The next several essays will attempt to underscore the difference between religious morality and legal morality. In doing so, I fully understand that these next essays will probably bring about much contentious hand-wringing among my readers who will try to assert that their personal religious morals supercede social legal issues. So, before I dive into the topics themselves, it is important to lay some common sense ground rules regarding these issues.
First, it is important to understand that while many of our founders followed some tenet of Christian faith, they recognized the importance of maintaining a separation between religion and politics. By creating this separation between the Church and the Government, they were trying to ensure that certain religious tenets would not be the driving force behind the creation of legal codes. This common sense approach to religious tolerance in the midst of religious diversity showed a distinct maturity of thought. Their creation of the independent judiciary and their charge of it to ensure that the laws of the land were impartial to all, regardless of religion, was another stroke of genius on their part, and lucky for us. For in today’s religiously charged political and social atmosphere, such a foundation would not necessarily have been included.
Secondly, in order to fully appreciate the proposals that I am to set forth, it is absolutely necessary to recognize that our religious differences, while important to many, are not in themselves sufficient to create and enforce social norms or laws. In any government system that purports to recognize certain individual freedoms as innate and irrevocable, the freedom to worship a god of your choosing is just as important as the freedom to engage in certain behaviors that others may find reprehensible, so long as those behaviors do not present a danger to society.
And thirdly, since each of the worlds major religions profess to be the only true and accurate religion for humanity, it is wholly impossible for all of them, or perhaps any of them, to be one hundred per cent correct. Simply asserting that one’s own god is the true and only god does not make it empirically so, nor are the religious texts that accompany each religion and provide that religion with the rules of god able to be empirically attributed as having come from the mouth and mind of god itself. The mere fact that religious texts are filtered through the mouths and minds of men ensures that some distortions will be present and some prejudices included.
Morality then, in both a religious and legal form, is a kind of double-edged sword. As members of society, we can agree on the morality of certain acts and create laws to prohibit them. Such acts like murder, theft, and rape are moral issues that transcend most religious beliefs and can therefore safely be legislated. The Christian religion, or for that matter the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religion, does not have any sovereign claim to these kinds of moral issues, as they are readily accepted by most of humanity as being wrongful acts that need to be outlawed. But other beliefs and actions are not universally held, and therefore can’t be legislated without trampling the freedoms of others, despite the perceived religious prohibitions against them.
In accepting these facts, we can only conclude then, that any laws that reflect moral judgments other than the ones overwhelmingly accepted by a near universal majority should not be included into our legal codes. So, in creating a society that respects individual choice and freedom of expression, it is imperative that we agree to remove certain behaviors beyond the reach of legal justice and instead agree to disagree on their eternal consequences, if any exist at all.
Before I go on much further, let me make clear that I am not decrying the role of religion in our world, nor am I implying that our laws have no basis in religious history. To do either of those things would assure you that you should read no more of what I have to say because I would clearly be a fool. Religion, of some kind, is one of the few, near universal conditions of mankind. To deny its role in the daily lives of people is ridiculous. Many hundreds of millions seek and receive some kind of guidance and comfort through the practice of their religious beliefs. But these beliefs should continue where government ends, providing answers to eternal questions and providing spiritual relief when there is little in the physical world. In fact, it is these very aspects of religion that make it such a varied and complex system. And that complexity assures that society will never see eye to eye on certain behaviors. But rather than criminalize these behaviors, we should work together to minimize those behaviors that offer the greatest possibility of individual harm; rather than legislate with religion, we should educate with facts.
As such, it is time to take religious based morality out of the political equation. Our country is not a theocracy, nor was it intended to be one. We have enough to agree on, and enough to improve upon, that to waste our time on bitter debates about personal behavioral matters serves no purpose other than to allow ourselves to be divided unnecessarily and to keep the politicians wheeling and dealing out of sight. But agreeing to take these issues off the table, so to speak, is not to abandon your own personally held beliefs. I think that everyone should be encouraged to believe in their religion, to practice their religion, and to teach their religion to their children and others who are interested. But this does not mean that your religion should become governmental rule. We have to accept the fact that everyone doesn’t believe in all the same things, and that it is these differences that should be most respected, so that your beliefs are respected in kind.
With those thoughts in mind, my next several essays will examine the impropriety of the current illegality of drug possession and use, prostitution and consensual adult sexual behavior, gambling, suicide and euthanasia, homosexuality, and abortion. I will explain why our government has no need to insert itself into these types of behavior, except where they infringe upon the safety or financial security of society in general. Further, I will show how the current imposition of laws in these areas needlessly expend tax resources that could be better spent to promote general social welfare or reduce the public tax burden.
In so doing, I am in no way attempting to altar your own personally held religious views on these issues. Rather, I am asserting that your religious views, even if shared by thousands of similarly minded people, can not be forced upon the public simply because your holy texts say they should be. To do so would be a total contradiction to the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution and conveyed upon all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. This doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be guidelines for public behavior, and some consequences for individuals who allow their personal peccadilloes to become public hazards. We should have some rules regarding proper conduct in public. But if we really want to move forward and repair the rift in our country we must remember these rules first: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you; and, live and let live. Meaning, if we can’t overwhelmingly agree on whether a moral should be law or should remain in the religious realm, we shouldn’t be too quick to force our religious beliefs on the rest of society.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 7th, 2005 at 6:49 am and is filed under Common Sense, Crime, Democracy, Government, Justice, Life, Politics, Religion, Social Programs.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 8th, 2005 at 2:14 am
Nice post.. A few things.. Our founding fathers were deists (www.deism.com) who believed in a creator who empowered us with reason,not religion. They didn’t believe in revealed religions,basically any religion that was handed down with a pamphlet(bible). That’s basically why they didn’t believe that religion and morality should be legislated. Our creator gave us reason,to think things out such as we should respect others,not hurt others,etc. That’s just common sense dictated by our creator,not an edict from Her(Him). I enjoyed reading what you had to write…
February 8th, 2005 at 4:09 am
It’s surprising that there haven’t been lots of rightwing nutcases flaming you…probably did not read the whole post. 😉
February 8th, 2005 at 6:00 am
(respons to Spyder and Sally)
Spyder,
Thanks for the link to Deism.com. I have added it to my blogroll for others to explore. It seems clear to me that the concepts of organised religions, with all of their rituals and myths, are the basis for much of the discord between humans of the earth. Unfortunately, their prominence and proliferation grew unchallenged by the masses who originally were too busy trying to survive their violent times and who were easily controlled by those who held the reins of power. Obviously, centuries of compounded religious indoctrination is difficult, if not impossible, to repeal. The best that can be hoped for is that poeple will agree to disagree in their religious beliefs without needing to continuously convert those who think differently from themselves. My goal is to reveal the folly of those who would also subject our societies to their own religious thoughts through legislation, something that can only continue to lead us down the path of ruin and constant subjugation.
Sally-
I too fully expect to begin to get pummelled by zealots from all sides. Rather than bow to their suppositions though, I will continue to demonstrate that religious thought, while fine for individual comfort and guidance, has no place in public policy or practice.
Thanks to you both for dropping by.
February 8th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
I am in complete agreement with you about religion having no place in policy. I believe seperation of church and state means that…why people have made this an issue again does not surprise me, it scares me!
February 8th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
“…I am in no way attempting to altar your own personally held religious views…” Hee hee! Freudian slip, there? I think you meant to say, “alter”.
Very well thought out post in preparation to your upcoming essays. As a Christian, I certainly have certain views as to how God would prefer we behave. However, I also noticed that, while He told Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, the Tree was, nonetheless, standing right there in the garden (it wasn’t removed so as to “protect” the inhabitants), and the choice to partake or refrain was up to them. God gave us free will. While I believe there is a righteous path we should follow, He does not force Himself or His ways upon us. To make all laws conform to any particular set of religous beliefs would be the secular equivalent of God forcing us to accept Him. In a nutshell? I think God just might be a Libertarian!
February 9th, 2005 at 3:41 am
Great intro! I’m in sync with you 100%.
In my December post titled: “Behind the Attack on Christianity: A Theory” at (http://whymrhymer101.blogspot.com/2004/12/behind-attack-on-christianity-theory.html) I said many of the same things.
I’ll be anxiously awaiting you follow-up posts.
I have you bookmarked on my “Kinja” account (http://kinja.com/).
February 9th, 2005 at 7:05 am
Very thoughtful post. Cornel West has some great things to say about the powerful mixing of religous zeal with all things political. His book is pretty darn good – I recommend it to others – title Democracy Matters.
I sliced a quote that pertains to the discussion herein. It can be read at my blog under the header: On Christians, the capital C kind.
Found at: http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/02/on-christians-capital-c-kind.html
Enjoyed your writing in the past as well, just never commented, I think.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
Well… I happen to be one of those right wing religious nuts. But I also believe strongly in Freewill, so I find myself in agreement with most of what you’ve posted here.
My only question though: How do we prevent “God” as a legal concept, and the originator of our “God given rights”, from being removed form our public lives?
I’m not saying that we need to acknowledge a particular God, of a certain religious persuasion. But I think that we need to keep the notion of “God” in our government. If only for the sake of reminding our elected officials that they are not our lords and masters, but our servants. And that they do NOT grant us the rights of citizenship that come from “God”.
On a side note, however: I’m still not convinced that the so-called “separation of church and state” was meant to keep religion out of government affairs as much as keeping policy from trampling on tenets of faith.
Anyone is allowed to run for office, and therefore allowed to have some influence on the policies which are created. If the “separation…” were meant to keep faith out of politics then eventually faith could become defenseless to secular rule. Which is also an unacceptable option in this discussion.
February 11th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
(response to M+)
Please note that I do not equate personal religious veiwpoints as being synonomous with “right-wing nuts.” I firmly believe that everyone has the right to believe what and in whom the choose.
The concept of “God” really has nothing to do with legal concepts in the most empirical terms. “God” refers to an omniscient creator, while “legal codes” refer to man’s attempts to coexist peacefully with each other.
As such, God/religion and man’s laws can coexist without encroaching upon each other. How? The answer lies in ensuring that legal codes are non-denominational, non-preferential, and evenly applied regardless of spiritual dogma. So, while individuals, including elected politicians have every right to worship in their own ways and to share/teach their beliefs with their children, they must also teach that other viewpoints may not be the same, but deserve as much reflection and respect as those they hold themselves.
Civility depends upon the ability to agree to disagree without resorting to violence or defamation.
“God” may grant citizenship into humanity, but man’s laws are what apply to national citizenships and the cohesion of different cultures within geographical/political spheres.
Faith in secular politics is what allows individuals to remain true to their own values without stepping on those of others. We elect leaders to ensure that the public trust is protected from narrowly focused religious doctrines. We choose religion to provide peace of mind to ourselves and to provide answers to questions that we may never be able to answer in our physical lives.
Secular rule has at it’s core the task of ensuring that no law tramples religious beliefs nor promotes one over another.
Your religious values have merit…to you and others who share them. But they can’t be imposed on everyone else simply because you believe in their infinite truth.
Thanks for sharing your views. I hope you’ll come back again.
February 14th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Ken,
I understand what you’re saying, but I believe our particular form of government has been established in such a way as to promote the concept of God in the same way that corporations are “legal entities”. His existence in our laws are not to enforce a particular doctrine, which I am in agreement with you on, but to enforce the idea that our rights are decendant from Him (who/whatever He may be).
However, as our society moves further away from this idea, we find secular rule attempting to assert itself into my matters of faith. Especially, those matters which become public expressions.
If the government is supposed to protect my right to practice my faith it has to be willing to allow my faith to have some influence in the workings of government and public life. Likewise, if I’m supposed to trust government not to trample my faith under secular rule, it should also be willing to trust me not to inflict strict moral codes upon those who have a different life-view. And I think you and I agrre that there must be some compromise on this. Finding it seems to be the tough part.
I know that you probably don’t consider me a “right-wing nut”, that was another commentors quote. I just thought I’d play with it a little bit. I recognize that I’m a bit more moderate in my views because of my convictions regardng Freewill. But also do not allow my emotions to rule my faith. I’m a huge fan of C.S. Lewis, and He always took a logical approach to faith. So do I.
Keep writing, I’ll keep reading. It makes me think through what is on the table. We don’t have to agree as long as we can disagree with some civility.
February 15th, 2005 at 5:36 am
(response to M+)
Whether our rights are descended from him or bestowed upon ourselves through enlightened thought is a circuitious argument.
But if secular rule is asserting itself into religious faith, perhaps this is the backlash of thousands of years of the reverse being true. That does not make it any more palatable for either side, but at least could be an explanation. Non-religious, and in this country, non-Christians, have been particularly overmatched both in political machinations and in social policy for quite some time, and this is perhaps the result of having these ideas shut away too long. Therefore, the result of overzealous public policy grounded in any religious doctrine only becomes self-defeating. As it increases to supress that to which it objects, the oppressed points of view take shape in other less direct and arguably more corruptible manners.
Thanks for a lively discussion.