Funny, I figured Christians would be more hated. Particularly given that I hear constant complaints about hypocritical "Christians"(Most "Christians" in America honestly don't care about the Bible, and those who do are sadly the minority).
On the actual topical subject: Some "primitive" hunter-gatherer cultures may have absolutely no law whatsoever(or have a few very simple rules) because they've never needed one. In such small, often nomadic cultures sticking together and surviving is often the preferable option to any "immoral deed" that might compromise long-term survival. I may be completely wrong in this assertion, or I may not.
Now, as for whether or not law is neccessary... The more indepentant people become, the greater need there is for control(law). The reason such afformentioned "lawless" cultures can thrive is because, since they are mutually dependant on eachother for suvival, they need to put the well being of the group/community before their own. When someone is not dependant on others for survival, it is harder to keep them from doing what has been established as 'culturally unacceptable' and so boundries(laws) need to be set, and people who are willing and capable need to take charge and enforce these laws to keep these independant people in line. Again, I may be totally inacurate in this assertion, but I think the core point remains true: The more independant the individual, the more there needs to be law to keep them in line. As for the morality of law? Morality itself is an entirely different ballgame, as this is defined purely by individual ideals, but law is neccessity, albeit neccessity that is often clouded and distorted by the very human nature that the law is required to discipline.