The nature of the philosophical and presuppositional beliefs under girding law systems are fundamental questions for any group of people living in a specific geo-political zone. As a first principle it must be asserted that law always comes from and is a result of the religious beliefs of the people living in any particular geo-political zone. The question is not if law is going to be religiously based, for that is a guarantee. The question is which religion is going to determine what the law shall be? In the colonial period of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika the great majority of the thirteen colonies had law systems based upon some form of biblical law. This made perfect sense since many of the citizens of those colonies were religious people, Christians specifically, seeking to live under their own system of law in a new land. Since the SDA is now a post-Christian society, what makes up the basis for moral law in our country today?
To answer the question I have raised I take you to the front page of yesterday's Denver Post. There I read an article entitled "6,000 will be freed early" that told me about how "the Justice Department is set to release about 6,000 inmates from prison to reduce crowding and provide relief to drug offenders who received harsh sentences in the past three decades." King Obama commissioned a panel some time ago to look into the problem of people being caught with a bit of marijuana on their persons being sentenced to life in prison for their alleged crime. Prior to a year or so ago it was a crime and an immoral action to have marijuana in your possession in Colorado. Today it is a moral action and a good thing to have marijuana in your possession provided you live in Colorado or Washington. People who got caught with marijuana in their possession prior to it becoming a moral thing to do, or in states where it is still immoral, are wasting away in prisons today. King Obama wants to do something about that problem.
According to the article, "the panel estimated that its change in sentencing guidelines eventually could result in 46,000 of the nation's approximately 100,000 drug offenders in federal prison qualifying for early release." Imagine that. Forty six thousand people have had their lives ruined by the federal "justice" system and now they have an opportunity to be released from the prisons they never should have been sent to in the first place. What are they going to get for their time? Nothing, of course. The federal government never admits to making mistakes. Some of these poor souls have been languishing in prison cells for over twenty years for nothing more than being caught with a bit of marijuana in their pockets. Nevertheless, they will not receive so much as an apology when they are granted "early release" by their federal persecutors.
Federal Public Defender Virginia Grady said, "Releasing the 6,000 offenders is a small step in the right direction. It would take new laws to remedy a program stemming from onerous laws passed by Congress in the mid 1980s. Congress needs to rethink its approach to mandatory sentencing....its a terrible way to govern people." She got that right. Congressmen enacted absurdly severe criminal sentences for activities that do not even constitute biblical crimes, or sins if you wish, in order to appear tough on crime and ensure their status as career politicians. They did not care one whit about the people whose lives they were destroying as long as they could provide a good sound-bite and get perpetually reelected. They also knew that they could appeal to a majority of the citizens in this immoral country who looked to civil government to enforce "law and order" and provide personal security for all. The more innocent people were thrown in jail, however, the more the opinion of the majority began to turn. That brings us to today's situation where states are seriously considering the legalization of drugs that used to be punished with harsh prison sentences.
The change in federal prison policy has come about because "The US Sentencing Commission voted unanimously for the reduction last year after holding two public hearings in which they heard testimony from former Attorney General Erick Holder, federal judges, federal public defenders, state and local law enforcement officials, and sentencing advocates. The panel received more than 80,000 public comment letters, with the overwhelming majority favoring the change." Well there you have it. The majority has spoken again and this time they want those previously incarcerated for non-criminal activities to be granted "early release." It must be nice to be a part of the law-making majority but it is sure a bummer to be one of those upon whom the fickle laws of the land created by that majority are enforced.
Make no mistake, these people should be released from prison. Indeed, tens of thousands of citizens incarcerated under state and local judicial systems should also be released. But that is not the point. My point today is that when the law is created by majority vote we can be sure of two things. First, the law will change all the time, usually contradicting what it stood for previously and always punishing people who are innocent of criminal activity. Second, the perpetual change in law by the means of majority vote really does indicate that the citizens of the SDA worship not only the career politicians who rule over us but also themselves. Praise democracy for it has imprisoned thousands of innocent people. Praise democracy for it has stolen income from millions of productive citizens. Praise democracy because it has declared homosexuality a moral behavior. And praise democracy for it has sentenced 30 million babies to death. Democracy truly is the god that failed. Isn't it time to give it up?