Underage drinking

[Alindawyl]

I get your point, but I think that is talking about apples and oranges. I am not talking about a completely immoral activity. Now, if I was arguing in favor of legalized marijuana just because it is legal in some places, that would be wrong and silly.

God Bless

Jesus told us to obey lawful authorities. He didn’t say to obey only if we liked the law. He said obey, period. The fact that you don’t like the drinking age is irrelevant. For the record, I don’t like it either and also think it’s stupid to set it at 21. But that doesn’t matter when it comes to obedience. This particular law is a legitimate exercise of the state’s authority and as such must be obeyed.

If you choose to disobey a lawful authority, the manner of the disobedience is irrelevant. The fact that you’re disobeying, and doing it by choice rather than accident or coercion, means you have exercised your own free will to disobey. THAT is where immorality comes into play, not the mere act of holding and drinking an alcoholic beverage.

Try using your reasoning on the police if you’re at a party where underage drinking is taking place and it gets raided. I’m sure the fact that you were “drinking responsibly” means they won’t put you up for the night in a holding cell…

You’re also giving scandal for those who may lack proper judgement. Hey, this kid doesn’t obey the drinking law. I guess Catholics think it’s ok to disobey a law they don’t like. Maybe I’ll disobey the law on drugs, or prostitution, or theft, or…

 

[Alindawyl]

Is this the correct conclusion, then?

Underage drinking is almost always sinful since it is against Caesar. There is no way for underage drinking to be sinless except if it is allowed by the state. As a result, if a kid away from his parents were to be served without a fake ID at a restaurant or if college kids are going to parties and not getting drunk, they are sinning just not committing a mortal sin.

This is bad news for college bound kids then.

God Bless

Where in the world do you get that from? Underage drinking is not intrinsically evil. It’s only immoral because the state has declared it to be illegal if done without the supervision of a parent or legal guardian. The drinking itself is NOT the issue. Disobedience of a lawful authority is the issue.

Drinking is simply the means by which you are choosing to disobey. Take your eyes off the act and put them on what the act signifies. It signifies a disregard for lawful authority and a statement of pride. I know it’s illegal but I’m doing it anyway!

And it’s entirely possible a person knowingly breaking the law in this case is committing a mortal sin. It would depend on what’s in their heart at the time they disobey.

 

[LionHeart777]

Disobedience of a lawful authority is the issue.

I agree.

All, sorry if acted “holier than thou.”

P.S.

I believe the KJV is in the public domain so I like to use it to cut & paste. It’s not always the easiest read.

 

[fish90]

I thought disobeying the civil authority becomes sinful at a point. Take speeding for example. If the speed limit is 35 mph, going five mph over can hardly be sinful since you are not endangering you or others around you. If the speed limit is 55 mph and everybody is breaking the restriction, your car going at the speed limit can actually be a danger for everybody else even in the right lane, so going at max 10 mph over or “keeping up with traffic” within reason could hardly be sinful in my opinion.

Now, there are other ways that breaking the law is sinful without concerning the moral law. Not paying taxes because they may go to abortion funding is immoral because that percentage for funding abortion is so small. If you do a lot of side jobs and do not declare the money you earn it is immoral. Now, a kid mowing lawns really should not worry about taxes since what they are making is less than the poverty line so they are not taxed anyway and if they are declaring it they are rebated anyway. A person who does not get their fishing license is committing a sin since they are stealing from their local DNR should you be fishing on a public lake.

My problem is that I think kids who drink underage and have a couple drinks really is not sinning if their parents do not really care and they are not getting drunk. Jesus and nearly the whole world prior to modern times drank alcohol. I can hardly think drinking underage is morally equivalent to going 110 mph down the highway. I can see the offense to be like going 5 mph over the speed limit. That is my respectful and humble disagreement.

God Bless

 

[Verbum]

By the time a person is 18, they will conduct themselves as they were brought up. I remember reading that drunkards come in majority from two kinds of families : alcohol abusers… and teetotallers.

The child who sees his parents using alcohol moderately in a family setting is much less likely to abuse alcohol in later life. My son asked to drink wine when he was ten. I gave him a little bit and he never asked for it again. Today, he has no alcohol at home, has an occasional beer outside the home and wine with us. We never spoke to him about using or not using alcohol.

Verbum

 

[fish90]

I remember talking to a teenager from Germany. She pretty much said that she does not understand why teenager here can only think about where they are getting their alcohol for the weekend. Funny world we live in.

God Bless

 

[stringbeanduck]

I remember talking to a teenager from Germany. She pretty much said that she does not understand why teenager here can only think about where they are getting their alcohol for the weekend. Funny world we live in.

God Bless

If Hilter had a law that people under 21 can not drink under any circumstances; do we obey it?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

If Hilter had a law that people under 21 can not drink can any circumstances; do we obey it?

Yes because it’s not an unjust law. If there was a law requiring you to kill someone, you don’t obey it because it would be sinful to do so. Underage drinking, you obey, because it’s not sinful to obey it

 

[fish90]

Please read this thread I started a while ago.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=366386

Some posters brought up dumb laws. Are you saying that every Christian that is a citizen of a city with dumb laws must obey them under penalty of sinning against God?

Having a mandate for a tub to have feet is morally neutral, so disobeying this law is sinful?
Just asking.

God Bless

 

[twf]

I think it is a very silly law. The drinking age (if there is one) is in the late teens in most of the world. I’m sure that making alcohol such a taboo for young people has made it that much more of a ‘temptation’ to abuse - just for the thrill of it. The drinking age is 19 where I live (British Columbia, Canada). Even that, in my opinion, is silly. Here in BC we can vote and buy pornography at 18, but we can’t drink until we’re 19? Is it logical that one would be mature and experienced enough to have a hand in selecting the governing authorities of the country, but not mature enough to drink alcohol?

That being said, we should obey authorities - unless, of course, the law is unjust (as other posters have already indicated). I would say that if a minor is not attempting to get drunk, underage drinking would be venial at most. Having a few drinks at the age of 20 is hardly grave matter.

 

[punisherthunder]

**RESPONSIBILITY. **It’s all about RESPONISIBILITY. Parents should better educate their children and teenagers about drinking. This would help them make better choices down the road.

Or…

At a New Years Eve party when I was about 11, I begged and whined my parents to let me have a sip of some alcohol. They said no the whole night. Finally I got my father mad about it and he caved. He gave me his scotch to drink. Mind you, I’m 11 and have no idea what alcohol tastes like, let alone scotch. I took one big swallow and thought I was going to die! My mouth was totally on fire!!!

No more booze for me since…

 

[Alindawyl]

Please read this thread I started a while ago.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=366386

Some posters brought up dumb laws. Are you saying that every Christian that is a citizen of a city with dumb laws must obey them under penalty of sinning against God?

Having a mandate for a tub to have feet is morally neutral, so disobeying this law is sinful?
Just asking.

God Bless

If the authority which created the law is a legitimate authority, and if the law is not immoral, then we are required to obey regardless of whether or not we think the law is stupid. It’s a matter of principle. When you deliberately seek exceptions to a principle, you set yourself up as above the law. It doesn’t matter if the law deals with a major or a minor issue. What gives you the authority to decide that a law which is not immoral shouldn’t apply to you?

Take the example you gave on the speed limit. If you get pulled over for doing one mile over the limit, the police officer is well within his rights to write you up for it and give you a ticket rather than just a warning. You can protest the ticket in court and ask the judge to dismiss it, and he might do that. Then again, he might make you pay it. It’s not up to us to decide such things on our own, because the authority to do that rests with the state. Sometimes authority should be merciful and sometimes authority should be just. The decision on which to be lies with the authority figure, not us.

I received a ticket a few months ago for going through a stop sign out of turn. I believe the police officer was mistaken, but admit that there was a slim possibility I just wasn’t paying attention and he was right. I signed up for defensive driving to dismiss the ticket and took the course. When mailing my information back to the city after taking the course, I forgot to send my defensive driving certificate with the other paperwork and didn’t realize it until I got a notice from the city with a new court date for failing to submit all the information by the deadline. I immediately mailed them the certificate with a letter of apology but have received nothing in return other than the certified mail receipt. Since I haven’t been told that my case is dismissed, I’m going downtown next week for the new court date. The case may be open and the judge may assess a fine for my late submission of the certificate. He may say it’s no big deal since they have all the paperwork now and close the case with no fine. It may already be closed and they just didn’t notify me. But that’s the judge’s call and I’ll submit to whatever decision the judge makes. The authority lies with him, not me.

 

[stringbeanduck]

If the authority which created the law is a legitimate authority, and if the law is not immoral, then we are required to obey regardless of whether or not we think the law is stupid. It’s a matter of principle. When you deliberately seek exceptions to a principle, you set yourself up as above the law. It doesn’t matter if the law deals with a major or a minor issue. What gives you the authority to decide that a law which is not immoral shouldn’t apply to you?

So it’s a sin if I sing off key in North Carolina or sing in bath tub in PA?

 

[Alindawyl]

So it’s a sin if I sing off key in North Carolina or sing in bath tub in PA?

It’s plausible to argue in the case of many overtly silly laws that such things are not actually activities which the state is permitted to regulate. If true then those laws would not be a legitimate exercise of the state’s authority and could be disobeyed with no repercussions. No spiritual repercussions anyway. But if they are in fact a legitimate exercise of authority and are still on the books, then yes we must obey them if we live in that state.

Whenever these kind of laws are challenged in court, they are almost always thrown out by a judge because it’s obvious they are nonsensical. Your average silly law still on the books has never been challenged because it’s never been enforced. There can’t be a court challenge to a silly law unless someone is first cited for breaking it.

I don’t hear very many people arguing that the state does not have the authority to set a legal age under which drinking alcohol is illegal. Making such a claim would be a bit more difficult to substantiate than claiming the state doesn’t have the authority to prohibit singing off key.

 

[Tosk]

It’s plausible to argue in the case of many overtly silly laws that such things are not actually activities which the state is permitted to regulate. If true then those laws would not be a legitimate exercise of the state’s authority and could be disobeyed with no repercussions. No spiritual repercussions anyway. But if they are in fact a legitimate exercise of authority and are still on the books, then yes we must obey them if we live in that state.

Whenever these kind of laws are challenged in court, they are almost always thrown out by a judge because it’s obvious they are nonsensical. Your average silly law still on the books has never been challenged because it’s never been enforced. There can’t be a court challenge to a silly law unless someone is first cited for breaking it.

I don’t hear very many people arguing that the state does not have the authority to set a legal age under which drinking alcohol is illegal. Making such a claim would be a bit more difficult to substantiate than claiming the state doesn’t have the authority to prohibit singing off key.

There are many people that argue that the minimum drinking age is a perfect example of the federal government abusing its power and coercing states to adopt an ineffective and dangerous policy. Many states had a minimum drinking age of 18 before they were forced to adopt a minimum age of 21 or lose highway funding. So what are you to do if you really believe the fed government has no right to regulate drinking age?

furthermore, making the drinking age 21 contributes a lot to the binge drinking culture of 18-20 year olds in the US by making drinking seem more rebellious and moving all the activity underground. Countries with a no drinking age or one set very low seem to have fewer problems with alcohol abuse and young adults make better decisions when they do decide to drink. Prohibiting alcohol really just serves to create a great deal of excitement about finally being able to get wasted and getting alcohol poisoning (woooohoooo!!).

 

[Et_Cetera]

I say to just be safe and responsible about it.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

So it’s a sin if I sing off key in North Carolina or sing in bath tub in PA?

There is nothing to stop you from going through the process of having a law changed–after all that’s how some of these silly laws got on the books anyway! And certainly until this minute I had no idea that bathtub singing was illegal in PA, so I may very well have broken the law unknowingly when I lived there. BUT, it is the very rare person who does not know the drinking laws in their state. Once you know the law you should obey it. Now, there are quite a few laws on the books all over the world that are no longer enforced and there is no worry in not following every detail of those (bathtub singing as an example), but drinking laws ARE carefully enforced so you should crefully obey them.

Again, there are folks who disagree with the specific age limits and are lobbying to get them changed. That is the correct prcoess to follow.

 

[Alindawyl]

There are many people that argue that the minimum drinking age is a perfect example of the federal government abusing its power and coercing states to adopt an ineffective and dangerous policy. Many states had a minimum drinking age of 18 before they were forced to adopt a minimum age of 21 or lose highway funding. So what are you to do if you really believe the fed government has no right to regulate drinking age?

Not all states had a drinking age of 18 before the 1980’s. Some had it set higher. The state has the authority to set the drinking age, and setting it at 21 is well within their power.

The federal government “encouraged” the states to do so by threatening to withhold highway funds. The states almost unanimously caved instead of fighting, which means they ceded to the federal government the authority to determine 21 should be the age instead of whatever it was before. If you don’t like it, lobby and fight it instead of just disobeying and demanding that there be no consequences for disobedience.

furthermore, making the drinking age 21 contributes a lot to the binge drinking culture of 18-20 year olds in the US by making drinking seem more rebellious and moving all the activity underground. Countries with a no drinking age or one set very low seem to have fewer problems with alcohol abuse and young adults make better decisions when they do decide to drink. Prohibiting alcohol really just serves to create a great deal of excitement about finally being able to get wasted and getting alcohol poisoning (woooohoooo!!).

And you can argue that making the drinking age whatever it was in any given state prior to the mid 1980’s, usually 18, contributed to binge drinking among 16-17 year olds. There will always be those who are near the limit of a specific age restriction who will want to ignore it under the excuse that they’re ALMOST old enough and should be permitted an exception.

I find it amusing that there isn’t a similar set of reasoning in favor of lowering the voting age to 16 because you can hold a job at that age. Or lowering the age at which you can rent a car to 18 because you can vote or join the military at that age. But of course those activities aren’t as “pleasurable” as drinking, so don’t have outspoken adovcates. All too often we want what we want when it comes to pleasure and are willing to go to great lengths at times to justify why we should be given license to have things our way.

 

[fish90]

If a person who is underage drinks, does not become drunk, and is safe to everyone around them and to his/herself, is this a big sin? I think not because alcohol consumption is moral and the intention was “innocent.” Would not God deal out the proper punishment through the police officer should he/she be caught? The reason to go out was for a good time. Not to get wasted and hook up.

God Bless

 

[fish90]

And you can argue that making the drinking age whatever it was in any given state prior to the mid 1980’s, usually 18, contributed to binge drinking among 16-17 year olds. There will always be those who are near the limit of a specific age restriction who will want to ignore it under the excuse that they’re ALMOST old enough and should be permitted an exception.

I find it amusing that there isn’t a similar set of reasoning in favor of lowering the voting age to 16 because you can hold a job at that age. Or lowering the age at which you can rent a car to 18 because you can vote or join the military at that age. But of course those activities aren’t as “pleasurable” as drinking, so don’t have outspoken adovcates. All too often we want what we want when it comes to pleasure and are willing to go to great lengths at times to justify why we should be given license to have things our way.

I believe there are plenty of people who are of age that choose to drink excessively and get into trouble. Some people may consider a zero percent BAC, but then all the bars would close. How about you can have a BAC of 0.08% at age 25 and let everybody else drink (whose bodies can handle it).

I respectfully would like to argue that you are comparing apples and oranges. Voting is a political right and renting is property law. These two instances can be regulated in other ways. I do not think a lot of people should vote at age 18 or that renting should be based on age. Drinking is a recreational activity.

Also, is drinking responsibly while underage a sin? I understand the point of obeying lawful authority but going a mile to five miles over the speed limit certainly cannot be a sin nor keeping up with traffic. If underage drinking is so sinful, is the offender in a state of mortal sin?