Jim Stillman
M-KazDual systems of values and laws
November 10th 2008 14:39
When I graduated law school, a long, long time ago, I was awarded the “LL.B.” degree. Those of us who are familiar with the “double L” recognize that it a plural form and refers to “civil and Ecclesiastical laws”, inferring a dual and parallel legal system. In later years, in England, the systems merged to some extent but there remains a duality.
The social-conservative wing of the Republican Party has had two primary fears and, often, actual hatred, of Barack Obama.
Many are concerned that his election, and the generally Democratic dominance in the Congress, constitute a threat to their strongly and sincerely held beliefs regarding abortion and marriage. (As to the former, I feel equally strongly that, ultimately, decisions are those of the woman, made, to be sure, in a serious thoughtful non-frivolous way, together with family members, the father, religious counselors and physicians. But, the final determination is to be made by the woman. From a personal point of view, I do not feel that abortions ought to be performed as a birth control measure. All of this is irrelevant.)
According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of both men and women in all age and demographic groups, except for the holders of conservative evangelical views, accept abortion rights with some restrictions and limitations.
In any event, one can certainly understand the strong abhorrence to the killing of that which the objectors consider a life. Over the next years, there may or may not be a consensus; but at least the positions on each side can be understood.
There are cogent reasons why Roe v Wade was constitutionally flawed. In the past occasions the Supreme Court has established a right or policy, for example, Brown v Board of Education calling for integration of the races in public education, Miranda v Arizona, which gave us the familiar language known to all viewers of television police programs, Gideon v Wainwright, imposing a requirement of the appointment of defendants’ counsel and those cases’ respective progenies, the opinions were grounded in the Fourth and 14th Amendments. It is difficult to find the Constitutional basis of. Roe v Wade while agreeing with the result
Nonetheless, it is generally accepted that the majority of Americans are not displeased by a decision that the right of abortion not be the subject of legal consequences when the criteria are those of a particular church or faith. The violation of a faith based rule has a penalty of damnation and that is not applicable to those outside of a particular religion.
I would suggest that legality or illegality of abortion is a false dichotomy. There are two systems at play. The first is a religious and moral system, promulgated, supported and enforced by one’s faith and beliefs. The penalty for violation depends on a violator’s faith, with a penalty that might include eternal and everlasting damnation, a consequence not at all minor.
The other system is the Constitutional and secular system, enforceable and directed to everyone, religious, secular or something in between. Violation of that second system could lead to civil fines, prison and, in some instances, capital punishment.
But the two systems are separate; Government must not enforce the rules of a particular faith; that would be, in effect, a law “respecting the establishment of religion” forbidden by both rationality and the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
In summary, faith-based beliefs ought not to have legal consequences that affect non-believers, those who may belong to another church, and those whose concept of morality is grounded in a secular philosophical value system.
Much of the controversies exist to some extent in confusing and combining rights, obligations, enforcement and sanctions imposed by a particular faith or religion. Any violation of rules of a particular faith is, applicable to any member of that faith and can be punished by excommunication, denial of status and, at the extreme, eternal damnation.
The other system is imposed by the government on everyone, religious, secular or someplace in the middle. If you violate a statute, you may have punishment imposed by the state, fine, forfeiture, prison and in some cases, capital punishment. But the important aspect to keep in mind is that faith-based beliefs are not the concern of the state.
The logic and reasoning behind the second principle of the social conservative, the refusal to grant same-sex committed couples and heterosexual unmarried couples full legal and civil rights, is far from settled. In order to explain where we as a people, some history of the civil rights movement is necessary and will be the subject of the next post.
The social-conservative wing of the Republican Party has had two primary fears and, often, actual hatred, of Barack Obama.
Many are concerned that his election, and the generally Democratic dominance in the Congress, constitute a threat to their strongly and sincerely held beliefs regarding abortion and marriage. (As to the former, I feel equally strongly that, ultimately, decisions are those of the woman, made, to be sure, in a serious thoughtful non-frivolous way, together with family members, the father, religious counselors and physicians. But, the final determination is to be made by the woman. From a personal point of view, I do not feel that abortions ought to be performed as a birth control measure. All of this is irrelevant.)
According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of both men and women in all age and demographic groups, except for the holders of conservative evangelical views, accept abortion rights with some restrictions and limitations.
In any event, one can certainly understand the strong abhorrence to the killing of that which the objectors consider a life. Over the next years, there may or may not be a consensus; but at least the positions on each side can be understood.
There are cogent reasons why Roe v Wade was constitutionally flawed. In the past occasions the Supreme Court has established a right or policy, for example, Brown v Board of Education calling for integration of the races in public education, Miranda v Arizona, which gave us the familiar language known to all viewers of television police programs, Gideon v Wainwright, imposing a requirement of the appointment of defendants’ counsel and those cases’ respective progenies, the opinions were grounded in the Fourth and 14th Amendments. It is difficult to find the Constitutional basis of. Roe v Wade while agreeing with the result
Nonetheless, it is generally accepted that the majority of Americans are not displeased by a decision that the right of abortion not be the subject of legal consequences when the criteria are those of a particular church or faith. The violation of a faith based rule has a penalty of damnation and that is not applicable to those outside of a particular religion.
I would suggest that legality or illegality of abortion is a false dichotomy. There are two systems at play. The first is a religious and moral system, promulgated, supported and enforced by one’s faith and beliefs. The penalty for violation depends on a violator’s faith, with a penalty that might include eternal and everlasting damnation, a consequence not at all minor.
The other system is the Constitutional and secular system, enforceable and directed to everyone, religious, secular or something in between. Violation of that second system could lead to civil fines, prison and, in some instances, capital punishment.
But the two systems are separate; Government must not enforce the rules of a particular faith; that would be, in effect, a law “respecting the establishment of religion” forbidden by both rationality and the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
In summary, faith-based beliefs ought not to have legal consequences that affect non-believers, those who may belong to another church, and those whose concept of morality is grounded in a secular philosophical value system.
Much of the controversies exist to some extent in confusing and combining rights, obligations, enforcement and sanctions imposed by a particular faith or religion. Any violation of rules of a particular faith is, applicable to any member of that faith and can be punished by excommunication, denial of status and, at the extreme, eternal damnation.
The other system is imposed by the government on everyone, religious, secular or someplace in the middle. If you violate a statute, you may have punishment imposed by the state, fine, forfeiture, prison and in some cases, capital punishment. But the important aspect to keep in mind is that faith-based beliefs are not the concern of the state.
The logic and reasoning behind the second principle of the social conservative, the refusal to grant same-sex committed couples and heterosexual unmarried couples full legal and civil rights, is far from settled. In order to explain where we as a people, some history of the civil rights movement is necessary and will be the subject of the next post.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by rickb_georgia
I don't know if this has anything to do with what you have written but I have been wanting to relate my little bit of wisdom from 50 years ago for some time now. Thanks for the opportunity.
I guess this makes me a bit of a liberal conservative ... but I can live a while longer with that. And Jim, since you posted on multiple sites, well, so did I. Hope that not too politically incorrect in the blogosphere, actually I don't believe in political correctness anyway.