Marco Rubio Says ‘God’s Rules’ Trump Supreme Court Law, Advocates For Theocracy

By Stephen D. Foster Jr. | 26 November 2015
Addicting Info

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in a video posted Tuesday that he believes people of faith should ignore laws that violate their religion.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) says that he believes people of faith should ignore laws that violate their religion.

Marco Rubio is calling for conservatives to turn America into a theocracy.

During an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Marco Rubio pandered to conservative Christians by basically telling them that they can ignore any laws they don’t like as long as they can find a biblical reason to do so.

Rubio specifically took aim at a woman’s right to choose, expressing his desire to see women lose their constitutional right to have an abortion.

“It’s current law; it’s not settled law. No law is settled. Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

Rubio said that “God’s rules” are higher than Supreme Court law, which somehow justifies his crusade to oppress women and discriminate against gay people.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that. We cannot to abide by that because government is compelling us to sin. So when those two come into conflict, God’s rules always win.”

Then he urged conservatives to use the government process to turn our nation into a theocracy.

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it.”

Here’s the video via Facebook.

The Bible has zero legal standing in our system of government. The Supreme Court is the highest authority on the law in our country, not God. The Constitution makes that incredibly clear since it made no mention of God or the Bible, while specifically stating that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional.

Any candidate who believes otherwise should be automatically disqualified from seeking public office.

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook


      • Good try … did you take into consideration that you don't know the history of the Founding Fathers? Good Grief, please educate yourself. Can you say deists? I knew you could. "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." –John Adams

      • Actually many were Deists and a few from their writings weren't even that. And it is irrelevant as they almost all said in their extensive writings to the principles of inidividual inalienable rights and secular organization that the country is actually based upon.

      • Sorry to disappoint you. The Founders may have been religious men, but they certainly did not believe that christianity (or any religion) should rule the law in this nation. That is specifically why you will find no mention of the mythical jesus, christianity especially or any other religious reference in any of the founding documents. The Founders made sure that any reference to religion was omitted. This is not, and never has been, a christian nation.

      • The Founding Fathers were not Christians, they were Deists. And churches demanded the separation of church and state because they feared the USA would establish a state religion as was common in Europe at the time. This country was founded on FREEDOM of religion and that means ANY religion, and that includes freedom from religion as well.

      • You really don’t know history. The founding fathers were mostly lite believers in god and afterlife. They wrote constantly on the importance of keeping ALL religion out of law. Jefferson said: “A man compounded of Law and Gospel, is able to cheat the whole country with his Religion, and then destroy them under Colour of Law.” They absolutely despised religion in law. Read the Moral monitory it’s a great book.

  1. Many of the worst countries in the world are Theocracies.

    Most of the nations in the middle east are Theocracies.

    Radical Muslim Extremist Terrorists are murdering people all around the world RIGHT NOW because they demand all the world become a Theocracy.

    All of Europe was one large Theocracy under the Catholic Church. It was an age of fear and hate, rife with apocalyptic disease and never ending religious slaughter. There is a reason those centuries are called the "Dark Ages".

    Wars between oposing groups, Catholics, Protestants, Orthadox Christians, and many others who did and did not survive, raged across Europe.

    In the name of God we butchered Europe and our fellow man.

    In the name of God, Muslim extremists butcher Syria, the middle east, and the World.

    THAT is what it is to be a Theocracy. Fanatics of ALL denominations call any lunacy they think up "The Will of God", and in so doing release themselves from moral obligations. They slaughter the world in the name of righteousness and the "holy word", thumping themselves on the back and yelling "Well Done! The Kingdom of Heaven is here!", from atop a world of slaughtered corpses.

    • I believe that religion is a cancer, eating away at the fabric of human society for the last 10,000 years.
      The three Abrahamic religions are responsible for more war, crimes, murder, torture, slavery, racism, and oppression than any other force in history.
      2/3 of the world's population worship sky fairies and believe in gods and prophets no more real than Tinker Belle and Santa Claus, and let those belief systems inform their politics, daily life, and law making.
      On an evolutionary scale based on logic, education, critical thinking, rationality and global consciousness from 0-10, humans as a whole are about a 1, and that's optimistic.

      • Amendment I

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  2. There is nothing even remotely hinting of theocracy in Rubio’s words. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated a much greater assault on a Supreme Court decision (Plessy v Ferguson) and no liberal and few libertarians have ever complained about it. Liberals have long celebrated those who broke law to marry gay couples, refuse to extradite murder suspects to states with capital punishment, and the like. So come on. Let’s tuck our feigned outrage away and get on with talking about what Rubio actually said. First of all, let’s identify what a theocracy actually is because there seems to be some confusion on this point. A theocracy is a government led by a church, where the church and the state are inseparable, where priests or some clergy class are themselves the political leaders whose job it is to interpret God’s will for the masses. But in a democracy, people are allowed to be motivated by their beliefs, whether secular or deeply religious. Religious people and religious political leaders are allowed to rely on their personal values (including religious once) to pursue political ends. If government (the High Court or Congress or whatever) determined that spitting on minorities was a legally required activity to help stem the tide of immigration, would you do it? My best guess is that you wouldn’t–I hope your moral compass is such that you would be willing to break bad law to uphold your personal values, anyway. So why wouldn’t Christians be afforded that same respect? My second best guess is that if Rubio advised his audience to form a barrier around Planned Parenthood to protect it from forced closure by order of the Supreme Court, you wouldn’t be complaining much either. You may not like the source of Rubio’s values, but to say he is advocating replacing a Constitutional democratic republic with a theocracy is simply silly. You have to so violently stretch the meaning of theocracy out of it’s normally-understood shape as to render the English language meaningless to get what you claim he promoted from the words he actually said. But then again, if advocacy is more important than truth and accuracy, then let the ashes smoulder for the higher cause! Hmmm. Sounds a bit like what you claim people of faith sound like. Interesting.

    • Ummm, sorry, but not entirely correct. He IS advocating for breaking law and establishing RELIGIOUS laws as law of the land. Maybe not a theocracy, but definitely putting church into state. Here's the thing; religion is a personal freedom, each of us is free to worship as we please, or not worship at all. Key phrase here is PERSONAL FREEDOM. Meaning? You can't make me follow your religion, adhere to your religious laws, pray to a deity, behave in any proscribed religious manner. Nor do I have to suffer due to someone else's religious beliefs. Here's the thing about freedoms, they come with consequences.

  3. Judges 16:17 "Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you. 18"You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. 19"You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.…"


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here