Should we obey the law?

Here are the reasons that come to mind for why we do obey the law:

(1) We believe what the law is promoting: The law, at least in democracies, is based around the social consensus of what is worth protecting. So, most people recognize right to the security of the person, so assault and battery are criminalized; people tend to think property rights are valuable, so theft and robbery are criminalized. Laws, therefore, are not arbitrary but based on society’s beliefs. Thus, most individuals in society respect the principles on which the law is built. Presumably then, even if the law did not state that murder was wrong, we would still not murder. We desist from breaking the law because the behavior it prohibits, when adopted, compromises our own sense of morality.

(2) The law promotes peace and order: By having a legal institution that deters destructive behavior and promotes constructive behavior we create a society which is ordered and in which we can live in peace. We will sacrifice our immediate desires because, ultimately, more of our desires will be satisfied we if preserve the peace by honoring the law.

(3) Fear of retribution: The law has the authority to inflict punishment – such as, fines, jail, deportation (for non-citizens), corporal punishment (whipping, or amputation of hands in Sharia law) etc. – and naturally we will avoid action that may result in such penalties. When this is the motive for obedience, is likely that the law will only be followed if there is likelihood that it will be discovered by authorities.

(4) Habit: To some extent we are conditioned for certain behavior which is generally beneficial to our person. Whilst the reasons given thus far are all conscious, following the law by course of habit is subconscious.

For example, when I am crossing the road at the lights often I will begin walking before the man has gone green if it is clear that by doing so I will not put myself in danger or cause inconvenience to any drivers. Yet, oftentimes will pedestrians choose to wait for the man to go green despite (a) a lack of danger, (b) no fear of retribution, and (c) no moral quandary with jaywalking. One could make the argument that it promotes order (Point 2), but I think a more common explanation is that is simply does not occur to the pedestrian that they have the agency to disobey the law; waiting for the green man is simply a matter of habit.

(5) Religious imperatives: This is probably the reason that I come across least often, but it’s certainly out there and pretty central to some people.

The Bible says, “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-14, also Romans 13:1, Titus 3:1). If we isolate this command from the reasons for which it was given, then it seems Christians are compelled to follow the law (except where it is in conflict with God’s law, see Acts 5:29). I have friends who oppose violation of the law as they see the Bible giving inherent value to the law.

Personally, I reject this interpretation. I think the Bible consistently promotes following the spirit of the law rather than legalistically following the details of the law. Take, for example, Matthew 12:1-7:

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Or take Mark 10:2-9:

Some Pharisees came and tested Jesus by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

In the first case he endorses what, technically, is illegal and in the second he criticizes behavior that is technically legal but contradicts the spirit of the law.

The other night my friend and I were offered a lift home by a P1 driver. I accepted the offer, knowing that doing so was breaking a state law that was recently brought in, limiting P1 drivers to one passenger between the ages of 16 and 21. In the end we didn’t end up breaking the law because another friend had an ethical dilemma with it. I, on the other hand, did not.

The restrictions placed on P1 drivers are, to me, entirely reasonable. Many accidents occur as a result of P drivers carrying multiple peers who distract them or urge them on to reckless acts, thereby creating danger and disorder. This graph of when casualty crashes occur shows why such laws are important.

But, in the five minute trip home, I could predict that this would not occur, knowing myself and knowing the driver. I felt as though the law, in its spirit, did not apply to our case and therefore could be disobeyed. I could see nothing immoral about the situation as we would not be causing any undue risk to ourselves or others. Being a new law I was certainly not in the habit of adjusting my behavior to account for such a law. Since it was a short trip and we wouldn’t be driving recklessly there was also almost no chance that we would be caught. And I don’t think our intended action would have discouraged a peaceful society by legitimizing contravention of the law.

It seems I am quite happy to disregard details of the law, if the intentions of the law are being honored.

Humanism at Easter

Way back in Easter I took the time to visit a number of very different churches and was pretty startled and concerned about the humanist philosophy which had sunk through to Church teaching. Here are two examples that, although rather radical, seem to reflect ideas common throughout the church.

St Michael’s Uniting
Francis Macnab, minister of St Michael’s Uniting, is something of an old hat in ways, repeating the same heresies popularised by Bishop Spong years ago in the US – but I had never read Spong and, not having prepared myself, his message came as a bit of a shock.

The Good Friday address was entitled ‘The Churches Love Affair - With Violence. Time to Choose a Better Way.’

Humans, he suggests, are naturally fascinated by violence – as evidenced by our captivation with violent films, our love of high contact sport. The Church’s concentration on the cross – which he rightly observes to be a symbol of brutality, criminality and domination – is another symptom of this. Substitutionary atonement, he claims, promotes a cycle of violence by suggesting that violence cancels out violence.

The ‘better way’ suggested by Macnab is for Christians to stop focusing on the figure of Jesus and the cross and find instead the good within themselves. This internal goodness (‘god’) allows one to break the cycle of violence. You can watch it for yourself here.

The message was clearly humanism wrapped up in a rather unconvincing guise of Christianity. Gone were any suggestions of human depravity or helplessness. We are the solution to our own problems – the power is within.

St Patrick’s Cathedral Not quite so explicitly heretical, but still problematic, was the message given at the Catholic Cathedral on Easter Sunday. The priest presented the story of two (fictional) couples. One of which were good Catholics who went to Mass, had children and basically lived happy lives. The second could have been equally blessed, except for the abortion they chose to take which, naturally, led to relationship breakdown and a stream of other unfortunate events.

The obligatory defamation of abortion done, he proceeded to inform us of the message of Easter, is one of hope – hope that in the bad times, good times will follow; hope that in our sadness, happiness will follow; hope that (assuming we don’t have an abortion) God will look after us. Look at the disciples after Jesus died –afraid and hopeless, but then comes Easter Sunday and everything is somehow okay again, he didn’t actually explain why this was though.

Much like at St Michael’s, the message was easy words to comfort the heart. There was no explanation of the cross, no assumption of sinfulness. Rather, we can forge for ourselves a happy future by remembering the ‘hope of Easter’ and doing good (or rather avoiding evil, i.e. abortion). We are the solution to our own problems – the power is within.

This is common in the church when we emphasise works over the absolute grace of God. We live in an arrogant age where we can’t accept that we are far gone and desperately in need of saving. At St Pat’s, the motivation for obeying the Church was that God would make our lives easier; it is not God but our own abilities, needs and interests that are central to understanding and living in the world.

No more waltzing matilda for me

Apologies to anyone that may find my remarks insensitive at this time

As you most probably know, today is ANZAC Day – a national (or binational, since it is in NZ too) celebration of the actions of soldiers who have fought for the nation. I must admit that I don’t really approve of the whole thing. Here are a few reasons why:

(1) It is nationalistic – Perhaps one reason that I see this as a negative aspect is that I have never been particularly patriotic. I am a dual US-Australian citizen, but I have no real sense of American citizenry, and am unconvinced of my Australianness. I have affection for the land and its people, but am not easily stirred to nationalist fervour.

I also feel as though national boundaries are fairly arbitrary, so I don’t see why I should feel particular solidarity with someone I have never met who lives on the other side of the country. I can’t think of anything that really unites every Australian; there are some beliefs that are generally accepted – such as ‘mateship’, resentment of authority/hierarchy and a love of sport – but it isn’t like these are distinctive to Australia or true for every Australian.

Not only is it an arbitrary construction, but I also often find nationalism to insidious. Nationalism is always reinforced through the exclusion of foreigners and so it is a natural support for racism. It creates an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality which has no real justification or value. When we uphold nationalist stereotypes, like the ANZAC digger, those who fall outside the mould are denied their full status as citizens or even humans.

Nationalism is also a motivation and justification for war. War has always been the means by which nations establish their strength and merit, and taking pride in a nations war efforts suggests war is the solution to the nation’s problems.

(2) It is a glorification of war – I should say first of all that I don’t think all ANZAC celebrations explicitly glorify war. Very often they may reflect on the horror of war. However, they neglect to show the futility of war.

We desperately want to believe all those soldiers sacrificed their lives for a just cause, but for the most part they didn’t. The Australian forces has often acted as a peacekeeping force, but ANZAC particularly commemorates those who give their lives – something which rarely occurs in acting as a peacekeepers. Primarily, we are called to remember the wars Australia fought in, which have perhaps never been just. The country has never had the need to defend its own soil as the only time it was attacked at home was by the Japanese in Feb 1942 – months after we had declared war on Japan. Australia’s wars have generally not been defending its borders or its citizens, but defending its interests, or those of our allies, overseas.

When we remember our war efforts it should not be with pride, but with a deep regret that we were not able to resolve our problems in a humane manner.

(3) It negates the responsibility of soldiers for their actions – There is an idea out there that we should support the troops regardless of whether we believe that the war they are fighting in is justified. I find this an awful and dangerous idea. It suggests that no matter how unjust the war is those fighting are not wrong in supporting it and enabling it.

The universal soldier really is to blame for their actions. Just because you wear a uniform doesn’t mean you no longer have responsibility for your actions. It is always the soldier’s choice to fight, and they are always culpable for what they do (as are those who direct them to fight). I am not a pacifist, and I support armed conflict in some cases (though only ever as a last resort, and even then it is a hideous thing), but I would only ever fight, or support others fighting if the cause was just and means justified.

The intentions of the Australian soldiers defending their family and citizens were very often noble, but no digger should ever be proud of the fact that they attacked and killed other people, especially since those they killed were most often soldiers themselves, fighting for the same cause – the safety of their families. It is wrong for someone to go out and kill for an unjust cause, and there are Australian soldiers that we should be criticising for taking part in unjust wars.

All that said, there are some very good things about ANZAC Day. Most significantly, we are remembering lessons from history. We should never forget what has been done and what is being done to achieve the freedom we have. War often reveals the worst of mankind and we should be remembering what man is capable of. We should be remembering what the consequences are of both choosing to fight and choosing not to fight. And when we remember we should not do so with the non-critical gaze that ANZAC Day suggests is appropriate.

Non-Intervention

I was talking with a friend recently about the Australian Defence Force, and whether it was just that - a defence force. We seemed to be in agreement that it was an offensive force, yet I, unlike my friend, saw this to be a good thing. I am not a big fan of the policy of non-intervention - it seems to me irresponsible to stand by idly by and let evil run its course. They say, 'Evil triumphs because good men do nothing', but I think the man who does nothing is part of the evil, and can’t be separated from it.

Of course, this doesn’t mean we all need to go sticking their hand into every dispute we know about. For example, hindsight shows us that the American intervention in Vietnam escalated a small scale conflict into a huge scale war. It increased involvement from major Communist powers, brought in far more destructive weaponry and ended up costing millions of lives. But where we have the capability, we also have the responsibility to prevent evil.

I can think of a number of reasons I can think of that are given as a defence for passivity:

(1) The Postmodern View - given that right and wrong are products of a society s culture and heritage and therefore there is no universal right/wrong. Because of this, one culture can not criticise another based upon its own understanding of morality. This leads to the tag of neo-colonialism whenever the need for intervention arrives.
(2) Karma – if you believe ‘what goes around comes around’ then any suffering that you witness is the just return for somebody’s wickedness. Thus, to intervene would be to divert the divine course of justice, creating more unbalance.
(3) The Pacifist View – there are plenty of people out there who seem to think that ‘violence is never the answer’. Among the advocates of such a view are the Christian ‘peace churches’, such as the Church of the Brethren, the Mennonites, and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), who somehow got in their head that Jesus promoted non-violence.

On the other hand, we have some strong reasons for being interventionist:

(1) Utilitarian View – ‘the end justifies the means’. If by intervening more suffering is prevented than created, then intervention is a moral imperative. However, one should not intervene if such an action will increase the overall suffering. This can be a useful way about thinking, but it can be unhelpful as you can’t really know how events will turn out (would the US have joined the Vietnam War if they had known the outcome?).
(2) Deontological View – if you hold that there are certain moral absolutes than it is necessary that you defend these absolutes, even if to do so would mean risking your life or the lives of others. So, if you actually think genocide is wrong, and that we ought to avert what is wrong, then you can not let genocide occur. Indeed, to not intervene would be to tacitly consent to genocide.

I wouldn’t be the first to criticise the isolationism of the Allied powers pre-WWII which allowed the rise of Hitler – whose views had been quite clearly stated in Mein Kampf. The decision not to intervene allowed the situation escalate into a world war. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who I consider something of an authority on the subject, claimed,
'There can only be a community of peace when it does not rest on lies and injustice. Where a community of peace endangers or chokes truth and justice, the community of peace must be broken and the battle joined.' [1]
When there is injustice, peace can not be present. First remove the injustice, paving the way for peace.


[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, No Rusty Swords

Discrimination?

Last week there was this thing in the papers about a Christian school which was being investigated by the Equal Opportunity Commission because it had refused offer a placement to a student teacher, Rachida Dahlal, because she was a Muslim [1]. Although this is obviously discrimination, my initial reaction was that it is entirely justified. How can you expect an organisation that aims to promote Christianity to employ those whose belief contradict Christianity?

At the moment I have mixed feelings on the issue, so I'll try and arrange my thoughts onto the two sides of the debate.

In defense of Heathdale Christian College
(1) There should be freedom to practise religion - since practise of the religion includes teaching in a religious framework, forcing the employment of people outside of this religion effectively prevents them from freely practising.
You wouldn't expect a Christian church to accept a Muslim as their minister, is this not much the same? The goal of the school is to create a Christian community, and this is undermined by have people with contrary beliefs in leadership positions.
(2) It is a private institution - unlike state schools, this private, Christian school should be under no obligation to cater for all children. As such, it should have freedom to basically teach whatever it wants to, but if it is expecting the education sector to recognise it would need to comply with curriculum.
It is also spending (primarily) its own money, not the public's, so it can spend it however it likes employing or not employing) whoever it sees fit. Surely we should have the freedom to spend our money as we choose (within certain limits). Although it doesn't sound nice, it seems right that a company is given freedom to employ people based on whatever factors it chooses, be these skill, experience, age, beliefs, or appearance [2]. While it is still passive discrimination, not offering someone a job can hardly be seen as criminal (I'll come back to this later).
(3) Respecting the student teacher's own beliefs - By employing Dahlal and expecting her to contribute to normal staff practises - including prayer devotion and Bible reading at morning staff briefing - they would be demanding she act against her own beliefs (assuming she holds to mainstream Islamic teaching). It is inappropriate that a condition of employment be that she deny her faith.
(4) The school is answerable to the parent's who may have chosen the school because it is explicitly Christian. Employing people who are openly non-Christians may be contrary to the image it presents.

In defense of the student teacher, Rachida Dahlal
(1) Teaching French and Math doesn't really involve religion, so it not unreasonable to expect that her presence would be of little or no detriment to the religious aspect of the school.
(2) In accepting the job she was also accepting the conditions of it. She was aware she would not be able to talk about her faith or against Christianity. Thus, she was agreeing to the school's beliefs in some sense, so the basis for refusing her employment was somewhat unjustified. Private people and institution's should not have freedom over their money when it reinforces inequality and discrimination. Recognising the dignity and equality of all people is a greater good than economic freedom.
(3) It is conceivable that any type of institution could call itself 'religious' and on that basis commit any kind of discrimination. For example, one could say that their religion necessitates that they only employ people of a particular race. If every institution did this it may end up that groups facing discrimination become second class citizens where they can't access any jobs or enter any private property etc.

I think that in this case I do sympathise with the school and I see their actions as justified. But, also, the law needs to protect the rights of all people by keeping discrimination in check. Basically, my first point is the one that I place most emphasis on - that there should be freedom to practise one's religion. There is only a small group of institution's that could be regarded as the practise of religion, and even those Mrs Dahlal's position was explicity religious in nature, the school as a whole can be seen as the practise of religion.

As an interesting aside, The Age quotes the principal of the Christian school as saying, "The way we practise our education is not just nominal, it's actually what parents want for their kids, and it would have been confusing for the kids. It's not that we have anything against her or her beliefs, we just felt it was an inappropriate placement". But surely if it was not just nominal then the principal actually believes in the what the Christian label suggests, in which case he really should have something against her beliefs, since they are in conflict with his own. So, it looks to me like he is basically lying to hide the fact that he really is discriminating against her, as a Muslim, or else really is nominal.


[1] To my great surprise this has actually made international news. It isn't like this is something new, is it?
[2] To be blatantly (and perhaps offensively) honest, stuff like Virgin Blue Airlines employment of only good looking girls as flight attendants seems quite reasonable since it benefits their company image.

Worth a look...

If you want some interesting reading, have a look at TIME Magazine's list of "10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now", drawing on trends in economics, science, religion and culture. I should note that when they say the 'world' is being changed, they mean it in the American sense - like the 'World Series' of baseball or Superbowl winners being 'World Champion's' - although a number do concern the wider world.

Of particular interest was Number 3, The New Calvinism, a movement riding on the back of "the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention". Number 7, The Rent-a-Country was also something interesting which I hadn't really heard much of.

The 10 Big Ideas they identify are

1. Jobs are the New Assets
2. Recycling the Suburbs
3. The New Calvinism
4. Reinstating the Interstate
5. Amortality
6. Africa, Business Destination
7. The Rent-a-Country
8. Biobanks
9. Survival Stores
10. Ecological Intelligence

Economic Justice

1.4 billion people, or one quarter of the population of the developing world, live on less than $1.25 a day. [1] The poorest 10% accounted for just 0.5% and the wealthiest 10% accounted for 59% of all the consumption. [2] Most of us, hopefully, are aware of the state of poverty in the world, whilst also constantly exposed to the decadence of our own cultures. This disparity must surely cause us to question the system in which we are operating which allows such injustice.

The capitalist system holds as the highest good the right of the individual to own property. Libertarian economist, Murray Rothbard, argued that, “It is wrong and criminal to violate the property or person of another, even if one is a Robin Hood, or starving, or is doing it to save one’s relatives, or is defending oneself against a third man's attack.” [3] Thus, we see property rights prioritised even over the right to life or security. It is a system such as this which permits the disproportionate distribution of wealth.

Socialist views, on the other hand, prefer state ownership in order to promote egalitarianism. Famous revolutionary Che Guevara observed that, “Socialism cannot exist without a change in consciousness resulting in a new fraternal attitude toward humanity, both at an individual level, within the societies where socialism is being built or has been built, and on a world scale, with regard to all peoples suffering from imperialist oppression.” [4] Whereas capitalism is based on an assumption that everyone is selfish – something I would say is true due to the Fall – socialism rests on the understanding that people may come to value others above themselves. I believe this kind of transformation can only come from God. As such, a socialist system is doomed to failure, unless everyone recognises Christ – an end that will only be achieved with Christ’s return.

Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas argued that private property rights are necessary to human life on the basis of pragmatics – they allow for human nature and maximise efficiency. But he also held that “man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need”. [6] Thus there is a public aspect to privately owned property so that, “In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.” [6] Private property, when upheld as the absolute, leads to economic injustice. Rather, it must be seen as a means to an end if it is to be of any benefit to the world’s most needy, to whom we owe both charity and justice.

However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God (Deut. 15:4-5)



[1] 2008 World Bank Research by Martin Ravallion and Shaohua Chen
[2] World Development Indicators 2008, World Bank, August 2008
[3] War, Peace, and the State, 1963
[4] Afro-Asian Conference in Algeria, February 24, 1965
[5] Summa Theologica, On Theft and Robbery

Originally written for the economics edition of iCU (Melbourne Uni Christian Union Newsletter)