The United States v. Non-religious Advancement: How’s that going so far?

In 1980 our Supreme Court ruled against the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools (Stone v. Graham).  In 2005 the same court ruled against posting the Hebrew Decalogue in court houses (McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union). The reasoning behind both resolutions was that the Decalogue - derived from a religious text – advanced religion.  Apparently, the only acceptable method of prohibition (let’s use theft as an example) must come from a secular source.  If Moses wrote, “You shall not steal,” it is unacceptable.  If Karl Marx wrote, “You shall not steal,” it is acceptable.  Same words, different sources, and some crazy logic.

Religion, Humanism, and Theft

The majority of the world’s population (78%) is affiliated with one of the five major religions: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.  Religion is global.  It has always been a part of the human experience and still remains alive and well.  All the religions stated above prohibit theft.  Religionists understand that theft is more than stealing an object or the breaking of a human law.  Religion teaches that theft is harmful to ourselves, as well as to others.  Ghandhi called theft (asteya) a “form of violence.”  Beyond this universal observation, religions also instill that theft is against God.  In fact, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, all refer to theft as “sin.”  The Christian English translation “sin” comes from the Greek word “hamartia” which means “to miss the mark.”  It is the falling short of God’s command or law.  (The opposite, not stealing, is a bulls-eye).  Make sense?  Religious people understand that either now, or later, the grave action of “sin” will be accounted for.  One could say, in this case, it is a deterrent to commit theft.

In the past few decades an American minority, who truly hate religion, have worked overtime to exclude the public expression of practical religious ethics in America.  Not because they make sense or work toward the common good, but because they advance religion. And our courts agree.  Against what is the greater good for all American society, our courts have determined that only recent humanist values are appropriate for the people; even if some of those values identically reflect thousands of years of deeply religious values. Under humanism, the god of reason is now the lowest common denominator for the good will of the American people.   

Case in Point:  New York City Metro in Crisis    

The other day I read an article that New York City’s Metro system is in crisis.  Of the 5 million daily subway riders, nearly 1 million jump the turnstiles to avoid paying the required fee.  The annual loss in revenue is some $700 million.  Jumping a turnstile is theft, but since NYC cannot appeal to religion, they must resort exclusively to two secular choices: punishment or an appeal to right reason. 

Punishment has long been thought to deter crime in general, (though the topic is hotly debated), and all nations today use punishment to a greater or lesser extent; including America.  What New York has learned, however, is that their punishment (a $100 fine) for jumping turnstiles is not working well as a deterrent, and it is not fiscally practical to enforce as a punishment.  For NYC, then, the only legal answer is a humanist appeal to right reason; which carries inherent problems in a subjectivist society – but that’s another topic.    

The City has posted up to $1 million to contract behavioral analysts in a hope that the various fields of psychology and psychiatry can help curb theft en masse.  The logic here is that if the City can understand the motive behind the theft, they can solve it.  This is the apex of humanism – that the City can classify a group of individuals on the level of biological machines that need fixing!  Therefore, rather than appealing to something other than what is clearly not working, the answer is more of the same philosophy. There is a third option, however.  Appealing to the collective religious nature of the 1 million thieves.  Oh, no!  Lock the doors!  Religion is anathema – right?!  But the idea is reasonable, for two reasons.

First, it would do no harm, other than offending the humanist, atheist or thief.  And their feelings are not a financially worthy reason to exclude religion as an impetus for prohibiting theft.   

Second, there is a good chance, if statistics are correct, that many of those 1 million thieves has a religious background.  Sometimes, just reminding a person of their religious values is enough to dissuade them from inappropriate action.  Nothing is fool-proof, but a simple sign that reads, “Fee-skipping is Theft” with photos or names or slogans of major religious figures would make the religious think twice. If such a sign only dissuaded 20% of the thieves – that would equate to $140 million in paid and not stolen fares.  The reminder of a higher ethic would have an added bite to that $100 unenforceable fine.

I understand there is a disconnect regarding the source of the problem as well as the solution; I don’t agree, but I understand.  Society says that a person is a thief because they steal, ex post facto, and that it is a problem of socio-economics or wrong reason.  Religion says a person steals because they are a thief, ex ante facto; it is a problem that stems from the heart.  This being said, I truly think that – if New York wants to appeal to the person - it would benefit them to not exclude religion as a tactic.  Better to give $1 million to local religious organizations that already promote society’s welfare, than to humanists who think they can understand and fix broken biological machines.

I’ll be curious to see how this plan of theirs works out.  I have a hunch it may end up with the City spending more than $1 million on security devices.