How Now Shall We Live?

     How do you separate church and state? If The Bible and all other religious books are not utilized to form or at least inform law, then what moral basis is used? Who even defines what morality is and if it's a good thing? Perhaps immorality would be better? Perhaps some things religion has called moral are really immoral and vice versa? Who can say?

    I think President Obama was right in recognizing that America does still have a very large Christian population, but there are also Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and other faiths- and people of no faith.

   Yet the thing that America has to recognize in its history is that many of its laws in place echo the commands of religious texts, primarily The Bible because there were many Christians who helped found the country, alongside Deists and others who at least had a general respect for The Bible and Christianity, even if they themselves were not Christ followers.

   (This is not to suggest that America has had a good record of consistently following The Bible in its decisions because all are sinners and fall short of God's glory. In any case, I don't like the term "Christian nation" because a nation can't follow Christ- only individuals. One of the main points of America's founding is freedom of religion, which allows for anyone to worship God in any faith they choose or to not do so at all. It is always a voluntary choice- never forced upon people by government. In that sense, separation of church and state certainly exists.)

    That said, it must be clarified that here I am speaking of people forced to follow a religion, of which there are a number of countries that practice this, with harsh penalties in place for anyone following or promoting anything other than the state religion. Thankfully, America does not have this system in place. Yet there are some laws that certainly comport with Christianity's tenets (along with a number of other religions) that inhabitants are compelled to follow or face consequences.

    Laws against theft and murder would certainly resonate with religious texts- should these laws be overturned because of their religious nature? The main value behind such laws is a respect for human life and property of human beings. Why do we regard human life with such supreme value? For the Christian, it's because human beings are made in the image of God and are the pinnacle of His creation. God commands us to respect and value human life because He loves us eternally and holds us in a status of infinite importance in His kingdom. To steal from someone or murder someone would not only be a grave evil to the person, it would also be a besmirchment to God and His creation.

    I think most would agree, regardless of their religious status, that these are good laws that should stay in place. I recognize some would offer vastly different reasons for valuing and upholding such laws but we would still be agreed on their worth and need to be in place. Is that the solution then? Should we establish laws by consensus? Perhaps within the election cycle for leaders there should also be moral surveys in place to determine the nation's general consensus on morality.

Otherwise it could just be left to each individual to determine what is right in their eyes and live accordingly.

(Of course, at least one society did that for a while in history and it didn't work out well for them. See Judges 17:6 and 21:25 in The Bible.)

   In the end, it comes back to the question, "How should we live?" We must then address the question, "Why should we live that way?" Who is the ultimate authority in governing the affairs of men and women?

In order to build a building, you must have a foundation. If the foundation is not sure, the building falls. The same is true for nations.