What is the purpose of establishing rules you don't enforce?

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes it does. Rules are created for a reason, and resources are limited. Before I can say whether or not resources should be allocated to enforcing a rule in X, Y, or Z circumstance, I need to know what the rule is and why the rule was made.

You have made great points, Sketcher. Few, if any, enforcers are read into the understanding of why a rule was made, whether we are talking about police or houseparents in a big community of kids. Certainly, supervisors of those enforcers--in either case--get to dictate how they use their resources and which rules should be enforced and which shouldn't be enforced. I guess my struggle still remains though.

To me, it is one thing to tell the general population that every rule will be enforced. It is another to tell those responsible for enforcing that while we have that rule in place we don't really want to enforce it. But, it is still another thing to tell the enforcers you want it enforced, but have some enforcers choose on their own to not enforce it, and not do anything about it. And, it is that latter statement that I have difficulty understanding the value of. If I tell you I want something done and you don't do it, how can I count on you doing anything I ask you to do? And, once you are choosing to do what you want and not choosing to do what you don't want, you aren't really under my authority anymore, are you?
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are Jaywalking laws that are used only when the situation merits it.
In other (less traffic) situations people move more freely across the street.
The community functions better becasue all laws are not applied needlessly.

I agree with you, skywriting. But, if you were creating the laws and responsible for the enforcement of the very laws you made, would you want the ones you pay to enforce the laws to decide on their own when those laws should be applied--without guidance to do so from you?

So, doesn't it look chaotic, if there are two enforcers walking the same beat every other day. One day, a guy jaywalks, and the first cop lets him, because that one decides it isn't worth his time and energy to enforce that law. The second day, the same guy jaywalks and the exact same circumstances are in place. Except this time, the second cop is on duty, and because he accepts that he was hired to enforce the laws and jaywalking is a law, the second cop cites that jaywalker.

What did the jaywalker just learn? Did he learn that jaywalking is against the law or did he learn that one cop is a "nice cop" who lets him be who he is and do what he wants to do and the other cop is a "mean cop" who just wants to write people up? When in reality the one cop just wasn't doing what he was paid to do, and the other cop was--given neither of them were told which laws not to enforce.
 
Upvote 0

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The rules are to establish order. If you can say "Feed the poor" and it doesn't disrupt the system, then, on occasion, give away the company food to the poor. But it might disrupt the system if done every day, and you might have to create a "legal" channel for feeding the poor.

Again, though, if I am not the party who gets to unilaterally decide when to give food away and when not to, do I have a right to unilaterally decide that I am just going to give the company food away--whenever and as often as I want?
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My belief is that a community only functions to the extent that people conform to the general expectations of the community.

So, what is the value of establishing rules, if you don't enforce the rules when they are violated?

I work in a professing Christian facility that I see rules established but not enforced all the time. So, I am wondering, am I simply wrong and rules are only set up, for the gullible ones of us who believe we are to follow rules, with the expectation by rule-makers that most of us will conform and therefore the overall community will function the way they want anyway?

Maybe establishing rules you don't enforce could be a deterrent? How does a rule violator know you won't always enforce them? Maybe even though they aren't always enforced in the past, they could be at some point in the future? In this case, an established rule would still serve as a deterrent since any potential violator would be exposed to potential risk of an authority deciding to suddenly enforce the rules.
 
Upvote 0

Reconciliation and Truth

Active Member
Nov 4, 2018
174
81
43
Midwest
✟19,546.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My belief is that a community only functions to the extent that people conform to the general expectations of the community.

So, what is the value of establishing rules, if you don't enforce the rules when they are violated?

I work in a professing Christian facility that I see rules established but not enforced all the time. So, I am wondering, am I simply wrong and rules are only set up, for the gullible ones of us who believe we are to follow rules, with the expectation by rule-makers that most of us will conform and therefore the overall community will function the way they want anyway?

Donald Trump is the US President.

He bragged about sexually assaulting women and looked at nude under-aged girls.

Christians elected him.

Rules do not apply.
 
Upvote 0

mama2one

Well-Known Member
Apr 8, 2018
9,161
10,089
U.S.A.
✟257,683.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I guess I don't see how one avoids claims that they are "playing favorites" or prejudice in their enforcement, if they don't enforce them across the board.

some workplaces do "play favorites"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,525
✟320,716.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
My belief is that a community only functions to the extent that people conform to the general expectations of the community.

So, what is the value of establishing rules, if you don't enforce the rules when they are violated?

I work in a professing Christian facility that I see rules established but not enforced all the time. So, I am wondering, am I simply wrong and rules are only set up, for the gullible ones of us who believe we are to follow rules, with the expectation by rule-makers that most of us will conform and therefore the overall community will function the way they want anyway?
The main problem is that most of us don't want to be the enforcer of the rules. So we hope all will follow willfully, wanting to do the right thing.
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The main problem is that most of us don't want to be the enforcer of the rules. So we hope all will follow willfully, wanting to do the right thing.
Not everyone sees right in the rules so does it then become a matter of conscience?
 
Upvote 0

JCFantasy23

In a Kingdom by the Sea.
Jul 1, 2008
46,723
6,385
Lakeland, FL
✟502,097.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It can also just be a case that people tend to be "get an inch, take a mile" mentality. So if people are getting away with breaking small rules, they'll continue to do so, but it's not worth the possible confrontation and aggravation for the management to address it as long as it stays a 'small problem'. Little stuff/laws/rules being broken happens all the time mainly because of this. People know better but they don't always act on the honor system with the rules, but it's awkward for others to bring it up.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,525
✟320,716.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Not everyone sees right in the rules so does it then become a matter of conscience?
Good point. Yes, absolutely. I took the OP as referring to mundane stuff, general rules at the workplace or social groups, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: ~Zao~
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
My belief is that a community only functions to the extent that people conform to the general expectations of the community.

So, what is the value of establishing rules, if you don't enforce the rules when they are violated?

I work in a professing Christian facility that I see rules established but not enforced all the time. So, I am wondering, am I simply wrong and rules are only set up, for the gullible ones of us who believe we are to follow rules, with the expectation by rule-makers that most of us will conform and therefore the overall community will function the way they want anyway?
What rules... Who made the rules.... who is not enforcing them....?
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Donald Trump is the US President.

He bragged about sexually assaulting women and looked at nude under-aged girls.

Christians elected him.

Rules do not apply.
I live in Canada and we have been inundated with the politics of the US for decades....
So, I get a different prospective than the people who live there.

As far as Trump winning and Christians electing him.... totally logical.

Unless of course you are a Satanic, abortion loving christian that wants God totally removed from your country....

Then.... you could have voted for Hillary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWiseGuy
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Good point. Yes, absolutely. I took the OP as referring to mundane stuff, general rules at the workplace or social groups, etc
Yet general rules at the workplace or social groups are the epitome of our social contacts where Christian beliefs are exhibited or not.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have made great points, Sketcher. Few, if any, enforcers are read into the understanding of why a rule was made, whether we are talking about police or houseparents in a big community of kids. Certainly, supervisors of those enforcers--in either case--get to dictate how they use their resources and which rules should be enforced and which shouldn't be enforced. I guess my struggle still remains though.

To me, it is one thing to tell the general population that every rule will be enforced. It is another to tell those responsible for enforcing that while we have that rule in place we don't really want to enforce it. But, it is still another thing to tell the enforcers you want it enforced, but have some enforcers choose on their own to not enforce it, and not do anything about it. And, it is that latter statement that I have difficulty understanding the value of. If I tell you I want something done and you don't do it, how can I count on you doing anything I ask you to do? And, once you are choosing to do what you want and not choosing to do what you don't want, you aren't really under my authority anymore, are you?

So there is a stretch of highway with a 45mph speed limit and a relatively heavy, but smooth flow of traffic on a Monday morning as people are heading for work.

Police officers have set up a speed trap and note that the stream of cars are all moving at a constant 47 mph.

Now, they could begin flagging down all the cars, stopping every one and pulling it to the side.

Or they could choose to stop the one or two vehicles that are going 60mph, weaving in and out of the other traffic.

A different scenario:

One military rule is that soldiers in combat are prohibited from making military use of a hospital, school, or religious structure (such as using the muezzin minnert of a mosque as a lookout position).

A second military rule is that his haircut must always be within regulation limits.

Now for the second rule, an infraction would likely involve nothing more than a supervisory mention: "Soldier, your hair is getting long."

Unless that soldier is on the Presidential Honor Guard, in which case the second rule would likely draw a Letter of Admonition--because getting weekly haircuts is an expectation of the position. Unwritten, but expected nevertheless so that "hair getting too long" never, ever happens.

So an infraction of a rule in one situation draws nothing more but a verbal notice, while in another situation, an infraction of the same rule draws "bad ink." But the soldiers are all well aware of the difference, and fully understand why there is a difference.

OTOH, if a soldier was found to have made military use of a mosque, he will certainly be brought before the commander, who will probably hand him over to a judge for court-martial...the very first time. There won't be any warning, there won't be any second chances.

But they are both rules.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So there is a stretch of highway with a 45mph speed limit and a relatively heavy, but smooth flow of traffic on a Monday morning as people are heading for work.

Police officers have set up a speed trap and note that the stream of cars are all moving at a constant 47 mph.

Now, they could begin flagging down all the cars, stopping every one and pulling it to the side.

Or they could choose to stop the one or two vehicles that are going 60mph, weaving in and out of the other traffic.

A different scenario:

One military rule is that soldiers in combat are prohibited from making military use of a hospital, school, or religious structure (such as using the muezzin minnert of a mosque as a lookout position).

A second military rule is that his haircut must always be within regulation limits.

Now for the second and third rules, an infraction would likely involve nothing more than a supervisory mention: "Soldier, check your button" or "Soldier, your hair is getting long."

Unless that soldier is on the Presidential Honor Guard, in which case the third rule would likely draw a Letter of Admonition--because getting weekly haircuts is an expectation of the position. Unwritten, but expected nevertheless so that "hair getting too long" never, ever happens.

So an infraction of a rule in one situation draws nothing more but a verbal notice, while an infraction of the same rule draws "bad ink." But the soldiers are all well aware of the difference, and fully understand why there is a difference.

OTOH, if a soldier was found to have made a Starbucks stop with a briefcase of classified material in his hand, he will certainly be brought before the commander, who will probably hand him over to a judge for court-martial...the very first time. There won't be any warning, there won't be any second chances.

But they are both rules.
OtOh there are those of the old nature to whom the speed limits of the world do apply but a new nature soars above and does not follow the ruts of old ways. They are conforming to His leadings that are as easy to follow as the wind. So definitely different ways of seeing what rules apply. Christlikeness being the goal.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I agree with you, skywriting. But, if you were creating the laws and responsible for the enforcement of the very laws you made, would you want the ones you pay to enforce the laws to decide on their own when those laws should be applied--without guidance to do so from you?

So, doesn't it look chaotic, if there are two enforcers walking the same beat every other day. One day, a guy jaywalks, and the first cop lets him, because that one decides it isn't worth his time and energy to enforce that law. The second day, the same guy jaywalks and the exact same circumstances are in place. Except this time, the second cop is on duty, and because he accepts that he was hired to enforce the laws and jaywalking is a law, the second cop cites that jaywalker.

What did the jaywalker just learn? Did he learn that jaywalking is against the law or did he learn that one cop is a "nice cop" who lets him be who he is and do what he wants to do and the other cop is a "mean cop" who just wants to write people up? When in reality the one cop just wasn't doing what he was paid to do, and the other cop was--given neither of them were told which laws not to enforce.

The jaywalker probably learned that sometimes you'll get cited.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
OtOh there are those of the old nature to whom the speed limits of the world do apply but a new nature soars above and does not follow the ruts of old ways. They are conforming to His leadings that are as easy to follow as the wind. So definitely different ways of seeing what rules apply. Christlikeness being the goal.

True. Christians should actually break the speed limit if heavy traffic flow on the highway would be impeded by driving the speed limit. You can actually be ticketed for doing this even while obeying the posted speed limit.
 
Upvote 0

Reconciliation and Truth

Active Member
Nov 4, 2018
174
81
43
Midwest
✟19,546.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As far as Trump winning and Christians electing him.... totally logical.

Unless of course you are a Satanic, abortion loving christian that wants God totally removed from your country....

Then.... you could have voted for Hillary.

Abortion is still legal here, as it has been for decades. Trump is not for outlawing it.

So your 'logic' fails.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Johnny4ChristJesus

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 27, 2017
1,639
831
58
Falcon
✟164,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So there is a stretch of highway with a 45mph speed limit and a relatively heavy, but smooth flow of traffic on a Monday morning as people are heading for work.

Police officers have set up a speed trap and note that the stream of cars are all moving at a constant 47 mph.

Now, they could begin flagging down all the cars, stopping every one and pulling it to the side.

Or they could choose to stop the one or two vehicles that are going 60mph, weaving in and out of the other traffic.

A different scenario:

One military rule is that soldiers in combat are prohibited from making military use of a hospital, school, or religious structure (such as using the muezzin minnert of a mosque as a lookout position).

A second military rule is that his haircut must always be within regulation limits.

Now for the second rule, an infraction would likely involve nothing more than a supervisory mention: "Soldier, your hair is getting long."

Unless that soldier is on the Presidential Honor Guard, in which case the second rule would likely draw a Letter of Admonition--because getting weekly haircuts is an expectation of the position. Unwritten, but expected nevertheless so that "hair getting too long" never, ever happens.

So an infraction of a rule in one situation draws nothing more but a verbal notice, while in another situation, an infraction of the same rule draws "bad ink." But the soldiers are all well aware of the difference, and fully understand why there is a difference.

OTOH, if a soldier was found to have made military use of a mosque, he will certainly be brought before the commander, who will probably hand him over to a judge for court-martial...the very first time. There won't be any warning, there won't be any second chances.

But they are both rules.

I think what you said is very important. There are clear expectations and clear differences in enforcement for different groups within the same military--except some clear "nobody ever violates this" things
 
Upvote 0