Surprising Parallels Between Western Legal Systems and Religious Dogma
Western legal systems are are often perceived as bastions of logic, divorced from the subjective realms of belief and faith that characterise religion.
However, a closer examination reveals a startling parallel: these purportedly secular institutions are, in many respects, often strikingly similar to the religious structures they claim to supersede.
From the sanctity of their foundational texts and reverence for their rituals, to the unquestioned authority vested in their interpreters, Western legal systems in fact, echo many aspects of religious institutions.
The reluctance to recognise these parallels, or the insistence on the purely rational nature of law, in fact obscures a critical aspect of how legal systems function and exert their influence.
Religious vs Legal Dogma
At their core, both religious and legal structures are built on a foundation of dogma — a set of authoritative principles considered to be absolutely true by their followers.
Religious dogma constitutes the core beliefs of faith systems, providing a moral compass to its adherents. These beliefs, derived from texts deemed sacred, are often regarded as absolute and immutable truths.
The rigidity of such dogma can then oftentimes lead to a lack of adaptability, making it challenging to reconcile these beliefs with evolving societal norms and understandings.
This immutability is frequently criticised in the modern era, especially when it leads to social stagnation or conflict.
Contrary to popular belief, legal dogma within Western legal systems can also exhibit a similar rigidity. While these systems profess to be based on principles that evolve with society, the reality in fact often sharply contrasts this ideal.
Legal principles, enshrined in constitutions and precedent, can become so entrenched that they are revered almost as sacrosanct as religious doctrines.
The veneration of the U.S. Constitution, for example, often resembles a form of secular scripture, where its original interpretations can overshadow contemporary understandings and needs.
The supposed adaptability and rationality of legal systems are also frequently undermined by their own inherent conservativism.
Changes to legal dogma, rather than being a fluid process reflecting societal progress, often become mired in contentious debates, not unlike theological disputations.
The inflexibility in legal interpretations and the reluctance to depart from established precedents can bear an uncanny resemblance to religious orthodoxy.
This rigidity is then further compounded by perceptions of judicial infallibility, with judges and legal scholars, much like religious leaders, often viewed as the definitive interpreters of these dogmas.
This lends them an aura of authority that can oftentimes veer into unquestionable territory, allowing personal biases and preconceptions to shape legal interpretations, much as they do in religious contexts.
Our failure to critically recognise and acknowledge these parallels between religious and legal dogmas has profound real-world implications.
By idealising legal systems as bastions of rational evolution, there is a tendency to overlook or underestimate their dogmatic rigidity.
This oversight perpetuates a system where legal judgments can become as unyielding and out of touch with contemporary realities as the religious dogmas they are often contrasted with.
It masks the biases and injustices that seep into legal decisions under the guise of rationality and objectivity.
Authority and Power — Clergy and Judges in Parallel Thrones
In both religious and legal systems, the interpreters of dogma wield significant power and authority.
In religious contexts, clerics, priests, rabbis, imams, and other religious leaders hold the keys to interpreting sacred texts.
Their interpretations can shape the beliefs and practices of millions, influencing everything from personal life choices to broader social and political issues.
This authority, while often providing guidance and stability to followers, can also become a channel for perpetuating traditional views that may clash with contemporary understandings of morality and justice.
In extreme cases, it can lead to dogmatic fundamentalism, where any deviation from established interpretation is seen as heresy.
Similarly, in the legal world, judges and legal experts play a pivotal role in interpreting laws and precedents, with their decisions setting far-reaching legal standards that affect the lives and rights of countless people.
And as noted, this authority is far from immune to the pitfalls of human bias and subjectivity — judges, like religious leaders, bring their own perspectives and prejudices to their interpretations.
The belief in the objectivity and neutrality of legal interpretation often masks these subjective influences though, leading to decisions that can be as influenced by personal belief systems as any religious edict.
The reverence for judicial authority in legal systems also very often mirrors the deference given to religious leaders.
In both cases, there is often an implicit assumption that these authorities are above the biases that affect ordinary people.
This unchecked reverence leads to a lack of critical scrutiny, allowing for the perpetuation of outdated, unjust, or discriminatory practices.
In the legal context, this can manifest in various ways, including an over-reliance on precedent, reluctance to embrace progressive interpretations of the law, or unequal application of justice.
In both religious and legal systems, authority figures are also often insulated from challenge or critique, which not only hampers progress but also entrenches systemic injustices.
It creates environments where the authority’s interpretations or decisions are seen as the final word, much like a religious decree, rather than as one perspective in a broader dialogue.
Rituals, Tradition, and Ceremony
In religious contexts, rituals play a critical role. From weekly services to rites of passage like baptisms, marriages, and funerals, rituals serve to reinforce a community’s adherence to the faith’s dogma.
They are a tangible expression of the sacred — a way to experience and reaffirm faith collectively.
However, these rituals can also be viewed as instruments for maintaining the status quo.
By embedding certain dogmas within the very fabric of communal and personal life, they can make questioning or challenging these beliefs not just a matter of intellectual dissent but a perceived threat to the community’s identity and cohesion.
In the legal realm, rituals — from courtroom procedures to the swearing-in of officials — play a similar role.
They confer a sense of gravity and solemnity to the legal process, emphasising the majesty and authority of the law.
These rituals, steeped in tradition, are meant to symbolise fairness, order, and justice.
Yet, just as in religious practices, these legal rituals can become ends in themselves, often obscuring the need for reform and adaptation.
The veneration of traditional procedures can overshadow the pursuit of justice, particularly when these procedures become so complex or archaic that they hinder access to justice rather than facilitate it.
The spectacle of the courtroom, much like the spectacle of religious ceremony, can, in my experience, often serve more to intimidate and exclude than to enlighten and include.
Both religious and legal rituals also play a critical role in perpetuating existing power structures.
By adhering to established practices, these systems often inherently resist changes that might destabilise the existing order.
This resistance is not always overt, but rather is embedded in the rituals that define them.
In law, this manifests in the reverence for precedent, the complex language of legal discourse, and the rituals of court proceedings, all of which can perpetuate a system that privileges the informed and the already powerful.
Bias, Prejudice, and Human Imperfection
Religious dogma, for all its divine aspirations, is ultimately interpreted and disseminated by humans.
As noted, these interpreters come with their own sets of biases, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences, which inevitably colour their interpretation of religious texts and doctrines.
This subjectivity can lead to widely varying, and sometimes conflicting, interpretations of the same religious principles.
More troublingly, it can also lead to the perpetuation of prejudices, such as sexism, racism, or homophobia, under the mantle of religious authority.
The legal system, often perceived as a bastion of rationality and objectivity, is not immune to these same human failings.
Judges and legal practitioners too, bring their own biases to the interpretation of laws and precedents.
These biases can be subtle and unconscious or overt and deliberate, influencing everything from the interpretation of laws to the sentencing of defendants.
The myth of complete judicial impartiality obscures this reality though, often leading to a failure to critically assess and address such biases within the legal framework.
The consequences of such unchecked bias in both systems are profound though.
In religious contexts, it can lead to exclusionary practices and the marginalisation of certain groups.
In the legal realm, it can result in unequal application of the law, where similar cases lead to vastly different outcomes based on the backgrounds of the people involved or the personal beliefs of the adjudicators.
It should be self evident that legal systems are susceptible to the whims and prejudices of their human interpreters, yet in practice, my personal experience is that people rarely consider the implications of legal rulings not being the objective bastions they’re purported to be — i.e. universally applicable and beyond reproach.
A more nuanced understanding of how human biases can shape, and oftentimes distort, the application and interpretation of legal dogma is very much needed.
Social Control and Moral Conviction
Where religious institutions have historically wielded significant influence over societal norms and values, using moral authority derived from their doctrines, we rarely discuss the extent to which our legal systems do similar.
This influence often extends beyond personal belief and practice, impacting laws, educational systems, and social policies.
While this can have positive effects, including promoting ethical behavior and community cohesion, it can also lead to the enforcement of rigid, sometimes oppressive, moral codes.
The imposition of a singular moral viewpoint can marginalise those who do not conform to these standards, stifling diversity and personal freedoms.
Legal systems are said to reflect the moral judgments of a society, defining what is deemed acceptable or unacceptable behavior.
This moral underpinning can become problematic when legal systems enforce a narrow or biased set of moral values though.
Issues arise, for example, when laws disproportionately target certain groups, fail to protect vulnerable populations, or are applied unevenly, thus perpetuating injustices and social inequalities.
Both religious and legal systems, in their roles as moral and social arbiters, possess considerable authority and power, and when such power is left unchecked or when systems become overly dogmatic, such power can be misused.
In religious contexts, this might manifest as fundamentalism or extremism.
In legal contexts, it can lead to authoritarianism or judicial overreach, where legal power is used to suppress dissent, curb freedoms, or enforce a particular moral or political agenda.
The challenge lies in ensuring that these systems do not become tools for power consolidation or oppression, but rather remain true to their foundational aims of promoting justice, equity, and the common good.
Despite the strides of our rapidly modernising world, it is my experience that Western legal systems appear entrenched in a state of inertia however — struggling to evolve as our other institutions do.
They are mired in dogmatic approaches and anchored to archaic traditions, which, in my view, significantly impede their capacity to embody the ideals of justice and fairness they claim to uphold.
This stagnation is further exacerbated by the concerning lack of checks and balances on judicial power and a troubling deficit in accountability for judges.
Such structural flaws, I have observed, often lead to the very people who most need the justice system’s protection being further marginalised and victimised by it.
The vulnerable and disadvantaged, rather than finding refuge and redress in the legal apparatus, are all too frequently ensnared and harmed by its shortcomings.
I quit my legal career in 2016 and cannot see myself ever returning to it, because despite our rapidly modernising world, the dogmatic approaches of our legal systems, bound by archaic traditions, and the unchecked power / lack of accountability for judges, undermines the very ideals they purport to be about.
