justice and moving away from God has created.

Get hung up on semantics why not it's all the rage these days. Even when the meaning is crystal clear.

Creator was chosen because it is generic. It was never mentioned in the bill of rights, or anywhere else in the federal constitution, because the people who wrote it were adamant that government stay out of religion.

The declaration was written to King George. The ordained head of the Church of England. All other faiths were discriminated against horribly. That discrimination was the reason most of the Europeans that came here were here. So they wrote creator so that all the different faiths would be displaying a unified front.

That whole Church of England thing is why freedom of religion and government taking no role in any religion, came about.

You can pretend all you want that your faith and your belief system is the one that is true, but dont try dragging me into your superstition and most emphatically not our government either.

Here in NY you are liable to be breaking the law as soon as you roll out of bed. We just go with it and hope for the best.

Bigotry and hatred on full display!

Nowhere on this thread has anyone mandated a particular faith or theology. Yes, an acknowledgement that morality in western law is based on a just Creator as a supreme law giver but nowhere is a belief if said nominal Creator a requirement for liberty under the law. Nor is lack of belief a penalty under law.

Yet whenever the concept of a power or law greater than one's self is mentioned we get vitriol angst against that which supposedly does not exist in the eyes of a few.

Which raises the query, why are you angry and acting out against the void?

Seriously, this deserves thorough investigation as it signals a deep disturbance within.

But for those of us with an "imaginary" Friend we know that this was written down long ago as *kicking at the goad" and we fully understand as we were once screaming at the void ourselves.

Yep. I've no tolerance for people who want to force their religion on others. Whether its claiming that a letter to king george means our government recognizes christianity, ( I have yet to hear anyone of any other faith make this claim even though the word creator IS generic) or being told a public school should be able to require students to participate in prayer. (another christian idea) The government of free people has a real obligation to stay out of religion entirely.

No clue where you came up with hatred. I know and am friends with many many people of faith who do not try to force what they believe on others.

Warrior it looks to me like your upset because I am not afraid to say what you already know: The Emperor has no Clothes.

Still not in the constitution like you so emphatically declared.

Methinks you confuse the phrase "freedom of". It does not mean freedom from, instead it goes further and says, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (emphasis added). Note there are no clauses such as "only applies to private citizens/entities or non elected/governmental bodies". So we the people have rights "endowed by our Creator" that existed at least prior to the the drafting of both the declaration and constitution and among these rights circumscribed with an absolute hedge of protection by the Bill of Rights is the free excercise one's faith or lack thereof by any individual in any capacity and government must step aside to allow the same in any forum.

By extrapolation of the tenth this also applies to the various states AND the individual right holders. For example I find your vitriol of great offense yet I can do nothing to or against you. On the contrary as one who has taken an oath to defend said rights I would surrender my life before I allowed your right to hate to be abridged.

Seems to me a young rabbi did that very thing for all of us a long time ago.

How the question of when to break laws turns into a Sunday sermon on "religion vs Constitution" is beyond me.

In regard to the original question, here are a couple contemporary examples:

• Let's say you need hand sanitizer but can't buy it or the required alcohol (isopropyl or ethyl) ingredient due to the hoarding of others. I would say law or no law you would be justified to distill your own.
• Let's say the know it all government decides to protect your neighbors from the virus by shutting down your livelihood. If you dare risk your license, and fines; I think you would be justified to operate using known precautions and warnings for your clients.