Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Anchoress

Home
Catholic
The Good, the Bad and the Legal

The Good, the Bad and the Legal

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 12:25 am by Ben Conroy

The Good, the Bad and the Legal 2015-03-13T00:25:17+00:00 Ben Conroy

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Ireland was up in front of the UN Committee on Human Rights last week, and received something of a shellacking for our alleged record of human rights violation.

A good deal of it was entirely deserved, but when committee members started saying that Ireland’s anti-abortion laws (still relatively strong, though recently weakened) were in violation of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (one of two 1966 treaties that put into force the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), my eyebrows went up.

Not because of the moral question at stake – not having been born yesterday, I find the fact that the UN committee was comprised overwhelmingly if not entirely of people with pro-choice views… unsurprising.

No, I was perplexed because the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights doesn’t mention abortion at all, explicitly or implicitly. I blogged on the weird absence of this fact from the discussion over at The Iona Institute:

…Would anyone relying on the Irish media coverage of the hearings have any way of knowing what (the treaty) actually says? Was there much reporting on the actual legislation or its content? Nope. And without that information, this whole discussion, and all the fulminating and indignation that’s accompanying it, is so much smoke in the wind.

The whole thing got me thinking about a question that’s bothered me for some time. Why do people involved in public debates often spend so much time arguing about legality as a proxy for arguing about morality?

In debates over Obamacare’s constitutionality, the lawfulness of “enhanced interrogation” and the degree to which the Iraq War violated international law, it’s striking how often “I believe that behaviour/policy x is wrong” coincides with “I believe behaviour x is illegal/unconstitutional”.

I can’t find the link, but when the Supreme Court was considering Obama’s health-care law, Andrew Sullivan said something to the effect that he supported the law, but on balance reckoned it was unconstitutional. But his stance was rare indeed – people who thought the law was bad policy were much more likely to think it was unconstitutional, and almost none of the law’s supporters shared Sullivan’s take.

Sometimes this is just a matter of pragmatism. America’s constitution is (by design) really, really hard to amend, and this can incentivise people to indulge in a bit of creative thinking about what is and isn’t compliant with it.

If you strongly support gun control, you’ll have a strong incentive to advocate for a reading of the constitution that doesn’t render most firearms laws invalid. If you think Obamacare is going to do irreparable harm to the United States, that will be a powerful (though often subconscious) influence on you to emphasise those bits of the constitution that support your conclusion and to gloss over those that don’t.

But sometimes pragmatism has little or nothing to do with it. Roe VS Wade is settled law in the United States, and it would be perfectly safe for supporters of the abortion regime it instituted to admit that the legal reasoning behind it was patchy to nonexistent (and some of them have done so). But you’re about as likely to find a pro-choice Senator or a Planned Parenthood staffer saying such a thing as you are to discover the Fourth Secret of Fatima. There’s a very similar dynamic at play in Ireland with the X Case, which legalised abortion on the grounds of suicidal ideation in the pregnant mother). This isn’t about protecting the law from repeal – it’s about using the legality of something to advocate for its goodness. A rightly-decided Roe has more moral weight than a wrongly-decided one, even if the ultimate conclusion is identical. The idea that the law is good in itself rather than valuable only insofar as it reflects The Good is what I’ve come to call “Law-of-the-Land-ism”.

Take the recent case of Bogdan Chazan, the Polish doctor fired from his position as director of the ironically-named Holy Family Hospital in Warsaw after he refused to carry out an abortion. Here are Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s thoughts on the matter:

“Regardless of what his conscience is telling him, [a doctor] must carry out the law. Every patient must be sure that […] the doctor will perform all procedures in accordance with the law and in accordance with his duties.”.

In Ireland, an appeal to “the Law of the Land” (and it’s always that exact phrase) is a sort of go-to stock phrase for current affairs anchors and presenters (to say nothing of politicians). They usually present it as though they’re making some great revelation.

This is the font in which they probably imagine their words appearing.

“But if this law requiring priests to break the seal of confession is passed, won’t you have to obey it? It will be the Law of the Land.”

“How can you vote against an abortion bill that’s constitutionally mandated? You have to obey the Law of the Land, not the law of the Church.”

The TD (member of parliament) or priest getting grilled generally responds by trying to argue that what they’re doing actually is in accordance with the law. Now, they’re often right, but I’m just as often left wondering why they don’t just say “well, if following my conscience is illegal, I suppose I’m just going to have to … break the law.”

SHOCK! HORROR! Break the law, you say? The Law of the Land? What are you, some kind of theocratic subversive? (Lest you think I’m exaggerating, an independent Senator accused parliamentarians who wanted to vote against abortion legislation of trying to stage a coup.)

Well, no. The thing about religious teaching is that people follow them because they believe they’re true. It’s not like religious people are choosing whether to follow the rules of one authority or another – they’re choosing between obeying the State and obeying their conscience.

Gandhi did not follow the law of the land. Martin Luther King did not follow the law of the land. Nor did Lech Walesa. And here’s the thing: everyone is glad that they didn’t. Everyone concedes that there are some unjust laws worth disobeying – they only become Law-of-the-Land-ers when they agree with the Law of the Land. So why bother with it at all? Why not just argue that people should do the right thing?

Well, if you’re a social liberal living in a Western democracy, you’ll probably find that as time goes on the law corresponds more and more to your moral worldview. And from there the temptation to invest the law with absolute value is great indeed. Damon Linker nails it:

From the dawn of the modern age, religious thinkers have warned that, strictly speaking, secular politics is impossible — that without the transcendent foundation of Judeo-Christian monotheism to limit the political sphere, ostensibly secular citizens would begin to invest political ideas and ideologies with transcendent, theological meaning.

Put somewhat differently: Human beings will be religious one way or another. Either they will be religious about religious things, or they will be religious about political things.

With traditional faith in rapid retreat over the past decade, liberals have begun to grow increasingly religious about their own liberalism, which they are treating as a comprehensive view of reality and the human good.

But even from within this frame it only takes a couple of moments thought to realize that Law-of-the-Land-ism is silly.

Imagine if Ireland was the only country in the world that outlawed slavery, and that in doing so it breached several international treaties. Who would seriously argue that Ireland should change its stance?

The rule of law is essential for any functioning society, and the state should try and ensure that people follow it – I’m not advocating a return to the wild west.

Never let it be said that I don’t run thematic threads through my blog posts.

But for an individual, if following the law means going against your conscience on some fundamental matter, you have to disobey the law. I don’t think I’m being even remotely controversial here – to support the alternative is to flirt with totalitarianism.

I’m always loath to completely rubbish an idea or an argument that people sincerely hold (hey, I haven’t given up on the possibility that there might be something good in Objectivism!). But the idea that you should ever obey the law of the land if doing so would violate your conscience is self-evidently absurd, and everyone on every side of every argument would be better off jettisoning it.

***

I’m uncomfortable just ignoring the horrible events in the Ukraine and Gaza and breezily writing about other things – but I don’t think I’m well-informed enough on the underlying dynamics in either situation to write anything particularly useful or constructive. All I can do is pass on the calls for prayer.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 18, 2014

That Hillary Doesn't Realize She's Over Says a Lot About Her

Next Post

July 21, 2014 5 Things You Can Do Right Now as ISIS Threatens Iraqi Christians and Shiites - UPDATE

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "Remaking" Ourselves 'Remaking' America 9/10 Mindset 9/11 trials Abortion ACORN Adoration Advent Advent 2008 Advent 2009 Advent 2010 Alternative Energy Alternative Media America American Catholic Church American Church American Genius Ameridolatry ANCHORESS BOOKSHELF Anglican-Roman Reconciliation Answers & Questions Anti_Semitism Archbishop Hilarion Ayn Rand Bad Mass Barack Obama Baseball Benedict Benedict & Islam Benedict in UK Benedict XVI Benedictine Bill Whittle Birth Control Blogs and Blogging Blogs and Blogging Bloodless Coup Bobby Jindal Bookchat Breitbart Bride at every wedding... Bride at every wedding... Buckley Bullies Bush Bad? Bush Good Buster Capitalism Catholic Fiction Catholic Vocations Catholicism Celibacy Chaput Charitable Stuff Chesterton Chile Chris Christie Christians in Exile Christine O' Donnell Christmas Christmas Gift Ideas Church Hates Science? Church hates women Communion of Saints Compline Conclave 2013 Confession Constitutional Stuff Conversion Crisis & Opportunity Critical Thinking Crooks and Liars Crucible of Faith Cuba Culture of Life Culture of Life/Death Culture of Treason? Dancing Death Dialogue re Islam Dick Meyer Divorce and Remarriage DOJ Domestic Terrorism Dominican Order Don't try me too high Dowd Dumb Democrat moves Dumb GOP moves Economic woe Education Egregious Harry Reid Elder Son Elder Son's Sweet Girlfriend Elderly Election '10 Election '12 Election '16 Election 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2010 Election 2016 Elena Kagan Elitism Embryonic Stem Cell Research End Times? English language Enhanced Interrogation Erosion of Rights Eucharist Euthanasia Exorcism Extraordinary Synod Facebook Faith Faith and Reason Faith Friday Faith Perspective Faithful Friday Fascism Again Fascism in America Fatima FCC Feminism Film First Things Forgiveness Fr. James Martin Francis and Islam Francis in America Frassati Fred Thompson Free Speech? Freedom of Worship FutureChurch Global Pandemic GOP Congress Haiti Head Covering Health Care Here and Queer Hermits Heroes Hitchens Holy Spirit Holy Week '09 Holy Week '10 Hoo-Hah & BS Hoo-Hah & BS Icons Illegal Immigration In The Arena Interviews Interwebz Iran Uprising Iraqi Christians ISIL ISIS Islamic State Islamification/Islamofascism Islamification/Islamofascism Isra-El It's all about me! Me! ME! James Burke Jerry Lewis Jesus Christ Joblessness John Boehner John McCain John Paul II John XXIII Juan Williams Just Words Katrina/Rita King is a Fink Latin Mass Leadership Lectio Divina Lent Lent '08 Lent '09 Lent 2010 Lent 2011 Limbaugh Listen to Lizzie Litigious Society Liturgy Liturgy of the Hours Mainstream Media Manliness Marriage Mary Media Excess Medical Merton Michelle Obama Mighty John O' Connor Misc. Miss Ella Missionaries Mitt Romney Monasticism My brother S My Irish Aunties Mystic Monks Nanny Statism Nature NEA Neri New Media Newman Noonan Notre Dame NPR Stuff Nun News Obama Bad? Obama Good? Obama White House Oil Spill Online Retreat '08 Online Retreat Days Oratory Orthodoxy Our Hillary! Parenting Passionists Patheos Patheos Book Club Patrons Paul Ryan Penance Penn Jillette Philosophy PJTV Podcasts Poetry Politics-free zone Pop Culture Pope Emeritus Pope Francis Prayer Predictions Priesthood Pro-Life Public Sector Unions Purgatory Questions about Catholicism Quotes of the Day Quoting the News Race in America rants Recipes Remarried Catholics Reposts by request Retreat thoughts Rome Rudy Giuliani Russia Saints Sarah Palin Scandal Scott Brown SCOTUS Scriptural stuff Secularism Send in the clowns Serving up hot links Sexuality Sherrod Shroud of Turin Sisters and Nuns Social Entrepreneurship Social Media Social Security Socialism doesn't work Sports and Faith Stem Cells Strange Gods Suffering Synod Tea Parties Tea Party Terri Schiavo The 9/11 Commission The Catholic Answer The Constitution The Desert The Fourth Estate The Pelosi The Perpetual Adolescents The Rosary Third Party? Timothy Dolan Touch of evil TSA Tsunami TV/Pop Culture/Music TV/Pop Culture/Music Twitter Uncategorized Unemployment Unintended Consequences US Military Vaginal Musings Vatican Vespers video faves Vile Joe Biden Voter Fraud War by Litigation War on Terror War, What it good for? Why can't weeee be ... World Youth Days Year of Faith Year of the Priest

Select a Month August 2016 July 2016 April 2016 March 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

According to 1 Peter, what does love do?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Never fails Covers over a multitude of sins Casts out fear Bears all things