Adherence to Civil Laws

[Ernie]

Do I always follow perfectly every law? Absolutely not. But I’ll not justify myself by saying that it isn’t being enforced on me so it doesn’t matter.

I assume you tried to follow the mandates of Oregon related to coronavirus?

[steve-in-kville]

I'm surprised no one has claimed to be a "sovereign citizen" in this thread yet.

[Moses]

I'm surprised no one has claimed to be a "sovereign citizen" in this thread yet.

Did I hear my name?

[MaxPC]

Many Mennonites find it awesomely convenient to hold unenforced obsolete laws as reason to say we only are obligated to obey laws that are enforced.
And then we confuse ourselves by thinking that because a law isn’t enforced, then we have no moral obligation to obey it. And from there we further confuse ourselves by conflating not getting caught, with non-enforcement. Many cases it is not a matter of obsolete law or unenforcement at all.
It is a position of confusion. Sometimes we think of laws as we often do church standards, from a position grace, forgiveness and irrelevance. See our historical positions on mandatory reporting and turning in crimes.
Meanwhile the unbelievers shake their head at us as they dutifully follow the law.

Do you really have to have a personal threat of a fine or punishment to make you obey? Is there no such thing as honoring? We appreciate employee who honor their bosses or companies wishes, however employees who are always being technical with rules and pushing boundaries are a weariness to the flesh.

Are there gray areas? Yes. Also following each law is not of equal importance, speeding by 1 mph is not equal to dumping your companies trash in the river each month.

Do I always follow perfectly every law? Absolutely not. But I’ll not justify myself by saying that it isn’t being enforced on me so it doesn’t matter.

Well said. Amen.

[Ken]

Many Mennonites find it awesomely convenient to hold unenforced obsolete laws as reason to say we only are obligated to obey laws that are enforced.
And then we confuse ourselves by thinking that because a law isn’t enforced, then we have no moral obligation to obey it. And from there we further confuse ourselves by conflating not getting caught, with non-enforcement. Many cases it is not a matter of obsolete law or unenforcement at all.
It is a position of confusion. Sometimes we think of laws as we often do church standards, from a position grace, forgiveness and irrelevance. See our historical positions on mandatory reporting and turning in crimes.
Meanwhile the unbelievers shake their head at us as they dutifully follow the law.

Do you really have to have a personal threat of a fine or punishment to make you obey? Is there no such thing as honoring? We appreciate employee who honor their bosses or companies wishes, however employees who are always being technical with rules and pushing boundaries are a weariness to the flesh.

Are there gray areas? Yes. Also following each law is not of equal importance, speeding by 1 mph is not equal to dumping your companies trash in the river each month.

Do I always follow perfectly every law? Absolutely not. But I’ll not justify myself by saying that it isn’t being enforced on me so it doesn’t matter.

Do many Mennonites also feel the same way about Church laws and teachings? It's OK as long as they don't get caught?

Judging from my experience at a Mennonite college many decades ago I suspect the answer is yes. I saw a lot of college students doing a lot of crazy things that they wouldn't have done back in their home communities.

Is there a connection between the mindset that might lead someone to ignore some largely unenforced law such as pollution controls on vehicles, then also ignore some church teaching in the privacy of their own home or away from church eyes....like drinking alcohol?

I don't know. But it does raise the question.

[Bootstrap]

I'm surprised no one has claimed to be a "sovereign citizen" in this thread yet.

Nobody would believe me if I did. Least of all me.

[Bootstrap]

Thought experiment: speed limits.

Most people speed, but they speed within limits. I think there's a difference between these cases:

Speed Limit: 35
Driver's Speed: 37

Speed Limit: 35
Driver's Speed: 75

Speed Limit: 70
Driver's Speed: 75

If the police arrest people going 70 in a 35 mph speed zone, I think the law has served a useful purpose.

[Bootstrap]

Thought experiment: corruption

Corruption is the abuse of power entrusted by the public for private gain. Elected officials often use campaign funds for personal purposes, but this is not prosecuted nearly as often as it should be. But what if we eliminated the law, wouldn't that say corruption is perfectly OK and invite worse forms of corruption?

On the other hand, it's extremely expensive and complicated to prosecute corruption cases. Do we want to do that for every minor violation? For instance, if a city clerk uses stamps from the office to mail out personal letters, do we want to spend taxpayer money to prosecute that?

[Ken]

Thought experiment: corruption

Corruption is the abuse of power entrusted by the public for private gain. Elected officials often use campaign funds for personal purposes, but this is not prosecuted nearly as often as it should be. But what if we eliminated the law, wouldn't that say corruption is perfectly OK and invite worse forms of corruption?

On the other hand, it's extremely expensive and complicated to prosecute corruption cases. Do we want to do that for every minor violation? For instance, if a city clerk uses stamps from the office to mail out personal letters, do we want to spend taxpayer money to prosecute that?

My thoughts on corruption is that in this country the far greater problem is legal corruption, not illegal corruption. Stuff like the revolving door between government service and the lobbying industry. Our whole system of campaign contributions. And so forth. We actually have very little illegal petty corruption in this country, like cops taking bribes to rip up traffic tickets, or housing inspectors or restaurant inspectors taking bribes to look the other way. That sort of thing. Our corruption is at a much higher level.

By contrast, countries like Guatemala are permeated by low level corruption which basically ends up as just a cost of doing business there. Of course they also have high level corruption too.

[Soloist]

No, I think we should keep whatever church standards we agree to keep.

That is different from civil laws. I never agreed to keep the civil laws. I was born here and I accept the rules for living here. I do try to comply with civil laws that are expected of citizens.

And those who are born in the church where the cost of leaving the church is too high?

Do you follow all the rules in another country? or just what you think is expected? Why is it wrong in your eyes to follow what is expected by the church rather then the specifics specified in the standards?

I assume you tried to follow the mandates of Oregon related to coronavirus?

Are you trying to justify yourself? or discredit RZehr?