Was Prohibition a unjust law?

[The_Serpent]

Was the Prohibition laws in the U.S. a unjust law? And if it was, were Christians free to violate that law?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

 

[Cricket2]

It was a foolish law.

 

[Digitonomy]

No, Prohibition was a legitimate exercise of government authority. But I agree with Cricket2 that it was an unwise law.

Since it was a legitimate law, I think Catholics would have to carefully discern their actions before choosing to violate it.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

It was not a legitimate law in that it violated a basic human tradition of several thousands of years and actually encouraged its violation.
It actually came about due to pressure by one of the earliest feminist political groups, namely the Womans Christian Temperance Union, and anti-immigration anti-Catholic forces.
Early in the 20th Century, before WW I, a huge wave of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe came to the USA. The vast majority came from Poland and Italy and were about 70% Catholic and 30 % Jewish. This really upset the largely fundamentalis Protestant political majorities in the Midwest and South. Prohibition was sold to these people that since Catholic immigrants had a cultural affinity for alcohol (horror upon horrors, the Italians drand wine with their meals instead of milk! and the Poles drank hard spirits on a daily basis, and the Jews had religious meals on Friday evenings with wine) if there was no alcohol allowed in the US, they would not come and those already here would leave.
It sounds naive today, but it made a lot of sense to the inexperienced women voters of that time.

 

[Brendan_64]

Was the Prohibition laws in the U.S. a unjust law? And if it was, were Christians free to violate that law?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Prohibition of alcohol was no more, or no less, an unjust law than the current laws prohibiting other types of recreational drugs (which of course various from nation to nation, as do laws prohibiting alcohol).

No, it wasn’t an unjust law. It was a law that banned a substance with the intention of protecting the common good.

No, Prohibition was a legitimate exercise of government authority. But I agree with Cricket2 that it was an unwise law.

Since it was a legitimate law, I think Catholics would have to carefully discern their actions before choosing to violate it.

I’d agree with that. I’d also go further and suggest that the current prohibition of many (possibly all) other recreational drugs is also unwise legislation. However these laws are not unjust laws, as the justness of a law is not ultimately determined by my (or another individual’s) opinion on the wisdom (or not) of that law.

The problem we have today is that individuals take the view, “I think it is OK, therefore it is OK for me”. This is a personal view of justice, based on an individuals own wants. This is not justice.

We are still bound by laws that we do not personally agree with.

 

[thistle]

Was the Prohibition laws in the U.S. a unjust law? And if it was, were Christians free to violate that law?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Not unjust, albeit pretty stupid!

 

[SecretCatholic]

The government is not there to give us moral guidance (that’s what the Church is for!), nor to be our “parents”. Its there to protect individual liberty so that we may choose our own paths in life, not to limit those options which do not deprive others of liberty, even if some of them are not the wisest ones.

Our government does not have the authority to make any laws it wants. it must abide by the Constitution and the democratic process. I do not believe that we have any moral obligation to abide by laws which violate the letter or spirit of the Constitution or the democratic process. If we accept that laws can be made “for the public good” without any limit, then even speech and everyday behavior can be regulated. Even having too much fast food could be made illegal.

In our system of government, it is the people and the Constitution which are supposed to be in charge. In too many cases powerful minorities hijack the government for their own agendas, which is contrary to the very spirit of our government and law.

 

[thistle]

The government is not there to give us moral guidance (that’s what the Church is for!), nor to be our “parents”. Its there to protect individual liberty so that we may choose our own paths in life, not to limit those options which do not deprive others of liberty, even if some of them are not the wisest ones.

Our government does not have the authority to make any laws it wants. it must abide by the Constitution and the democratic process. I do not believe that we have any moral obligation to abide by laws which violate the letter or spirit of the Constitution or the democratic process. If we accept that laws can be made “for the public good” without any limit,** then even speech and everyday behavior can be regulated.** Even having too much fast food could be made illegal.

In our system of government, it is the people and the Constitution which are supposed to be in charge. In too many cases powerful minorities hijack the government for their own agendas, which is contrary to the very spirit of our government and law.

It is regulated. You can’t incite people to violence by what you say or write. You can’t say you will kill the president. As for behaviour you can’t kill, mug someone, steal etc etc.

 

[Brendan_64]

The government is not there to give us moral guidance (that’s what the Church is for!), nor to be our “parents”.

I do not believe that we have any moral obligation to abide by laws which violate the letter or spirit of the Constitution or the democratic process.

But your constitution is simply another man-made piece of legislation. How can a piece of legislation be “in charge”?

You define your moral obligation to obey laws by whether or not these laws violate the letter and spirit of your constitution. God did not write your constitution. Your constitution is not a moral guide, it is simply a framework for legislation drawn up by me, many of whom were very influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment. The constitution of the USA carries no moral authority.

From a Catholic point of view, the fact that a law appears to go against the letter or spirit of your constitution, does not mean you are not obliged to follow that law. The Church does not judge the justness of a law by whether or not it measures up to what your constitution dictates.

All authority comes from God, not from man.

 

[SecretCatholic]

It is regulated. You can’t incite people to violence by what you say or write. You can’t say you will kill the president. As for behaviour you can’t kill, mug someone, steal etc etc.

Right. The entire point being to preserve liberty. You cannot kill, mug or steal because those things violate others’ liberties as they would violate your own. Beyond that, there are laws to preserve order so that things may function, but if you start expanding the scope of laws and government much beyond THAT you start VIOLATING liberty rather than preserving it.

But your constitution is simply another man-made piece of legislation. How can a piece of legislation be “in charge”?

As much as any law can be in charge. But in fact the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. If the people see fit to change it, there is a process to allow that. But government officials find it far easier to dishonestly reinterpret it, skirt around it via technical means or just ignore it and see what happens.

You define your moral obligation to obey laws by whether or not these laws violate the letter and spirit of your constitution. God did not write your constitution. Your constitution is not a moral guide, it is simply a framework for legislation drawn up by me, many of whom were very influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment. The constitution of the USA carries no moral authority.

There were lots of influences working back then, as there always are. But the Constitution clearly admits that we have God-given rights and acknowledges and qualifies those rights. Those rights do not come from the Constitution. They come from God, or are otherwise intrinsic to human beings. This is the belief the Constitution expresses and is based upon. It only recognizes those rights, it does not grant them.

From a Catholic point of view, the fact that a law appears to go against the letter or spirit of your constitution, does not mean you are not obliged to follow that law. The Church does not judge the justness of a law by whether or not it measures up to what your constitution dictates.

So does the Church tell us we must follow all laws, no matter what they say. Otherwise, what criteria does it use? In any case, a system must be consistent within itself. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. No federal, state or city law can conflict with it. I’m not saying a law shouldn’t be followed because its not liked. I’m saying its invalid if it conflicts with the Constitution.

Nixon said that if the president does it its not illegal. Well, it doesn’t work that way under our system, no matter who is violating the law or whether there is punishment or not. If the president decides he is going to stay commander-in-chief for life, should we simply allow it and obey it because it’s now “the law”? No, our supreme law is the Constitution, which acknowledges our rights from God. And the law applies equally to the governing as to the governed.

All authority comes from God, not from man.

In what sense? Are all rulers and laws given authority by God? Do I not have authority over my children?

 

[Brendan_64]

As much as any law can be in charge. But in fact the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. If the people see fit to change it, there is a process to allow that. But government officials find it far easier to dishonestly reinterpret it, skirt around it via technical means or just ignore it and see what happens.

There were lots of influences working back then, as there always are. But the Constitution clearly admits that we have God-given rights and acknowledges and qualifies those rights.

Really? Where does your constitution make reference to God-given rights? In fact where does your constitution make reference to God? Nowhere. Your constitution was created by freemasons, atheists and deists. It implicitly denies God, rather than gives glory to him. It is a distinctly secular document.

Those rights do not come from the Constitution. They come from God, or are otherwise intrinsic to human beings. This is the belief the Constitution expresses and is based upon. It only recognizes those rights, it does not grant them.

Your constitution does not make any reference to these rights as coming from God. None at all.

So does the Church tell us we must follow all laws, no matter what they say. Otherwise, what criteria does it use?

The Church does teach that we follow all civil laws unless they are “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” (this does not include the Constitution of the USA).

No, our supreme law is the Constitution, which acknowledges our rights from God.

No it does not. Your constitution makes no reference to God at aall. All the rights in your constitution are legal rights that have been granted to men living under your political system. Maintaining that the constitution recognises god-given rights holds the constitution up to be something that it does not. Your constitution is simply a piece of man-made legislation, nothing more.

In what sense? Are all rulers and laws given authority by God? Do I not have authority over my children?

CCC2238 2238 On the duties of the citizen, “Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts”.

Authority to rule does not come from the people, all authority comes from God. Our political rulers, rule with the authority of God and we are obliged to obey all laws passed by those authorities. The only exceptions are where those laws are “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”. T

The Constitution of the USA does not represent either the moral order, the fundamental rights of persons, or the teachings of the gospel. The Constitution of the USA is simply another piece of man-made legislation to be argued over in a court of law.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

CCC2238 2238 On the duties of the citizen, “Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts”.

Authority to rule does not come from the people, all authority comes from God. Our political rulers, rule with the authority of God and we are obliged to obey all laws passed by those authorities. The only exceptions are where those laws are “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”.

You seem to be missing one fundamental point: political authorities are also subject to the law.

So, for example, government may have the legitimate authority that is derived from God to put someone to death, right? A judge may have the right to pass down a sentence of death but he must do so within the confines of the law. So if you show up in court for a traffic ticket, the judge can’t simply point his finger and say, “kill that man now.” Or, rather, he/she can say that but not with any authority.

Likewise, the U.S. Congress does not have the moral authority to pass laws which violate the U.S. Constitution except insofar as they may pass, by special measures, laws which alter the U.S. Constitution to make those laws possible.
Brendan64:

Your constitution is simply a piece of man-made legislation, nothing more.

What is your point in saying that, exactly? Of course it’s man-made legislation. All man-made legislation is, by definition, man-made legislation. No one here is arguing that it is higher or carries more authority than the 10 commandments, for example.

 

[Kamaduck]

I’m thinking about the historical context of prohibition, and while it was undeniably a bad idea, I’m thinking that disregarding it would still have been a sin. After all, consuming illegal alcohol would have supported the criminal organizations that provided it. One would, in effect, be financially supporting thieves and murderers as well as smugglers, and I can’t see how that’s justifiable.

I am wondering what exactly it is that makes a law “just”, though. Is there a section in the catechism that explains it? And if not, can anybody give a more complete explanation?

 

[Brendan_64]

Likewise, the U.S. Congress does not have the moral authority to pass laws which violate the U.S. Constitution except insofar as they may pass, by special measures, laws which alter the U.S. Constitution to make those laws possible.

What has moral authority got to do with the Constitution of the USA? The Constitution is not a moral authority. It is simply a piece of legislation, nothing more.

What is your point in saying that, exactly? Of course it’s man-made legislation. All man-made legislation is, by definition, man-made legislation. No one here is arguing that it is higher or carries more authority than the 10 commandments, for example.

Yes they are. The previous poster is arguing as if the Constitution is some sort of moral authority. He is also claiming that the Constitution recognises rights that are God-given. It does not. The rights that are granted in the Constitution carry no more moral authority than any other man-made laws.

The Constitution of the USA does not make one reference to God, yet people claim that it somehow enshrines God-given rights. It does nothing of the sort.

If a law passed appears to run counter to the Constitution then, as a Catholic, you are still bound to adhere to those laws, until such time as the law in question is challenged through the courts and is over-turned on account of it being unconstitutional.

You can refuse to adhere to a law if laws are “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”, but, as a Catholic, you cannot refuse to obey a law simply because it obeying it runs counter to what is stated in the Constitution.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am wondering what exactly it is that makes a law “just”, though. Is there a section in the catechism that explains it? And if not, can anybody give a more complete explanation?

Catholics are not bound to obey laws that are “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”.

CCC 2242 "The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”

Other than the above, we are obliged to follow all the laws of the country we are living in.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The government is not there to give us moral guidance (that’s what the Church is for!), nor to be our “parents”. Its there to protect individual liberty so that we may choose our own paths in life, not to limit those options which do not deprive others of liberty, even if some of them are not the wisest ones.

I’m sure there were many in the prohibition movement that considered the use of alcohol to be depriving people of their liberty too. When a drunk goes on a rampage and hurts someone, that someone’s liberty has been violated. When a drunk becomes unable to hold a job, his family’s liberty has been violated. When a person becomes addicted to alcohol, his own liberty has been reduced, since he may no longer have the power to break his addiction.

Anyway, that was the thinking. They may have been mistaken in their prudential judgements about what the consequences of prohibition would be, but you cannot dismiss them out of hand just by crying “liberty”. For if they had been right in their prudential judgements, they also would have been supporting liberty.

 

[Kamaduck]

Catholics are not bound to obey laws that are “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”.

CCC 2242 "The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”

Other than the above, we are obliged to follow all the laws of the country we are living in.

OK. Since drinking alcohol isn’t a fundamental right, I guess it would be a just law. Right?

 

[Digitonomy]

In our system of government, it is the people and the Constitution which are supposed to be in charge.

You have pursued this argument at length in this thread, implying that Prohibition was some unconstitutional grab at individual rights by shady special interests. It’s hard to be more constitutional than being enshrined in the Constitution by 3/4 of the states via amendment.
GeorgeStegmeir:

Catholic immigrants had a cultural affinity for alcohol (horror upon horrors, the Italians drand wine with their meals instead of milk! and the Poles drank hard spirits on a daily basis, and the Jews had religious meals on Friday evenings with wine) if there was no alcohol allowed in the US, they would not come and those already here would leave.

Xenophobic anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism certainly played a part, but the temperance movement also had many Catholics on board (the CatholicUndertheHood webcast had a good episode about this, although I don’t think it’s available anymore). It also took place in the context of a lot of reform movements and advances in society such as sanitation practices including plumbing, diet and exercise movements such as vegetarianism, expansion of suffrage, eugenics, medical advances like surgery with anesthesia and medicines such as cocaine-based beverages, reform of education, etc. There was a belief, sometimes for better sometimes for worse, that with science, technology, and reform we could perfect ourselves and society. Temperance was just a part of that.
Brendan 64:

CCC 2242 "The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”

Other than the above, we are obliged to follow all the laws of the country we are living in.

You’re free to hold that opinion, but I could not find in the CCC where we are required to slavishly follow every inane rule and regulation. Rather, the CCC defines those laws we must not follow.

 

[mikekle]

Personally I wonder why the current drug prohibition has gone on as long as it has, back when alcohol prohibition was tried, it didnt last long and they realized it was not a law they could enforce successfully, so its strange they just keep this ‘war on drugs’ going even though it is a miserable failure…My guess is they dont want to be wrong twice in a row, so they just keep it going and going and going, etc. even though drug use is at all time high, the cartels are getting more product in now than ever before.

I think we need to disband the DEA immediately, but I imagine the for profit prison systems have a little something to do with these drug laws too.

 

[Brendan_64]

Personally I wonder why the current drug prohibition has gone on as long as it has, back when alcohol prohibition was tried, it didnt last long and they realized it was not a law they could enforce successfully, so its strange they just keep this ‘war on drugs’ going even though it is a miserable failure.

Because it would be a vote loser, as the opposition would turn round and claim that they were being “soft on drugs”. They’d much rather lock people up, even if it is counter-productive, because a lot of voters like to see people being locked up for breaking the law. It makes it look like the authorities are being “tough on crime”. The fact that the ‘war on drugs’ isn’t working is neither here nor there.