I think we’re getting closer to the mark. I’d say that the implication in the Declaration of Independence is that the rule of law should be followed, when the law is serving the people. But when the law fails to serve the people, then the people have an obligation to disobey the law. It’s basically insurance, in case our own government becomes as corrupt as the British monarchy.
I think the schools are a special case. Not only is it a public building, but it’s a public building designed for a specific purpose, i.e. learning. (Personally, I don’t think what’s written on a shirt impedes your ability to learn, but some people think otherwise.) But I don’t think that the same set of rules that applies in a school could be used as an example of what could be applied elsewhere.
I think that, with this, we’ve come back to the position that a lot of people have presented. You must follow the law unless it violates God’s law, which includes basic rights
My idea of basic human rights, is anything which does not violate the freedom of others. Using the red shirt example, what I choose to wear, does not negatively impact those around me. So in this case, trying to regulate it would be an infringement upon freedom. Now one could say that regulating what people could wear wouldn’t make a major difference one way or another, but in the more abstract sense, it establishes a dangerous precedent. The red shirt law could be used at a later time, to rationalize another law, which dictates what shoes we could wear, or what sports we could play, or what jobs we could work at, or what TV shows we could watch, etc. Basically, it would shift the burden of justification from the law-makers to the law-repealers. It would establish that we do not have freedom, but only permission. So even an “absurd” law, which doesn’t take away one particular basic human right, is in fact, taking away our MOST basic right, which is freedom itself.I think that, with this, we’ve come back to the position that a lot of people have presented. You must follow the law unless it violates God’s law, which includes basic rights
Now the question really comes down to this: What counts as a violation of basic rights? I’m not sure I’d call wearing what you want a basic, unalienable right. I think it’s a safe bet to count anything defined as such in the Bible the catechism, or the constitution (I refer to the US constitution, but you can take that to mean the constitution of whatever nation you happen to live in).
But, more specifically regarding laws that are only “absurd,” I think I’d try to follow them unless their absurdity is causing a danger of some sort, or that obeying them poses an extreme, undue burden.
Freedom, such as you have described it and to the degree you have described it, is not a basic human right in terms of Catholic thought. And that is the subject of this thread - to decide whether or not Catholic teaching requires one to obey laws that seem absurd. Your arguments are all based on secular considerations.
In terms of Catholic thought, no. But it is the premise behind the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, which supercede all other laws in the U.S. (And I’m sure that nearly all other civilized nations have something analogous.)
It seems to me that you are advocating libertarianism, which in its true form would be contrary to the teachings of the Church. An elected government derives its authority from the governed. However, that does not exempt the governed from obeying the laws made by that government. Further, there are many governments which are not democratically elected. My understanding is that the Church requires law abiding behavior regardless of the form of government.
If that is the case, then it will be the job of the judicial branch of government to make the determination that a particular law violates the “highest law of the land”, and so overturn it. It is not the job of each citizen to decide for himself which laws are pointless.
Of course the law would not be universally agreed to be pointless, otherwise it never would have been passed in the first place. When a law is passed, somebody at the time thought the law was not pointless. So the more practical question is who gets to decide if a law is pointless? As the example cited earlier in this thread about regulations of how to hang a chandelier show, a law that one person thought was pointless turned out to have a real point the he did not consider.
There was Greek democracy.
Sovereigns is not quite right. Even officially, people in society today are not sovereigns. They have responsibilities to their neighbors and to society in general. Our families are not little nation states.
The Church may have used regal language to describe the responsibility back then, but it is clear that the rules applied equally well to any form of legitimate government. Church teaching explains that all power ultimately comes from God. So if the king is exercising that power for the common good of his people, then his laws are to be respected. Why should not the same explanation apply to a president or a prime minister as well? If anything, the elected leaders have even more legitimacy than kings, and should be obeyed even more.
Maybe I’m defining the term soverign too broadly. And as for the types of political systems then and now, I was speaking in terms of what was commonplace for the time.
Yes, if by “fails” you mean the government institutes laws that are contrary to God’s laws. We do not have to obey immoral laws. The question is about ridiculous laws - which I guess means laws that are not immoral or grossly unjust - they just don’t seem to serve any purpose for the common good.
Right. And how is that public consensus properly determined? By the normal workings of the legitimate government. In that way a ridiculous law can be overturned. But the question of this thread was more about what we as indiviuals are obligated to do or free to not do, according to Church teaching.
Deciding whether a government is legitimate is not based on historical considerations. It is based on whether or not that government is in fact serving the common good of the people today. Even if we believe the American Revolution was evil (which I do not), that would not automatically disqualify the current government as being legitimate. Of course the really tough decisions were during the time of transition when it was not clear what the legitimate government was. But we are long past that time now.
CCC 2311: Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.
On the contrary, it is up to the citizens to tell the legislature and courts which laws are unjust or pointless, and they must often do so through disobedience. Not only does civil grown depend on this, but the clergy sanctions it.
I believe we are WELL past the age when the divine right of kings was an automatic and respected policy. Certainly, that doctrine caused much strife in the early days of Protestantism, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal”) is directly opposed to it.
I don’t want to help you drift the thread
but teeshirts with those slogans regularly *are *banned by public schools in the U.S. for various vague and spurious reasons. I agree that they ‘can’t’ be banned, Constitutionally speaking, but they are all the time anyway. They often stay that way until somebody sues, and then the school systems quietly modify the rules as slightly as they possibly can, settle out of court, and wait to get sued again.
I agree that it is up to the citizens to voice their opinion. But I cannot agree with the “must often do so through disobedience” part. It is true that sometimes disobedience is called for. Everyone agrees with that. But the question of this thread is whether “ridiculous” or “pointless” laws fall into that category.
That would be a misinterpretation. I said nothing against civil disobedience in weighty moral matters. And all the people you mentioned and their acts of civil disobedience were directed at weighty moral matters. Even being forced to give up your seat on a bus (as with Rosa Parks) is a weighty moral matter, and she was entirely right to protest with disobedience. That was not a ridiculous law or a pointless law. That law had a definite point - to unfairly demean a class of people. The point of discussion in this thread is laws that seem pointless - nonsensical. So let’s keep to the subject, OK?
The means of acquiring power (election or kingly succession) proves nothing about the ultimate source of the power they exercise? Why can’t God use elections as the means of conferring His authority?
Yes, once it has been determined to be necessary. But that is the real question, isn’t it?
I think you would have a really hard time finding a single law that was imposed or maintained for the delight or entertainment of the lawmakers. Every law starts out having a point. Perhaps it was an ill-conceived point, or a poorly implemented point. But it had a point. Then over time conditions change and a law that had a point can become pointless. But the picture of legislators scheming with delight to inflict frivolous discomfort on the citizenry is all imaginary. Laws become pointless through entirely amoral processes. So a pointless law is not an immoral law. A pointless law is like a pothole that develops in the street. It simply needs to be fixed.
You can do all that is allowed within the law to voice you opposition to such laws. But there is no way in which civil disobedience even makes sense in such cases. What are you suggesting? Forcing your way into courtrooms where such unions are being made and releasing a stink bomb? Or worse? No, I think you have to confine yourself to legal protest. And this thread is not about gay marriage or extra-legal protests over gay marriage. It is about the degree to which we are obligated to obey laws we find silly.