Modern Police Force in light of the Seven Universal Laws
If the Seven Universal Laws are supposed to be a basic standard for life, real life, then it’s about time I take them on the road and apply them to real life events and organisations to see how these entities compare.
One thing that has grabbed my attention for some time now is the police, the cops. How would the modern police force stack up when compared to God’s most basic standards of right living for Gentiles, the Seven Commandments?
One significant thing about the basic seven laws and that they make no divisions between Gentiles. All Gentiles, all of us, are held to the same standard. Normally there should not be a case where an act is alright for some but not for others.
Shall we do a run-down of what the Seven Commandments are again? Well, I fancy it, so why not?
– Justice; the prohibition against injustice
– Prohibition against cursing God’s name
– Prohibition against idolatry
– Prohibition against forbidden sexual partners
– Prohibition against murder
– Prohibition against theft
– Prohibition against eating meat taking from a living animal.
Now which laws are most likely to impact cops? Some would say that the answer is easy, and that it must be the laws concerning Justice, or the prohibition against injustice. In fact, there are two more laws that come into play when it comes to the modern role of a police officer. I’ll get to them as the article goes on.
Now at first, it feels daunting. The police force is a big establishment, an international one. And these days with so many legal intricacies and complexities, I worry about tripping up on one of these complexities. But one thing I like about the Seven Commandments is that on some levels it is simple. It cuts through much of the fiction that we rely on in our society. It doesn’t give a damn about whatever religious or political or official label you wish to assign yourself. It just focuses on your actions. In light of this, we’ll judge the actions of the police.
This is a negative commandment, a prohibition. God hates injustice; so should all of us. Man is divinely obligated to act against it, as a matter of Universal law. How do we oppose injustice? By setting up a system of law, police and courts against it and by refusing to passively accept it as a fixture of social life.
Because the problem is a social one, this … Universal Commandment addresses people both as individuals and on the collective level. God requires each of us to pursue justice in his every day relations with other creatures, to act in a just and upright manner personally. (the chapter “Laws against Lawlessness” from “The Rainbow Covenant” by Michael Dallen)
This is the more assertive side, the positive side of the law of Dinim. There is a prohibitive side as well. I need to make clear what it means to be prohibitive as there are some weird ideas going around to what it is.
Some people think that the side of the law of Dinim that is a prohibition is this: you must refrain from failing to set up courts of justice. Another way of putting it stated in a popular book concerning the seven laws called “The Path of the Righteous Gentile” where it says:
The commandment to establish courts of law, though it might appear to be a positive commandment calling for affirmative action, is considered a prohibition. In effect, the commandment to establish courts of law is a prohibition against failing to establish courts of law …
I personally disagree with this understanding and find it ridiculous. Why?
The Talmud has a phrase for what it means when it refers to something that we refer to as “a prohibition”. To put it across “literally” (I know translations are never literal), it is called “to sit and don’t do [x]” (“x” referring to some action). So basically it calls for an inactivity, refraining from doing an action. It is saying “refrain from this action”. This concept is opposite to what we call a positive command, which it refers to as “stand and do”, an activity, actually doing something. So when the law of Dinim is said to have a “prohibitive” aspect, it means that there is part of the command that is telling you to stop a certain activity, the key word being “activity”, i.e., actually doing something.
Let’s compare to this odd understanding of “to refrain from failing to set up courts of law”. Think about what this means. When you think about it, you’ll see that it is not a prohibition, just a rephrasing of a positive active command to set up courts in the form of a twisted prohibition. Let me give some example to clarify.
The core prohibition against idolatry is not to worship any aspect of creation as if it were God. What does this mean? Think in terms of “sit and don’t do”. So if there is an idol and you are told to actively bow down to it, don’t do it. Refrain from that action.
The core prohibition against theft is not to take something without the owner’s consent. What does this mean? Think in terms of “sit and don’t do”. So if there is somebody else’s property, and you want to take it without their permission, then don’t do it. Refrain from that action.
Every other core command of the other six laws is “Refrain from that action”.
Now let’s think this through to this weird understanding of “to refrain from failing to set up courts of law”. So it is essentially refraining to fail to act. To fail to act is a form of inactivity. So where all the other commandments say “refrain from that action”, the people who tried to come up with the prohibitive aspect of the Justice law say that this law means “refrain from inaction”. So all the other commands are “sit and don’t do” and the Justice command all of a sudden becomes “refrain from sitting, refrain from not doing this”??? It doesn’t make any sense! It doesn’t accord with the wording of the Talmud at all.
Thankfully there is wisdom. The explanations of the Soncino translation of the Talmud and the Schottenstein translation step forth with something that makes sense. In essence they both state that the prohibitive side of the law of Justice is to refrain from injustice, to refrain from actions that pervert or diminish justice. So we are still talking about a “sit down and don’t do [x]”.
The reason why I’m focusing a lot of the prohibitive side of the Dinim command is that, as was pointed out by a wise man nicknamed Ramban, it is breaking the prohibitions in the Seven Commandments that gets the most serious consequences. There are definitely consequences for ignoring or spitting on the positive active side of these commands as well, but it is the prohibition that is as serious as a death penalty.
However, if [Gentiles] neglect to do this [set up the appropriate justice system] they are not to be executed, because this derives from a positive imperative, and the rule of “Their prohibition [when violated, constitutes grounds for] their execution,” applies only for the negative imperatives … (Imperative of Legal System, http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php?title=Imperative_of_Legal_System)
The quote that Ramban refers to is from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 57a.
So although we Gentiles do have a positive precept to set up just courts systems, serious problems begin when we ignore the side of the commandment that prohibits injustice.
Justice and Injustice
What is justice? What is injustice?
Justice implies fairness; impartiality; the administering of deserved punishment or reward; righteous character, conduct, and treatment of people taking into account all possible factors, proper discernment and judgment.
What is injustice? Actions that negate the above qualities. Practically, that could mean a lot of things. If we think in terms of crime and a justice system, then any act that removes fairness and impartiality is injustice like, for example, bribing a judge. Anything that stops the administration of deserved punishment (or reward) is injustice, like, for example, giving misleading testimony. Anything that stops the fair treatment of people is injustice, like, for example, having one party of a dispute dressed in prison clothes and the other party dressed in a good looking suit when present in front of the judge(s). Anything that impairs proper judgment, like, for example, relying on the past actions of a person to judge and condemn them rather than looking that the evidence provided in a new presented case.
These are the sorts of actions where we should “sit and not do”, i.e., we should refrain from doing such actions that negate or prevent justice.
It should also be noted that the justice must be based on the Seven Commandments and not contradict them. It may mean that if a person does an act which goes against the implementation of the Seven Commandments, then that too is a very serious crime as that would be injustice too.
Once again, I’ll re-state that the Seven Commandments pays no attention to artificial labels we dream up, or the costumes and uniforms we may wear. It’s our actions that matter.
The police; The pigs
I can imagine that is hard to be a member of the police force in this day and age …. hmmmm … let me rephrase that.
I can imagine that it is hard to be a member of the police force if you aspire to be a good and responsible person. Why? All police officers are is essentially the arm of force for the judicial system and the government. And I have already said in a previous article, most, if not all, governments contradict the Seven Commandments in one way or another. To be part of the police force today is to the arm of force for an unjust judiciary and government. That doesn’t bode well for this analysis of the police force. Why? Because the police won’t uphold the Seven Commandments, they’ll just uphold the edicts of the immoral governments. So a police office won’t bring a person into custody for breaking much of what is prohibited in the core Seven Commandments, they don’t uphold that sort of justice, divine justice. They only uphold purely human sourced legislation and must ignore the divine legislation.
In a way, nowadays, that’s the way it has to be. The world right now isn’t ready, does not have the sense of responsibility enough, to take upon itself the obligations commanded in the Seven Laws, as abuse of much of what it teaches is worldwide in extent. If the police were to uphold such a law, it would place unrealistic burdens upon the people and upon a court system stuffed full of arrogant and opinionated judges who feel themselves to be god of their court, and a legal system that is more about persuasion and presentation that discovering the truth of the matter, as is shown by the antics of its lawyers, solicitors and barristers.
But the problem for the police is that, despite the moral failings of society, the standard still exists: a person is supposed to do what they can to uphold the basic laws of morality and living as given by the Universal Commandments. The very job they do and the society they live in can only make them fail in that regard.
Let’s imagine that because of the very circumstances and situation they work in the cops aren’t held guilty for this systemic and inherent failure in their current work. Does that make them totally innocent in the light of the Universal Commandments?
For some time now, I’ve been look at the actions of the police as reported in the media and captured in video and uploaded onto the internet. As I live in the UK, and because of the influence of the USA on the internet, it is the policing of the UK and USA that grabs my attention primarily, but the principles I learn from them seem to apply worldwide.
Remember the negative side of the law of Dinim, the prohibition against injustice.
So what have the police been doing?
There have been acts of arresting people and fabricating reasons for arrest afterwards; altering the wording of their reports to make the people look more guilty; giving false testimony in court, standing by and watching another officer molest a suspect, or protecting such an officer. There have been occasions where a person will be unlawfully killed by an officer and the police force will band around that officer, keeping him in a job and making it difficult for charges to stick against him. There are instances of relevant evidence being planted or taken away from an investigation to affect what sort of judgement a person will get.
Now think about it. If a human being is forbidden to do acts that pervert justice, then the above actions fall under the class of forbidden and immoral actions. But think about this also: the way that police tend to protect their own ensures that these injustices will be ignored and/or be protected against reprisals, retaliation or judgement. So the very system itself tends to thwart and prevent justice even though it claims to be a system to ensure it.
And that’s not the end of it when it comes to the Seven Laws.
Den of thieves, robbers, and murderers
What is theft according to the Seven Commandments? To give a definition from the books I’ve read, it’s the physical seizing and taking of an object owned by someone else without their consent. Included in it is kidnapping.
What is murder according to the Seven Commandments? It is the illegal taking of the life of another human being. Connected to this Commandment are laws and principles to do with injury and damaging a person.
There have been too many occurrences where police will use their “powers of arrest” on innocent people who are not violent or harming others. From the point of them using their intimidation to stop a person in the screet, to handcuffing them, to putting them into the police car and putting them behind bars. Especially from the point of putting on handcuffs, if the police don’t have a justifiable reason for doing this, then it’s essentially kidnapping. Someone restraining you and forcing you places without your consent is nothing more than kidnapping (some people with a sense of humour may also call it marriage, but I don’t know how many of my readers can take a joke).
Remember, the Seven Commandments generally cut through the illusions we create for ourselves. It cuts through the badge and the uniform, the office and the title. It deals with the individual Gentile. So it doesn’t matter if a person wants to call himself or herself officer or police, kidnap is kidnap, regardless of which immoral government gives authorisation to do so. There needs to be extremely solid grounds to capture an individual, but, as there is copious amounts of evidence, police nowadays can capture and kidnap a person for unjustifiable reasons, even for not giving their name.
Seizure of a person’s property without their consent is theft. It is understandable that investigators would have to take certain things away to be tested for evidence. But unless an object is stolen and needs to be returned to its original owner, a person’s property should not be taken without their consent without highly serious reasons or circumstances.
I’ve heard some say that government may have the power to take away someone’s property. But let’s think about things at a basic level.
A person owns their own property.
The government doesn’t own that individual or his property.
So if the government or its agents take that individuals property without his consent, that is theft.
That’s basically it. Unless the person is using his property to hurt or injure someone, or that property is stolen, the police have no license to touch it without a court order justified by special circumstances that makes it needful to take the property.
Yet what do we see? Police and government officials take vehicles, guns, herbs, money, all sorts of things without the owner’s consent and too often without the special circumstances to give the leeway.
So essentially, the officers that do this are thieves.
So right now, too many police officers are guilty of kidnap and theft, amongst the very serious of crimes against God’s law. And what is worse: nothing is done about it. The officers that do this either walk away scott-free still in their jobs, or they even get a pat on the back saying “job well done!”
And then there is the murder and injury! How many lives, innocent lives, have been taken by the police? And again, how many times do the officers get away with it? Too many. The police force are responsible for lost lives, damaged bodies, broken bones, damaged flesh, and too often the officers keep their lives, liberty, and, many times, their jobs. I know of cases here in England where men die in police custody and the officers walk away. And you don’t have to do much search to see heaps of death and damage to lives done by the American police. To be sure, the international policing system sits on the huge pile of corpses that they are responsible for slaying. Hitler would be jealous.
According to the core of the Seven Laws, there are three ways of becoming guilty of the crime of murder. Firstly, if person A kills person B directly using their own force, power or control to end someone’s life when person B was not threatening the life (or in some circumstances the property) of person A, then generally person A are guilty of murder. Secondly, if person A put person B in a place of inescapable death so that person B dies, but the means of death isn’t under person A direct control, the this is indirect murder, and person A is guilty of murder. And if person A is grossly negligent and causes person B’s death either directly or indirectly, person A is guilty of murder. So in that latter case, when person A does not follow the most basic of safety measures which causes the death of another, person A is as guilty as a person who murders indirectly. One of the occasions that person A is allowed to kill person B is when person B is pursuing person A in order to kill him/her and the only way to stop him is to kill him.
So let’s compare this to the deaths caused by the police. Compare this to the amount of unarmed people the police have murdered. Compare this to the amount of time the police aim to kill and not just to injure. There are people who still had the handcuffs on their wrists and are either beaten to death or are one way or another fatally wounded. People have died taking phones or wallets out of their pocket.
And too often the first instinct of that gang – what else can we call it? – is to close ranks, to protect their own from punishment. Too often the investigations into such actions fizzle into inactive nothingness. This doesn’t include police physical abuse, the people who have been beaten up, placed in choke holds, … the list goes on.
Who can say that this entity is guiltless?
Yes I understand that they have a difficult and dangerous job. I understand there are somewhat good people amongst their ranks. Again, it is difficult for me to open the gates of ascribing full goodness to those who would uphold unrighteous governmental policies and those who would choose to be the physical arm of force to immoral governments. But I guess I should give the benefit of the doubt. And not saying that all they do is evil. Sometimes it works and they manage to catch the wicked. Sometimes.
But despite all that, who can say that that organisation is guiltless, that its hands are not stained with the blood of the innocent? And it keeps trying to hide its hands.
Dinim – We all are responsible
Taking the focus somewhat of the government endorsed gang, a wise woman called Abby said it best.
In a proper Gentile community, we are all responsible for the enforcement of justice, each of us.
I hope she doesn’t mind me changing a few words. I pray it doesn’t change the intent. If so, I’ll just say that these are my words with my intent.
But in a conscious, aware, upright community, there is less need for a gang of tyrannical enforcement. The people look out for one another. They each play their part in making sure that property and life is protected, and that those that would breach basic morality are brought to justice, even if those immoral people happen to wear a badge and wear combative gear.
But in many of the videos I’ve seen, there is a consistency in the behaviour in the spectators: they are sheep-like in the way they will just observe what the police do, and will do their best to either avoid it or do absolutely nothing. A brave few will not only video it, but also will make such actions public. A superbrave one out of a million will put their own body and “freedom” on the line to rescue their fellow human from the aggressor-with-a-badge. But the most you can expect from people these days is to bleat and baa, “hey, that’s wrong” “let’s chant, ‘no justice no peace'”, as the wolf consumes its prey. Of course, the wolf has no need to pay attention to the powerless bleating of the herd.
In many ways, I can understand the stance of those who don’t interfere. This is gang warfare. And the gang is protected by their own and by the ruling oligarchy. They are too big to be resisted, and to resist is to get oneself locked up, molested, abused, or even killed. And the police officer may even get an award for it and public accolade. So with the threat to one’s own life, I can understand holding back. Who knows? Maybe I’d be too scared (or wise?) to do anything actively myself, unless I’ve got a video recorder on my phone or a secret video recorder, and a secret youtube account.
But let’s be honest. That’s not the only mindset out there. It’s not just fear. It’s also the belief that a uniform and badge is all you need to authorise such injurious actions and such kidnap. It’s the fact that too many voted this situation into place. It’s the fact that people don’t want to be what basic human morality, God’s universal commandments, demand: for us to be responsible. That’s the main reason why the government endorsed gang partrol the streets, because we believe that we are not responsible for protecting our own lives and property. Here in the UK, people in general are not responsible enough to bear arms/weapons and protect themselves, much less their neighbour (or at least that’s what is believed by too many). They are like immature children that must call for the teacher and hope and pray that the teacher comes quickly enough to save them from those who would steal from them or kill them.
And it doesn’t matter whetner other countries allow guns or not. The fact is that the populace of the nations cannot be responsible for themselves, either through what they believe about themselves, or it is the real fact, i.e., they really are not responsible adults.
So in that void of responsibility steps the government, its policies, and its arm of force, the police. Made up of those selected from the populace, the people then get what they deserve. And too often it is the heavy hand of tyranny, whether the people are duped into thinking that they are part of a real democracy, or whether the tyranny is more obvious. And why?
Because we are not responsible.
I’m not going to go any deeper than this. It would take too long. Let me just give my opinion on what happens when you measure the modern police force against the Seven Universal Commandments.
Despite the fact that there are some somewhat good police officers, despite the fact that sometimes it works, despite the good intentions, the police system is guilty of theft, murder and injustice. If I were more condemning I would say that it is a murderous, thieving gang that survives partly on the corruption it creates, sustains, and protects. Maybe that would be going too far. Maybe.
At the very least, it is guilty and culpable.
This is a bit like me condemning christianity. The edifice on a whole is corrupt fundamentally. But there may be good individuals within it. But those individuals don’t save the whole edifice from condemnation. The same is very much true for our Gentile nations and our governments. There be good individuals within them, but the crimes of the whole edifice against the Seven Laws pile on day by day.
And the same is true for the police system. But can we be surprised? Can we really be surprised?