Obeying Civil Laws
#11
While there is usually no obligation to do what the laws say (there is nothing wrong with crossing a street at some random point, smoking within 19 feet of an entrance to a building, etc) I do think we are bound to follow the laws which are not immoral to follow. To defy civil law without a justified reason, is a sin, as we are obligated to follow civil law when we can. If one is so strong willed they cannot follow little things which do not hinder their ability to live morally, then that person has issues and should take care to morfity that vice of theirs (and they certainly shouldn't flaunt it...)

2 Peter 2:10 Wrote:And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming.

Despise government, audacious, self willed. Sounds familiar...
Reply
#12
(08-01-2009, 10:06 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: trespassing well no not a sin. but u might get blown away depending on who's land u do it.
Violating the property of another is a sin.

Quote:drinking under age is not a sin either.
If all one has to drink safely is alcoholic drinks, then it is not, but if there are alteratives, following the law should be done.

Quote:neither is profanity
Yes it is.
Reply
#13
Moral theologians say that some laws are "penal laws" that do not bind under pain of sin, and that your only obligation is to pay the penalty if you are caught.  Examples would be driving 30 m.p.h. in a 25 m. p. h. where there is no safety issue, or failing to put a quarter in the parking meter.

http://www.katapi.org.uk/MoralTH/ChII.htm
Reply
#14
Just to pick one nit. Underage drinking if not in excess is no sin. We were taught to drink by our parents when they thought we were mature enough. This is the duty of the parents not society to train their children. When a child was small wine would be mixed with water for them and they would drink it at family special dinners. This is according to Italian customs from Ancient times. Some where around seventeen years old young men were allowed to drink in their homes with their parents approval. This is so they could be monitored and taught not to become drunk and stupid. It worked like this you were allowed to drink but if you got drunk and lost your reason then you were punished. By the time me and my friends started to look for girls and run around the cool bars we already knew how to drink. Unlike the Suburban Protestants that puked and made a mess every time the drank in our cool new hangouts. You could spot them a few blocks away weaving while walking always looking for and trying to remember where they parked. I hope this is reasoned enough but I agree with Alice, DK, and Laszlo.
tim
Reply
#15
(08-01-2009, 12:31 PM)timoose Wrote: Just to pick one nit. Underage drinking if not in excess is no sin. We were taught to drink by our parents when they thought we were mature enough. This is the duty of the parents not society to train their children. When a child was small wine would be mixed with water for them and they would drink it at family special dinners. This is according to Italian customs from Ancient times. Some where around seventeen years old young men were allowed to drink in their homes with their parents approval. This is so they could be monitored and taught not to become drunk and stupid. It worked like this you were allowed to drink but if you got drunk and lost your reason then you were punished. By the time me and my friends started to look for girls and run around the cool bars we already knew how to drink. Unlike the Suburban Protestants that puked and made a mess every time the drank in our cool new hangouts. You could spot them a few blocks away weaving while walking always looking for and trying to remember where they parked. I hope this is reasoned enough but I agree with Alice, DK, and Laszlo.
tim

So it's ok to break the law if it's a cultural custom? Have to do better than that.
Reply
#16
(08-01-2009, 12:31 PM)timoose Wrote: Just to pick one nit. Underage drinking if not in excess is no sin. We were taught to drink by our parents when they thought we were mature enough. This is the duty of the parents not society to train their children. When a child was small wine would be mixed with water for them and they would drink it at family special dinners. This is according to Italian customs from Ancient times. Some where around seventeen years old young men were allowed to drink in their homes with their parents approval. This is so they could be monitored and taught not to become drunk and stupid. It worked like this you were allowed to drink but if you got drunk and lost your reason then you were punished. By the time me and my friends started to look for girls and run around the cool bars we already knew how to drink. Unlike the Suburban Protestants that puked and made a mess every time the drank in our cool new hangouts. You could spot them a few blocks away weaving while walking always looking for and trying to remember where they parked. I hope this is reasoned enough but I agree with Alice, DK, and Laszlo.
tim

That doesn't change the fines, the record and the court fees.

Anyone who willfully breaks such laws deserves what they get.

One can't pick and choose laws to obey. I can't say "there is no drinking age in Malta, so I'll drink", "there is no speed limit in India so I'll speed", "I have a right to an lawyer in the USA, so I want my lawyer", anymore than the police and courts can spuriously decide to enforce laws of their choice.

Lets take a more extreme example. The chewing gum ban in Singapore. It is against the law to sell or chew chewing gum. The reasons for this law aren't important, but it is quite easy to follow.

Chewing gum isn't morally necessary is it? By the attitudes expressed here, there is the petty mindset to violate such laws for the sake of violating them. If one decides to violate random laws, perhaps the government should deny random protection and rights?

Also, if one can't follow such little laws, what does that say about that person?
Reply
#17
I had read a bit about purely penal laws in this CE article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm

If there's a guide on how to determine what makes a law purely penal, I'd love to see it.  Since the CE claims that it's difficult to determine, and doesn't give a whole lot in the way of guidelines.

Didi and Rosarium, would you say it's a sin to go over the speed limit, if you're in a 25 zone where you can easily go 35-40 without hurting anyone, and you've got 10 furious people honking behind you?  Because if I went the speed limit on the streets where I live, that would be the case quite often.

And I'm not talking about "trespassing" in the sense that I'm going on some stranger's lawn and setting off fireworks.  There's a little basketball court my friends and I like to hang out by, with a sign that says "Private Property: No Trespassing", and a list of forbidden activities with "loitering" as one of them.  Is it a sin to hang out there, when we're not intending to do anything destructive?  The police drive by all the time and see us, and we've only been told to leave once, which we did.
Reply
#18
(08-01-2009, 12:38 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(08-01-2009, 12:31 PM)timoose Wrote: Just to pick one nit. Underage drinking if not in excess is no sin. We were taught to drink by our parents when they thought we were mature enough. This is the duty of the parents not society to train their children. When a child was small wine would be mixed with water for them and they would drink it at family special dinners. This is according to Italian customs from Ancient times. Some where around seventeen years old young men were allowed to drink in their homes with their parents approval. This is so they could be monitored and taught not to become drunk and stupid. It worked like this you were allowed to drink but if you got drunk and lost your reason then you were punished. By the time me and my friends started to look for girls and run around the cool bars we already knew how to drink. Unlike the Suburban Protestants that puked and made a mess every time the drank in our cool new hangouts. You could spot them a few blocks away weaving while walking always looking for and trying to remember where they parked. I hope this is reasoned enough but I agree with Alice, DK, and Laszlo.
tim

That doesn't change the fines, the record and the court fees.

Anyone who willfully breaks such laws deserves what they get.

One can't pick and choose laws to obey. I can't say "there is no drinking age in Malta, so I'll drink", "there is no speed limit in India so I'll speed", "I have a right to an lawyer in the USA, so I want my lawyer", anymore than the police and courts can spuriously decide to enforce laws of their choice.

Lets take a more extreme example. The chewing gum ban in Singapore. It is against the law to sell or chew chewing gum. The reasons for this law aren't important, but it is quite easy to follow.

Chewing gum isn't morally necessary is it? By the attitudes expressed here, there is the petty mindset to violate such laws for the sake of violating them. If one decides to violate random laws, perhaps the government should deny random protection and rights?

Also, if one can't follow such little laws, what does that say about that person?

But if a law is "plainly useless", as the CE article describes, one isn't bound to follow it.  If the government outlawed eating peanut butter on Wednesdays, just because they felt like it, and I decided to eat peanut butter anyway because the law is stupid and pointless, am I committing a mortal sin? 

It seems like one could argue in favor of underage drinking and going over the speed limit using this reasoning as well, as both the 21 drinking age and arbitrary speed limits have proven to be useless and silly.  (And in the drinking age's case, led to all sorts of problems among youth who aren't taught responsible consumption at an early age)
Reply
#19
(08-01-2009, 11:54 AM)actiofidei Wrote: "Lex malla, lex nulla." St Thomas Aquinas.

"A Bad law is no law."


I dig Aquinas.
Reply
#20
Quote:Didi and Rosarium, would you say it's a sin to go over the speed limit, if you're in a 25 zone where you can easily go 35-40 without hurting anyone, and you've got 10 furious people honking behind you?  Because if I went the speed limit on the streets where I live, that would be the case quite often.
If people are riding your tail that is very dangerous and can cause an accident. Driver's Manuals also say to go with the flow of traffic which is acceptable. So in that situation, yes speeding could be ok. But we weren't riding out exceptions, but criticisng the idea that inconvenient laws are unjust ones.

Quote:And I'm not talking about "trespassing" in the sense that I'm going on some stranger's lawn and setting off fireworks.  There's a little basketball court my friends and I like to hang out by, with a sign that says "Private Property: No Trespassing", and a list of forbidden activities with "loitering" as one of them.  Is it a sin to hang out there, when we're not intending to do anything destructive?  The police drive by all the time and see us, and we've only been told to leave once, which we did.
If it says Private Property well, hell yeah you're sinning! What right do you have to trespass? It doesn't matter if you aren't doing harm, it's not your property! And if getting caught by the cops didn't clue you in what you were doing was wrong, I don't know what else to tell you.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)