Puritan Board Junior
There is a certain irony in highlighting civil disobedience to unjust laws (Daniel, Peter, John) in an argument to support laws that are unjust.Under US law they do. You're equivocating on the use of the word "right" here. Daniel didn't have the right to pray, but he prayed nonetheless. Peter and John didn't have the right to preach in the temple, but they preached anyway. I'm speaking merely of rights under human law, not about what is right.By the way, I don't believe that the Muslim has any right to build a mosque. Nor do I believe that pornographers have the right to make p0rnography, that prostitutes have any rights to sell their bodies, or that unbelievers have the right to blaspheme the name of my Lord in the name of 'free speech'.
I am certainly glad that you have admitted that these things are not right. If these are not right, then they are by definition: unjust.
Where we differ is that I believe that rights come from God, and therefore there is no right to abortion, there is no right to blasphemy, there is no right to sodomy, and there is no right to serve false gods.
The way I look at it is - if we lose certain benefits that we have gotten in the past, then so be it - Christ is sovereign. I am also not going to support the pornographer's free speech case because I believe doing so would help the Church be able to preach the gospel. They have that "right" under US law as well.