When Law Keepers Become Outlaws

An interesting post from http://www.badeagle.com/ about rule of law and what the source of it should be and what should it cover. This follows this post about patriotism. You can get more interesting stories by following this blog here

When Law Keepers Become Outlaws
by David Yeagley · 40 Comments ·
ShareThis
Society’s laws change. America is a society that romatically idolizes the concept of law, and has seen a the ascent of legislators from two-bit town lawyers to govermental social architects. Robert Bork outlined the American attorney’s dream in The Tempting of America (Simon & Schuster, 1990). Law isn’t about justice, put about power. It may be true that a sense of justice is the origin for law making in the first place, as John Rawls seems to suggest in A Theory of Justice (Harvard Belknap, 1971), but then, any demand for justice implies some innate sense of self-importance, and thus, the subjective realities of a mass of individuals become a collective standard to which all in the society agree. A certain individuality is retained, and a certain individuality sacrificed. That is the nature of The Social Contract (1762), according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
But, for the sake of argument, or at least discussion, let’s talk about law itself. Who makes the rules? Society always has rules, but, the men who make them are men of power–visceral, coercive, physical power. It is finally a trust, in a “civilization,” but, in the beginning, it is raw strength.
Germany has recently dramatized a rather interesting aspect of the difference between man’s laws, and the wonderful, mysterious concept of divine law. Some say that religion is a kind of coercion itself, and its claim of divine authority is a ploy, usually made by those not in power, but, once established, divine authority becomes the ultimate raison d’être, the final justification of law. The Constitutional Court of Germany reaffirmed (December 2, 2009) an exlusively religious law about Sunday observance in Berlin.
Germany’s Constitutional Court ruled on Tuesday that shops must close on Sundays, and that legislation in Berlin allowing for ten shopping Sundays was unconstitutional. Germany’s Basic Law protects Sunday and public holidays as “days of rest from work and of spiritual improvement.”
The law is to be enforced in 2010, this year. It is apparently based on a mandate in the 1919 Weimar Constitution (Article 139). It is clearly a religious law. There is no other reason for it, and religious organizations (Catholic and Lutheran, according to the article quotes) are the impetus for its enforcement. (See also, Shops to close again on Sundays in Berlin, and High court deems Berlin shop hours unconstitutional.
So, religious observance law is being given equal status to essential social law against murder, theft, adultery, etc. This is ominous, really. And yet, theoretically quite logical. In European Christian civilization, the prohibition of murder comes directly from the same source as sabbath observance–the Ten Commandments found in the Hebrew Bible, and validated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why should not every Christian society implement and enforced religious day observance as readily and strongly as they enforce laws against murder and theft? In a very real sense, the prohibition against murder, theft, and adultery are as “religious” as the observance of a religious memorial day. When and why were these laws ever separated?
And they’re all Jewish. “Christian” civilization is based on Jewish law. There is no denying this historical fact. Yes, there may be non-Jewish laws inherited by European tribes which are similar, but, by the time we’re talking about nationhood in Europe, we’re talking about Biblical law. And Biblical law is Jewish.
But now, what about the Sunday observance? That’s certainly not Jewish. That is exclusively Gentile. The Jewish day was always Saturday. (Exodus 20:8-11.) Though Sunday observance, of one kind or another, has been socially ubiquitous long before Christ, it was never part of Christian tradition until a goodly number of the Gentile converts to the new Jewish sect decided it was more appropriate (and convenient) to honor the first day of the week, since that was the day Jesus arose from the grave. [Blogger's note: for a different view on this, click here] Sunday is about the resurrection, in most Christian tradition. (And it originally provided a welcome distinction for Gentile Christians who wished to escape anti-semitism.)
So, Germany has it that, by law, Berlin shop keepers cannot open their stores on Sunday–because of exclusively religious reasons. It is religious law. It is the enforcement of religious law by the state. Barring the comparison of religious day observance with the prohibition of murder, are we to be encouraged our outraged at such a law made and enforced by government? Shall the state enforce religious law?
It already does, if we consider murder a religious prohibition. If we don’t, the we abide by a theoretical differentiation between religious law and secular law. If murder is secular, then religious freedom seems a moot point. Religious freedom is about worshipping on Tuesday, rather that having to close the store on Sunday. (Felix Oppenheim has a great work on prohibitions, inhibitions, opportunities and enablings, called Dimensions of Freedom, Saint Martin’s, 1961.)
Something is terribly wrong here. If religious day observance is on a par with “thou shalt not kill,” then we need to consider the stone on which that divine law was written. The day that God declared forever holy is the seventh day. That happens to be Saturday, not Sunday.
Now, if the state can force stores to close on Sunday, can the state also command work on Saturday? Can the state forbid public worship on Saturday? If the state can coerce a law of human tradition, will the state deny freedom to observe divine law? This is what concerns anyone focused on true freedom of religion. Yes, it seems a long way from distinguishing between the religion of Islam and voodooism, and faith in the true God; however, I dare say the First Amendement of the United States Constitution pertains to freedom from the Church of England, and the Church of Rome, and not free practice of either Islam or voodooism. The First Amendment is a prohibition on the government, not the people. The First Amendment forbids the government to enforce religion. Nothing more. Nothing other.
So then we’re back to square one: the government enforces the prohibition of murder. That is not considered a religious law, even though it comes from the same Hebrew decalogue which commands religious day observance. Perhaps there should religious day observance nationwide. But, it shouldn’t be enforced by law, state or federal. And it shouldn’t be a day different from the one written by the finger of God.
Posted by