Above the law and why we cannot allow theist freedom

Homepage Forums Theism Above the law and why we cannot allow theist freedom

This topic contains 16 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  PopeBeanie 4 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • #4471

    David Boots

    There can be only one law. This you would think is self evident. How can a society function if a person can choose the laws they want to obey? The rule of law is fundamental in maintaining a free, democratic, fair and most importantly a well governed and functioning society.

    The absence of the rule of law is a hallmark of a failed state.

    Yet some if not many theists consistently maintain they will only obey god’s law. They claim this law is superior. Surely, to make this claim is to say that you will not obey the law of the land. Isnt this what a criminal does? Or a traitor?

    Take for instance this disgraceful excuse of a human… Archbishop Denis Hart

    Even the pedophiles think he is awful …. Convicted Pedarest and Rapist Priest

    Society should be taking every step it can to sanction those who seek to put themselves above the law. The next time you hear a theist claiming they will obey god’s law – call them out. Call them the criminal they profess to be.

    Some people have the gumption to stand up to this nonsense: God authorised tax dodgers called out!

    For excellent information on the rules of law see: Rule of Law Principles

    • This topic was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by  David Boots.
    • This topic was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by  David Boots.
    • This topic was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by  David Boots.
    • This topic was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by  David Boots.
    • This topic was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by  David Boots.
    • This topic was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by  David Boots.

    Andrew Brown

    Disobeying the law makes you a traitor?

    Legal does not equate to Ethical. I will flout the law when it is necessary. I am not a traitor, I am a human who understand morality better than a body politic. I like to walk on grass, the sign requests that I don’t, but I am a human making a decision and the law does not match my wish. Am I a criminal? Am I a traitor? Should I lose my freedom?
    Revolutionaries must be wicked people in your opinion. The founding fathers were criminals and traitors to the King’s Law because they had a superior law; Live Free or Die.
    I don’t see “God’s Law” as superior since it is frozen in 600BC; we have made some progress towards legal equality.
    I do see “My Law” as superior America’s Law because I know what is right in my opinion and I may have to spend time in jail for my decisions but those are my decisions.


    David Boots

    Andrew i admire your willingness to go to gaol for your principles. I hope you would agree that free people are going to believe in different moralities and ethical principles. This is a good thing it seems to me.

    But we live in a society that requires a minimum amount of interdependance.

    To give legal effect to each persons own morals would create havoc. For example perhaps I believe that blue eyed people shouldnt be allowed to have children… and the punishment is death. Can I go around killing blue eyed people who have children? Or perhaps I believe that women who talk without permission in front of a male should have their tongues cut out.

    We are all going to differ in our views. And some of us will have strong convictions regarding their beliefs. Yet…

    … to allow religious freedom is to say that a country can operate under a multitude of laws. And that any person can create those laws and on any basis.





    I make a deliberate point of breaking the Irish law on Blasphemy every day. I sometimes wear a t-shirt that reads “I openly blaspheme all gods except yours”.  Sometimes I feel so guilty about it that I go to the nearest police station and ask if they want to arrest me in case anyone was outraged or offended by me.  They police sometimes get pissed off when I demand they take a record of it.

    I have been warned a few times about my one man demonstration outside the Saudi Arabian embassy. I have a tattoo on my arm that reads (in Arabic) “I am Raif Badawi” and for some reason that annoyed two members of their staff. A cop told me I could get arrested if I kept doing so. I said “Ok, thanks for that, see you same time tomorrow so.” He never turned up.

    When cops threatened me with arrest for wasting their time I reported both of them for failing to stop a crime in progress. When I was going to the polling booth to cast my vote in the recent marriage equality referendum I found a “bewilderment of Christians” (sorry my new phrase) outside the station with placards demanding “death to gays” with the corresponding Bible verses underneath. Then, in the polling station there were Bibles on each table. It is a crime to try to influence voters within the station so I reported it.

    At the very heart of the democratic process – the secret ballot – Christians were chanting prayers as they called for the blood of my fellow citizens and the State was displaying the same book as we marked our sheets. While I waited for the police to arrive I rang various atheists groups around the country. Everyone started to complain. By 11:30 we had made the national radio news and by 15:00 all Bibles were removed right across the country. The referendum was passed. “Yes” we are all equal. The 2 cops called to my house the next day and after telling me that they were “good Catholics” one said I was “getting a lucky break” and they were not going to pursue me for wasting their time.

    “Gee, thanks officer and fuck you and the horse you rode in on”. “If you phoned me instead of driving all the way to my house you would have wasted less time AND taxpayers money”. “We don’t appreciate your attitude Sir”. “I am glad to hear  it officers. I detest yours.” “Now leave or you will have to arrest me in my own house for blasphemy. You up for that??”



    god damn Reg! Militant much? LMAO!!!

    Was watching some program about atheism, can’t recall what it was, but someone said that if you verbalize that you rescind god and do not believe in him no amount of blood of christ will forgive that particular sin. And I’m asking myself who the hell made this particular rule up? At the time I was like “Crap! I won’t get into heaven” and then it dawned on me, I don’t believe in this crap so what do I care.

    When the yahoo’s at the New York City Port Authority Bus Terminal walk up to me, to give a track, I exclaim, in my best Ethel Merman inpersonation, “Atheiiiiiiisst!!!” While keeping the shit eating grin on my face…


    Cop:But do you really care about some stranger in jail on Saudi Arabia?

    Me: I have his name fucking tattooed on my arm so you work it out Sherlock.

    Noel, even if I was to discover that heaven exists I would not want to enter. Ok, I have already blown any chance of an invite but the place would be hell for me. Anyway, as Jim Morrison once said, I would prefer a feast of friends to the giant family.





    The very fact that there is no comprehensible law one can ever find in the bible  that doesn’t include an enormous amount of highly subjective and random picking and choosing, mixing and matching and preferring one contradictory rule over another (shockingly in such a way that often shows a bias for laws which are similar to ones own culture). Not to mention the total lack of laws that cover complex modern problems not even remotely addressed in the bible.

    There is no God law. Only a slightly inspired by parts of the bible law.

    When they break civil law, they claim they are doing it in the name of God…but it is a dismal excuse as they are simply following the version of Gods law that suits them. Not to mention the fact that they, without any doubt…break their own form of God’s law frequently. I cannot comprehend how a human could not break at least one or two of those laws every day.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.


    To me, “theist freedom” means that anyone can believe what they want as long as they tolerate other theist’s versions of religious freedom. Including FSM, atheism, etc. Forcing any interpretation of “what God wants” onto others should be a crime, and the US constitution comes close to explicitly saying that.

    Some version of Atheism should be popularized that claims itself to be an actual religion, with the primary commandment that “God wants us all to have freedom of and from religion”. (Does that sound too “accommodating”? That’s a bad word in some circles.)


    David Boots

    I would distinguish between freedom of choice of religion and freedom of practise. There is no need to interfere with anyones choice of religion but there are very pragmatic reasons for limiting the practise of religions.



    I’m thinking of finding a constructive way to break all Ten Commandments.  Thou shalt not kill was a bit of a challenge, but my dog fatally wounded a mole yesterday and I broke its neck as it’s guts were hanging out. Now, onto the next…


    Simon Paynton

    @strega – I certainly wouldn’t want to fall asleep in your garden on the way home from the pub.


    Dang Martin

    I’m coveting my neighbor’s ass right now. RIGHT NOW!



    @simonpaynton yes, good call.  I have a pitchfork (legacy from my satanist rituals I developed too much sloth over) which I might use on odd looking lumps in my garden.



    Since @david Boots asked me to comment in the other thread, I’ll offer this to help continue the conversation and then bow out:

    I think the fundamental problem with setting an absolute “follow the law” ethic is that it absolves people of the individual obligation to use their own brains, to think for themselves, to be rational or compassionate when the law is not.  “Follow the law” is one of the opposites of “free thinking”.

    “Following the law” is the 4th stage in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development.   It’s important, and it’s more advanced moral reasoning than pure self-interest (or certainly than allowing crimes of pederasty).   Just because it’s an OK stage of development in moral reasoning doesn’t mean it should be the end point, though, since there are times when good people need to break the law.

    The simplest case is when the law is evil, as when the law requires you to return an escaped slave to his master or turn a Jew over to the S.S.  or sterilize a black person with a low IQ.   In that case, a free-thinking individual is overriding the law with a Higher Law of some sort, whether they call it “God’s Law” or the Principles of Human Rights or FlibbertyGibberish’s Rule.  People at Kohlberg’s Stage 4 would accuse them of “just doing what they want” and would probably turn them over to the authorities, even though I would argue they’re operating at Stage 5 or higher.

    There are other cases, though.  There are times when a law serves no just end, even if it isn’t expressly evil.   There are other times when the law is generally fine, but following the letter of the law in a particular case would just be the wrong thing to do.  That’s why in the U.S. and many other countries we have things like prosecutorial discretion (the prosecutor can choose not to enforce the law in a particular case) and juries (the jury can choose not to convict even if the law was technically broken).

    We theists would agree with the goal of maintaining a fair, free, and well-governed society.  Indeed, we’re generally law-and-order types.   However, we’d stand with the free-thinkers when it comes to recognizing a need to be thoughtful about the law, and at times to set it aside or even fight it when rationally the law isn’t serving its proper purpose.



    @drbob. “We theists”?  I don’t think you speak for the majority of theists. I certainly wouldn’t attempt to write, “we atheists” followed by anything except the dictionary definition of atheists.

    I wish in some ways that you did speak for more than the slender channel of Christians with similar mindsets to you, but truthfully, that’s just not the case.

    The point you make above is a fair point, but only if the illegal action is perceived to be a good one.  There are many many circumstances where it’s not.  You do not need me to cite examples.  Consequently, although the law may get it wrong on some occasions, it still has more merit than a free thinkers society where the free thinkers don’t necessarily think like you…or I.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.