Are lawsuits unchristian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter arunangelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

arunangelo

Guest
Code: 
 The scriptures are very clear about forgiveness and mercy.  In James 2:13 we are told that mercy is above law.  In Matt. 6:14-15 we are told that we would not be forgiven if we do not forgive others.  In the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 6:12) we ask God to forgive us the way we forgive others. In Luke 17:4 Jesus tells us that we must forgive others repeatedly.  In Romans 12: 17-21 Paul tells us to not pay evil with evil, never take revenge, feed our enemy, not allow evil to defeat us and to over come evil with good.  He further tells us in 1Cor. 6:7 that a legal dispute is a sign of our complete failure; and that it is better to be wronged or robbed than to wrong others or rob them. 

 In the Old covenant people lived by the laws that were written by letters carved on stone (2 Cor. 3:7).  Therefore, it was, eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (Lv. 24:20).  In the New Covenant, we live by the Spirit; which means, the Spirit of God is imprinted on our fleshy hearts (2 Cor. 3:3).  We are therefore, taught (Matt. 5: 39-40; Luke 6: 30; Matt. 5: 44) to offer no resistance to the person who is evil; offer the other cheek when struck on one; if any one sues us for our tunic, hand him our cloak as well; give to everyone who asks and do not demand back what others have taken from us; love our enemies; and pray for those persecute us. 

When we wronged God and rejected His friendship, He did not sue us or take revenge, or condemn us or give up on us or hold resentment against us. On the contrary, because of His love for us, He wanted to save us from death. He therefore, compensated for our sins (that we committed against him), forgave us, and put His life back in us by sacrificing His own. In other words, He the victim, compensated for the crimes, we the convicts, committed against Him by His own life. In fact He even died for those who tortured Him and killed Him. In doing this He showed us that to truly love and forgive, is not only to give up resentment or claim we have against our offenders, but also to compensate for their wrongdoings.  We as Christians should do the same by praying for our offenders and sacrificing our own self in the process of helping them to recover from their wrongful way of life.
Since God has forgiven us of all our grave offenses we have committed against Him, we must forgive our fellow human beings of their offenses. This reason is illustrated in the story of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:21-34), who owed a very large debt to his master. His master forgave the entire amount, out of compassion and mercy. The servant however, did not show the same mercy to his fellow servant and sued him for a much smaller debt. The master therefore, imposed severe punishment of the unforgiving servant. Since God forgave us of all our sins by sacrificing His own life, how can we ever sue anyone for anything?
 
If we cause serious harm to another, we are obliged by justice to restore that person’s goods (tangible or intangible) to him. The court system and specifically lawsuits serve to make sure this happens in an orderly way. Our having forgiven someone does not take away his obligation to “make us whole” (legally, that is - only God can really make us whole, as we know) again. Lawsuits provide the push that some need to attend to their duties of justice.

Betsy
 
I agree with you arunangelo.

I believe that lawsuits are very unchristian. I know that this is an unpopular viewpoint in today’s society but I feel very strongly about it. I do believe that there can be very, very rare circumstances where a lawsuit may be necessary but on the whole I believe that any money gained by lawsuit is evil money acquired through greed.
That doesn’t mean we should not try to make amends to someone if we have damaged their property or caused them some injury. But our reparations should be fair and only the amount really needed for the repair. And as you pointed out, what about forgiveness?
I have seen some terribly frivolous lawsuits in the health care field that would make you shake your head in disgust. I can think of several right now where people received huge settlements (they suffered NO injuries). One of these people has already gone through all the money due to their drug abuse (I suppose you could say the drug dealer came out ahead on that one). Another person used the money (that was supposed to help a family member) to buy new vehicles for themselves. I have co-workers who call a lawyer immediately when they have the slightest fender bender on the presumption that they will sue the other person’s insurance company for a big settlement. I’m astounded at the greed for easy money through lawsuits. I work with some people who have sued more than once!
I probably learned the most about this issue through observing and reading about the Amish. They apparently do not bring lawsuits against others. They are a very meek and forgiving people and quite a contrast to the worldly people of the mainstream society.
I may get slammed here for my viewpoints but that is okay. I know that I do not want to receive money through this kind of greed and I sure don’t want it on my conscience. :bowdown2:
 
Thank you for this wonderful thread!

Governments have a responsibility to do certain things.

In the U.S. it is to provide military, roads, police, other things to meet common needs as required to ensure every citizen a reasonable shot at having his unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, realized.

The government controls people by hurting them or eliminating them if they do wrong. Those who run it are to use that power as sparingly as possible, as their power is derived from the very people they are obliged to protect by maintaining certain threats connected with aberrant behavior. Personally, I think the government should focus on keeping us from hurting each other and being hurt by outsiders, and not get into the morals so much.

The Church should get into the morals. If you have to teach morals by gunpoint, then you could have trained a rat as well. To teach the Truth, you really need to use love, forgiveness, patience, and all that good stuff. Invite a person whom you know is hungry for God. Pray that their eyes may be open to a life of peace in Christ, now and ever after.

The Church keeps us from hurting ourselves and each other spiritually, and apologists help keep outsiders from injecting virulent code into the books. Let the government uphold physical liberty including freedom of speech, by preventing others from taking it away. Let the Church be the moral leader, and not ask the government to use guns where prayer and forgiveness and love are more powerful to get the job done.

That’s why I would not want the government to do what the Church tells it to do; I don’t think the Church should be its boss any more than it should be the Church’s boss. When we start pointing guns at people they stop listening with their hearts and are controlled by fear, like a scared little rat trying not to get shocked.

I believe in separation of Church and state. I don’t, however, believe that freedom of religion really is code wording for “freedom FROM religion.”

Alan
 
That’s easy for one to say until they are actually involved in one. We have one now in which, alll I can say is, IF the party we are suing had not did what they did we would never have been suing them.

Sometimes the only way to get folks to repair damage that they have caused (and they readily admit to such damage) is to take them to court (the alternative is to revert to unlawful means).

Unfortunately some folks are low lifes and whether it is because of lack of conscience or lack of morals, the only thing they respect is a court order and even then they will drag things out to the extreme.

Until we encountered these folks, I might have agreed with you, but now I can not disagree with you more.

In some cases a lawsuit is the very best thing that you can do to force some folks to own up to their responsibilities. There is no amount of $ that can make up for the grief and aggrivation that these folks have caused us.

Every day, I pray that somehow the Lord makes these people see the harm and injustice that they have perpetrated, but it’s as if the devil himself is guiding these folks to continue their trampling of our rights and property.

The case will not be in court for at least another year (so much for swift justice) so I will not go into any details, but basically these folks have said, we screwed you over, so what … sue us.

They admit their guilt to us privately, but continue to deny any culpability… and the lawyers who they have to represent them are even more arrogant. I used to think no one deserves to go to H*** but these folks (and this one lawyer in particular) really are as close to the Devils own as anyone I’ve ever met.

I continue praying for them, but I doubt it will even change their hearts.
 
40.png
arunangelo:
The scriptures are very clear about forgiveness and mercy. In James 2:13 we are told that mercy is above law. In Matt. 6:14-15 we are told that we would not be forgiven if we do not forgive others. In the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 6:12) we ask God to forgive us the way we forgive others. In Luke 17:4 Jesus tells us that we must forgive others repeatedly. In Romans 12: 17-21 Paul tells us to not pay evil with evil, never take revenge, feed our enemy, not allow evil to defeat us and to over come evil with good. He further tells us in 1Cor. 6:7 that a legal dispute is a sign of our complete failure; and that it is better to be wronged or robbed than to wrong others or rob them.

In the Old covenant people lived by the laws that were written by letters carved on stone (2 Cor. 3:7). Therefore, it was, eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (Lv. 24:20). In the New Covenant, we live by the Spirit; which means, the Spirit of God is imprinted on our fleshy hearts, minds and souls (2 Cor. 3:3). We are therefore, taught (Matt. 5: 39-40; Luke 6: 30; Matt. 5: 44) to offer no resistance to the person who is evil; offer the other cheek when struck on one; if any one sues us for our tunic, hand him/her our cloak as well; give to everyone who asks and do not demand back what others have taken from us; love our enemies; and pray for those persecute us.

When we wronged God and rejected His friendship, He did not sue us or take revenge, or condemn us or give up on us or hold resentment against us. On the contrary, because of His love for us, He wanted to save us from death. He therefore, compensated for our sins (that we committed against him), forgave us, and put His life back in us by sacrificing His own. In other words, He the victim, compensated for the crimes, we the convicts, committed against Him by His own life. In fact He even died for those who tortured Him and killed Him. In doing this He showed us that to truly love and forgive, is not only to give up resentment or claim we have against our offenders, but also to compensate for their wrongdoings. We as Christians should do the same by praying for our offenders and sacrificing our own self in the process of helping them to recover from their wrongful way of life.

Since God has forgiven us of all our grave offenses we have committed against Him, we must forgive our fellow human beings of their offenses. This reason is illustrated in the story of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:21-34), who owed a very large debt to his master. His master forgave the entire amount, out of compassion and mercy. The servant however, did not show the same mercy to his fellow servant and sued him for a much smaller debt. The master therefore, imposed severe vengance of the unforgiving servant. Since God forgave us of all our sins by sacrificing His own life, how can we ever sue anyone for anything?
Click to expand...
That also applies to “just wars” and the death penalty. Go figure.
 
My Word Game Detector just started going off.

So far I’ve heard that lawsuits are unchristian, which is under debate.

I’ve also heard that there are times when lawsuits are necessary.

Maybe we can reframe this a bit.

Maybe lawsuits are unchristian, in that Jesus would not seek justice in a worldly court and generally advise us against it. Does that mean they are evil? Maybe not. One thing they cannot do is undo the problem or forgive a sin. To that extent they are also not Christian. OTOH, the CCC clearly states that civil authorities have an obligation to use their powers for the good of the people. Obviously the Church is not saying there should not be a government court.

If we look at this like paying taxes (a way of supporting or paying tribute) then Jesus did say to give Caesar what is due Caesar but God what is due God. For God’s sake, we must forgive our enemies. For Caesar’s sake, sometimes we just may have a civic duty to cooperate with the law, or even invoke the law to prevent further future evil.

That leaves me here. Are lawsuits “unchristian?” Yes, in a manner of speaking I believe Christ would die before taking a transgressor to court. He doesn’t need to because He has love and mercy, which is greater than the law. For us imperfect people who wish to have a chance at living in some sort of civilization, there is Caesar with resources that may be highly abused, but not intrinsically evil and without which there would undoubtedly be more evil.

Alan
 
After my dad was shot(3 bullets-one just missed his heart), along with his partner, my parents and the widow of my dad’s partner tried to sue. Why? Well, for one, my dad was given a faulty holster and that’s how they guy got the gun. (My dad was a cop) They were also never warned that this guy had made numerous threats about killing a cop. My dad was so traumatized(and still is) that he couldn’t work as a cop again. Nor could he be in the Air Force Reserves anymore. He tried both, but he couldn’t do it. He nearly died 3 or 4 times in the hospital. He’s been in the psychiatric ward 2 times, they tried to take his compensation away from him and he had to pay a lawyer for that. He’s been through hell!! My dad’s partner’s wife now had to support 2 kids. I don’t know her, so I can’t say the trauma she went through, but her husband died due to the police department’s neglience, so it must have been horrid.

No one was allowed to sue, even though all had a very good case.

I advised someone to sue the hospital where her daughter was due to the poor care her daughter received. (I realize that it makes me a traitor to my profession, but One of my reasons for advising this way was to bring a wake up call to the hospital about the severe lack of staff.)

Do I think lawsuits are evil? In general, no. However, I think that there are way too many frivilous ones. They should only be to help correct very serious wrongs.
 
I have no problem in forgiving anyone for damaging our property. Even if it was done due to negligence on their part. However I have a huge problem with them denying it in public while admitting it in private. And I have a huge problem with them refusing to pay for damages. Just make whole what you destroyed. That’s all we ask.

I don’t hold any grudges and I don’t expect to make a dime off of their carelessness. In an ideal world this would be a reasonable request, but in real life, some folks can not even abide by these most simple minimal rules of conduct. Instead, we have to spend thousands of dollars to drag these folks to court.

Unfortunately there appears to be several different types of people around. There are upright, God-fearing folks who follow basic Christian moral values, there are some really evil criminals who hold life with little or no regard, and there are some low lifes who though not quite evil will try to take advantage of the system by abusing other peoples rights. (and there may be a range of other folks in between each group)

Sometime court is the only route you can take to protect your basic human rights. It’s unfortunate that people can’t be decent on their own, but that’s the real world. Some people just don’t care or don’t believe that God is watching what we do. We are accountable for both the good and evil that we bring on others.

wc
 
The Bible says that you should never take another Christian to court but take it to the church instead.

The Bible says, if someone asks for your coat, give him your cloak as well. Don’t sit there grumbling about how cold YOU are. It sounds like being walked on in our society, and it is, but this is from Jesus, the same one who said if someone slaps you on one cheek, let him slap the other as well.

Why? So NO ONE can say that YOU are greedy, selfish, stingy, or violent.

If someone takes advantage of you, let it go. If you truly cannot survive without getting back what was stolen, go to the church, not the court.
 
Christian4life said:
The Bible says that you should never take another Christian to court but take it to the church instead..
Click to expand...

Thank you for quoting the passage correctly. It does say “another Christian.” But we can’t very well call most people before the disciplinary committee of the Church, can we?

Let me just prepare everyone by saying that I have VERY strong emotions on this topic. Unless you have never had just cause to sue someone, you can’t fully understand the issue. I will pose a scenario:

Say a woman is giving birth to her first child, and the baby is in distress. The OB is rather busy that day and doesn’t pay much attention to the heart rate monitor readings. The woman believes, after many hours, that there is something wrong. She asks for a C-section. The doctor refuses, telling her she is just an impatient woman and needs to let him make the decisions. He tells her to just wait a few more hours in labor.

Two hours go by. The woman has been pushing non-stop, and the baby is not moving down the birth canal. The doctor suggests maybe he should use forceps. The woman is hesitant. The doctor shrugs and starts to leave the room. The woman finally gives in and says, “Do what you have to do.” The doctor pulls the child out with forceps, and the child is purple. She is not breathing. They can’t revive her.

But eventually they do. The child is permanently brain damaged. Why? She was in extreme distress and the doctor was not paying attention. The family has enormous medical bills because of the extensive stay in ICU and expensive tests and procedures. The child requires long-term medication to control the seizures caused by the brain damage. She also requires glasses, surgery, and years of therapy and may never speak.

It is easy, my friend, to take the position that we should “turn the other cheek.” But what about that infant? What about all the other infants that doctor will bring into the world? What about all the other families whose lives will be turned upside down when this same doctor refuses to meet the legal standard of care that is required?

There is a time when people must be held accountable for the harm they do to others. Criminal law will protect no one from this doctor. The State Board of Medical Examiners may not even protect people from this doctor. Who, then? And if I simply forgive the harm done to my precious baby daughter and turn away, how many more lives will he destroy?
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure:
Thank you for quoting the passage correctly. It does say “another Christian.” But we can’t very well call most people before the disciplinary committee of the Church, can we?

Let me just prepare everyone by saying that I have VERY strong emotions on this topic. Unless you have never had just cause to sue someone, you can’t fully understand the issue. I will pose a scenario:

Say a woman is giving birth to her first child, and the baby is in distress. The OB is rather busy that day and doesn’t pay much attention to the heart rate monitor readings. The woman believes, after many hours, that there is something wrong. She asks for a C-section. The doctor refuses, telling her she is just an impatient woman and needs to let him make the decisions. He tells her to just wait a few more hours in labor.

Two hours go by. The woman has been pushing non-stop, and the baby is not moving down the birth canal. The doctor suggests maybe he should use forceps. The woman is hesitant. The doctor shrugs and starts to leave the room. The woman finally gives in and says, “Do what you have to do.” The doctor pulls the child out with forceps, and the child is purple. She is not breathing. They can’t revive her.

But eventually they do. The child is permanently brain damaged. Why? She was in extreme distress and the doctor was not paying attention. The family has enormous medical bills because of the extensive stay in ICU and expensive tests and procedures. The child requires long-term medication to control the seizures caused by the brain damage. She also requires glasses, surgery, and years of therapy and may never speak.

It is easy, my friend, to take the position that we should “turn the other cheek.” But what about that infant? What about all the other infants that doctor will bring into the world? What about all the other families whose lives will be turned upside down when this same doctor refuses to meet the legal standard of care that is required?

There is a time when people must be held accountable for the harm they do to others. Criminal law will protect no one from this doctor. The State Board of Medical Examiners may not even protect people from this doctor. Who, then? And if I simply forgive the harm done to my precious baby daughter and turn away, how many more lives will he destroy?
Click to expand...
**While turning the other cheek is good, it is cases like this(and the one in my parent’s life) that give good reason for lawsuits. They are to be used to address serious wrongs. **
**Lawsuits are not to be used when you get a very hot cup of coffee from McDonald’s and then spill it on your lap because you tried to open it while driving around a corner. They are not to be used to benefit our own stupidity. **
**Surf(name removed by moderator)ure, this happened to you??? I am so sorry that this happened to your beautiful little girl. You are suing, then? Good. It’s the right thing to do. I know that without any doubt in my heart and I don’t even know you. **
 
Christian4life said:
The Bible says that you should never take another Christian to court but take it to the church instead.

The Bible says, if someone asks for your coat, give him your cloak as well. Don’t sit there grumbling about how cold YOU are. It sounds like being walked on in our society, and it is, but this is from Jesus, the same one who said if someone slaps you on one cheek, let him slap the other as well.

Why? So NO ONE can say that YOU are greedy, selfish, stingy, or violent.

If someone takes advantage of you, let it go. If you truly cannot survive without getting back what was stolen, go to the church, not the court.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not all folks are Christian (the folks we’re dealing with are not). And there are many who claim to be but aren’t the least bit interested in following any sort of Christ-like behavior.

It is not a matter of getting back something that was stolen. It is a matter of buildings being damaged to the point of potential collapse and to a point where they are literally uninhabitable.

We say repair the damage. Publicly they say they didn’t do it. Privately they admit ‘they did, so what sue us’, so we are. We are talking about over 500K in damages, there is no way we can absorb that kind of repair bill.

IF there were any other way we would have gladly taken it.
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure:
Thank you for quoting the passage correctly. It does say “another Christian.” But we can’t very well call most people before the disciplinary committee of the Church, can we?

It is easy, my friend, to take the position that we should “turn the other cheek.” But what about that infant? What about all the other infants that doctor will bring into the world? What about all the other families whose lives will be turned upside down when this same doctor refuses to meet the legal standard of care that is required?
Click to expand...
You are right. It is easier to take the position that we should “turn the other cheek” than it is to actually do it. Nobody said that following Christ’s teachings were a piece of cake.

What about the infant victims? Tragically, they are victims.

I see nothing sinful about asking the worldly authorities to use threat of harm or loss of freedom to make the person stop. It just isn’t a strategy that Jesus would probably have used, and indicates our imperfect faith.

That is, as long as we take them to court with the idea of preventing further injustice, in particular to others who can’t defend themselves against this particular person, I see nothing sinful in it. If we take them to court because we are mad at them, or because we think they “deserve” punishment, then it is sinful. It’s no different than killing. Worldly authorities can enforce behavior codes by doing one thing: using irresistable physical force against the defendant. Forgiveness is a stronger response to the spiritual issues of the defendant than force, and to the spiritual issues of the accuser for that matter. Physical force often seems to win in the area of stopping the temporal carnage.
There is a time when people must be held accountable for the harm they do to others. Criminal law will protect no one from this doctor. The State Board of Medical Examiners may not even protect people from this doctor. Who, then? And if I simply forgive the harm done to my precious baby daughter and turn away, how many more lives will he destroy?
Click to expand...
Forgiving the doctor and stopping his destructive actions are two separate issues.

You must forgive the doctor for your own spiritual health.

You may use means that you believe are reasonable and legal to stop the doctor from destruction, not to exclude public exposure of his incompetence. Sure, it might make you liable for a defamation lawsuit by the doctor, but if your facts are accurate, then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain if the doctor countersues, because that gives you a license and vehicle to take the case public.

Spiritual solution to evil: turn other cheek and forgive.

Worldly solution to evil: stop it using physical means available.

Is worldly solution itself evil? Tough question, but I think no. It may signal in imperfect faith, which proves nothing except we’re human. If we believe we are taking aggressive action against a wicked person to protect the innocent against them, I really don’t believe this is sinning because we are doing it to preserve life. Perhaps this explains why Jesus never harmed anybody, but His apostles sure blew away a few enemies! If we are sinners for using worldly means then we are in good company, anyway.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
You are right. It is easier to take the position that we should “turn the other cheek” than it is to actually do it. Nobody said that following Christ’s teachings were a piece of cake.

What about the infant victims? Tragically, they are victims.

I see nothing sinful about asking the worldly authorities to use threat of harm or loss of freedom to make the person stop. It just isn’t a strategy that Jesus would probably have used, and indicates our imperfect faith.
Click to expand...
I like to be very careful in stating what strategies Jesus would have used. Also, I don’t think preventing the permanent injury or death of an infant by these legal means is a sign of imperfect faith.
Forgiving the doctor and stopping his destructive actions are two separate issues.

You must forgive the doctor for your own spiritual health.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and I have done this.
Spiritual solution to evil: turn other cheek and forgive.

Worldly solution to evil: stop it using physical means available.

Is worldly solution itself evil? Tough question, but I think no. It may signal in imperfect faith, which proves nothing except we’re human. If we believe we are taking aggressive action against a wicked person to protect the innocent against them, I really don’t believe this is sinning because we are doing it to preserve life. Perhaps this explains why Jesus never harmed anybody, but His apostles sure blew away a few enemies!
Click to expand...
Thanks for your thoughts, Alan. I agree almost entirely.

I’m not sure, though, that putting a stop to evil is necessarily a “worldly” solution. It is worldly in the sense that it is accomplished in the physical world and not in the spiritual, yes, but let us not forget that Christ himself used just such a method in handling the moneychangers in the temple.

There are instances, then, when putting a stop to evil by means other than prayer is not only logical but also just and good. We Catholics here in the US do not only pray about such issues as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research, we take action by educating the public, contacting our representatives, and electing people who will make moral choices when creating new laws. Sometimes we even go out of our way by suing the parties who allow a teenage girl to have an abortion without parental notification, or those who pass out explicit sex-ed material to sixth-graders and don’t allow parents to review the curriculum.

There are many instances when law enforcement is insufficient to protect the people from evil. In these, I believe we have a Christian duty to step forward.

If my neighbor strikes me, I can turn the other cheek. But if my neighbor threatens the safety or innocence of God’s children, I will pray … and I will take action.
 
Dear friends

The law, in my experience in working in it for 6 years some time back, is that it is no moral respector nor does it repect the dignity of the human person. It is a machine that lumbers forward to restore only a measure of justice in broad terms. In such broad terms it does not consider the moral implications or subtleties.

The law considers what is acceptable for the entire population of a country, that leaves no room for individualism and moral considerations to that individual. There is as much risk for the plaintiff (claimant) in going to court as there is for the defendant. That is why there are such a high number of out of court settlements.

It is a weighing up game of odds and probabilities when considering taking court action.

I am not disputing the fact that people do indeed receive justice in courts and criminals of all kinds are brought to pay their debt to individuals and society. But to bring to court any matter is to fall upon the mercy of humans and oftentimes people are gravely disappointed with ruling in the perameters of such a broad and inconsiderate law of moral justices.

I believe in every instance that all efforts should be made to settle any matter firmly out of the courts by negotiation.

It is far better to avoid at all costs the court scenario. You ask any lawyer what they think of the odds of a case and they will always say ‘it all depends’ and surely it does all depend. There is no such thing as a water-tight case unless the defendant is willing to admit culpability to the crime before the proceedings begin and in doing so will normally lessen their sentence, this work is done prior to court appearance and preliminary hearings, again negotiation outside of court.

One could say there is the ‘weight of evidence’. Yes that is again playing the game of probabilities. For every effort the lawyers make for the plaintiff every effort is also made by the lawyers of the defendant and many cases fold under the hidden technicality.

We should in every case pursue justice if the overwhelming effect will be to serve society to the betterment. We must not allow no justice to prevail in the land and persons to feel they have no authority to answer to in this life and indeed the next. If a crime has been committed and society is at risk if that individual/s contiue to operate freely within society and they have no remorse nor willing to admit their crime and plea bargain, then in all such cases justice must be pursued, it would be unchristian to do otherwise.

How that justice is pursued is the greatest question. We must not be driven by hatred and maliciousness into pressing for legal retribution, indeed wielding the long arm of the law for revenge. It must always come from the point of forgiveness with a sincere effort to restore justice in an unjust situation, fairly and with respect to all involved. We must not be immoral ourselves in pursuing justice.

Strive to settle differences before the court is reached, that is the moral and gospel way to restore justice. It is a failure between human beings for a case to ever reach court and it is not always the case that justice is served once a case comes to court attention. Most matters that come before a court (especially the magistrates smaller curcuit courts) and clog the legal justice system up are trivial matters that human failure has led to a breakdown in negotiations. Judges look most harshly upon such cases, it is like restoring order to a bunch of unruly children who refuse from mostly pride to ‘play together nicely’. In our hearts we know when we are just but on many occassions a little compromise on both parties sides would restore peace and justice. Judges clamp down hard on such cases and both plaintiff and defendant can find themselves at the mercy of the court being slapped with court costs and fines. This is unjust if the plaintiff has tried every effort but the defendant has been stubborn in their position. This is also unjust if the plaintiff brings a trivial matter in order to wield over the defendant when the matter could have easily been settled out of the court had the plaintiff been less stubborn in their position. Both parties must work together to find a resolution, peace and justice.

In short, settle out of the court because you desire to forgive your enemy and restore peace and justice without the long arm of the law to slap down on perhaps not only your enemy but also yourself.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
40.png
springbreeze:
How that justice is pursued is the greatest question. We must not be driven by hatred and maliciousness into pressing for legal retribution, indeed wielding the long arm of the law for revenge. It must always come from the point of forgiveness with a sincere effort to restore justice in an unjust situation, fairly and with respect to all involved. We must not be immoral ourselves in pursuing justice.
Click to expand...
This, however, is exactly the predominant view. We talk about how we should not have mercy because they had no mercy on their victims. Prosecutors us the strategy that the defendant is evil and not even remorseful so they must pay, Pay, PAY! They use that strategy because it works; I’ve been on juries before and I know some of what goes on.

Few people, except perhaps a few liberals who are written off as leftist, seem to share my opinion that jail should be specially reserved for people who pose an imminent threat to society. We should lock people up because we are afraid of them, that is, not because a) we’re mad at them, or b) because we need to teach them a lesson.

When we fill the jails with young kids getting involved in petty crimes, we just send them into a networking situation where they can learn authentic hardened attitudes and be trained to be the next generation. That’s really a slightly tangential rant, but I’ll throw it in here for good measure.

Then we look at the rate at which criminals return to jail, and wonder why they’re not “getting the message.” What do we need to do? Stiffer sentences – obviously more of whatever isn’t working is what we need.

The whole idea of “stiffer sentences” is enough to trigger my hypersensitive word judger mode and I hear “show them scums who’s boss. By golly, we wish we could use public torture but there’s that constitutional problem, so at least let’s use what we can to try (in futility) to beat the devil out of them and force them to bow to our authority.”

Alan
 
surf(name removed by moderator)ure:
I like to be very careful in stating what strategies Jesus would have used. Also, I don’t think preventing the permanent injury or death of an infant by these legal means is a sign of imperfect faith.
Click to expand...
You’re right that I do not know what Jesus would have done for certain, but (and I’ve been trying to find this) it seems I remember once where Jesus, or one of the NT writers, said to avoid becoming involved in political solutions – not the one about settling out of court – but I can’t find it so maybe I was just imagining it. :confused:

Perfect faith can move mountains. Perfect faith was also put to death by the world’s inhabitants.
I’m not sure, though, that putting a stop to evil is necessarily a “worldly” solution. It is worldly in the sense that it is accomplished in the physical world and not in the spiritual, yes, but let us not forget that Christ himself used just such a method in handling the moneychangers in the temple.
Click to expand...
You make a good point about Jesus taking physical action in the temple, but again He did not call on guards to stop it (the guards maybe were corrupt too, but that’s another issue) nor did we hear about any punishment other than breaking up the activity and giving a verbal reprimand, nor about whether Jesus went to court to testify against the money changers. I suppose my “perfect faith” theory would seem to indicate that Christ would have either done nothing or just zapped them with some Care-Bear like love to change their hearts. Sigh. What am I even trying to say? When Christ did take action, He took it on himself at the risk of paybacks, rather than getting the law to back Him up.

I don’t remember an instance of Jesus taking anybody to a civil court or advocating such, although He did occasionally speak in parables about how worldly courts operate.
There are many instances when law enforcement is insufficient to protect the people from evil. In these, I believe we have a Christian duty to step forward.

If my neighbor strikes me, I can turn the other cheek. But if my neighbor threatens the safety or innocence of God’s children, I will pray … and I will take action.
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs, perhaps, but I don’t think it is the job of law enforcement to protect the people from evil. Their job is to reduce criminal activity spawned by that evil, and to help reduce or eliminate some of the temporal damage caused by those sins.

The government wields the power and authority to deny a citizen life, liberty, or property, based on some sort of due process. Those are the main tools it has for fighting evil, and do not historically have a good track record at doing so. They do have a track record of being able to hold crime to a level that allows communities to feel relatively safe. This is what you get when you repay evil with force; you may or may not cause the person to abandon the evil, but you will catch a few and make a few others more determined not to get caught. Hit and miss.

OTOH, love never fails. The Church’s job is to fight evil, and its tools are much more powerful than the government’s at doing so.

This is one thing I wish we Christians would look at a bit differently, because we tend to look at government as if they have the same mission as the Church, except they have guns and we don’t so we need to tell them how to use those guns to do what we can’t do with our faith.

Of course, so many Christians look at the Church as a Strict Parent who constantly threatens her children with eternal punishment and instills fear as methods of controlling them, so if that’s all the Church is then we might as well use guns or coerce those with guns to use them to our liking.

Alan
 
I believe lawsuits are a “necessary evil”. We can all say what the “correct” or “proper” or “christian” thing is to do, however I do believe that in the “right” circumstances, we all would sue if necessary. We are human.
~ Kathy ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top