The story of a church picketing the funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq made me think of the dilemma of law- it tries to build a peaceful society but it could not. This case has now reached the supreme court- hearings have been heard and a decision will be made next year. To be decided is if the church had the right of free speech to picket a funeral, or if they had to pay damages for harassment.

     The reason this made me think of the dilemma of law is the obvious insensitivity of this church, to disrupt a service to mourn the loss of a human being. Their defense is that they have the first amendment right to free speech. The letter of the law may be on their side but the law of sensitivity is definitely not on their side. This law of sensitivity is not something that can be legislated because it is a heart issue, but very important for the peace of a society. Insensitivity is a heart issue and this act would be considered insensitive by most people.

     I struggled with why there seems to be a negative attitude in the bible of living according to the law. It seems good to live according to law. The usual explanation is that nobody can follow the law completely, and any small violation leads to judgment. However, another explanation is that law does not necessarily make for a peaceful society. This case definitely shows that. The church that picketed was within the bounds of the existing laws, but their actions left more pain for the family of this deceased soldier. Lawful people is not what God wants but people who show the fruit of the spirit, which includes kindness. The act of this church did not seem kind, not only for what they proclaim but the circumstances in which they chose to express themselves.

     The reason that law could not make for a peaceful society is that it is objective, which it has to be for law to be fair and enforceable. It only deals with human behavior but not the human heart. Law may stop speeding but it does not stop reckless attitudes. However, there seems to be a movement towards making subjective laws. Subjctive law could be oppressive. One subjective law is the hate crimes act-adding consequences for crimes that are due to prejudice. The problem with hate crimes is that, except for a clear confession, no one really knows whether an act of road rage against a gay person is just that, a person upset about being cut off for example, or an act of someone who is prejudiced against gays. There may be some ativist lawyers who are ready to make any crime against gays a hate crime, a heart issue that the government has to enforce.

     The case of the church that pickets funerals with a provocative message (God is punishing America because of its tolerance of homosexualiy) may pave the way for another subjective law if the justices make a judgment concerning the message of this church. The justices may decide to ban "offensive" speech because it may incite others to crime. The bad thing about a ban on "offensive" speech is that what is offensive is subjective. Any speech that disagrees with a point of view can be considered "offensive." People would then be afraid to speak their minds, and this would be the end of free speech.

     Let us hope that the justices don't rule on the content of this church's message, despite its hatefulness. Let us hope that they make an objective ruling, maybe keeping protesters away from funerals a certain distance. A funeral should not be a place for protesting an ideological issue but a time to mourn the deceased. However, a people that could not accept dissent will descend into totalitarianism.