“Rules are written for those who lack the ability to truly reason. But for those who can, rules become nothing more than guidelines, and live their lives governed not by rules but by reason.”

I disagree. Laws are given in the wisdom of men from generation to generation , principles and precedence, and one cannot hope to know sufficient to be above the unity of wisdom that is given to not only guide but anchor oneself to in times of need and at times to gain renewed perspectus. I hold sacred the rule of man and his oathe of allegiance to laws as written as a point of order , that one can act to change , but to recognize such as common good for equality and peace and order.. until or unless changed by democratic republic process.. WE are here to act and recognize our place in society is to learn and to teach but to recognize common ground / laws to which we are all bound . This other thinking of not sacredly binding is what has created the lawless disrespect for order and law..

I think the good Cardinal nailed it.

Camille, I'd check out that water supply in Salt Lake City. I'm with J Carlton on this one.

I'm afraid Camille has demonstrated the Cardinal's point well. The assumption that all laws (actually not real laws at all but merely statutes) originate from 'wisdom' is not grounded in reality. Far from it -- most of the statutes we have become beholden to are commercial regulations designed to help corner the market for favored political donors. Faith in the political process for repealing unconstitutional laws is also misguided -- partisan politics does not result in wisdom, it results in cronyism. Laws are not just simply because they are laws.

This quote shows yet another reason Christianity should be flat-out BANNED, in any modern, constitutional republic. But we have 50 senates, to bury any chance of conventional success at that, so we are stuck, with all kinds of child-molesters, in traffic, and some people tout their neo-con rants, as worthwhile media, rather than cut to the chase and start slapping higher codes and articles together, to try to make some kind of modern, constitutional media, which exceeds Windows 2000, in scope. But NOOOOO! We are stuck in traffic, with geeky card-sharks.

Hey Bob..is dope legal in California now?

Camille is under the allusion that infallible man is god and has no comprehension of what a government of law is. A government of men dogma is obviously rampant in SLCU. Bob above has no clue as to what Christianity (as came from the Christ's mouth), law, justice or, a related 'order' there to - is. His rants resemble the socialist justification of Stalin, Hitler and Mao for implementing his own brand of totalitarianism. Both have demonstrated the Cardinal's point very well.

A re-read on this sort of exemplifies a scary reality - they walk among us. I think Carlton was headed in the right direction, Bob is just a bigoted idiot consumed by hallucinogenics ;-) Camille is the really scary one; her religiously zealot exuberance for the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land ( I hold sacred the rule of man and his oathe of allegiance to laws as written as a point of order). Man's order that Camille holds sacred (Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Moa, King Bush the torturer, god Obamunist Goodwrench the assassin, etc.) is far different than the "order" that defines the exercise of rights at natural law (the laws of nature and of nature's God). The God endowed natural law (which was to be the de jure jurisprudence of a land of liberty) differs greatly from the legal positivism Camille worships as god and now infests this land. Knowing the difference between the two applications while enjoying individual sovereignty at law, illuminates the great accuracy of the here quote.

Well said Mike.

I agree with the statement, but doesn't it smack of the 'rules for thee but not for me' elitism so common among 'authorities'?  Isn't it an admission that rules that every one must obey discourage their ability to reason for themselves?  From a Libertarian perspective, this is a rebuke on being regulated by 'rules,' but from a Authoritarian perspective, this is the justification for their power and their shunning of the rules they make for others.