OVO

UN News Center: UN rights expert warns against use of religion as excuse for criminal acts.

Religious belief should never be accepted as a legitimate excuse for carrying out criminal actions that encroach on the rights of others, a United Nations independent human rights expert warned today. [Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said] “No impunity should be awarded when criminal acts which infringe on the human rights of others are given a religious label. At the same time, all governmental actions should be proportionate, abide by the rule of law and respect the applicable international human rights standards.”

Associated Press: 6th Circuit revives challenge to mandatory anti-harassment training.

An eastern Kentucky high school student can pursue nominal damages from a school district over a policy that required anti-harassment training, a federal appeals court ruled today. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, reinstated Timothy Allen Morrison’s claim that the district’s policy “chilled” his ability to profess his Christian beliefs and opposition to homosexuality. The ruling sends the case back to U.S. District Judge David Bunning for further proceedings.

Articles continue at links. The rule of law is not the only sort of rule. There is also rule by force, monarchy and no rule at all. Rule by force provides no peaceable means to conduct inevitable transfers of power. Monarchy, fiat and other forms of rule by people has weak means at best to learn from and minimize the damage from its mistakes. No rule at all lends itself immediately to rule by force and fiat. Of all forms of rule, rule by law is the least objectionable. Rule by law can provide a peaceable means to transfer power, it can accumulate knowledge about its mistakes that survive those who made the mistakes, it can state an objective before acting and thus limit the damage that action might cause. Rule by superstition is not compatible with the rule of law. If God exists, God’s rule is by fiat. If God does not exist but the superstitious act on supposed perfect divine laws, no means exist to learn from the mistakes and damage those laws might cause.

Law is, however, a poor means of establishing falsehood or suggesting truth. Therefore law should refrain from determining what is obscene or superstitious. Individuals and perhaps communities are the better judges of these. The Constitution of the United States government did well to specify that the government was not in the business of controlling the press or distinguishing superstition from fact.

The United Nations has elevated the rule of law above the rule of force, fiat or superstition. This will harm no one, which is the ideal outcome of most laws. The 6th Circuit decision illustrates two sorts of difficulties. The first difficulty is accommodating divine law and human law. If a person believes in divine law, they will not feel compelled to obey human law. In this case it merely meant a young man did not want to ‘accept’ homosexuals but others have taken this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. The second difficulty is when the government tries to enforce diversity. Inevitably, it encounters what it claims is an unacceptable form of diversity. For better and for worse, it is not the case that we can all happily get along. But where there is the rule of law and not force, fiat or superstition we can at least get along peaceably. – Trevor Blake