Disagreeing with laws and upholding laws and arguing they should be upheld

That's kind of a tough question. I think in general that you should follow the laws of the land to keep cohesion, and to present yourself as blameless.Where it should be fought is through legislature.However, that doesn't account for atrocious laws, such as could be seen in Nazi Germany. I mean, if it became the law to kill someone just because of their race, or whatever, that would be egregious. And I would defy the authorities.But I think as a general rule of thumb, people must pick and choose their battles carefully.Suppose that you disliked the concept of stopping at red lights. And you just flat out decide that, gosh darn it, you aren't going to stop at them any more as a way to stick to the Man. Well, now you are just being dangerous and stupid.Perhaps a discussion like this can't glean any blanket answers collectively.This may be completely extraneous, but since it in many ways guides how I view things, I will throw it in for now. Feel free to object.When Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for their legalism, what was he arguing against? Surely it was not the Law he was arguing against. Rather, he said, "You neglect the weightier matters of the Law."What exactly does he mean?My interpretation of that whole verse is that the Pharisees became too bogged down on following the law to the letter. In so doing, they completely overlooked the meaning behind why the law was in place to begin with! One cannot look at the law in a mechanical way. The law must be viewed in spirit to get to the moral of it.No one can argue that the law is in and of itself a bad thing. But like most things, it can be manipulated to one's favor. The Chief Priests were notorious for doing this. And truth be told, THIS is exactly what some secularists have a problem with when it comes to fundamental Christianity.And in many cases, they have a point! Even amongst Christians, there is always talk of legalism -- who is being too rigid, too legalistic, and essentially missing the point altogether.I think it is a wise thing to do to understand why a law exists. Don't just usurp it because you don't want to live by it, but don't be follow it in robotic fashion either. Get to the weightier matter first, and then it might become that much clearer for you.That's my two cents.... Don't spend it all in one place.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

That seems like you're painting with an awfully big brush. I mean, yeah, there are those yahoo's in this country -- lots of them. But to insinuate that such things don't occur in Canada would be absurd.And yes, many, many Americans are uncouth, spoiled brats. But I'd bet that it seems as if more reside here simply by virtue of the exposure that America has in the rest of the world. No other country is more scrutinized than America. Not to mention that this is the third most populated country in the world.Perhaps if we were to break it down per capita, the disparity wouldn't be so glaring. Officer discretion is a tricky subject because it can easily go in either direction -- either too harsh, or too lenient. Or conversely, too harsh on one person, while too lenient with someone else for the same infraction.This is why there are the "spirit of the law" versus the "letter of the law" arguments. The law has to be written rigidly. But I think that it can flex without breaking in some instances. In some cases, yes. Perhaps even in most. The more drugs flow in to the country, the more the government steps up its effort to combat it rather than legalize it. But with others, like Prohibition, the government finally acquiesced to public demand. In some ways I think it was. After all, these kinds of cases only make it to the Supreme Court because of it controversiality. Other precedents tend to be struck down or upheld in lesser courts. I am neither in total agreement with you or Silent on this issue. I don't think you should break a law simply because you don't like it. (Imagine if someone tried that with murder, rape, or arson)? I happen to think that such things, as you said, are handled best through legislation and protest.Having said that, this certainly wouldn't apply to other things. It may have been the lawful duty of German Stormtroopers to carry out executions of Jews, just because they are Jews. Wouldn't you defy that law? Yeah... See, he was just being an ass by trying to thumb his nose at the Man instead of enjoying his small victory for being allowed to legally blaze up at all. So he thought he'd put on a big show for everyone. Once arrested, the joke was on him.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Okay, I would agree dependent upon what we are talking about. Obviously there is some disparity from it being lawful to wash your hands after you use the restroom if you are a food handler to it being illegal to slash somebodies throat because you thought they looked at you funny.My initial interpretation of the OP was that if you disagree with a law, you should just shirk it off. But is breaking several laws in the process, just to protest one law really the answer?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman