Salvation by Law and the Prison
It is axiomatic in a Christian Commonwealth that a sharp distinction is drawn between sins and crimes. All crimes, of course, are sins. But not all sins are crimes–in fact, very few of them are.
But in the world of Unbelief no-one can draw a demarcation between sins and crimes. All iniquities, all evil is potentially criminal. Since, in modern secularist Unbelief there is no god or saviour apart from the state, all attempts to remove evil from society will lead inevitably to more and more sins being criminalised. The upshot is the rise of a progressive tyranny. The state becomes more and more authoritarian, intrusive, hectoring, demanding, ruling, and bossy. In the end, authoritarianism risks developing into full throated totalitarianism.
Men who exercise “coercive control” over their partners by restricting their personal or financial freedom, or through overt criticism could face up to 14 years in jail under new laws set to be announced by Home Secretary Theresa May this week.
Campaigners, who have been arguing for a change in the law to bring emotional abuse into line legally with physical abuse, have praised the proposals as a “major step forward”. The new law will be introduced as a series of amendments to the Serious Crime Bill, and will alter the legal definition of domestic abuse to include psychological, as well as physical damage. It is expected to pass into law in the new year.[Breitbart London]
Orthodox Christian teaching declares that sin is universal in human thoughts, words and deeds. As James puts it, “whoever observes the whole law, but slips in one point, becomes guilty in every respect.” (James 2:10) The Heidelberg Catechism asks, “But can those converted to God obey these commandments perfectly?” and answers, “No. In this life even the holiest has only a small beginning of this obedience.” (Question 114.)
When secularist Unbelief parades as its own saviour, its final desperate attempt at redemption is to make crimes out of mundane sins like “critical words” or Scrooge-like stinginess.
Seema Malhotra, Labour’s shadow anti-domestic violence minister, suggested earlier this year that husbands criticising their wives weight or appearance may be guilty of domestic abuse. “It can be part of a pattern of controlling behaviour that leaves people feeling fearful and terrorised in their own homes,” she said, and may be an “indicator of physical abuse in the future”.
Ironically, this represents in principle a variant of Islamist theology. Salvation by compulsion. By the keen edge of the sword. Submit to righteousness, or rot in gaol. At this point the fruits of secularist redemption are the same genus and species as Islamism, which claims, even boasts, that it saves by the sword. What these similarities suggest is that Unbelief has far more in common with Islamism than many would care to acknowledge.
For Christians there are no surprises here. Both secularist Unbelief and Islam are alike satanic in origin and genus. It’s not at all surprising that redemption by authoritarian oppression will end up as the driving animus of both systems.
What will be the outcome of such idolatrous secularist folly? Grave damage indeed.
Firstly, this new law will need to be written in gender neutral language, despite its target being men, not women. Since women often make up for an inability to match men in physical strength by resorting to verbal abuse (sarcasm, insults, hate speech) it is to be expected that more and more women will be criminalised and end up doing serious gaol time. This will take “taming of the shrew” to new heights. No doubt an entirely unexpected outcome of the secularist’s “salvation by law”.
Secondly, whilst the gaols will be bursting at the seams, cases of actual physical assault will continue unabated. The authorities will become so busy apprehending and prosecuting verbal assaults or fiscal stinginess, real abuse will continue cloaked in secrecy and darkness.
But not everyone is happy with the legal changes. Three years ago, when similar changes were being proposed . . . Erin Pizzey, who in the 1970s set up the network of safe houses now run by Refuge, slammed the proposals as trivialising domestic violence.
She took to the Daily Mail to offer a detailed explanation of her criticisms, saying: “When I began my refuge four decades ago, I took in victims of severe domestic violence who were literally running for their lives. They were prepared to leave everything behind to escape the horrendous situation they found themselves in for a safe house for themselves and their children.
“Unless you have seen real, shocking abuse as I have, it is difficult to imagine some of the awful violence that people can inflict on each other in the home. And that’s why I’m convinced that bringing other, lesser, wrongs under this same legal umbrella does a great disservice to the women who really suffer. “At this rate, we’ll all end up under arrest, and that is not a situation that’s going to help the police tackle the cases of true physical violence which must be stamped out.
“People behave badly in relationships because we have human frailties. This is not an area in which the State should meddle; leave it to relationship counsellors and divorce lawyers. They already help people escape toxic relationships.”
Every day, thousands upon thousands of domestic disputes end up being called into 999. The vast majority of them involve not physical violence, but verbal arguments and altercations. By making such sins to be crimes, police and courts will be overloaded by the trivial, whilst predatory gangs will continue to rape unimpeded in places like Rotherham. Police will be too busy elsewhere. Young girls being subjected to gang rape don’t tend to call 999. Interdiction of the perpetrators requires dedicated, long-term investigative work.
“Women want to see real crimes punished and vulnerable children protected. But if the law changes and the definition of domestic violence is watered down, the genuine victims of abuse will suffer because the authorities will have less time and energy to devote to helping them,” [Erin Pizzey] concluded.
Turning sins into crimes is a vast overreach by secularist Unbelief. But Unbelief is both impotent and one-dimensional. It cannot save souls. It cannot convert hearts. It has no objective standard to distinguish between sin and crime. All it has is a blunt bludgeoning sword. It is resorting to it more and more, even to control thought and speech.
Maybe that’s why Islamism is the new normal and so attractive to many Britons. Enforced redemption by oppression and a vast expansion of state power has been Unbelief’s gospel for over two generations now, and Islam is merely a variant of the same.
Go to Source