I have been thinking about religious topics, when it struck me that there were two rather lesser know religious questions which cast some light on a favorite political topic of mine. That being the need for us to maintain consistency in our political environment, as well as the need for us to not only expect consistent, principled behavior from politicians, but the need to shun those whose claim to fame is an ability to outsmart their constituents.

The first interesting religious rule comes from Judaism. Despite the popular perception, at least on the part of some, of Jews as living up to only the letter of a deal, or trying to find technical ways out of promises, in reality, Jewish religious law argues for precisely the opposite. And that is something I think we could use more in our society.

You see, today, we seem to have thew exact opposite attitude we had in the past. In times past, when, for example, Satan would damn someone by abiding by the strict wording of a deal, it was seen as dishonorable and horrific. But today, we revel in the cleverness of those who do just that. We think it a virtuous act to trick another by clever wording. Not that there is no worth in being clever, I can see the value there, and do applaud praising intelligence, but on the other hand I find it a bit disturbing to find virtue in verbal trickery.

And that is where Jewish law seems to be of value. As most know, orthodox Jews live by many laws, a lot of which are very minutely defined, and contain numerous exceptions. All of which would be ideally suited for individuals with a legalistic turn of mind to abide by the letter of the law while avoiding the spirit. However, Jewish law has another principle, that being that not only can one not break the law, but one must also not give the appearance of breaking the law. And so, rather than encouraging abiding by the letter alone, the law specifies that one must take a maximal, not minimal view of the law.

Actually, that could be a beneficial principle in many cases. For example, I wrote before about the way conservatives are held to higher standards than liberals in the popular media, and so we must be more conscious of appearances than liberals. This sort of principle would be perfect there, as it would encourage us not only to live up to our principles, but to go beyond, to appear as upright as possible, lest we give grounds for criticism. Of course this can be taken too far, some can try to avoid criticism so much that they end up conceding points to the left lest the media call them heartless, but I think drawing lines here is relatively easy. We need to do everything we can to avoid criticism, while at the same time ensuring that nothing we do contradicts our beliefs. If there is ever a question whether to abide by beliefs or appeal to popular press bias, we should stand by our beliefs.

In short, we should do nothing to open ourselves to unnecessary criticism, but should happily accept criticism arising from our beliefs.

The second principle I find interesting comes from a completely different religious tradition, that being Jainism. Jainism has many beliefs in common with Hinduism and related faiths, but has one concept that appeals to me in particular. In the Jainist belief system, karma, especially negative karma, is not any sort of spiritual judgment, has nothing to do with the divinities, but is a spiritual substance, something impersonal which attaches to one's spirit with the implacable certainty of a law of nature.

Why I find this interesting is that it avoids one of the greatest problems of religions with personified g-ds. Once we postulate a g-d, especially one who is loving and forgiving, it becomes easy to imagine that he will forgive our foibles. Many faiths even codify some form of forgiveness, or at least suggest that some form of good intentions may allow one to escape judgment. Granted, formal theology often denies this, but even when theology proposes strict paths to salvation, many are tempted into thinking G-d will forgive them despite theological doctrine.

Jainism avoids this by making judgment impersonal. If one cannot appeal to any higher power, if damnation comes from impersonal laws of spiritual nature, then there is nothing to do but obey the laws. And thus the religion forces obedience by giving no hope of appeal.

The political implications are obvious. As I have argued before, we tend in modern times to think the law is better when those in charge have "discretion", and "flexibility". We want to give them the ability to "choose" and "use judgment". However, the other way to word this is to say "we want law to be arbitrary". And that makes clear the problem. Or one problem, that discretion makes it hard to predict outcomes.

But I have talked about that too much. What I have not mentioned is the opposite end. While discretion make prediction difficult, it also give the offender hope of forgiveness. If the law is impersonal and fixed, then one breaks the law or not based upon his willingness to suffer the punishment. And we can then adjust the amount of crime by setting the punishment to the point where the cost of punishment equals the desire to stop crime.

But, with arbitrary law, one cannot tell if punishment is certain, and so crime increases. The more criminals assume they might escape judgment, the more likely they are to risk crimes as the punishment is reduced in their eyes. Just as some risk violating religious doctrine in hopes of a forgiving g-d letting them off, many may break secular laws in the belief their sob story will gain them absolution. And so, by making punishment less certain, arbitrary government creates crimes and reduces the benefit of punishment while reducing the cost less. In other words, flexibility makes crime prevention more costly.

I am sure if I thought about it, religion would offer even more lessons we could carry over to the world of politic, but for the moment these two seem the most interesting. Especially as both relate in some way to certainty, consistency and honesty in politics, all topics with which I am fascinated. But, should another topic occur to me, I will be sure to add it to the list, so check back from time to time and see what else has come to mind.