A recent Op-Ed in the Sun Journal argued that laws should not be based upon religious convictions and tenets.

Appearing in the May 23 newspaper, guest columnist Douglas Amy wrote about the debate surrounding gay marriage under the headline “God’s will is poor foundation for laws.”

With his piece, Amy asks readers three questions that I will try to answer.

Question 1: Even if gay marriage does violate some religious tenet, is that a good reason for outlawing it?

It is not my intention to argue for or against gay marriages. But I would argue that anything violating a religious principle certainly merits consideration before becoming legal.

Aside from the conviction that there is a higher authority to whom we must answer, or perhaps along with this conviction, I have to ask the question of foundation. If God’s will is a poor foundation for laws, then what should be the foundation?

Without a good, solid foundation upon which to build, the whole structure begins to crumble. This is true regardless of whether we are referring to buildings or systems of legislation. If God’s will is a poor foundation for laws, what should be that foundation? Should conscience be our guide? And if so, whose conscience? There isn’t anyone we would trust to do that, nor could we allow something as subjective as conscience to be the governing rule.

If God’s will is a poor foundation and conscience is too subjective, there is another alternative: the voice of the people. That’s what we have. Our forefathers established our existing form of government based on their own religious beliefs and convictions.

Perhaps in present lawmaking decisions, we should reference the convictions of our forefathers, in this way we can be careful we are still building on the same foundation as they did.

Question 2: Should it be unlawful to violate God’s will?

It already is. If one holds to the conviction that there is a higher authority to whom we must answer, then violating God’s will is unlawful regardless of our legislative decisions. The question is meant to show how absurd it would be to establish legislation based upon the will of God. In furthering his point, Amy makes reference to one of the Ten Commandments by asking, “Would opponents of gay marriage argue that we should also legally forbid people from dishonoring their fathers and mothers?”

Interestingly, Amy doesn’t make any reference to three other commandments about which we do have laws – murder, theft and giving false testimony. Nevertheless, Amy answers his own question concerning legislation for children to honor their parents, “Such laws would clearly be absurd.” Absurd? Why? Is it because such laws do not fall within the boundaries of our legislation system? Perhaps the reason has to do with the difficulty of establishing exactly what is meant by the term “dishonoring,” not to mention the further difficulty of enforcing such legislation even should one desire.

Amy cites none of these reasons for why such laws would be clearly absurd. Amy’s reason for their absurdity is “because it only makes sense to forbid things by law that actually do some substantial harm to other people.” “That is why,” he says, “we’ve chose to legally forbid murder.”

If our foundation for lawmaking has simply been reduced to “as long as it’s not hurting anyone what does it matter,” then it’s time to flee the building because the structure is moments from falling.

If in establishing laws, our greatest consideration is the amount of harm caused another individual, then we might want to rethink the whole divorce issue. Children are often subjected to substantial harm through separation proceedings.

It would be very difficult to define and enforce legislation surrounding God’s will, nor could we do so in many cases. But if more people governed their lives according to God’s will, the perhaps some laws wouldn’t be necessary.

Question 3: Does it really make sense to make sins illegal?

In his column, Amy attempts to answer his own question. He says, “Arguing that something being a sin is sufficient reason for making it illegal is not only wrongheaded, it also pushes the United States away from democracy and toward being a theocracy.”

In order to show the “dangers” of such an ill-advised move, Amy goes draws parallels between the “theocracies” of Iran and Afghanistan, stating “these regimes made the word of God the law of the land to disastrous effect.”

Amy takes an irresponsible leap in his comparison. His first error comes in attempting to draw a parallel where none exists, between our American democracy and the dictatorial and tyrannical rule of these other countries. Secondly, he attempts to paint a dividing line between a theocracy and a democracy as if the two are mutually exclusive of each other. They are not. And thirdly, his argument irresponsibly steers toward the illogical conclusion that theocratic centered convictions will lead us inevitably toward a dictatorship and away from our current democracy.

A person can have theocratic centered convictions while living as a citizen in a democratic society. Arguably, a whole nation of people can establish a democratic form of government even while building upon the bedrock foundation of religious convictions and God-established tenets.

It does make sense to make sins illegal. Long before we, as a nation, ruled murder or theft or perjury as illegal, the Ten Commandments had established these things as opposed to God’s will, a violation of a religious tenet, and therefore sin.

Our forefathers, in their wisdom and pursuit for a solid foundation, sought to establish our current democratic form of government upon those tenets and their religious convictions. Will we establish legislation for all that is sin? No, of course not. Not everything that is sin falls within the boundaries of our legislative system. It does make sense, however, to give careful consideration to God’s laws for those that do.

In his closing sentence, Amy states, “In a democracy, citizens should think twice every time they are tempted to make unlawful that which they think is sinful. It is a line we cross at our peril.”

I am willing to concede this statement, but add: In a democracy, citizens should also think twice every time they are tempted to make lawful that which they know is sinful. It is a line we cross at our peril.

Rev. Paul Bastien is the pastor at the Lewiston Church of the Nazarene. He lives in Lewiston.

Copy the Story Link