National Protest by Churches against Foreclosures is Led by Adventist Pastor
by Adventist Today News Team
A growing number of churches from all denominations across America are moving their bank accounts from large banks to local credit unions. It is an admonition against sin by corporations, “greed and dishonesty that is destroying families” explains Ryan Bell, pastor of the Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist Church and national spokesman for the network of clergy and congregations.
The protest began with an incident in 2008 and has gained real momentum this spring. Mario Howell, pastor of a community church in Antioch, California, told the New York Times that in 2008 a 10-year-old girl named Jeanette shook hands after worship and told him goodbye because her parents were being forced out of their home. They were middle class, “a teacher and probation officer,” Howell remembers, and “lost their home to foreclosure.”
Robert Rien, the pastor of St. Ignatius Catholic Church in the same town, told the New York Times last week that “24 families from the 1,000 in his congregation were threatened with foreclosures. … These people were engineers, accountants, working in medical offices, in the building trades. No matter how they pleaded with the banks, they didn’t find any understanding. It was ruthless behavior.”
The Reuters news service has reported that banks foreclosed on churches in record numbers last year. Occupy Wall Street has been promoting Bank Transfer Day, according to The Huffington Post. Now the two dozen churches across the country that Pastor Bell represents have announced that they and some of their members and friends are moving more than $30 million from three of the largest banks; Wells Fargo, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase.
It is a very small portion of the total deposits in these three banks, but it may be the tip of a much larger iceberg. The National Credit Union Administration has reported that deposits in credit unions doubled from 2010 to 2011. Credit unions are essentially nonprofit banks owned by their depositors.
In February, Federal and state officials announced a settlement with five the largest banks in the country totaling $26 billion to reduce the mortgages of one million families. The New York Times reported that a representative of Bank of America has met with representatives of the group of churches. “We value all of our customers,” he is quoted as saying, “and would prefer dialogue to divestiture.”
The pastors are calling for a “foreclosure sabbatical.” This is a concept rooted in Scripture. In Leviticus 25 God commands His people to let their farms lay fallow every seventh year and on the 50th year all debts are to be forgiven. The year after seven cycles of seven years is called the Year of Jubilee. Ellen White explains in her book Patriarchs and Prophets that these Old Testament rules were intended to banish poverty and insure social justice.
Pastor Bell told the New York Times that he has preached from Isaiah the prophet’s admonition “to loose the bonds of injustice,” connecting it to mass foreclosures. He is also quoted pointing out that this is more consequential than Christians who give up caffeine permanently or quit using Facebook for a few weeks during the traditional season of Lent.
so….what the good pastor is saying is this; that when churches or private citizens stop honoring a contract, then it is evil for a bank to enforce that contract. what would happen to society's order if all contracts were simply not enforced in order to just be nice? (anarchy) i understand the Jubilee analogy. however, since most church mortgage contracts are for 15 years or less, the analogy is moot. i am certain that the New York Times thought that Pastor Bell was a saint, but like Pastor Bell, their nostrums don't cost them any money. just the depositors who are living in retirment off of interest. but who speaks for them?
Crocodile tears for the banks, they are losing so much money they are adding new fees for having accounts less than $15,000!
fees which would not exist if government were to leave them alone to conduct business as they wish. but, i am just guessing that if your car payment were doubled without your signature or consent, you would feel that contracts should be enforced. i am not crying crocodile tears for anyone. but our society exists on the rule of law. the basis for this is contract enforcement and private property laws. this combined with a free market is all that separates us for Iran. real people work at banks. real people lose their jobs at banks when outsiders pull the rug out from under them. and real people have deposits at banks. and depend on them for interest payments in retirement.
This argument doesn't hold water. Banks have hidden fees and greatly increased mortgage rates without giving the customer the true facts. Their mortgages were bundled with thousands of others never to be found. Plus, these mortgages are "lost" to the hundreds of "companies" set up to handle these and forged thousands of signatures.
Claiming "law" when the banks and financial corporations have long ignored honesty with clients. Please read the disclosure of the former VP at Goldman Sachs of how clients were called "muppets" and they sold worthless stocks they were betting against.
No longer can people trust the banks for honesty; they will contine to increase fees as long as they can get away with them. Why did the major banks have to pay millions due to such practices? Credit unions are the only honest game in town for handling your money.
If banks want to be left alone to set their own conditions, then let them. As long as they also agree that, should they get temselves in another mess, not one cent of public funds will be used to help them. Big business seems to be completely in favour of free enterprise when they are making big profits, but when they face making a loss, then they ask for help. You can't have it both ways.
You have to feel sorry for the banks. They persuade people to take out loans they can't repay, knowing that the value of the property will cover any default, then they face the loss of income because the collateral they relied on isn't worth the money it used to be.
Misplaced sorrow for banks. Look at the huge salaries their execs make. Yes, people are gullible, but how many people are "too big to fail"? The taxpayers bailed the banks out and they turn around an screw those who bailed them out. Thanks a lot.
Banks are an easy target to blame for the current financial crisis and downturn in the national economy. Please remember that banks are in business to make money conducting financial transations. So it should come as no surprise that they would be innovative in finding new charges to levy against their customers whenever new public laws are imposed that increase their costs of doing business.
Foreclosures are another matter. They are contractual. You don't pay your mortgage, you lose the house. It's that simple. So, why are we blaming the banks for the inability of people to pay their mortgages? The banks didn't take away their jobs, government did through increasing laws and regulations that make it too expensive to do business. California is the "poster child" state in this regard where businesses are leaving the state in growing numbers. They were leaving prior to the election of Gov. Jerry Brown due to high tax rates as compared to other states. New laws and regulations, in particular environmental regulations, have only accelerated this trend. According to City Journal, businesses in California that employ 50 or more people are leaving or closing-down at the rate of 1.3 a week. Last year alone eleven industries employing a thousand or more left the state for states with lower regulatory and tax burdens. So, if we want to put the blame where it belongs, we need to point to our government, not the banks.
Still, there are things we as Christians can do to respond and prevent these situations from happening. We can partner with people to downsize their standard of living to an affordable level or help them get through hard financial times. More than that, we can teach our children to heed the advice of EGW to "shun debt like the leprosy." That can be hard to do in a world where credit is easy, but it can be done and doing it will protect a person from such conditions.
There are honest, sincere, trustworthy individuals who lost jobs, and eventually lost their homes. How man banks are "honest, sincere, and trustworthy" and lost everything with your money? Our government, bought and paid for by the banking and great lobbying groups, owes its allegiance only to the interests of those who are lining their pockets, rather than the people who they are sworn to represent and support. By installing Wall St.giants as treasury secretaries and financial advisers to the presidents we have the foxes guarding the henhouse.
Timo,
This is one time I'm going to disagree with you. I'm an MBA so I see and understand what it happening in contrast with the headlines and popular opinions.
The cause of the current fiscal crisis and downturn in the economy traces directly to actions by the Congress, various presidents and others to make the "American Dream" possible by forcing banks to overlook the basics of finance. When you apply for a loan at a bank they are putting their funds at-risk by investing in your need. They need assurance that you will repay it as agreed. The interest rate you are charged is calculated based on your income to expense ration, your payment history and other factors. Interest rates are set in proportion to risk.
Several decades ago civil rights activitst complained that mortgage lenders were "redlining" geographic areas with minority populations and not granting home lones in those areas as others. The claim was made that they were discriminating on the basis of race. Except that was a total lie. They were charging higher interest rates where the risk of default was higher, just as every banker has done for centuries. But Congress began writing laws forcing lenders to offer loans with lower interest rates to people with greater risks. This was driven to it's inescapable conclusion by the American Dream Act, which basically required that people be given mortgages without regard to their ability to repay the loan. This led people to buy ever-larger and more expensive homes and homes they could not afford. The result was the crash in the housing market and seeing markets where people are left holding mortgages that are, in some cases, worth a small fraction of the amount loaned.
No, blaming the banks is not myopic. If anything, the situation shows how fiscally illiterate many people are, including those who write our laws.
Banks at risk? Not when they are too big to fail and bailed out by taxpayers, and now they are laughing at us while they tighten even more with their additional fees, plus exec. salaries.
Calling "greedy" all home buyers is an insult to the millions who were fully able to meet the payment required of their mortgages; losing their jobs= losing house. How many can regularly make mortgage payments if they have no work???? To call them "greedy" is blaming the victim. To claim the huge banks as victim is to acquit them of all responsibility. What have they lost? They had a huge handout from the governent and are now back in business, raising fees.
Elaine,
No one is calling home owners "greedy." Certainly not me. Whether the banks are "greedy" is not the issue.
There are two aspects to this topic that are being conveniently ignored. First is that the home owner signed a contract. That is their bond before both man and God promising to deliver as promised and to fulfill their responsibility. Second is that the pastor is defending and even advocating stealing. That's right, this man who is supposed to be teaching people to obey God's law is justifying taking from the banks. Since the banks who loaned the mortgage money got it from investors like me, he's advocating stealing from me. I'd like to see where in scripture he finds justification for that.
But surely greed comes into it on both sides? Currently, in Australia, to own your own home (or, more realistically, to be buying it) is essential to respectability. Surely SDAs understand that. It is the basis of so much of our history. Banks, being public companies, have a primary duty to make money for their shareholders (not their customers, as was once the case when banks were owned by the governments). So, after the crash, banks refused to lend to customers who did not have at lest 10% of the purchase price, and who did not have enough income to guarantee paying back the loan. But then, people missed out on loans and couldn't buy a house. People started abandoning the dream of owning their own home and stopped applying for loans. Bank workers started failing to give loans, and income started to go down. So banks established 'targets' for each loans officer to meet. They were impossible, so the banks lowered both the amount required and the income requirements. More customers got loans, more bankers met targets, banks made more money, and investors got a good payout. Everyone is happy. Until unemployment hits, or interest rates rise even 0.5%. Everyone expects both to happen, but everyone wins now, so why worry about the future? And, even though generally Australian house prices are acknowledged to be aroung 40% over-priced, we keep getting assured that there is no reason at all to worry about prices going down. In fact, some are predicting a boom in the near future. As someone with money in the bank, moving it elsewhere is starting to look good. Especially as interest barely covers charges.
The simplest way to wreck our whole economic system is to teach people to be content with what they have and live within their means. It is the most radical and subversive idea since Christianity. Calling for it risks being called an 'economic terrorist'. And we all know terrorists are people who deserve no sympathy and have no rights.
Kevin,
I disagree. Christians living within their means will not cause our financial system to collapse because it is already collapsing under the weight of laws and regulations designed to create "social justice" and achieve other social objectives. But it might help more Christians minimize or even avoid the risks that come with debt.
Our system is built on greed. Every person who opts out, who chooses to be content with what they have, brings the system one step closer to collapse. The best example of free market capitalism is Monopoly. And we all know how that ends. The regulations are to try and minimise the 'collateral damage'. My parents are great supporters of free market capitalism, while bemoaning the damage it does to ordinary people. They still don't understand why I vote only for parties that support social democracy in action as well as rhetoric. A world where free market capitalism reigns is a world without justice. I don't believe God wants such a world.
Kevin,
Please observe how buzzwords get used to neuter meaning and promote political purpose. Greed is no longer an obsession with enriching oneself to an extreme degree. Now it is anyone who makes a profit. Capitalism has become equated with greed and evil when it actually describes the freedom allowing a person to put what money, value and skills/ideas they have to work and make a profit. Profit is not evil. It is what allows businesses to grow, innovate and create the new products that you enjoy using. Unfortunately our "capitalist" society has been so regulated for so long that we don't have a working model of real capitalism to consider when discussing the topic.
Capitalism does not destroy jobs or create poverty. It creates jobs and prosperity. It allows people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to become rich while creating and producing products that people want. In contrast, the primary purpose of liberal-socialism is the destruction of wealth and the reduction of all people to the same common level that is claimed to be prosperity, but which actually is gross poverty. If you need proof of the results just look at the countries of the old Soviet Union where the only people living above abject poverty were the politically powerful. Today, under capitalism, some of those countries are the most prosperous in Europe.
William:
How and when did the "old Soviet Union" become a liberal socialist country? What happened to the "Communist" tag by which it was known for nearly 50 years? Revisionist history?
Elaine,
The only difference between communist and liberal-socialist is the amount of force used to impose it on the people. Both trace their operating philosophy and justification to the philosophies and theories of people like Karl Marx. I used the term "liberal-socialist" because it is the threat we see eroding our freedom today.
I see your reply as a good example of what you refer to. I am not sure that I will ever agree with you. I support social democracy at least as much as you suppport free market capitalism, so agreement is probably a lost cause. Without regulation, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Not a situation I can support.
Kevin,
Actually, the prosperity of the people in a nation is inversely proportional to the amount of taxes and regulations imposed by the government.
For recent examples, contrast Albania and France, China and America. In 20 years Albania has gone from abject poverty to a level of prosperity higher than France. They did it by removing government economic controls and limiting taxation and regulation. China's economy has been growing at an amazing rate as a direct result of their government lifting regulations that prevented personal initiative and profit. Have you not seen how many millionaires and billionaires there are in China today who were raised in poverty?
Go back a century to the "robber barons" who built giant steel mills and railroads in America. The founders and their early investors became mega-rich. They also created hundreds of thousands of jobs paying far more than those same people could earn before.
"Opting out" is not an option for many people. If there are children, they must have clothes, food, education and planning for college education. This family needs a car (or two), gas, and more. So what does it mean to "opt out"? Move to a cabin in the mountains and raise all food necessary?
If it means the struggle for "keeping up with the Jones" most families are desperately trying to merely keep up with monthly expenses. Yes, there are excessive expenditures by a very small percentage of this nation, but the remaining 99% are simply treading water trying to meet their family needs. This nation was built on the idea that everyone should have equal opportunity to achieve his dreams–an unusual idea in a world where everyone's future was limited by caste and birth. Hard work that leads to success often brings monetary rewards. We even want our children to work hard to achieve their dreams and for them to be fully independent which is only possible in a capitalist society where one is rewarded for his work. But to whom much is given, more is expected as the success is due to living in nation that encourages, rather than discourages private enterprise.
I imagine the poor will always be with us, but I also recall that Jesus reportedly advised the rich man to give all he had to the poor and follow Him. As I have said before, the wealthy are not in dire need of salvation and the promise of paradise, because they can already buy anything they want (except, perhaps, peace of mind, or self-respect, if their gain is ill gotten). I happen to think that those who have much should help those who have little learn how to be self-sufficient. The old, advice about giving a man a fish, versus teaching a man to fish, probably applies here. Fostering hope in the hopeless and helping the helpless become productive seem to me to be worthwhile goals for us individually and collectively (including governmental and nongovernmental organizations).
I'm sorry to say that I see in some comments here the ideas of the coalition between the greedy and the gullible. How these ideas that benefit the greedy gain traction with the gullible part of the coalition amazes me–especially those who claim to be followers of Jesus. And, of course, the scare tactics include, whenever possible, claims that liberals are anti-religion and pro-socialist–not merely the European style social democracy, but assertions that the liberals wish to impose on America some sort of soviet or collectivist peoples republic communist regime. The words that would be most appropriate as a response to that claim are not appropriate in this venue.
Yet, I do think we need a new model for mortgages. I'd like to see as many people living in a home they own as possible. Or at least a home they actually own part of. If my equity is 70% of the value of my home and the bank (or someone else owns 30%) and the value of the home changes, why should I still not own 70% of the value of my home? Can anyone advise about the merits of what might be called an "equity partnership" model for financing homes? Such a model could do away with many losses and foreclosures. We probably need to get some creativity going on the side of home ownership, not just on the side of how much money can be gotten.
1. get government out of the mortgage business. (then that business cannot be politicized)
2. allow banks to write their own mortgages without force. (forcing them to underwrite people who have no way to repay. called Community Reinvestment Act)
3. allow failed banks to fail. (no bailouts so that banks act more cautiously)
4. allow homes and property to be repossessed so that property values seek their own value through market forces (more can afford to purchase homes at lower prices)
to blame greed is like blaming water for seeking the least path of resistance.
Brant,
Amen!
One thing that continually amazes me is how many people like to talk about "the economy" when they can't describe what it is. In simplest terms, an "economy" is a group of buyers and sellers seeking a mutually-beneficial exchange of values. When the government inserts itself into this exchange the only one who benefits is the government. When permitted to grow to an extreme we have legitimized theft.
Timo,
Ah, my friend! How quickly you have jumped to the conclusion that having an MBA makes me part of the financial system. To the contrary, I am not part of it more than any other consumer. What it does is give me intimate understanding of what is happening. I see processes and actions that get minimal public attention, or are presented as one thing but actually are quite another. So I actually agree with you with the exception of how the word "greed" is applied. The greed I see is the pursuit of power based on gross lies presenting it as a benefit to the "disenfranchised" and "poor."
The home foreclosure rate has struck a terrible blow in our society. But the worse is yet to come. Not just from housing, but from other directions as well. The American economy sits astride a knife edge where falling off to one side leads to hyperinflation and the other to mega-depression. The accumulated costs of government meddling to "fix" and "stabilize" the economy are coming due. What event will push us off that edge remains to be seen. It does not need to be powerful by itself, merely destabilizing, to throw us one way or the other in a matter of weeks.
I am very supportive of the movement of funds from for-profit banks to non-profit credit unions. My experiences with credit unions has all been good.
Also, I think the concept of letting banks fail when they perform poorly is fine–but only if banks are not allowed to grow "too large to fail." If the consequences of bank failure cause a devastating economic tsunami, rather than a tiny ripple effect, failure brings economic collapse. That can't be good. Are all those whose lives would be impacted by major economic collapse just getting what they deserve?
Does anyone here remember the savings and loan crisis? Among other things, that was precipitated by loose practices associated with a lack of regulation–although some here will surely assert otherwise.
Foreclosure is not good for banks and it is not good for the people who lose their homes or property. An equity sharing system in which all parties to the contract actually own a percentage of the property would nearly eliminate the prospect of foreclosures due to falling prices.
My experiences with neighborhood banks has been great. With large banks? Not so much. And with the red hot mortgage companies during the boom, my impression is very negative. When things were booming, I had several offers each week to refinance for up to 125% of the value of the home(s). Fortunately, I was not desperate for money and made sure I had at least 50% equity. Had I needed, or thought I needed the cash, I could have easily been exploited. Hold it! Don't claim I would have been the exploiter. Had I done this, the mortgage would have been bundled and sold, eventually to be protected by credit default swaps. Everyone up the line would have made out–but I would have lost my home. Not so terrible, since I had gotten more out of it than it was worth, but then there would have eventually been a foreclosure, along with many other foreclosures, for someone with money to buy cheap, and flip or rent. It is all just so chaotic and unnecessary.
I knew a lady, actually a good friend, and my landlady, who made a living selling land and homes to people who she knew could not afford them. That was her specialty. After they missed a couple of payments, she foreclosed. It worked pretty well. Her clients lost their assets. Oh well, let the buyer beware.
What does any of this have to do with religion or faith? Should we be trying to be helpful to those in need? Or should we just be mean and cruel and opportunitistic to ensure that everyone pays for any error?
" When the government inserts itself into this exchange the only one who benefits is the government. When permitted to grow to an extreme we have legitimized theft."
You have perfectly described what has occurred; only you are lambasting the government for inserting itself into business practices. It was the government (you and me) who had to pay for TARP, how is that a benefit?
It was the LACK of government regulations that allowed the banks to become involved in selling bonds, mutual funds, and the lack of SEC oversight allowed these banks to swell to enormous sizes and become "too big to fail." Speaking of greed: the banks are experts and with their very smart MBAs they receive big cash bonuses for "selling" their customers on worthless investments–Do I hear Goldman Sachs?
Is this a suggestion that the government has no business in regulating anything? Or just financial houses? We may be overregulated, but it was the lack of oversight and the rating agencies failure (fraud) that caused this recession. Had the banks done due diligence (as the small banks did) and not eagerly sold mortgages that should never have been sold to ineligible customers, (with fat commissions, why not–they would never see them again) this would not have happened. With small banks, there is an entirely different customer relationship and they dare not treat them as did the big banks.
Sorry, you're not selling this reader.
Elaine,
TARP benefitted the government because it legitimized and empowered government officials to extend control over even greater parts of the economy. It established the government, not the market, would pick the winners and losers in business.
I disagree with the claim that it was lack of regulations that precipitated the financial crisis. It was directly driven and caused by congressional actions taken in the pursuit of "social justice" and "fairness." Those actions (such as the American Dream Act) distorted normal economic forces by preventing the banks from doing due diligence when making loans. This was combined with a lack of enforcement. The Congress wrote laws and emowered regulations the public has accepted as providing them protection, but which often are toothless tigers. The SEC had plenty of regulations on the books, but not enough people to investigate violations. Worse than that, all prosecutions had to be handed over to the Justice Department, which under the control of the Obama administration has flatly refused to pursue any criminal actions. If that wasn't bad enough, Attorney General Holder actually ordered the FBI to not investigate financial crimes related to the financial collapse because it would be too embarrassing to too many high officials, some of whom might have faced charges.
William, keep trying but I'm not buying.
TARP "benefited the government? It was the last resort used because of the banks excessiveness. Had they not stepped in we would have had a repeat of the '29 crash. Moody's, and the other rating agencies defrauded the public by giving bad banks AAA ratings when they were much lower. The Glass-Stegall Act was repealed allowing less oversight.
"Obama administration has flaty refused to pursue any criminal action"? Huh? How about the convictions recently in the news? Some major heads have rolled. Too much Faux News?
We are getting assertions here that are profoundly distorted by an ideological lens. The recession began as a result of the burst of the housing bubble back in 2006, that resulted in a substantial economic collapse by 2008. All this was during the Bush years and was associated with a climate of relaxed regulation.
Efforts to prevent a total collapse into depression began during the ending months of the Bush administration and were followed through with the new administration–all ahead of any efforts to develop the Dream Act.
It is helpful to know about MBA qualifications, but critical thinkers are likely to wonder whether such qualifications might not be associated with some political or idealogical biases or conflicts of interest. They are sometimes, but certainly not always.
I'm pretty sure the confusion of the timeline on the recession was not just an innocent error, but maybe it was not a deliberate effort to mislead. Let's hope not. Honesty is an important value that most of us here hold in common, regardless of how much we may honestly disagree. All that scare talk about the so-called leftist socialist threat is total bologna.
Good to know that only the assertions of those you disagree with, Joe, are profoundly distorted by an ideological lens. Of course your's are not. You employ critical thinking to conclude that if it happened during the Bush administration it was Bush's fault. And the corollary would be…? – of course – "If it got worse during the Obama administration, it's still Bush's fault." Let's see where this kind of impeccable "logic" continues: "Critical thinkers" (obviously you are one) should question the opinions of MBA's – because such a degree may be associated with ideological bias. Hmmm… Then should "critical thinkers" also question the opinions of PhD's in biology about evolution because they may have ideological biases or conflicts of interest? I guess everyone who might qualify as an expert by education or experience is suspect in your book, no?
It's really too bad that intelligent people resort to questioning the Christianity, qualifications, morality and motivations of those who do not share their values and priorities. It is a low form of argument. Suppose I said that some of the comments here, with which I obviously disagree, reflect the ideas of a coalition between gangsters and communists. You would be justifiably indignant. You would correctly conclude that I was stooping to name-calling and personal attacks. Can't we admit that we all have philosophical presuppositions and ideological biases that cause us to be selective in looking at evidence, and that strangely seem to always support our values and opinions? Can't we offer arguments and evidence for why we believe an argument is wrong without demeaning the morality, integrity and/or intelligence of the commenter making the argument? For having rejected Adventism, Joe, you seem remarkably comfortable with some of its worst habits – like its posture of moral superiority and its judgmental, better-than-thou attitudes.
I agree that we all have biases. Each of us feels his/her own biases reflect reality more than do those of others. But that does not mean that each bias is just as wrong as the next.
No one should blindly accept the opinions or advice of anyone just because he/she has an advanced degree, whether it be MBA or PhD. While varying opinions should be given due consideration, they should be examined critically, in the context of evidence and reason. Assertions must stand up to independent evidence, regardless of their source.
Yes, we can admit that our backgrounds color our perceptions and opinions, can't we? At the same time that does not just make every disagreement moot. Some opinions conform more with evidence than do others.
Finally, so, perhaps I retain some of the cognitive style I learned as an SDA…. ; ) Or, maybe, you are just projecting your characteristics onto me. Nah! Can't be that. I apologize for suggesting it.
Not that there is a personal association, but the majority of stock traders on Wall Street have an MBA as minimum. Some are also physicists and computer whizzes.
Stephen, you don't understand William's point. He is talking about taxation and regulation of private sector wealth producers. Surely you are not suggesting that there is any truly private business or enterprise in the banana republics you refer to!? Of course there is no regulation or taxation of wealth in banana republics. Why would a dictator want to tax himself, family members, and cronies who keep him in power? William's point is not "vain disputation." I suspect it just didn't occur to him that any reasonable person would consider the absence of taxes and government regulations – or the rule of law – in Third World kleptocracies to be a reality that disproves the principle he articulated.
Western European nations and America are proving the principle, not disproving it. As taxes and regulations have proliferated, these countries are closer and closer to an economic abyss. There are laws of economics, just like there are laws of nature. Running up credit cards that future generations will have to pay down doesn't mean that you are prosperous. If you had $100,000 of credit card debt, with no present ability or plan or to pay it, would you consider yourself prosperous?
That's why they are called "banana republics": United Fruit Company practicall "owned" these countries and the local dictator in charge was most happy to oblige by allowing them to have a monopoly, pay slave wages to the workers, and between them they owned the country. Of course, the only "regulations" were negotiated by the two parties involved, the workers had no voice.
It is not only the European nations facing the abyss. What nations are having no exonomic difficulties? Are you suggesting that Wall St. has ben overregulated? It was because the Congress and lobbyists winked at them because they all were making a killing. Why would there now be a bill being introduced to prevent "insider trading"? Congressmen have been working in secret committees and knew the future of many stocks so they took full advantage when the ordinary individual could not know what was going on behind the scenes.
Many of us who have IRAs invested in diversified funds and bonds, suffered with those who were very greedy, but we all paid.
Suggesting that a nation could do away with regulations and taxes is a pipe dream that has been tried many times, all without success. It's only SOME taxes that are objectionable.
“Actually, the prosperity of the people in a nation is inversely proportional to the amount of taxes and regulations imposed by the government.”
If this were true,
"The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be. The more laws are promulgated, the more thieves and bandits there will be." — Lao-tzu
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." — Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." – William Pitt (1783)
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." –Frederic Bastiat, ca. 1837
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." — Justice Louis Brandeis, 1928
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." — Winston Churchill
"There is nothing government can give you that it hasn't taken from you in the first place." — Winston Churchill
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." — Robert Anson Heinlein
Of course, just because it was true in multiple societies as diverse as China, thr Roman Empire, the French Republic, and the U.S. doesn't mean it would still be true today. It's possible that the people in today's government are far wiser than all the sages of the past.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana,
So, the greed and exploitation in Third World banana republics don’t count because…they are corrupt, evil, unfair, unjust, or exactly what? They are kleptocracies I suppose; but how is that materially different than a plutocracy? Oh, and the “any reasonable person” ad hominem shot is a sure sign we are on the right track, isn't it?
Why is it that the dictators of so-called Third World banana republics don’t tax or regulate the businesses of their friends and cronies; whereas the western European industrial nations (and Canada and America) tax/regulate business? The answer is, because there is no perceived upside for the banana republics to voluntarily eat into the profits of their friends and cronies and the people have no say in behalf of their own interests; whereas in the industrialized West they do.
If non-taxation and non-regulation theoretically works well for most businesses and most nations generally, why doesn’t this affect the workers in those businesses (in the Third World)—and the citizenry of those particular nations—positively?
Equating economic laws with nature’s laws is, of course, ridiculous; with all due respect. Man-made economic systems and philosophies are corrupt by the very nature of their origins.
The notion that capitalism or socialism are in essence good or evil is nonsense; in my (not so?) humble opinion.
One system may be demonstrably more effective than another, given varying degrees of governmental intervention, regulation, or taxation, or cultural and social configuration; but no man-made method of organizing commerce is inherently good, or just. Transferring moral virtue onto “systems” is propaganda.
(What exactly did profligate deficit spending have to do with this, by the way?)
Deficit spending and currency devaluations have collapsed more nations from within than have fallen to armies from the outside. EVERY nation in the last 20 centuries that has engaged in long-term deficit spending has collapsed from within.
I understand and concur that long term deficit spending is not a good thing. Taxation and regulation of businesses do not necessitate deficit fiscal spending; that’s the point.
The more a nation is taxed and regulated, the faster it's prosperity declines and the sooner it becomes divided, leading to collapse or revolt. Consider the division of Israel, which was a revolt against the high taxes imposed by King Solomon.
Of course, there has always been "revolt" against higher taxes. At the same time, the citizens want and enjoy the benefits of taxes. Some lack the understanding that there must be taxes in order to sustain the government, as there are many advantages that only taxes can support: highways, education, prisons, food inspections, police and fire protection. Where is the nation that is both economically flourishing and satisfied citizenry that has no taxes?
"Don't tax me, tax the fellow behind the tree" is the refrain sung by all opposed to taxes. When questioned which of the above benfits they are willing to surrender, there is hesitation. So I ask: which of the many benefits mentioned above are you willing to forego?
Stephen, these leaps of yours make discussion difficult.
Please stop raising straw men. To say that many taxes and regulations impoverish the people and lead to thievery does not mean that one advocates removing all taxes and regulation.
The whole point of the U.S. Constitution is that it realizes that government, taxation, and regulation are necessary evils. Please note. Some taxation, some government, some regulation are necessary. But they are evil. Multiplying taxes, government, and regulations does not increase good, but multiplies evil.
Multiplying regulations makes it impossible for citizens to know when they are in compliance. For example, the 2009 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations was the largest ever, encompassing 163333 pages in 226 individual books.
Chances are, every corporation is in violation of some regulation at all times, without knowing it. This situation is tailor made for officials to blackmail
corporations, to receive bribes for not prosecuting.
Banana republics are places where this sort of blackmail is commonplace, where laws, taxes, and regulations are applied selectively, like giving waivers to laws for entities that give kickbacks or other benefits to politicians, in return for not having to comply. These are functions of government, not corporations. It is abusive government power that results in corruption, not corporate money. This is obvious, because kleptocracies simply expropriate the assets of corporations when it suits their purposes.
As for third world countries, India was one so long as socialist policies held sway. When they embraced free market approaches, they benefited not just economically, but real justice increased also. Free markets reward performance, and have begun to break down the caste system. Computers don't care whether they're programmed by elites or by untouchables. Socialist policies had reinforced the caste system, as they tend to do. In fact, socialism tends to reinforce class systems. Free markets undermine class systems, and liberate people.
Ed, your statement:
"The whole point of the U.S. Constitution is that it realizes that government, taxation, and regulation are necessary evils."
would be more correct if the last word is eliminated. To call taxes "evil" may describe how most people feel about them, but no government can operate without taxes, it is only when they become exceesive; unequally applied, and the larger the income, the ease of the experts in locating the loopholes–that make them inequitable.
Name one nation that has no taxes. It is just that some are extracted at exorbitant rates, the wealthier are able to skirt the laws and our congress is more than happy to allow those whose taxes are felt too high to write legislation for lowering the tax rate.
"Free market" is a idealistic concept, but it often means free to operate without any restraint, which is the past has led to huge monopolies. Today, OPEC is a world monopoly which sets the price of oil, and Wall Street speculators help to keep them high; an example of a free market.
Our world markets are anything but free. When a nation's exports are highly subsidized by the government trades on other markets where wage and hourly working is far different, how "free" is that?
No, Elaine, the statement stands.
Thomas Paine called government a necessary evil, Madison, finding that impolitic, preferred to call it unfortunate. Many other statements can be found. And then there is the document, itself, which meticulously sets about to limit government. Yes, government is necessary, because, as Madison noted, "Men are not angels," but it is never a good in and of itself. Regulation– have you ever taken part in helping to write a government regulation? I have– is simply government in detail. Government is simply coersion, and that is an invention and tool of the Devil. And taxation, as Justice Marshall noted, is destructive. All are necessary in a sinful world, but all are, in fact, coercive and evil, since they rely on the government's monopoly on violence.
Your continual call to name a government without taxes indicates you missed the word "necessary" in the phrase "necessary evil."
But humans have realized for millennia that multiplying laws, taxes, and regulations–all functions of government, not private citizens–impoverishes a nation economically, morally, and spiritually. Only narcissism, and what C.S. Lewis called "chronological prejudice" makes some think that we have advanced to such a level we can flout reality.
"The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be. The more laws are promulgated, the more thieves and bandits there will be." — Lao-tzu
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." — Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56-c.115)
Perhaps there needs to be a clearer definition of "evil." If something is necessary, must it be either good or evil?
"Government is simply coersion, (sic) and that is an invention and tool of the Devil. And taxation, as Justice Marshall noted, is destructive. All are necessary in a sinful world, but all are, in fact, coercive and evil, since they rely on the government's monopoly on violence."
It seems that this is an otherworldly statement predicated on a utopian system where everyone is ruled by love and respect. Recognizing, as did Justice Marshall, that we live in a sinful world there must be a government with laws. Laws are made for our protections; without them there is total anarchy. Which is the worst evil: government with laws or anarchy? Is there another solution?
Is everthing that is necessary an evil? How?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you when you say that government is the invention and tool of the devil. If of the devil, what is the absence of all government if not anarchy?
"some think that we have advanced to such a level we can flout reality."?
This seems to be a reversal of your previous theory. I am a pragmatist and ideals are fine but reality is the here and now in which we live.
I'm wondering how long it will take to recognize the word "necessary" in the phrase "necessary evil." Of course government with law is better than anarchy. But it does not follow that more laws, more taxes, and more government make society better.
"All are necessary," but they are evil, and therefore must be strictly limited. They are somewhat analogous to radiation therapy. Radiation therapy is designed to kill the cancer without killing the patient. No one would argue that radiation is good for you. It is toxic. When you're sick enough, it may be better to accept the risk from radiation than the risk of not taking it. Everyone realizes you apply as little radiation as possible to deal with the cancer. A little radiation may kill the cancer, but a little more may kill the patient.
But multiplying laws is like exposing everyone to radiation involuntarily as a preventative to cancer. That would cause cancer, not cure it. That's the type of thing Lao-tsu and Tacitus recognized about laws. Multiplying laws stimulates lawless behavior, rather than diminishing it. History is replete with such examples.
"Evil" is the subject of that sentence; "necessary" qualifies the type of evil.
Taxation laws are not "evil" but are necessary for any constituted government. The many necessities of life are funded by taxes, and in that way they are a good and beneficial to the citizens.
Everyone complains about taxes, largely those that affect our pocketbooks, but who complains about many benefits paid by our taxes? Are those "necessary evils"?
To say that radiation is a potential "evil" depending on its usage, whether it kills or cures. Nuclear accidents cause death by radiation but in controlled dosages, can save lives; thus it is neutral, depending on how it is employed.
Law multiply with more people but I also strongly object to the many that have been added since 9-11 . Some, such as the TSA cost billions and in that time has not apprehended a single terrorist! Congress has done nothing this past session and that may be reason to rejoice: when they're working they are busy crafting additional laws are funding earmarks for every pet project.
We will simply have to disagree: I believe that laws are necessary. You believe they are evils, but necesary.
I know they are evils, because they involve coercion, which God does not use.
And radiation is not 'potentially' evil, or potentially damageing. It's just that in particular cases, it is needed to combat a greater evil.
Yes, along with Lao-tse, Tacitus, Confucious, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and a host of sages, I recognize these things as necessary evils. Of course, you could be right, and all these others wrong. . . .
Because they involve coercion they were not designed for God's kingdom, but we live in an earthly kingdom where man must abide by earthly rules. What is necessary here, will not be needed there. When we are in heaven will be free of laws and taxes. Until then, to measure our lives here by what SHOULD be, is not addressing the only lives we have known.
No, those sages of the past were not wrong, but they recognized that taxes were unwanted, but necessary for any government to operate. Wishing and hoping that some future life may be far better produces frustration. This is the only life I have ever known. Living in the present is far more rewarding, IMHO.
Actually, I believe we are more in agreement than disagreement. Neither of us like taxes 😉
(I tried, unsuccessfully, to post this comment twelve hours ago, but it hasn’t posted as yet after (again) requesting/requiring a name and e-mail address. Has a new posting policy/procedure been established? If its appearance is therefore subsequently duplicated, I apologize in advance.)
No offense Brother Ed, but you chiding me about leaps or you asking me to cease and desist from erecting straw men is not at all dissimilar than the pot calling the kettle black.
These are your words: “To say that many taxes and regulations impoverish the people and lead to thievery does not mean that one advocates removing all taxes and regulation.”
Now, of course, I never said anything remotely related to or suggestive of a notion that I thought anyone was actually advocating the removal of all taxes and regulation on the grounds that taxes and regulation somehow impoverish people.
On the other hand, it would clearly have been better had the statement that “the prosperity of the people in a nation is inversely proportional to the amount of taxes and regulations imposed by the government” been accompanied by the disclaimer that indeed some taxes and regulation are necessary—if not beneficial.
I certainly do not believe that regulations of business mandating certain levels of occupational health and safety for workers are evil.
Do you believe that regulations requiring product safety or prohibiting child labor are evil?
You certainly appear committed to so-called free markets as the panacea for temporal prosperity. Others see this as simply enabling plutocracy. These are merely ideological persuasions; nothing more.
There is a fundamental problem with using Jubilee theology to nullify contract law. The year of Jubilee in Scripture was not a lawless attempt to redistribute wealth. It was a system of laws probably intended more to maintain tribal identity and concentrated wealth. Slaves were freed, and debts were forgiven; but property returned to its original owner, didn't it? Jubilee was part of the laws given by Moses – not a trump card to nullify the law.
Property owners and masters knew what was coming as Jubilee approached. They ordered their affairs accordingly. Somehow, I doubt that there was a lot of debt financing going on as the Israelites approached the 50th year. And I doubt that slaves sold for top dollar in year 48 or 49. If Ryan Bell wants to use a Scriptural model, he should lobby for Jubilee legislation – not anarchy. Businessmen who have in good faith followed the rules should not have to be attacked by ex post facto morality. Those who have not followed the rules should be prosecuted. And if the rules are unfair, change them for the future through the democratic process.
Economics has been called the "dismal science." Thy are very divided: some forecast better times, but most forecast gloom ahead–thus the epithet. Perhaps they believe in lowering expectations so that if and when things get better, folks will forget those predictions. But let them forecast rosy futures, and they become heaped with scorn.
Raising banana republics as examples of free markets is a straw man. Banana republics are examples of government manipulation of markets. Then to imply that the US is a plutocracy is absurd. That was how Germany and Italy referred to the US during World War II.
"Do you believe that regulations requiring product safety or prohibiting child labor are evil?" Actually, I do. I also believe they are necessary, which appears to be too sophisticated an argument for some. But for those who actually think the US might be a plutocracy, there are few better ways to manipulate the economy than through 'product safety' and other such laws, which abound, and sometimes conflict. The effect of all this is to delay the introduction of new products through lengthy bureacratic reviews which raises barriers to entry into markets, disadvantaging new startups and advantaging established products. Voila! Plutocracy in the name of consumer protection!
In my work with families in poverty, virtually every young boy I worked with would have benefited from having some job, rather than spending their idle time with video games or other aimless kids getting into trouble. The Dept. of Labor has issued new regulations (51 pages of them) which will prevent some kids from working on the family farm. This is further complicated because some family farms are incorporated (for tax and inheritance reasons), where extra regulations apply. So we have one set of regulations necessitating another set, which makes it difficult for family farms to survive, while advantaging big corporate farms. Once again, plutocracy through regulation!
A number of years ago, I served on the Governor's task force dealing with driver's education. It needed serious overhaul because in previous years, many kids lived on farms and got experience driving tractors and even trucks around the farm, so that by the time they were ready for driver's ed they had some experience. Well, guess what? Because of numerous regulations, this had become rare. Most kids enrolling in drivers ed had zero experience, which made them poorer drivers and more dangerous on roads. So, in tha name of child protection, young drivers were collectively in more peril not less.
In a sinful world, laws, taxes, and regulations (which are simply another type of law), are necessary. But they are never good, in and of themselves. Their results are almost never as salutary as those advocating them claim. And they must be administerd by people. As laws multiply, the opportunity for manipulation by corrupt humans increases exponentially.
Lao-tzu and Tacitus, who had experience in such matters, warned us. It is a modern conceit that we are more enlightened than those in the past, and will not fall prey to the same maladies. That attitude only makes the descent more likely.
It’s hard to determine whether you having claimed that I have implied that the U.S. is a plutocracy is a leap or a straw man, or both; but when you live in a glass house you are advised never to throw stones.
We don’t live in a pure plutocracy partly because of the regulatory and tax laws that we have. We have regulatory and tax laws because the citizenry has a voice in our republic; otherwise we would be identical to a banana republic.
Such regulatory statutes and taxes are not evil, they are necessary because of evil; which is caused by love of money.
"We don’t live in a pure plutocracy partly because of the regulatory and tax laws that we have."
The evidence, as I demonstrated, proves the opposite. Plutocracy is only possible through government interference.
Coercion is always evil.
."Such regulatory statutes and taxes are not evil, they are necessary because of evil."
To propose taxes as evil, indicates an idea that is utopian–of some unknown condition on this earth, and a belief that there is a place where evil does not exist–most impractical.
Me: "In a sinful world, laws, taxes, and regulations (which are simply another type of law), are necessary." But they are evil.
Elaine"To propose taxes as evil, indicates an idea that is utopian"
So Elaine presents us with the oxymoronic notion of a perfect society (utopia) where evil is necessary!
That's a good one!
To equate laws with evil is a personal opinion. The criminals would likely agree. As has been pointed by others:
Are laws evil that protect society, workers, the food we eat? Only if they conflict with a articular group, but those who are protected by such laws do not consider them evil. DUI drivers would consider laws against that, to be evil. Which ones do you consider evil?
Okay. For absolutely the last time "necessary evil." Somehow people have difficulty reading the word necessary.
That laws are coercive is not a matter of opinion. And that coercion is not one of God's tools is not an opinion.
Lots of things are necessary without being good.
Why not simply state:
Laws are necessary?
Because there will always be well-meaning individuals, careless and superficial in their thinking, who conclude that, being necessary, laws are therefore good, and will view the increase of laws as a good thing.
de Tocqueville described what follows: "After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
I hope to spare my children and grandchildren from such a fate.
Would you include the Ten Commandments as laws that are, or were, necessary evils? Or would say that these laws are not evil in concept for some reason?
The notion of necessary evil is in effect saying that some evil is necessary; which conceptually justifies and rationalizes some evil.
If evil is necessary in some instances, then sin is necessary in some instances, making God unjust and His law evil.
If the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil, necessary laws that constrain the effects of greed on society cannot also be evil.
Market fundamentalism may well represent ideological purity but it is not really anything else.
Paul said the Law was good.
The curse at Eden was that man must work. Is work evil?
Are there other things than law that are necessary evils?
Is evil necessary for law? Is there a place on this earth where laws are unnecssary?
'Paul said the Law was good.'
Please see my other comment on the Ten Commandments.
"The curse at Eden was that man must work."
No, actually, the curse was on the ground, which would require man to work harder. Adam and Eve had been given work to do before the fall.
"Are there other things than law that are necessary evils?"
See my comments on radiation. Many such can be named.
Your logic regarding "necessary" evil is well taken, Stephen. I'm not sure that God is confined to our logical boxes. If that was the case, I think I would be an atheist. But I think what you miss is the reality that to act in a sinful world is to be an agent of evil, even if we do not intend it. I agree that laws can mitigate the effects of evil. But they do not attenuate the evil that, as Solzhenitsyn observed, runs through the center of every human heart. And so, in acting, we end up choosing, with good motives, among values that are fraught with unintended negative consequences. We try to learn from history and seek the best solutions among imperfect alternatives, realizing that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and that reformation of earthly systems is no substitute for a Redeemer. Those of us who talk about necessary evil are merely referring to making the best of the human condition through earthly kingdoms – not implementing a solution to the sin problem.
When I was in college, I had professors who demanded careful and close reasoning. Many students resented them, and quite a few never got it, but at least they had the opportunity.
Just because we use the word 'law' to describe The Ten Commandments and county building ordinances does not mean the two are exactly the same thing. What God wrote on stone with his finger does not have much in common with legislation passed by numerous committees.
Today people use the word 'love' to describe quite different things. Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you call a cow's tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have?" His listener answered, "Five." Lincoln shook his head. "A cow has only four legs. Calling a tail a leg does not make it so."
"The notion of necessary evil is in effect saying that some evil is necessary; which conceptually justifies and rationalizes some evil."
I've used the example of radiation therapy. Radiation is not good for people, it is harmful. Doctors do not suggest you get a little radiation ever day, as a preventative. In fact, that would eventually cause cancer. But in some cases, it may be less harmful than the alternative. It is a necessary evil.
But let's take your own example. The Ten Commandments are in Exodus 20. The next couple of chapters contain what are commonly called "the Judgments," which were the civil laws of Israel. These were also given to Moses by God. In the Judgments we find laws concerning the keeping of slaves.
So in Exodus 21 we find this: "20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
Is that a good law? Or is it a necessary evil?
Or this one:"32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels[f] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death." (The penalty for a non-slave was the owner of the bull had to also be stoned, or he could redeem his life for payment of 'whatever is demanded.')
Is that a good law? Or is it an evil law made necessary by an even worse alternative? Should we enshrine second- and third- class citizenship into a good law like this one?
Then there's Deut. 24, which authorizes a "bill of divorce." Is that a good law? Or is it a necessary evil?
Well, Jesus commented on this. He points out that the law concerning divorce is not a good thing, but was 'allowed' because of the hardness of their hearts. It was necessitated because without it a greater evil existed.
Now, if any laws can be categorized as good, surely the civil laws of Israel, given by God himself, would have to fit in that category. So what say you? Should we adopt these good laws? If they were divinely instituted, and inherently good, why would we abandon them?
"Market fundamentalism may well represent ideological purity but it is not really anything else."
Huh? That's you're obsession, not mine.
"Then there's Deut. 24, which authorizes a "bill of divorce." Is that a good law? Or is it a necessary evil?"
You have now begun to clarify what was a gneral statement so that laws that are necessary evils does not include the Decalogue.
Laws are necessary because man is imperfect, and does evil things: acts are evil, laws are neutral, if God's laws are not necessary evils, the statement "all laws are necessary evils" cannot be true: thus a fallacy of generalizations.
Nathan, your remark:
"to act in a sinful world is to be an agent of evil, even if we do not intend it."
This includes being led and directed by the Holy Spirit for actions? All acts are under Satan's directions? From the newborn to death?
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Such statements deserve more careful scrutiny as they cannot be held as a principle for evaulating both laws and human actions.
"You have now begun to clarify what was a gneral statement so that laws that are necessary evils does not include the Decalogue."
Because I was never so foolish as to think Lao-tzu or Tacitus were speaking of the Ten Commandments, nor so foolish as to equate the law written with God's finger on tables of stone with laws passed by the Paducah City Council. Neither did I think you that foolish.
Just in case you're still confused, I didn't include the law of gravity in that statement either.
And tell me, what do you think of the laws in Exodus and Deuteronomy that regulate slavery? Do you think they are 'good' laws?
What I mean, Elaine, is that sin is parasitic. Every well-intentioned law creates an occasion for sin to assert itself. And even our most noble acts can have evil ripple effects.
More to the point which I think Ed was making – and I apologize if I am repeating what has already been observed – in Federalist #51 we find the famous statement by James Madison: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Doesn't this mean that government is a necessary evil? And if so, doesn't it follow that the laws and regulations it promulgates are, in general, necessary evils, some being less necessary and more evil than others? I wonder if the disagreement at this point in time has become primarily a matter of semantics.
Madison's statement is a fallacy of assumed conclusions. Since we are not angels, as Madison recognizes, we cannot live without laws. He is postulating an impossibility, and laws are only made for the possible.
It does not follow then, that either government or laws are evil, nor are they "necessary evils." They are simply necessary because this world in which we live is the only world we have known. To call something "evil" simply because it is necessary is like saying food is evil for the body, on the basis that it is necessary for life.
Questioning whether some laws are "more necessary or more evil than others" does not follow–a non sequitor, not simply a matter of semantics.
"To call something "evil" simply because it is necessary is like saying food is evil for the body, on the basis that it is necessary for life."
Elaine, when you are through with the straw man festival, perhaps discussion can continue.
No one is saying that something evil simply because it's necessary. Oxygen is necessary, and is neutral. Food is necessary, and it is good. Prisons are necessary. Are they good? Police are necessary, are they good? The military is necessary. Is it good?
It may be necessary to kill predatory animals, to safeguard human life. Is such killing good?
You have never responded to the example of radiation. Radiation may sometimes be necessary, but that does not make it good.
Nor have you responded to the OT laws concerning divorce or slavery. Those were laws God gave. Were they good? Were they necessary?
Neither am I interested in the question of whether some laws are more necessary than others. Some laws are necessary, to mitigate greater evils. But they are necessary evils.
On the other hand, never mind. No point in debating someone wiser than Madison.
We may have wandered off into semantics-land, but the road we took was called necessary evil; as it applies to laws.
There may be things that are necessary as a result of evil, including laws that seek to blunt or defang
the effects of evil; but because they may be necessary does not make them evil.
Laws limiting speed on the Interstate are not evil, but are necessary because excessive speed is unsafe. Acknowledging that excessive speed is not safe clearly is not evil.
I think that definitions are perhaps in order for a couple of word or phrases I have used on this thread.
Plutocracy: 1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy. 2. a government or stat in which the wealthy class rules. 3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.
Market Fundamentalism: Market fundamentalism (also known as free market fundamentalism) is a negative term applied to a strong belief in the ability of laissez-faire or free market economy views or policies to solve economic and social problems.[1]
Critics of free market economy have used the term to denote what they perceive as a misguided belief, or deliberate deception, that free markets provide the greatest possible equity and prosperity,[2] and that any interference with the market process decreases social well being.
(Definitions taken from dictionary.com and Wikipedia respectively.)
In Exodus (and in Genesis), God commanded capial punishment. Apparently God thought it was necessary. Anyone here willing to say capital punishment is a good thing?
I'm not.
Maybe it is just a "necessary evil"?
The problem Brother Ed, is that you have simply overstated your case I’m afraid. You have claimed that all laws are necessary evils; whereas you perhaps should have said that some laws are necessary evils. That may have diluted whatever it was you were trying to say; but it would have been a more sustainable position.
You had previously stipulated that God’s law is not a necessary evil; rendering your question about God and capital punishment moot.
Stephen, your fears are ungrounded. I quite specifically said the Ten Commandments are different than other laws, and have continually distinguished them from the Judgments in Exodus and the Holiness Code in Deuteronomy. There's no indication that these other laws were written in tables of stone with God's finger.
My point is precisely that the laws concerning slavery and divorce in Exodus and Deuteronomy are necessary evils, that God allowed and instituted them because of "the hardness of their hearts," and because they were better than the existing practices.
I have no difficulty with capital punishment in the OT at all, as I regard it as a necessary evil. It is precisely because we live in a broken world that such things as necessary evils exist.
I personally could not ever call capital punishment good. I can at least understand that it might be necessary.
I do not consider divorce ever to be a good. It is regrettably sometimes necessary.
Without this understanding of 'necessary evils,' we find ourselves in all kinds of difficulties, and God commanding capital punishment, allowing divorce and slavery are only a few examples.
I stand corrected on the OT judgments and statutes other than the Ten Commandments. I should have gone back and read that answer again. As it happens, your question about capital punishment is not moot.
God commanding capital punishment may be considered a necessary evil. This does not negate the fact that you overstated your case in that all laws are not evil; or to put it another way, laws that are necessary are not necessarily evil.
Web manager:
Would it be possible to post comments in chronological order rather than direct replies to a previous post? This is demands a "skip around" hunting for the answers and eventually, the space for comments gets moved to the far right where there is very little room to type and edit. If this continues, there will be no room left. Understandably, to respond directly to a previous post may be advantageous, but if they are all connected to an essay, such comments should be relevant whether a direct reply as they should all pertain to the original article.
I like the current arrangement, and it must work reasonably well as it is used in most fora I frequent. But I would agree with Elaine that perhaps there is a better way than having each post become progressively smaller to the extent that it does now.
On the Spetrum site, chronology is followed, and one can skip to read or skip over certain individuals' remarks. But there is an equal amount of space for each comment, rather than pushing them so far to the right they become the width of a newspaper column. If a reply is meant for a specific individual, simply address him in your heading.
Stephen,
I stand by the statement that all laws are necessary evils. As already stated, I was not conflating the Ten Commandments (which are different than other laws in several ways) or Natural laws (gravity, inertia, entropy) with other laws. I mistakenly assumed others would not conflate them either.
Timo, I in no way indicated that I believed that every capital crime in ancient Israel should be a capital crime today.
The point is that capital punishment is only the final step, the ultimate example, of what all laws do here on Earth. They take away liberty.
When man sinned, he lost all liberty–even the ability to choose right over wrong. Only the guarantee of Christ's death allowed Adam and Eve to live, and gave them the opportunity to make good choices. God values liberty so much that he allows his creatures to use it against him!
The (foolish) exercise of liberty will be the last thing the wicked do, when they assault the New Jerusalem.
That simply demonstrates how much God values liberty. And if he is reluctant to limit it, then how much more careful should we be?
But then, as God demonstrated in the OT, there is reality to deal with. At first, capital punishment was forbidden, against Cain. That led to a society where Lamech could boast of murder, and where the imaginations of their hearts were only evil always.
After the Flood, God required capital punishment. Clearly an evil, and, as demonstrated by the ante deluvian world, clearly necessary.
So are some other laws. Necessary, that is. All take away liberty, to some degree. And all are therefore evil.
I guess you are out there so you may as well stay out there.
God does not value liberty, God values love. Love is truly love if it can survive the liberty not to love. Obedience is an act of love when there is liberty not to obey laws. Laws that acknowledge and account for the liberty to enact evil are not themselves evil, although such laws are certainly necessary.
Necessary laws reflect the evil that is. They are not all necessarily necessary evils. Your statement stands—but not your logic.
Actually, it's your logic that contradicts itself.
You state that love and obedience are only possible where there is liberty. If that is true, the only way to enable either love or obedience is by preserving liberty.
Another way of saying that is that love and obedience are byproducts of liberty.
Saying, as you do, that God does not value liberty, he values love means that he does not value the one thing that makes love possible.
That's like saying, I value apples, but not apple trees. You cannot have one without the other.
It's also true that as you limit liberty, you limit love. That's why God values liberty and abhors force.
Every law (please, not the Decalogue or natural laws) involves the use of force, and therefore is evil. Some laws are necessary, to avoid greater evils.
As a syllogism;
The use of force is evil.
All laws involve the use of force.
Therefore, all laws are evil.
As the ante-deluvian experience demonstrates, some laws are necessary to avoid greater evil.
All laws are evil, but some are necessary,
Therefore, laws are necessary evils.
(Except for the laws which are both unnecessary and evil–which are many)
You say the Decalogue and natural laws are off the table for sake of this “necessary evil” discussion; then you immediately proceed to use apples and apple trees in an attempt to disprove my point.
Your syllogism depends on a fallacy. The use of force is not necessarily evil. If someone attempts to mug you, using force to repel the attack isn’t evil.
(Some laws involve, or threaten, privilege denials; speeding laws and driving privileges for example. Since the denial of privileges is not the same as force, all laws do not even involve the use of force.)
Reply at the end. too narrow
Stephen, you yourself said that love is only love if it comes from liberty. Therefore, you cannot have love without liberty.
An analogy is an analogy because of similarity, not identity. The apple tree analogy is on dependency, not natural law. Good grief!
If love depends upon liberty, as you said, then you cannot have one without the other.
As to your mugging example, it is true that someone attempting to kill me or another innocent person might require (make it necessary) for me to kill the mugger to prevent him from hurting me. But killing him would not be a good action. You could argue that I should use only the minimum amount of force to protect myself. But why? If force to protect myself is a good thing, why not use maximum force and be certain? Perhaps an aggressive stance will do (it is often advised as a way to discourage muggers) but I use good force and knock the mugger unconscious. If force in self defense is a good thing, just carry a gun and shoot anyone who threatens me.
On the other hand, if force is necessary to protect myself, but evil, then it is obvious I should use the least amount absolutely necessary. If an aggressive stance will suffice, I rejoice that it is enough, rather than escalate to certainty. Elaine said repeatedly I was imagining utopia. On the contrary, I live in a world teeming with evil, where sometimes, sadly, I must employ a lesser evil to prevent a greater one.
That's exactly what God did in allowing a bill of divorcement. It was not a good thing, but it represented an improvement over what existed.
Every law–even speeding laws–depend upon the use of force for (wait for it) enforcement.
If you speed, the government will fine you. But why pay the fine? Because the ultimate backup is that they will arrest you at gunpoint (if you don't comply without it) and put you in jail. The use and threat of force is what gives laws their bite.
I spent several years working intimately with the legislature. Every law has a penalty clause, and that penalty ultimately relies on the government's "police power," that is, the use of force. Really. This is government 101. Laws don't rely on persuasion. They are mandatory, and if you don't obey the government will use force; it will either sieze your property, or sieze you and incarcerate you, both examples of employing force.
Of course no one said anything about force in self defense being good, we just said that it is not evil. This black and white, all or nothing, binary approach to everything is what caused you to overstate your case via generalization.
There are laws and there are actions that are necessary. Some laws and some actions are evil. Some of the necessary laws and some necessary actions are also evil; making them necessary evils. However all laws and all actions that are necessitated by evil are not necessarily evil themselves.
Defending oneself with force is not necessarily evil. On the other hand, unnecessary or excessive force to do so may be.
Liberty to commit evil can reasonably be considered a “necessary evil” if evil results. As evil results laws restricting, thwarting, or blunting evil are not themselves necessarily evil.
So many fallacies! These all compounded until retraction and explanations became necessary. "Assuming" that one's audience will understand intentions only adds to confusion. Clarity from the beginning would have avoided.
Elaine:
No fallacies at all. Straightforward and direct logic. And as far as assuming that others would recognize the difference between the Ten Commandments, and natural, from human decrees and legislation, I plead guilty. If one does not assume a minimum level of competence, every post begins with ABC.
Stephen: "Of course no one said anything about force in self defense being good, we just said that it is not evil."
Then what is left? Neutral? If that is so, an all-wise God surely knows when to use neutral force to achieve a positive outcome. Yet he refuses to do so. Humans would certainly like force to be neutral, because we want to use it.
"This black and white, all or nothing, binary approach to everything is what caused you to overstate your case via generalization."
Interesting. I do not have a binary approach to everything. That's a bit of an all-or-nothing assertion on your part. 🙂 There are some things which can be placed on a continuum–shades of grey. Other things are discontinuous. You are alive or you are dead. You are pregnant or you are not. The instant before the bridge collapses, you are standing firmly. The next instant you are falling. There are many discontinous states.
When we place good and evil on a continuum, we will be led into thickets of contradiction. Many have gotten lost in there.
Positing a three position status: good, neutral, evil, leaves you with the question about God I posed above. And it also leads to an exponential increase in the use of force, it being neutral and all. Now, if force is a neutral thing, then we should all be indifferent to an increase. If it is a good, we should rejoice. I think it is evil, and remain cautious about using it in any circumstance.
I suspect this impulse to want force to be neutral comes because we all like the apparent benefits of a particular law. We all share that. I like tigers, too. They are magnificent. But I don't want my children to think of them as neutral. (Not on this Earth, the one we actually live in, Elaine 🙂
There is, of course, a major league, heavy duty, industrial strength discrepancy in your line of reasoning about law(s) being evil.
This discrepancy necessitates that you make an exception for the Decalogue on the grounds that it blows your theory to smithereens.
If you use God and force, or God and liberty, as elements of your argument, you cannot discount the Ten Commandments.
Very clearly many would argue that civil law has its basis in the Decalogue. To the extent that civil law is derived from the last six commandments; ascribing evil to them is an impossible case.
Laws, including the Ten Commandments, are generally an acknowledgment of the reality of evil. This does that make them intrinsically evil.
Nice try, no cigar.
Not only would many argue that, I agree that the judgments and the holiness code were "based on the ten commandments."
But the Ten Commandments differ from other laws in kind, not just degree. There are at least two obvious ways in which they differ from other laws. First, they prescribe man's relationship to God. Second, the final commandment prohibits something which is a state of mind, not an observable behavior. The Decalogue is a statement about the nature of the universe, like the law of gravity. Acting contrary to them is its own punishment, just as if you fire a shotgun, it will kick back against your shoulder.
You claim that to the degree the civil law is derived from the Decalogue, ascribing evil to them is impossible. Forget basing civil law on the Ten Commandments, let's just adopt them whole! Let's make the Decalogue our law, and empower the police to enforce them. I know you want to separate the first four from the last six, but why? Are the first four less holy, just, and good than the last six? Are the first four less important? Less necessary? Are laws based on the first four somehow tainted? Seems to me if you want to cut-and-paste with God's law, you wold need a major league, heavy duty, industrial strength reason.
So let's look at adopting what we agree are good laws into a civil code. . . in the real world.
What shall we do about those who perjure themselves? Is a fine sufficient, or should we imprison them?
Since we're talking about the 'last six,' what shall be the penalty for dishonoring parents? Will a fine do? How about imprisonment for the teen years?
And Sabbath-breaking, great! Shall it be a Sunday law or a Saturday law? How will we enforce it? And how will we punish lawbreakers?
Funny, but I seem to remember something about enforcing a day of worship, uhm, not being exactly a good thing.
Is that why you don't want to include the first four? Hmmm.
Why not enforce the first four as well as the last six? Wouldn't that be good?
Oh, and then there's that whole unpleasantness with the final commandment.
What shall be the penalty for coveting? And what shall be the evidence to convict?
Is a child looking through a Christmas catalogue guilty?
How about the pastor, looking at the fine large church he would really like to preach at?
What kind of training will it take for these thought police?
Perhaps you'd like to revise your list, and only enforce six through nine? But then, you'd have to come up with a pretty elaborate explanation.
In this real world, force is sometimes necessary, but it is never good in and of itself. It is only a means to avert a greater evil. Human laws require force.
The Decalogue and natural law simply describe the how the cosmos works. We can rebel against it, but we cannot, in the end disobey it and survive, any more than the vacuum cleaner can pull its plug out of the wall and still function.
Had we not sinned, God would not have given us the 10 Commandments. Are you sure you can argue that laws once removed from them are good? Certainly, God never intended them. Can that which is against the will of God truely be 'good'?
Of course the fifth and the tenth commandments are necessary in “the real world” for obvious social order and prophylactic reasons, respectively; but arguing this, and arguing that the first four are applicable to a vertical relationship with God is wasteful.
But, let’s say I do (have to) revise my list, for sake of argument, to 6-9; and that much of civil law mirrors or is derived from those commandments; what difference could that possibly make to the larger point that laws themselves are not necessarily or intrinsically evil? Commandments 6-9 cannot be considered anything but laws.
Because laws are necessitated by the existence of evil does not make that which is designed to repel or blunt or extinguish (the effects of) evil, evil. Arguing that laws are evil is saying that God has decided to fight fire with fire.
It may be said that I am arguing that laws are analogous to fighting fire with water, or a fire retardant. (Water, by the way, can be neutral).
So, what are the penalties for dishonoring parents? How will you detect the crime?
And now we're going to have thought police for coveting? This is what comes from believing laws are neutral or good. We end up with terrible oppression masquerading as good.
Besides which, you've still given no good reason for slicing and dicing the Decalogue. That's a task most mere mortals would shy away from.
The first four commandments in the Decalogue can only be required in a theocracy. These laws cannot, nor should be mandatory in nations where there is no one religion that must be obeyed. There are many nations with theocratic forms of government and they have laws specific to their beliefs about a god.
The fifth through ninth are the basis for civil laws: Many are found in the Code of Hammurabi long predating the Jewish Law. These are necessary for the preservation of order. The fifth is only prosecutable upon discovery and much of both elder and child abuse goes undetected.
Covetousness cannot be called a "Law" as it is only a guiding principle and impossible to prosecute as it is one's thoughts; only actions are prosecutable. Unless one lives in a country where "thoughts" are dangerous.
My apologies for not being sufficiently clear (sorry Elaine) with the first paragraph in the previous post. The fifth and tenth commandments are necessary “in the real world” ONLY or ESSENTIALLY in terms of what you have referred to as the cosmos—or the way things really are—for social order and prophylactic purposes, respectively. They are (generally) not codified civilly or enforceable civilly because they are concerned with attitudes.
This may still be unclear to you; in which case you can simply disregard it. This is why I stipulated Commandments 6-9 to be my list, for sake of argument. These are laws, Brother Ed, anyway you slice it; and are applicable then and now, for Jews and gentiles. They go to, or are concerned with, actions and not “merely” motives or thoughts.
Slicing up the Decalogue is not at issue. Whether all laws are intrinsically and necessarily evil is the issue. The laws in the Decalogue from which at least western civil law is derived are fair play; especially since you have utilized God and liberty, and God and force, as elements of the case you are making.
If all law is evil, then obeying laws is simply cooperation with evil. This is a logically untenable position, at best.
"If all law is evil, then obeying laws is simply cooperation with evil. This is a logically untenable position, at best."
There you go again, Stephen, being logical 😉
Fascinating. You both have to resort to excising some commandments, because attempting to enforce them would clearly be tyrannous. At the same time, you both are at pains to point out how necessary some of them are. It's interesting in how such a clear position requires so many conditions to make it work.That's the problem with laws. They must be enforced by humans.
By contrast, I refuse to tamper with the Decalogue, nor does my position require it.
The Decalogue and Natural law are not laws at all in the human sense. They are neither necessary in the conventional sense, as demonstrated by the antedeluvian period, nor are the evil. They simply state the way the cosmos works. And they are self-enforcing.
To equate them with human degrees or legislation designed to control people's behavior is a category mistake. God never attempts to force or control anyone's behavior. Yet you apparently believe humans capable of doing so in a neutral fashion. Good luck with that.
If laws are neutral, then you must explain why God does not attempt to control people's behavior through their use. Without that proof, your position simply cannot stand.
As I pointed out before, you two may be wiser than the sages throughout time, and specifically such people as Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, or even C.S. Lewis. But I'm comfortable being aligned with them.
On a question like this, and many others, what difference does it, or should it, make that you happen to think that other dudes may agree with you?
I don’t mean to rock your world here, well maybe I do, but I neither believe for a second that “Franklin, Jefferson, Madison or even C.S. Lewis” would agree with you that all law is intrinsically evil because enforcement of them is evil; or that even if they did agree with you that it would make any difference as to whether or not you are, in fact, correct about this.
How is stealing or killing or bearing false witness “self enforcing”? What does committing adultery have to do with how the cosmos works? What are you talking about?
As to your question and the statement, “If laws are neutral, then you must explain why God does not attempt to control people's behavior through their use. Without that proof, your position simply cannot stand:” God certainly provides us with the liberty to obey or not to obey. However the wages of disobeying is also death. We are also free to obey or disobey human authority. The difference being that God has, of course, paid the penalty for our disobedience to Him; via Jesus!
"what difference does it, or should it, make that you happen to think that other dudes may agree with you?"
OK. I apologize for wasting everyone's time. Other minds have confronted in principle every important human issue (nothing new under the sun). It is a contemporary conceit to believe that we are wiser than all who came before us. I should have realized someone ready to dissect the Decalogue . . . . my mistake.
It is likewise a contemporary conceit—one would think—to imply that “all who came before us” have agreed with us.
The opinions of others are certainly worth considering. However I subscribe to the philosophy that I should not be a mere reflector of the thoughts and opinions of others; which is itself an opinion of someone worthy of at least some consideration.
It might be a good idea—or maybe not—to address the point that while God certainly allows us the liberty to obey or disobey, that the “wages” of disobedience is death (and reciprocal curses); and that we have the autonomy to obey or disobey human authority as well. Consequences result however in either case.
The difference is that God has provided The Sacrifice; and this is the whole point.
Your issue, it seems, is with authority.
Your last post is both the most presumptuos and ridiculous of all.
"to imply that “all who came before us” have agreed with us."
I listed 4 or 5 people altogether. That qualifies as "all who came before us?" What a hoot! And my citing of them is not guesswork, I've studied what these others did and said. Quoted Madison.
Being a "thinker, not mere reflector" does not mean novelty for its own sake. As C.S. Lewis said, nothing true can actually be original, for truth is eternal. Being a thinker doesn't mean re-inventing every intellectual wheel. It means studying, reasoning, choosing, learning from experience. It's particularly ironic when that phrase about thinking, not reflecting is cited by someone who has adopted Marxian terminology unknowingly.
My issue is with authority! ROFLMAO! You dissect the Decalogue and opine that I cite authorities such as Madison. Did you itend that to be funny? No, don't answer that.
I'm still waiting to here how the law of gravity is somehow like neighborhood zoning ordinaces, or how God forces us to obey 'netural laws.'
For your sake, I'll ignore everything else.
Ed,
These are your words: “It is a contemporary conceit to believe that we are wiser than all who came before us.” Of course, previously you had said “As I pointed out before, you two may be wiser than the sages throughout time, and specifically such people as Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, or even C.S. Lewis. But I'm comfortable being aligned with them.”
Aligning yourself and your opinion with “sages throughout time” and saying that Elaine and I believe ourselves to be “wiser than all who came before us” is clearly an implication that that the “sages throughout time” and “all who came before us” agree with you and disagree with us.
Unfortunately those words were yours, Brother Ed.
So, when I said it that “it is likewise a contemporary conceit…to imply that ‘all who came before us’ have agreed with us” I did not misconstrue your words. You have indeed implied that “the sages throughout time” and “all who came before us” are in alignment/agreement with you, and you them; and are not in alignment/agreement with me, nor me with them.
I don’t believe that your position is representative of (once again, your words) “every intellectual wheel,” nor do I believe that not agreeing with you about all laws being necessarily and intrinsically evil represents a reinventing of “every [or any] intellectual wheel.” I don’t believe that “the sages throughout time” or “all who came before us” agree that all law is evil because they theoretically call for some enforcement mechanism. I don’t believe that you are aligned with “the sages throughout time” and I don’t believe that I am in disagreement with “all who have come before us.”
However even if this had been the case, which it is not, it would not necessarily have made them right. The issue is whether laws are necessarily and intrinsically evil because they are enforced, or because enforcement is implied by their existence.
In essence, your issue, again, it seems is with authority in that you do not like the idea of law enforcement. Ironically, this is understandable; neither do I.
Oh, wow. I had no idea that I must explain every figure of speech. Well, let's do the list. The Decalogue and Natural Law are not like human legislation. Perhaps that's a part of your confusion. Then there's something called "synecdoche," a figure of speech which can use a general class of thing is used to refer to a smaller, more specific class. That's "all who have gone before us." All those worthwhile philosophers who have contemplated this seriously. If you really thought I was referring to every single human being who had ever lived previously has gone before, you have my sympathy.
Whether I'm right or not, you have produced no consistent arguments to the contrary, and have been unable to answer the questions put to you.
This most recent assertion, that I "do not like the idea of law inforcement," is hilarious. As a matter of fact, I'm quite adamant about enforcing the laws on the books. And before you make the next illogical leap. I also am quite fond of many laws. One of my all-time favorite films is A Man For All Seasons, and here's one of my favorite scenes:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Just because I know law to be a necessary evil, does not mean I dislike it. My last words on this topic I borrow from The Lion, theWitch, and the Wardrobe:
Professor Kirke: What do they teach in schools these days?
Ed,
We disagree as to whether man’s law is a derivative of God’s law.
We disagree as to whether the Decalogue actually represents law at all and whether you invoking God and liberty and God and force makes the Decalogue fair game.
When I question your statement—that in disagreeing with you we are believing ourselves to be “wiser than all who came before us,”—and when I quote you in three separate and distinct instances reiterating the identical theme, you say that you were using figurative language (in each instance).
It takes an excellent marksman to hit a moving target, and I’m not a marksman; neither do I want to shoot at you (how’s that for figurative language?).
I am happy to allow others to read our statements and let them decide.
A wise choice, Stephen.
That I used the same identical figure of speech in using the same identical phrase three times. Shocking! Inconceivable!
That I think there is a clear difference between the Decalogue and human legislation. Shocking! Inconceivable!
But no, we don't disagree that human law is (largely) derived from the Decalogue. But then, whiskey is derived from corn, barley, hops, and all sorts of good things. Whiskey must just as good for you.
Professor Kirke: What do they teach in schools these days?
In one of my all-time favorite movies, Heat, the Robert DeNiro character had accomplished all that he had set out to accomplish (in terms of his chosen “profession”) and was literally en route to retirement and living happily ever after. But there was an irritant in his recent past against whom he had a “legitimate” grievance; yet whom at that point, no longer was threatening or in any way relevant.
The DeNiro character decided to turn his vehicle around to finally settle the score with the irritant, and immediately lost everything he had gained; for no good reason.
Stephen, You've got to stop being so clear!
Thank you very kindly Elaine; I’m trying.