Case Studies of Moral Legalism

Reasons why Law should NOT be legalistically assumed to delineate Morality.

Readership: Christian Men
Theme: The Protestant Reformation 2.0: Resetting Christian Masculinity
Length: 2,000 words
Reading Time: 10 minutes

Intro

This post follows on the heels of our latest discussion about Moral Legalism.

1. Bruce Charlton:  The intractable problem of moral legalism in Christian discourse (2026/7/2)
2. Bruce Charlton: Morality does not derive from Laws (2026/7/2)
3. Radix Fidem: Root of Legalism (2026/7/5)
4. Σ Frame: From Christ to Churchianity — Part 5: Moral Legalism as an Expression of Law (2026/7/6)
5. Σ Frame: From Christ to Churchianity — Part 6: The Law as an Expression of Morality (2026/7/8)
6. Bruce Charlton: The decline of the ideal of worship and obedient service (2026/7/8)
7. Christianity and Masculinity: Tying together more of an understanding of reason and morality with the extension of faith (2026/7/8)

Legislating Morality

One pertinent question that comes up in the Christian Manosphere every now and then is whether imposing restrictive laws / rules can actually improve the moral substance of a culture or a group.  From what I’ve gathered and read, the general answer is “No”, except that in some cases it is necessary, or else the group would disintegrate under the burdens of its own sins.  (As an example of this phenomenon, see Case Study 2 below.)  The reason for this has been described in the essays listed above — because laws proceed from moral discernment, but individual moral discipline does NOT typically proceed from laws, although they are intended to and hoped to have that effect.

A few case studies of Moral Legalism are offered below.  These examples are intended to aid our understanding of Moral Legalism by bridging the abstract ideas to more concrete instances, and to familiarize ourselves with the consequences and contextual nuances.

Case Study 1 — Marital R@pe (India)

Back in March of 2022, I covered a proposed law to criminalize “marital r@pe” in India.

Fortunately for Indian husbands — and all of Indian society — this law didn’t pass.

Here’s a thought experiment:

1. Without this law, is “marital r@pe” any more or less moral than it would be with this law in place?
2. IF this law had passed, would a husband “r@ping” his wife suddenly become less moral than it would have been before this law had been passed?
3. Or would it just be riskier to be a sexually virile husband in the eyes of the law and society (as was indicated by Indian men’s response to this proposed law)?

If you think about this, it is not the law against “marital r@pe” that makes “marital r@pe” immoral, but rather, it is wives refusing to have sexual relations with their husbands, and calling it “r@pe” if he stops tolerating her laziness about expressing her love to him in this way, and he overrules her will and takes what is already his by virtue of marriage.  In this case, it is clear that a law against “marital r@pe” leverages the immorality of withholding sex in marriage, within the frame of the (false) morality of “consent”.

Case Study 2 — Outlawing Divorce (Philippines)

Spanish colonization of the Philippines lasted for 377 years, from Ferdinand Magellan’s arrival in 1521 to the forfeiture of this territory to the U.S.A. at the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898.  (The U.S.A. immediately granted the Philippines independence.)  This era profoundly shaped the nation’s culture, political structure, and religious beliefs, fundamentally transforming it into the largest Catholic nation in Asia.

One vestige of the Spanish Renaissance Catholic culture that remains extant in Philippine law is the prohibition of divorce.  Being rather familiar with Philippine culture, I’ve formed a few opinions about this law, which follow.

If there weren’t a law against divorce, then the divorce rate in the Philippines would be extremely high, probably even much higher than in the liberal West.  I heard one person describe the situation like this: “There is no such thing as divorce in the Philippines, because if there were, then everyone would be divorced.”  IOW, outlawing divorce is the easiest way to eliminate it, in the books at least, and thus stabilize the culture.  I could easily believe that this law is perhaps the most important legal mooring that prevents the whole social fabric from reverting to the c0ck / dildo-worshipping, femcentric W!tchcraft barbarism that existed before the Conquistadores, and which still exists, albeit under the repression of Catholic values by law. (I’m not exaggerating about W!tchcraft. The Tagalog word for this is “tampo“, which is often whitewashed as merely a cultural difference or “the silent treatment”. You can search for this online for more info.)

Filipinos being what they are (at their base fleshly nature, W!tchy, C0ck-crazed, fertility / prosperity / sun-worshipping, control freaks), it is what it is.  I guess you’d have to be a part of this culture to understand why all this is so hard for them to forsake.

Even so, this law probably does more harm than good.  I say this because, on the grass roots level, the way things typically work out is like this.  Most couples begin having sex as teenagers, and then, due to cultural / familial forces, or pregnancy, they feel pressured to marry, and then naïvely do so.  Then, a too-young marriage, daily conflict (often involving domestic violence, physical and psychological abuse, severe, gut-pickling alcoholism, and W!tchcr@ft), financial destitution, guilt-fueled hypergamy, and the everyday burdens of nurturing and supporting a young family, all begin to take their toll.  Estrangement ensues, and sooner or later, one or both spouses will be desperately wishing for a de facto divorce.  But since a legal divorce is not an option by law, the marital conflict is preferentially resolved through a separation.  This is so common in the Philippines that it’s not even funny or shameful.

Whenever you might meet a Filipina woman working abroad, chances are very high that she was married as a teen and has had 2-3 children back in the Philippines, and she is now willfully separated from her husband and children by her own choice.  If so, they may never mention it, but all her talk and behaviors, including multiple sexual liaisons with heavily hung foreign men, will fit that of a divorced or widowed woman.  Single men seeking traditional marriage should beware of Filipina expats for this one possible reason alone.

Would it be better to allow such couples to divorce?  If thus, the man might find another, perhaps more suitable wife, and the woman would be free to indulge in her hypergamous lusts somewhere far away in a distant country, free from negatively influencing her children, and perhaps she might even find a Western Beta simping sucker who would be foolish enough to wife her up for the second time.  But no matter how their life scripts might play out, somewhere down the road of their ill-chosen lives, I believe some of them, God willing, might find the grace to realize their error, repent, and reform — IF they’re able to put the past behind them.

In essence, the frustration resulting from naïve, self-centered, youthful lusts constitutes the same soul question that motivated the Protestant Reformation; but for some reason, Philippine culture hasn’t evolved enough to allow that realization on a mass-scale just yet.  I guess it’s because they missed out on certain Progressive features of the Enlightenment that occurred in Europe.

Would you say this is a good thing, or else, a snafu in the development of a Progressive South-East Asian civilization?

Case Study 3 — Prostitution vs OASIS (Worldwide)

There are laws against Pr0$t!tut!0n in many countries. Still, I don’t know of any countries that have outlawed the Online Amateur Sex Industry and Socialization (OASIS, e.g. OnlyF@ns, Str!pCh@t, et al.), despite all its similarities to traditional Pr0$t!tut!0n.

Is Pr0$t!tut!0n or OASIS immoral because there are laws against it?  No.  There are laws against Pr0$t!tut!0n because it is immoral, despite the highly ironic facts that proponents cite in favor of it (e.g., it tends to reduce crime and improve marriages, anecdotally).  Meanwhile, the reason why are there no laws against OASIS, I suppose, is NOT because it is NOT immoral (because it is), even though it tends to dampen men’s interest in mating and marriage, and thus hurts society, but because it generates tax revenue, and it serves the Feminine Imperatives for attention and validation.

Case Study 4 — Birthright Immigration (U.S.A.)

On Jan, 20, 2025, immediately after he was sworn into office for his second term, Trump issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship.  The order indicated that babies born in the United States shall not be automatically entitled to citizenship if their parents are in this country either illegally or temporarily.  IOW, no more “baby anchors” for hopeful immigrants.

The Supreme Court narrowly rejected Trump’s order, resulting in a slew of cases in the lower courts.  Since then, the Supreme Court has softened its stance by allowing immigration officials to turn away asylum seekers at the border.

Much of the debate surrounding the birthright citizenship clause* focuses not only on history and precedent, but on the text itself, and in particular, on its requirement that, to qualify for birthright citizenship, a child be not only born in the United States but also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

* Addressing the question of former slaves’ birthright citizenship, this legislation was first introduced in the 14^th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868.

Some questions:

1. Exactly how much weight should former court decisions pertaining to slavery in the mid-19^th century be given to cases pertaining to illegal immigration in the early 21^st century?

• Citizens and justices clinging to Moral Legalism will say it has everything to do with it, and that there is little to no difference.
• But those who are concerned with domestic peace, national security, and the preservation of social order will look at the real facts at hand and the immediate consequences, rather than an antiquated juridical precedent that was set more than 150 years ago, and conclude that action must be taken to revise national policy.

2. And what, pray tell, do those words mean: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?  Does it mean that…

• A child of foreign illegal parentage born in the U.S. is automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and therefore must intrinsically be a citizen?

OR…

• A child of foreign illegal parentage born in the U.S. has no justifiable claim to birthright citizenship, and is therefore NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?

In sum,

• Are the children of illegal immigrants to be considered in-group / U.S. citizens, by virtue of their assumed innocence as being children?

OR…

• Are the children of illegal immigrants to be considered unwanted aliens, and the unfortunate victims of their parents’ self-centered machinations for U.S. citizenry?

In light of our current study of Moral Legalism, this is an odd case study, because, in this case, the law seems to preclude and thus proscribe the moral terms of engagement.

Case Study 5 — Legalization of Abortion (U.S.A.)

Following the ancient Spirit of Athalia, legalizing blood and fire* sacrifices to Molech for 49 years, between 1973 and 2022 (on the years of Jubilee, no less), didn’t make abortion moral. It just removed the legal framework necessary to hold women accountable for their perennial penchant for indulging in the ultimate form of child abuse and the collective negligence of their reproductive responsibility to society. It also removed about 60 million citizens from the U.S.A. — mur_dered in the womb!

* Medical waste, including aborted fetuses, is incinerated.

The Trouble of Enacting Grace within a System of Law

Whenever we squeeze morality into the mental box of Hellenistic / human reason, it must necessarily manifest as legalism.  Rationalized moral statements can be openly debated and discussed and can receive widespread acceptance (or rejection), but although they might become more rational by embracing legalism, they also step away from faith and grace in doing so, thereby losing at least some of their moral power and relevance.

But once laws are set in place, we encounter another problem.  If we try to remove the arguments from the logical framework in an attempt to make them more merciful, or morally valid, or relevant to context, then it also makes them ‘unreasonable’, so to say, or even ‘unjust’ from the standpoint of legalism; and thus creates opportunities for those who are less morally attuned to become confused about why a certain moral decision would be right or wrong.  In the worst-case scenario, this constitutes the makings of a schism, and perhaps a rebellion or even a revolution.

I hope that I could be wrong about this, but secular people who are not immediate recipients of the favors bestowed by (1) God’s grace and wisdom, or (2) a country’s laws, cannot be expected to accept mercy or asylum, respectively, as anything other than a lack of justice.

Related

• Σ Frame: Something they didn’t expect (2022/3/25)
• Σ Frame: In Search of Meaning (2025/8/6)
• Σ Frame: Modern Nihilism is the Vacuum of Meaning (2025/8/22)
• Σ Frame: Michael Polanyi on the Derivation of Meaning (2025/9/29)
• Σ Frame: Conflicts of Mythos and Meaning (2025/9/30)
• SCOTUS Blog: The key arguments in the birthright citizenship case (2026/3/27)