If lawmakers go against their law, are they breaking it or changing it?
Disclaimer: I was very very confused by the reading because at one point laws were made very clear against the conquest of people but then those same laws were made to justify the conquest of peoples. Therefore I found myself more and more perplexed by law itself and who is enforcing or changing it and for what purpose? I tried my best to express my thoughts but my confusion is clear in this blogpost.
I can agree with Samuel Purchas's quarrel with the Pope concering the Spanish conquest. At the time and even in present day the Pope is meant to be a keeper of peace and a know-er of all things right and all things wrong. However during the time of the Spanish conquests the Pope gave justification for the displacement and maltreatment of the Native people in the new world. "The Catholic Church granted possesion of the New World to the Spanish" and Purchas's quarrel is whether or not the church has a right to do so.
I feel that in any religion it is wrong to steal and mistreat others for your own benefit. So I do not understand why the Church would support the Spanish's conquest of another person's land. I cannot help but wonder whether or not those in power such as the Pope, King, President, etc are bound by laws that they essentially create.
According to cannon (church) law it is sinful/unlawful for too much wealth to be accumulated because it cannot be genuine. The Spanish conquest was purposfuley for new discoveries of wealth. The Pope giving his blessing to the Spanish Conquest is going against this law, for what/who's benefit? Given the divinty of the Pope I cannot fathom that he received some type of wealth from giving his approval for the conquest, however it is not impossible. And because he is the Pope very very few people will question his word. So essintially the majority of people just follow lawmakers/enforcers blindly.
So I also question how the Pope had the right to give his blessing, but at the same time I can also question how did he not have the right to give his blessing, he was THE Pope. I just do not understand why there are laws if the people who make or are meant to enforce them do not have to follow them at any point in time. Who or what is watching them to make sure they are not unlawful? And if no one is watching them how can citizens trust that they are making/enforcing the right laws for everyone and not just themselves?
I can agree with Samuel Purchas's quarrel with the Pope concering the Spanish conquest. At the time and even in present day the Pope is meant to be a keeper of peace and a know-er of all things right and all things wrong. However during the time of the Spanish conquests the Pope gave justification for the displacement and maltreatment of the Native people in the new world. "The Catholic Church granted possesion of the New World to the Spanish" and Purchas's quarrel is whether or not the church has a right to do so.
I feel that in any religion it is wrong to steal and mistreat others for your own benefit. So I do not understand why the Church would support the Spanish's conquest of another person's land. I cannot help but wonder whether or not those in power such as the Pope, King, President, etc are bound by laws that they essentially create.
According to cannon (church) law it is sinful/unlawful for too much wealth to be accumulated because it cannot be genuine. The Spanish conquest was purposfuley for new discoveries of wealth. The Pope giving his blessing to the Spanish Conquest is going against this law, for what/who's benefit? Given the divinty of the Pope I cannot fathom that he received some type of wealth from giving his approval for the conquest, however it is not impossible. And because he is the Pope very very few people will question his word. So essintially the majority of people just follow lawmakers/enforcers blindly.
So I also question how the Pope had the right to give his blessing, but at the same time I can also question how did he not have the right to give his blessing, he was THE Pope. I just do not understand why there are laws if the people who make or are meant to enforce them do not have to follow them at any point in time. Who or what is watching them to make sure they are not unlawful? And if no one is watching them how can citizens trust that they are making/enforcing the right laws for everyone and not just themselves?
Comments
Post a Comment