RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceLast Friday, a group of 145 Orthodox, Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders released a declaration — written by politics professor Robert George — stating that they will not abide by laws that require their institutions to take part in abortions or ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
-------------Everyone below this line has been trolled--------------
http://api.ning.com/files/5XjDqySq9t3GemDb1HaKX...
*wishes Prince comment sections were more channish*
Robbie George is the preeminent professor of constitutional thought here. Now we have him telling institutions and individuals that they don't have to abide by the law if their consciences don't allow it. If the article's portrayal is to be trusted, he's telling them to disavow the law of the land if simply they don't want to follow it.
Please tell me if I'm not understanding this correctly. The individual whom Princeton has assigned the main responsibility for teaching us how the law works is saying the law can be disregarded without consequence, on a whim.
To say it one more time, if somebody can set this straight so it makes some kind of sense, if somebody can either vindicate or finally set straight this Oxford D.Phil who has evidently an immense amount of respect, please do it.
I ask this because, honestly, what is a man doing committing himself to the teaching of law and legal history if he's just going to say that a person can ingnore the law whenever the feeling strikes him?
How is the government going to pass laws that require religious groups to perform abortions or same sex marriages? lolwut?
‘10
If you spend even a small amount of research effort, you will find many “laws” that were fundamentally flawed and later reversed: slavery in the US, suffrage for women, the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. The list is too long to even attempt to recite.
Laws are made by a handful of individuals who, from time to time, reflect popular sentiment that simply doesn’t stand the test of time. Why do you find it so hard to believe that today’s laws are any less flawed than those of 1861, or 1920 or 1939? The legislators back then thought they were pretty civilized and morally correct as well.
There are some people today who think it is fundamentally wrong to compel people to participate in abortion or assisted suicide – just as there were people in Germany in 1940 who thought it was wrong to compel people to send their Jewish neighbors to concentration camps despite the “law”. I think they have a point.
It is one thing to permit people freedom to choose abortions. It is quite another to compel others to participate in this act, if it contradicts their core beliefs. You are turning “law” into something that enslaves rather than protects freedom.
Your response to "10" was nicely put. It is comforting to see someone give his/her views without attacking someone else’ character. It was also nice to see the Bishop explaining the Catholic Churches' opinion regarding the Kennedy who has been instructed not to receive communion due to him work regarding abortion. Thank you for the civil discourse. It would be nice to see different opinions presented in this way. Have a blessed Thanksgiving.
@ '10
It seems I didn't make my point clearly enough.
I have beliefs and opinions. I assume you have beliefs and opinions as well. They might be the same, or they might be different, but for the purposes of this question, it doesn't matter. Prof. George is telling people with a certain set of beliefs and opinions that they shouldn't obey laws if they don't want to. Do you see the problem for the rule of law in society if this point is generalized beyond this one context?
He isn't saying that people who don't like the laws and policies of the government should work to change them democratically, he's saying straightforwardly that the compelling obligations imposed by the law don't matter. The point here is that the laws in question aren't important, since the position underlying Prof. George's letter is indifference and disrespect for the rule of law.
Robbie George is NUTS.
And WHY would they call it the Manhattan Declaration? Anybody remember the Manhattan Project? It was a reeeeally good idea....
Robbie G, this is just such a silly endeavor. You know no law is going to force religious institutions to perform abortions or gay marriage ceremonies. Like really, duh, man. This is just grand-standing to raise money for your bigoted organization. This is a move of desperation. Thank god our generation as a whole isn't like you. Progress is comin' baby. You can make weird declarations all you like dude.
Robbie George's manifesto is as dumb as Marx's. Why do we even let this hack teach at Princeton? He hasn't written a single half-way decent scholarly book. Oh yeah: affirmative action for conservatives.
i am a nonpracting catholic manifesto s like this may draw me back into the church. hope the rome gets it.