Must we obey ridiculous laws?

  • Thread starter Thread starter _L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L
I think you may have intended to ask a different question as “When is okay to disobey civil laws?” So let me answer that question, with a hierarchy of laws:

**Compliance **

A civil Law mirrors a Natural Moral Law → you must comply
  • example “Thou shall not murder”
Reason : here the moral law creates a foundation for Man to Man, and God to Man relations

A civil law is neutral to Natural Moral Law → you should error toward compliance, comply unless a just reason is found
  • example “Red shirts are to be worn on Tuesday”
Reason : here the moral neutral law creates no hardship on the man, and may well have a benefitical base which is unknown. When the man refuses compliance he may be under disorder thought (he does not understand the issue fully, and may actually misunderstand the issue). Thus his compliance contributes to the greater good of man to man relations in ways which he personally does not understand.

Non Compliance

A civil Law violates a Natural Moral Law → you must NOT comply
  • example “Thou shall kill _________ race of people”
Reason : here the moral law creates a Man to Man relation which damages the God to Man relation

**Optional Compliance **

A civil law is neutral to Natural Moral Law → you should error toward compliance, comply unless a just reason is found
  • example “Wife can only have the hair cut approved by the husband”
Reason : here the moral neutral law creates a hardship on the woman, this hardship is undo. Her refusal to comply creates no moral issues and relieves the undue burden. Note: This woman takes on a self imposed responsibility to know the burden is undo based on her understanding the issue fully (see neutral civil laws under compliance)

Hope that explains it
 
_L said:
…The laws I am really thinking about with this thread are over bearing laws that intrude on your life. For example, where I live, you can’t hang a chandelier in your own home without going to the town for permission to do so in permit form. …
Click to expand...
Building codes are anything but ridiculous. I like the fact that if I buy a house I can be relatively certain that the studs are not made of cardboard.
 
Are said ridiculous laws expected to be followed by the state?

Consider the speed limit. It is a law, and we should not break it…but most police allow people to slide in around 3 to 5 MPH over the limit.
Given the state has set up an expectation that there is a 3 to 5 MPH grey area, I would expect it not to be sinful to speed within that window.

As to the red on tuesdays hypothetical…is the law being enforced?
What is the expectation set up by the state?
 
Spirithound said:
I have heard a theory that one is not obliged to obey laws which do not deal with inherent morality (for example, jaywalking) provided one is prepared to accept the consequences of getting caught.
Click to expand...
This one seems to make a lot more sense to me.
 
No, you didn’t get it from me. I never even thought of that possibility until I saw your post, but it really makes sense to me now.
 
Spirithound said:
Hanging a chandelier could have some structural repercussions. The smart citizen would indeed get a permit.

I have heard a theory that one is not obliged to obey laws which do not deal with inherent morality (for example, jaywalking) provided one is prepared to accept the consequences of getting caught.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be difficult here but how does that theory relate to the CCC which says,
2199 The fourth commandment is addressed expressly to children in their relationship to their father and mother, because this relationship is the most universal. It likewise concerns the ties of kinship between members of the extended family. It requires honor, affection, and gratitude toward elders and ancestors. Finally, it extends to the duties of pupils to teachers, employees to employers, subordinates to leaders, citizens to their country, and to those who administer or govern it.
Click to expand...
This commandment includes and presupposes the duties of parents, instructors, teachers, leaders, magistrates, those who govern, all who exercise authority over others or over a community of persons.
Click to expand...
with the exception of,
2256 Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order. “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Click to expand...
??
 
Corki said:
Not trying to be difficult here but how does that theory relate to the CCC which says,

2199 The fourth commandment is addressed expressly to children in their relationship to their father and mother, because this relationship is the most universal. It likewise concerns the ties of kinship between members of the extended family. It requires honor, affection, and gratitude toward elders and ancestors. Finally, it extends to the duties of pupils to teachers, employees to employers, subordinates to leaders, citizens to their country, and to those who administer or govern it.

This commandment includes and presupposes the duties of parents, instructors, teachers, leaders, magistrates, those who govern, all who exercise authority over others or over a community of persons.
Click to expand...
Worry not about being difficult, friend! I am always looking to correct my philosophy.
I should also state upfront that this is not my theory, and I don’t (yet) (fully) embrace it.
Further, as I have been considering it, I can think of no other civil offense than jaywalking, while there are no cars around, that this could apply to. Quite simply, it seems that every other law involves my relationship with someone else (and even jaywalking does, if I am inconveniencing a motorist).

But on to your question. The only way I might be able to justify jaywalking when there are no cars nearby would be to consider that this is a scenario that the government did not intend to criminalize when they crafted the law. Of course they will say that they did, but they’re just covering themselves legally.
 
_L said:
The issue of the law of God vs the law of the state often comes up and its something that I have so many questions about and I have not received a cohesive answer up to this point so I was hoping for some insight. I know in the new testament it says to obey those in authority over us in so far as what they are doing does not transgress the laws of God. but my quesiton is, when does the government go too far, to the point where we do not have to obey a certain law? for example, if the government made a law that outlawed going to mass; obviously this law is unjust and we would not be obliged to follow it. Now on the other side of the spectrum, lets say there was a law that said everyone had to wear the color red on Tuesdays. Would we have to follow this ridiculous law? According to the answers I have heard on this subject, yes, we would have to obey this law and be forced to wear red on tuesdays seeing as it doesn’t directly transgress a law of God. Now this seems totally off to me, and I am wondering if the Church has any sort of doctrine on law in general and what we are expected to follow. Now the example of wearing red is extreme, but there are tons of laws already on the books of equal ridiculousness and annoyance, so my quesiton is how far must we go in compliance with the law?
Click to expand...
👍

What a wonderful question.

Are ridiculous laws meant to be observed, according to the Church?

The affairs of State and the affairs of God are separate, according to Matthew 22:21.

The laws of God are not mutable.

You are to live your life, according to Luke 10:27.

But, the laws of State are mutable.

Given that the laws of State are mutable, they are to be observed, until changed.

Dissent is attempt to change the laws of State, and is subject to consequence by State.

Dissent is always an option, and as an option, is approved by God, because the laws of State - under Romans 13:1 - are mutable and mutation is only by dissent.

So, if a law is deemed ridiculous by a dissenter, the option of dissent is approved by God.

🙂
 
Curious_Seed said:
👍

What a wonderful question.

Are ridiculous laws meant to be observed, according to the Church?

The affairs of State and the affairs of God are separate, according to Matthew 22:21.

The laws of God are not mutable.

You are to live your life, according to Luke 10:27.

But, the laws of State are mutable.

Given that the laws of State are mutable, they are to be observed, until changed.

Dissent is attempt to change the laws of State, and is subject to consequence by State.

Dissent is always an option, and as an option, is approved by God, because the laws of State - under Romans 13:1 - are mutable and mutation is only by dissent.

So, if a law is deemed ridiculous by a dissenter, the option of dissent is approved by God.

🙂
Click to expand...
We also know from history that the laws of the Church are mutable. I heard the archbishop of new york saying, just yesterday, that the bible should not be interpreted literally in all instances. Yet, which parts of the bible should be taken literally, and which are figurative, is an opinion which changes over time.

So, where does this leave us? In some sort of relativistic and personal moral movement toward anarchy, toward libertarianism… If one rejects the authority of the State on personal moral grounds, then why accept the authority of the Church. Both are institutions who profess to derive their authority from without, but which actually derive it sui generis.

I guess this is where the impetus to apply reason to the ideas of social justice comes into play. What is a just act for you, might differ from what is a just act for me, based on our own unique moral compasses.
 
I think great care should be taken before disobeying any law, no matter how ‘unjust.’ In breaking laws, there is a question of respect not just for an individual law, but also the rule of law as a whole. To allow people to break laws on a subjective basis of wrong or right would be very problematic (since people have widely differing viewpoints as to what is wrong or right) and would invite anarchy. What if someone decided it was fine to steal my car or break into my home, or kill their estranged lover or spouse?

Nevertheless, there are some laws which are manifestly unjust and should not be followed. I could imagine such laws as being ones that fundamentally affront basic human rights (i.e. ones endorsing slavery or racial or sexual discrimination) or the dignity and sanctity of human life (the ‘laws’ which allowed the Nazis to eliminate Jews and mentally defective people). I agree with the principles of classical natural law theory which say that if a law is manifestly unjust, it no longer binds in conscience, though I don’t agree with some of the interpretations of classical natural law theory by the contemporary Catholic Church.
 
_L said:
…For example, where I live, you can’t hang a chandelier in your own home without going to the town for permission to do so in permit form…
Click to expand...
That is not necessarily ridiculous. The civil authorities have the duty to protect the safety of the people. If you hang a chandelier incorrectly, it can pose a safety risk to you or to whomever you might eventually sell the house to. So it is a matter of prudential judgment as to whether such laws are unnecessarily restrictive. In specific instances, they may indeed go too far. But without knowing all the details, one cannot say categorically that all such laws are ridiculous.
 
40.png
Janet_Cardin:
If the government passed a law that we had to wear red :mad: on Tuesdays, we would not have to obey it as this is not a commandment as written in the Books.
Click to expand...
So what are you saying? If it is not a law in the Bible, we don’t have to follow those laws made since? :confused:
 
I think that the answer has basically been stated, but in many posts.

I believe that a law must be followed if it doesn’t specifically go against God’s laws.
ie: Law says murder Person X. God says Thou Shall Not!

In the red shirt example, you should wear red because God says to follow your government’s laws. But, you could lobby to change the law.

For the woman dyeing her hair, two things come into play. One, as a man, you and your wife can probably agree, even if you’ve never specifically discussed it, that she has your continuous approval to dye her hair, unless you disagree and like her hair better its natural length and/or color (ie: my dad doesn’t let my sister or mom cut their hair too short, though trims and dyeing are ok). Your wife and child would then have a moral responsibility to follow your wishes. Also, this falls under another category, as does jaywalking, in which “spirit of the law” comes into play. Jaywalking is a law built to protect pedestrians and drivers from harm. If you jaywalk when there are vehicles, then you are breaking worldly and Godly law. If you can clearly see that there are no vehicle, and you jaywalk, you are technically breaking the law, but the spirit of the law is being followed (ie: you and drivers are both safe), and I believe you would be morally in the right in this case. The dyeing or cutting of a woman’s hair likely comes from a time long past and the spirit of that law (and many others [can’t have an ice cream cone in your back pocket on a Sunday]) is long past, as well. In these cases, you could be morally in the right as long as no one is being hurt (ie: your husband).

In the chandelier case, you should certainly follow the law. It is built to protect you, your family, your guests, any future home owners, your pets, and your insurance company, as well as your neighbors. If your house burns down because you didn’t feel like asking the city about it and getting it inspected, and you kill someone, that would be on your conscience forever.
It’s the same as laws about how long electrical wires in your house can be, and whether you’re allowed to build a house with a wood-burning fireplace. These are there to protect people, and don’t go against God’s laws, so they must be followed.

I hope this helps.
 
In the red shirt example, that law is arguably an immoral law, as it restricts the freedom of expression with no discernible benefit. I’m not sure it specifically violates a commandment. However, there is an argument to be made that any law which serves no purpose, is actually an immoral law. Such a law imposes upon its citizenry for no reason other than perhaps a delight in power by lawmakers and enforcers, and that is not to be encouraged.

On the other hand, the matter of determining whether or not a law is purposeless is not always easy or clear cut. As previous posters have noted, many laws which seem ridiculous (or are taken to silly extremes in coding and enforcement) have a sense to them or at least grow from sensible roots. I don’t trust all lawmakers or enforcers to never pass ridiculous laws, but neither do I trust all citizens to decide for themselves which laws are best followed. A minority of each group regularly screw it up.

Which should serve to remind us that, when we engage in matters of civil disobedience, it should be a carefully considered and moral action.
 
Regarding the ignoring of irrelevant laws, in the US a citizen can ignore laws when it is immediately necessary to stop a greater harm. For example, you could legally jaywalk if you saw a baby playing in the street, in order to pick up the child and remove them from the dangerous area. Justifying you actions like this in court is called the “Necessity Defense.”

However, it would be difficult to argue that it was immediately necessary for you to not wear the red shirt on Tuesday in order to prevent someone from being harmed.
 
I’m no expert on the subject of Catechism, but here’s my two cents on the subject. If one is required to obey the “authority,” then the thing to remember is that the highest authority in a democracy is the people. The legistlators are servants of the public (at least, on paper). So by this reasoning, one could disobey the red shirt law, but still be obeying a higher law, recognized by the Declaration of Independence, that freedom must supercede everything else.
 
Shawn_Ravenfire said:
I’m no expert on the subject of Catechism, but here’s my two cents on the subject. If one is required to obey the “authority,” then the thing to remember is that the highest authority in a democracy is the people. The legistlators are servants of the public (at least, on paper). So by this reasoning, one could disobey the red shirt law, but still be obeying a higher law, recognized by the Declaration of Independence, that freedom must supercede everything else.
Click to expand...
The Declaration does not say that freedom supersedes everything. A democracy that ignores the rule of law must come very close to anarchy. Your statement would be more correct like this: The highest authority in a democracy is the law, which is written by the people through a proper legislative process taking into account the common good and popular sovereignty.
 
_L said:
The issue of the law of God vs the law of the state often comes up and its something that I have so many questions about and I have not received a cohesive answer up to this point so I was hoping for some insight. I know in the new testament it says to obey those in authority over us in so far as what they are doing does not transgress the laws of God. but my quesiton is, when does the government go too far, to the point where we do not have to obey a certain law? for example, if the government made a law that outlawed going to mass; obviously this law is unjust and we would not be obliged to follow it. Now on the other side of the spectrum, lets say there was a law that said everyone had to wear the color red on Tuesdays. Would we have to follow this ridiculous law? According to the answers I have heard on this subject, yes, we would have to obey this law and be forced to wear red on tuesdays seeing as it doesn’t directly transgress a law of God. Now this seems totally off to me, and I am wondering if the Church has any sort of doctrine on law in general and what we are expected to follow. Now the example of wearing red is extreme, but there are tons of laws already on the books of equal ridiculousness and annoyance, so my quesiton is how far must we go in compliance with the law?
Click to expand...
I do not believe there is any general moral obligation to follow laws merely because they are laws, but (as you can see from this thread) there are many who would disagree.
 
Newbie2 said:
Ah, but how about some of the non-offensive stuff on tee-shirts. Betcha “Jesus Saves” or “Repent, the Kingdom is at hand” would provide matter for banning.

Wouldn’t we consider a rule that prevents a private citizen from expressing their religious views to be ridiculous, as long as it was not offensive to other religions?
Click to expand...
Not to drift the thread, but t-shirts with those slogans could not be banned from public school in the US. **** You! shirts could probably be banned from schools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top