Dear Not_Now.Soon,

We are all ruled by God - those who know it and those who do not.
We are also all protected by God, so justice is assured in any case.

Then why are we not happy?
Why don't we just trust in God?
Why do we ask for feeble human protection when we already have the protection of the almighty?

This lack of trust is born of weakness, of sin, of forgetfulness, of fear. Except for a few who are fearless and pure in heart, we are generally found wanting.

"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." [Jeremiah 2:13]

This sin of faithlessness on its own warrants vulnerability.

«The people who don't break the laws should have some protection from those that do.»

Laws or otherwise - good people should be protected from bad people.

But why must this protection come in the form of laws, especially of laws that are imposed indiscriminately on everyone?
(besides, do such laws really protect? have we no crime regardless?)

«A murder[er] will never give consent to follow the laws»

Then what good is there in imposing such laws which they do not accept anyway?

You want to prevent murder? then prevent the murder, do what it takes, if need be even kill the potential murderers before they get a chance to do harm - this is legitimate self-defence (yet still inferior to trusting and relying on God), but don't patronise people by telling them that you know better what they ought to do and not do; and never blame them for not doing something they never agreed to do in the first place. Let there be only ONE judge - up in heaven!

Vicious/dangerous dogs are not blamed, charged or prosecuted for breaking laws: they are euthanased instead.

[continued...]

[...continued]

You see the difference: in self-defence, the focus is on YOU, not on justice. You act because YOU want yourself and your family/friends to be safe, not because someone else is supposedly wrong and you try to fix them.

So you offer them a deal, to become members of your society and share its values. Those who wish to join come to have both obligations and privileges, including the protections you offer, and as for the others, as you correctly said, "Those that don't consent to the laws don't get a free pass", they would get no protection themselves. Yet there is nothing wrong or inferior in declining your offer, so telling someone that they "must" accept your deal is patronising.

Now perhaps you do not care about patronising murderers, but the main evil and foolishness here is that you base your society on the lowest of the low. The vast majority of people are good and honest, but in order to trap murderers with your laws, you in fact trap everyone, including the good, including the best of the best who refuse your standards not because they are short of them but perhaps because they are way above the standards of your society.

Yes there are some murderers and other criminals around, but is it them that you create your society for? Should they become the foundation of your society? Why not concentrate on the good and positive? Why not create a place where the good and love can grow? If the foundation of your society is fear, then indeed we live in a fearful society, not a happy one.

---

Dear Belly,

I agree with Not_Now.Soon's last post to you.

May I add that human society does not evolve for the same reason that schools do not evolve into universities: old pupils keep leaving and young ones keep coming!

Belly,

Rave on, but give a reference to your bigoted statement.

Add this to your collection and tell us all how many of them were Catholics.
http://topyaps.com/top-10-popular-pedophiles-in-history/

Ise Mise quite a few interesting comments here in the last two pages
Then there is yours
Let's be honest with each other, it is my deeply considered thought you serve the antiChrist
Remember my love of God was total, I saw, even see now, this world needs something to believe in live for, dream and hope for
My drift started after [we ham radio operators did such things] over hearing a analogue mobile phone conversation,
My Minister, and another, they spoke not of Christ but of the cash they gained
See you in targeting me, *highlight* some who claim to be Christian, are in fact both not and in the end turning folk away from the faith
OK you may have difficulty in expressing yourself, but the bigot here is you

To Yuyutsu.

What you're suggesting to do away with laws would also do away with police and courts that uphold the laws. What that means is vigilantism, and mob justice. Haven't we seen enough of that through social media hyping people up and putting justice in their own hands or creating a protest that turns violently?

Once again I support judges to do their jobs effectively. To add to that I also support police to do their jobs effectively. The laws are not a great burden to those who don't try to harm others.

As for society being written for the worst of people. That's pretty much what laws are there for. Those who are the worst, or are in the worst of situtions. Punishments and safeguards for the situations that need them. The rest of society's influences aren't bound by punishments and therefor don't need a law to dictate for them:
to find a job or a profession. To date, get married or otherwise be social. Or to make music, give to charity, find a hobby, develope a new skill, start and raise a family.. And so on and so on...

The point is that if the law doesn't tell you how to live on all of the positive aspects of life, then it doesn't get in the way of people experiencing those elements in life. The majority of society's influences are about living life, not about the legal system. Therefore the legal system is right in it's place to be there for the worst of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
I resent being called a bigot for reporting on events within the Catholic Church, take nothing back from my last post, in fact enforce it with links