Ekland
01-12-2005, 19:25
I have recently been pondering the titular statement and am interested in the opinions and views of others; specifically those of secularists.
First, I would like to establish that the primary (and often taken for granted) role of Government is protection. In the absence of government there would be no police to respond to your call for help, no justice system to punish those in violation of the law, no law to violate, and no penitentiary or executioner to deal with those deserving of punishment. However all these things are provided and consequently countless people who would be dead if murder were legal (or more accurately free of consequences) are still living. It would be scarcely imaginable to live in a condition where the before mentioned system of justice is absent. It is generally considered a fact of life and it has been the role of Government (regardless of the type) since the beginning of recorded history. In practice the system of government resembles a protection racket run by mobsters; you pay taxes and obey the rules, if you don't pay and obey you are punished, and you have no choice but to consent under the threat (and application) of physical violence. Of course, the amount of input from the people on the amount of taxes paid and what laws they must obey is more or less depending on the system of government, but even so the roles of both are consistent. One is dominant and the other is submissive.
Every time you obey the speed limit as to avoid the loss of privileges (your license to drive) or property (your ticket fine) you are submitting to civil authority, every time you pay your taxes properly to avoid the loss of freedom or property you are submitting to civil authority, every time you suppress the animal urge to kill someone (for whatever reason) as to avoid the loss of freedom or your life you are submitting to civil authority... even divine authority if you are so persuaded.
While there is a Government present there is little or no way to avoid submission; if you obey the law you are submitting to authority and if you disobey the law you are submitting to the consequences which usually takes the form of coercion in the form of personal loss or physical violence. Violence it would seem is the primary means of civil order which only serves to reinforce the age-old notion that it is the only language every human being understands with perfect clarity. Laws exist on the basis of the Government’s right to physically impose their views (and in the instance of democratic representation the views of the people) on everyone else. By this we see that freedom and oppression is a relative gradient where one cannot exist without the other. If those viewed as “criminals” are not oppressed in their endeavors then the rights and freedoms of others to life, liberty, and happiness can not be preserved. Obviously the over application of “oppression” is disastrous when extended to those it shouldn’t. Similarly, the over application of “freedom” is equally disastrous when extended to those it shouldn’t; specifically those intent on physically or materially harming their fellow citizens. A clear distinction must be drawn and enforced; an equilibrium of sorts. After all, virtue is the mean of two vices. Interestingly enough, there is a double standard of sorts present here involving the use of violence. Specifically that the Government's authority is entirely based on its ability to use it against criminals yet individual citizens are legally forbidden from using it against each other except in the instance of self-defense. Essentially this means the Government can kill you (right to life), imprison you (right to liberty), and take your stuff (right to property) if you don’t play by their rules yet these are the very things that they guaranty you as a reward for your obedience by depriving criminals of them.
While it may not have been apparent, the above illustration is a biblical principle. The right of the Government to make and enforce laws, the necessary use of physical force, and the responsibility of the citizens to submit to the authorities is all outlined clearly in Romans 13: 1-7.
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
At this point it is also important to note that while it is necessary for the Christian to submit to the rule of law but also for the Christian to enforce it and when necessary act on behalf of the authorities by “bearing the sword” and “bringing punishment on the wrongdoers.” This of course means that Christians who act as police, judges, and even executioners are still morally right when making judgments and executing punishments. It also means that when necessary the Christian not only can, but should give his service to the Government in the form of military duty if asked (selective service) or required (conscription) to do so.
I stated at the beginning that I am looking for opinions, especially secular ones on this matter. If the above is the Christian Citizen’s responsibility then what is the atheists? More over, while there is clearly a biblical basis for the “The role of Government and the Citizen's responsibility to it” there really isn’t a secular one beyond arbitrary sentiment which obviously varies from individual to individual. I’m curious of the different takes on the subject so please, do share.
Also (and this is directed more at Christians) what do you personally believe is meant by “if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor”? Does this, in your opinion, knock down the whole ‘civil disobedience’ thing as immoral or somehow unchristian?
First, I would like to establish that the primary (and often taken for granted) role of Government is protection. In the absence of government there would be no police to respond to your call for help, no justice system to punish those in violation of the law, no law to violate, and no penitentiary or executioner to deal with those deserving of punishment. However all these things are provided and consequently countless people who would be dead if murder were legal (or more accurately free of consequences) are still living. It would be scarcely imaginable to live in a condition where the before mentioned system of justice is absent. It is generally considered a fact of life and it has been the role of Government (regardless of the type) since the beginning of recorded history. In practice the system of government resembles a protection racket run by mobsters; you pay taxes and obey the rules, if you don't pay and obey you are punished, and you have no choice but to consent under the threat (and application) of physical violence. Of course, the amount of input from the people on the amount of taxes paid and what laws they must obey is more or less depending on the system of government, but even so the roles of both are consistent. One is dominant and the other is submissive.
Every time you obey the speed limit as to avoid the loss of privileges (your license to drive) or property (your ticket fine) you are submitting to civil authority, every time you pay your taxes properly to avoid the loss of freedom or property you are submitting to civil authority, every time you suppress the animal urge to kill someone (for whatever reason) as to avoid the loss of freedom or your life you are submitting to civil authority... even divine authority if you are so persuaded.
While there is a Government present there is little or no way to avoid submission; if you obey the law you are submitting to authority and if you disobey the law you are submitting to the consequences which usually takes the form of coercion in the form of personal loss or physical violence. Violence it would seem is the primary means of civil order which only serves to reinforce the age-old notion that it is the only language every human being understands with perfect clarity. Laws exist on the basis of the Government’s right to physically impose their views (and in the instance of democratic representation the views of the people) on everyone else. By this we see that freedom and oppression is a relative gradient where one cannot exist without the other. If those viewed as “criminals” are not oppressed in their endeavors then the rights and freedoms of others to life, liberty, and happiness can not be preserved. Obviously the over application of “oppression” is disastrous when extended to those it shouldn’t. Similarly, the over application of “freedom” is equally disastrous when extended to those it shouldn’t; specifically those intent on physically or materially harming their fellow citizens. A clear distinction must be drawn and enforced; an equilibrium of sorts. After all, virtue is the mean of two vices. Interestingly enough, there is a double standard of sorts present here involving the use of violence. Specifically that the Government's authority is entirely based on its ability to use it against criminals yet individual citizens are legally forbidden from using it against each other except in the instance of self-defense. Essentially this means the Government can kill you (right to life), imprison you (right to liberty), and take your stuff (right to property) if you don’t play by their rules yet these are the very things that they guaranty you as a reward for your obedience by depriving criminals of them.
While it may not have been apparent, the above illustration is a biblical principle. The right of the Government to make and enforce laws, the necessary use of physical force, and the responsibility of the citizens to submit to the authorities is all outlined clearly in Romans 13: 1-7.
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
At this point it is also important to note that while it is necessary for the Christian to submit to the rule of law but also for the Christian to enforce it and when necessary act on behalf of the authorities by “bearing the sword” and “bringing punishment on the wrongdoers.” This of course means that Christians who act as police, judges, and even executioners are still morally right when making judgments and executing punishments. It also means that when necessary the Christian not only can, but should give his service to the Government in the form of military duty if asked (selective service) or required (conscription) to do so.
I stated at the beginning that I am looking for opinions, especially secular ones on this matter. If the above is the Christian Citizen’s responsibility then what is the atheists? More over, while there is clearly a biblical basis for the “The role of Government and the Citizen's responsibility to it” there really isn’t a secular one beyond arbitrary sentiment which obviously varies from individual to individual. I’m curious of the different takes on the subject so please, do share.
Also (and this is directed more at Christians) what do you personally believe is meant by “if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor”? Does this, in your opinion, knock down the whole ‘civil disobedience’ thing as immoral or somehow unchristian?