Did SCOTUS just spam the American people by approving a racist and xenophobic travel ban? The highest courts of any country operate with a soul or a set of rocks. The law of the land may be despicable today and treasured tomorrow. Laws can be changed. Officials, including church leaders, are required to stick to the set of rocks, those unchanging statements of responsibility and privilege, but to have a soul is to acknowledge that there are situations where law and constitution are oppressive and securely tethered to malevolence.

SCOTUS definitely did.  Two examples from the Sacred Texts will show how insensitivity in stewards can lead to oppressive and damnable conclusions. In the first, Yeshua’s contemporaries brought a woman, caught in the very act of adultery, to him and requested a ruling, expecting a guilty verdict and the inevitable stoning.  A child, would ask “Where is the man?” where a lawyer or supposedly informed adult would plunge on blindly. That group of Jewish men had suspended logical and simple thinking. Two entities are essential to establish a violation of any law: God and man, man and man. Our Lord spared the woman’s life by ruling that only sinless persons are eligible to condemn and stone an individual.

The second brings attention to the life-saving priority which law-set-in-stone does not address. Three perspectives will help us understand how real goodness can be avoided. Sabbath and uncleanness regulations would prevent people from engaging with people who were in need or deemed unclean. Knowing that one’s donkey is suffering should move one to relieve that suffering even when the expectations of written standards are contrary to exerting oneself. The leaders who sought the death of Christ approached the Roman governor but refused to enter his quarters.

Dead consciences are in high demand: owned by people who will act like stuck weather-vanes, either under demonic influence, their own acting (=hypocritical) skills, or pure partisan alliance.

Goodness does not delight in law. Goodness is life-saving or life-preserving or that goodness is utter trash. The right to self-expression and the right to bear arms are not life-preserving: they enable homicide. Law is irrelevant if it does nothing to save or preserve life. As long as people place republic or state above the common wholeness of humanity we know that the claim to trust in a printed document (or video), Law and order slogans is hollow, and a great deal of high court rulings will continue to be pure examples of suspended principles advancing malevolence.