Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
>    Suppose we as individuals could choose individually to pay taxes or not
>    to pay taxes...to follow civil laws or not follow without
>    retribution...to determine for ourselves what speed to travel on the
>    highway if we felt the speed limit was not just.  What kind of society
>    do you think we would live in?
    
>    -Jack


what kind of society we would then live in? we would live in a chaotic society. 
without laws, we would live in a society which does not make alot of sense.

there must be rules, there must be laws - to regulate disagreement from the 
moment that you have two or more humans living together in the same space.

even a child knows that. a child is better raised with rules than without rules.
how else, if not also with rules, would we expect to raise valuable members of 
society?

but do not, in this whole discussion about society and rules, forget about the 
nature of rules and the implications thereof.

rules are man made, rules are agreed upon by mutual consent. rules are no use 
if they are not agreed upon by the majority. if the majority did not want to 
pay taxes, none of us would be paying taxes. if the majority did not want speed
limits on the highway, there would be no speed limits on the highway.

man is not infallible, therefore rules are not infallible. not all rules will
make sense all the time. in most european countries for instance, anti abortion
legislation did not make sense since most people affected broke the rules and
the majority agreed that the rules made no sense, hence the rules were changed
to reflect the will of the majority.

rules are not sacrosanct. take the abortion legislation in most of europe.
rules change because there are members of society with sufficient courage to 
brake the rules which (initially) make no sense (to them) and sufficient 
wisdom to discern the sensible rules from the unsensible rules.

once we realise that rules are man made and that man is not infallible, we 
cannot, as responsible inidviduals, but continuously reappraise our rules
critically. 

in my experience it is the inability to embrace the nature of man made rules 
(the fallibility of man and the need for reappraisal of man's produce) which
leads one to completely reject man made rules, either by seeking no rules at 
all or by seeking god made absolute and infallible rules. in both cases this
can lead to irresponsible actions.

the only responsible thing to do, surely, when it comes to the only ever 
binding rules, man made rules, is to abide by and criticillay reappraise these 
rules and thereby being a valuable member of society.


andreas.

    We need rules because we are egoistic.
    
    No egoism, no rules.

true. if all human behaviour were wholly motivated by selfless love then there
would be no need for rules!



andreas.

>true. if all human behaviour were wholly motivated by selfless love then there
>would be no need for rules!

Amen.  Paul said something very similar.

Shalom,
Richard

    The actual reason I put that in there was to make the analogy that 
    we cannot pick and choose parts of the Word of God we feel are
    inspired.
    
    By the way, I am a subscriber to the social gospel when it comes to
    abortion.  I believe abortion is a law of hate and my standing in the
    way is exactly the same as a woman not giving up her seat in the bus.
    Laws are laws but remember that Adolf Hitler never broke the written
    law either.  God's law supercedes mans law as Richard so aptly put it
    many times in the conference.
    
    -Jack

.5> Laws are laws but remember that Adolf Hitler never broke the written
.5> law either.  

i disagree. the extermination laws passed by hitler, the deportation laws
passed by stalin, as laws passed by dictators, miss an essential element 
of law: the consent of the majority.


.5> God's law supercedes mans law as Richard so aptly put it many times in 
.5> the conference.

you have to be just a bit more specific here. has god got the consent 
of the majority (ie. world population) to his law?


andreas.

>    i disagree. the extermination laws passed by hitler, the deportation laws
>    passed by stalin, as laws passed by dictators, miss an essential
>    element of law: the consent of the majority.
    
    Andreas, this would be the case in a democracy, not a facism.  Keep in
    mind that Israel was under the rule of Rome during the times of Christ.
    The Jews abhorred Rome and Paul, a pharisee of pharisees wrote in one
    of the epistles that our government was placed under divine ordinance
    and we are to respect the law of the land.
    
    Hitler was a facist and the Nazi regime was recognized as a legitamate
    government.  
    
    -Jack

    It's important to keep in mind that the majority is not always right.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.8>				Paul, a pharisee of pharisees wrote in one
.8>  of the epistles that our government was placed under divine ordinance
.8>  and we are to respect the law of the land.

surely you do not mean to imply with this that law abiding citizens in nazi
germany were to support the extermination laws! 


.8>  Hitler was a facist and the Nazi regime was recognized as a legitamate
.8>  government.  

how many fascist regimes has the US government recognised? whilst recognition 
of a dictatorial regime by the international community may well legitimise a 
government internationally, the laws passed by the authoritarian government 
still are a farce because they lack the element of majority consent. 

as i wrote in .1, the ONLY law that humans can reasonably be expected to 
acknowledge as authoritative, are laws which meet majority approval. in the 
western world, this idea of law applies since we have freed ourselves from 
the strangle-hold of the clergy over 200 years ago!


andreas.

.9>  It's important to keep in mind that the majority is not always right.

this is, to me, the most important aspect of law, when law is defined as
an agreement (at a given point in time) supported by a majority.

a law by its nature can only ever be a consent at a point in time and is 
subject to continuous reappraisal and change, as majorities change, and we 
must always have the possibility to be part of the making of change.

it seems, as i worte in .1, that it is the inability to live with (laws based 
on) change which can lead one to either reject the law completely or to seek
absolute unchanging laws - and as a consequence, in either case the danger is
near, to behave irresponsibly.


andreas.

    Andreas, this of course is a rhetorical question.  I brought up the
    Nazi regime to support my very point that when government law conflicts
    with Gods law (or the natural law), then we are not to submit to it.  
    During the times of Paul, the Jews had a complete hate for the Roman
    institution.   Paul obeyed the laws of Rome through taxation, etc., yet
    at the same time he was told to bring direction to a lost world.  This
    eventually cost him his life but her followed Gods law over Romes.  To
    follow Hitler would be sin just as it would have been sin for Paul to
    go to the Colisseum every weekend and partake of the legal actions
    there.  As Richard said, the majority isn't always right...such is the
    case with abortion but that is another issue!
    
>>    as i wrote in .1, the ONLY law that humans can reasonably be expected
>>    to acknowledge as authoritative, are laws which meet majority approval. in
>>    the western world, this idea of law applies since we have freed ourselves
>>    from the strangle-hold of the clergy over 200 years ago!
    
    Gee, I was taught that King George was a tyrant and that the English
    came to America to pursue freedom of religion..not freedom from
    religion.  
    
    -Jack

>    Gee, I was taught that King George was a tyrant and that the English
>    came to America to pursue freedom of religion..not freedom from
>    religion.  

do not confuse english history with european history. england freed itself
from the strangle-hold of the clergy long before mainland europe did. england
was largely excluded from the republican waves which swept through continental 
europe from the end of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th century.

re. nazis

jack, brace yourself! your point about the nazis may have been rethorical. 
that doesn't make it any less sordid to me. 
let me explain,
1st- the nazi laws were not democratically legitimised, not once the nazis 
     had neutralised the opposition.
2nd- the church under nazi rule did to a very large extent "respect the law
     of the land". the church had failed to a large extent.
3rd- the majority of the individuals, including my german grand-parents, did 
     not disobey the law of the land. the majority of the individuals, 
     including my german grand-parents whom i love, have failed to a large 
     extent.

with its history, you will be hard pressed to find a country in europe where 
the law is more critically (re)appraised than germany.

otherwise i do get your point jack about following a higher/inner law. part 
of making the law is breaking the law, yes. that is, if you deeply disagree 
with the law and are driven to break it. all i am saying is, when you break 
the law (and i mean REAL law, law as in agreement by mutual consent) your 
action may be vindicated later on, WHEN the majority follows you. but if the 
majority does NOT follow you, you are just an irresponsible individual who 
will be punished for breaking the law. 

instead of changing the law by breaking the law, a more sensible approach 
to changing the law, as it seems to me, is in participating in the public 
discourse within the bounds of the law and to try to find a majority for your 
law. where the right is respected to participate in the public discourse, as 
it is in democratic societies, i am suspicious of anyone wanting to change 
the law by means other than by seeking consent through public discourse.

the bottom line, if god given law becomes the norm, as it is under 
fundamentalist rule, then there is NO LAW under fundamentalist rule. 
fundamentalists, like fascists, do not allow our definition of law, 
ie. law based on mutual consent - a poignant case is made by the fundamentalist
regime of iran, which like hitler's, is one democratically elected and one
which eliminated opposition. another point is made in the present conflict in 
algeria where the democratically elected fundamentalists are denied access to 
power by the current military rulers.



andreas.

.12 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    Gee, I was taught that King George was a tyrant and that the English
    came to America to pursue freedom of religion..not freedom from
    religion.  

But freedom of religion also must include freedom from religion. Otherwise who
gets to choose which religion you must practice? 

Steve

"The streets of our country are in turmoil.  The universities are filled
with rebeling, rioting students.  Communists are seeking to destroy our
country; Russia is threatening us with her might.

	The Republic is in danger; yes, danger from within and without.
Without law and order, our nation cannot survive.  We shall restore law
and order."

					-- Adolph Hitler

    And the first thing Hitler did to accomplish this was to take away guns
    from law abiding citizens!!
    
    -Jack

before you can take drastic measures you have to create an atmosphere where
everybody believes that society is disintegrating.

sounds familiar.


andreas.

    .16
    
    You be sure to hang on to your guns, Jack!  Jesus would have!  ;-)
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    	Actually, Richard, you may be very right.  The story of his
    	arrest tells us that (at least some of) his disciples carried
    	swords -- the common weapon of the time.

    Ha ha Richard...I don't have a gun!
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

re Note 1052.16 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     And the first thing Hitler did to accomplish this was to take away guns
>     from law abiding citizens!!
  
        So what do you think citizens will lose from the current
        law-and-order campaigns in the U.S.?

        Bob

  >>          So what do you think citizens will lose from the current
  >>          law-and-order campaigns in the U.S.?
    
    Bob:
    
    We will lose similarity to Washington D.C., a failed test in social
    engineering.   DC currently has the most strict gun control laws in the 
    country and it is the most crime ridden section of the continental
    United States.  If the world is as I believe it is, we will also lose
    alot more thugs than we have ever lost in recent history.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1052.22 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

        So you believe that gun control is the (or a primary) cause
        of disorder, and elimination of gun control will bring order?

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    Right now the weakest gun laws in the nation per capita are Vermont and
    South Dakota.  The lowest crime rate in the United States is...you
    guessed it...Vermont and South Dakota.  
    
    Had each person in that New York City subway carried a piece on them, 
    the blood bath that took place would most definitely not have ensued.  
    The perpetrator may have still tried, and maybe even killed a few
    people.  He would have been dropped moments later...instead of all the
    funerals that took place!
    
    -Jack

    
    The population density of South Dakota: 9.25 people per sqare mile.
    The population density of New York City: 22,741 people per square mile.
    
    Hmmm.... Onward Christian soldier.
    
    		Eric

    Eric:
    
    Like I said, I don't own a gun nor do I intend to.  I do have a smidgen
    of nationalism in me however! 
    
    Notice I said Per Capita.  It still stands that Washington DC is one of
    the most reprehensible places to live.
    
    -Jack

    
    > Like I said, I don't own a gun nor do I intend to.

    That's nice, but I wasn't implying you did or would....


    > Notice I said Per Capita.

    I'm not confused. I am suggesting the crime *rate* is proportional to
    population density. The tighter you pack people, the greater the
    chances there are of confrontation. If you take ten people and stick
    them on an acre, they'll probably get along fine. Put the same ten
    people in an elevator stuck between two floors of a high-rise and you
    will induce tension... possibly an altercation of some sort. 


    > It still stands that Washington DC is one of the most reprehensible
    > places to live.

    Yes, but enough about politicians.... :^)
    
    	Eric

Note 1052.20

>    Ha ha Richard...I don't have a gun!

Whoa!  Score a major one for the Jack-Dude!

%^}

Richard