I'll put this in boolean logic, just to be irritating. :)
- A == (Law is morally right)
- B == (Specific disobedience is morally right)
- C == (Acting out that disobedience is right)
Let "right" = true (or 1), and "wrong" = false (or 0). Let x be undefined. What we then have is the following truth-table:
A 0 1 0 1
B 0 0 1 1
C 0 0 1 x
That we have an undefined value would seem to suggest that this is the wrong problem. And, if you think about it, that's fairly self-evident.
A religious doctorine is a set of guiding principles on how to live comfortably amongst other people. (It is NOT, as some would have it, a set of rules on pleasing whatever God the person believes in, even assuming that the God they believe in exists. You can't MAKE someone happy, a God least of all. They will be happy or unhappy, entirely by their own efforts, thank you very much.)
It follows, then, that acting in accordance with "beliefs", but in discord with life, =must= be in discord with the God that the person is trying to please.
(To put it another way: God: "I'll create me a Universe. Ahhh... that looks nice. Now, I'll add a few people, and tell them to -keep- my Universe nice." People: "Stuff you, God! Your rules say I can be disobedient, so I'll go muck up your Universe! Oh, and while we're at it, you're to be pleased with us. Now, go do as we say!")
Of course, the bottom-line is that the laws themselves should be in accordance with life and civilization, since their SOLE function in society is to preserve both. They HAVE no other purpose.
The question then becomes, why do we, as a reasonably enlightened, reasonably civilised society have so many laws which are NOT in accordance with life and civilization, that there is any religious question at all?
IMHO, if the laws are, themselves, unethical and immoral, the Government should seriously consider getting together a committee of philosophers, psychologists, religious leaders, politicians and economists, and simply re-implement the entire legal system from scratch. Ditch everything (bar the Constitution) and devise a self-consistant, ethical, moral laws which work and are -automatically- somewhere within the bounds of the acceptable to anyone who had any desire to behave along ethical and moral lines, regardless of religion or lack thereof.
(It won't happen. A simplified, logical legal system would put far too many lawyers out of business. Worse, it would allow any John Doe to understand what was happening, at any given time.)