The Bible And American Law

Suppose you wanted to rent a room in a public building – a school for example – to have a forum on the permissibility of murder in other societies, and the possible benefits of killing of some people in our own. You might favor the death penalty and euthanasia as examples. Or, perhaps, the killing of malformed newborns. In all likelihood the municipality, citing the first amendment and the right to express your opinion, would grant permission.

Suppose you wanted to rent a room in a public building – a school for example – to have a forum on the evil of murder in other societies, and the harm that would result from the killing of innocent people in our own. You might decry abortion as one such example. In all likelihood the municipality would cite the first amendment, and the declare the impermissibility of promoting a religious agenda in a property run by the government, and would refuse to grant permission.

If someone stole a car he would be prosecuted for larceny because theft is illegal, and if you presented evidence that would help in the conviction you'd be praised as an upstanding citizen.

If someone performed a homosexual act he would be viewed as a an individual legally exercising his rights. If he declared it proudly he would be considered as brave in exposing himself to public opinion. If you argued against his actions you would be denounced as a religious bigot.

And the person who lies while testifying at a trial will, if caught, be tried, himself, for perjury. False testimony, as we all know, is against the law.

But whoever calls a pagan an enemy of G-d's will, will be sanctioned for hate speech. And if he touches the pagan – perhaps offering a reassuring pat on the shoulder – he has committed assault and it is a hate crime. Opposition to paganism is religious oppression, and those who speak out against it are considered to be in violation of the Constitution. They are sectarian extremists.

Opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and paganism are certainly denounced in the Bible, but so are murder, theft, and perjury. In fact, murder, theft, and perjury are forbidden in the Ten Commandmentsⁱ, and should certainly be recognized as religious principles.ⁱⁱ In reality, most of those ideas, and other aspects of what we see as “right” and “wrong,” are important themes in religious works. Yet some we incorporate into the law of the land, and some are prohibited as taboo topics, even for discussion.

Interestingly, it's not just atheists who oppose the discussion of “religious” ideas in public placesⁱⁱⁱ since many religious supporters of the Constitution will cite the “wall of separation” between Church and State and the Constitutional ban on the support of religion by the government. They fear that if such discussion should take place it would lead to the support of a religion, or religion in general, by the state in violation of the First Amendment. It's “slippery slope” argument – the camel's nose concern – the “domino theory” masquerading as Constitutional Law. It's the presumption that the majority can't be relied on to distinguish between right and wrong. People, however virtuous their intent, aren't to be trusted. And the intent of the writers of the founding documents cannot dictate our interpretation of them.

But the laws we follow are of human origin. Whether they were inspired by the Bible or another religious text, or even if they sprang fully formed from the head of some lawmaker, they have the same religious heritage as the concept of “Creationism.” The intent of the proponents of both ideas is the same – to govern human behavior using “just” criteria.^iv Only it is humans who decide which religious laws are “just” and which reflect bigotry. And it reflects our intent now^v rather than that of those who lived in earlier centuries.

That path, however, isn't invariably followed, and sometimes we loudly declare the intent of our predecessors to be a critical factor in deciding the validity of an idea. It is such intent that keeps us from imposing the will of the majority on the minority – sometimes.^vi And the “wall of separation” of which Jefferson wrote in a letter^vii in 1802, is considered a basic Constitutional principle by the Supreme Court, even though Jefferson played no part in the writing of the Constitution and wasn't even in the country at the time.^viii But his intent is considered as relevant to an understanding of that document and our current interpretation of it. There is less sympathy for his views regarding states' rights: that a state could overrule laws passed by Congress that it considered unauthorized by the Constitution.^ix “Intent” is a deciding factor – but only if it supports your preconceived notions.

Some of the Ten Commandments ceased to be religious precepts when they resonated with lawmakers, while others, with which they disagreed, were viewed as blinders of the ignorant. According to those who view themselves as non-believers, there are certain basic strategies by which people can live together and these include the proscription of murder and theft. They reflect what we call “morality.”^x But, it may be argued, it was people who made the decision about what strategies to consider useful to society^xi and which ones to dismiss as inappropriate. And those people saw any rules with which they disagreed as religious and bigoted to those who scorned religion, while they were simply deemed wrong by those who followed a different religion.

However an individual, or a society, decides what is Right and what is Wrong, it cannot be denied that all such judgments come from the same source – whatever you believe that is – and human beings, at various times in the past, chose which would be considered moral and which were to be dismissed as fantasy. As they still do. Arguments that some are “religious precepts” simply reflect the rejection of such ideas and the wish to have them viewed in a negative light. Perhaps we're not prepared to accept everyone's views on all issues, but making their discussion taboo, and limiting people's right to think whatever they want and believe whatever they want only serves to divide us. If we only want to hear what we already believe and ban the expression of different ideas, it's not likely that we'll ever learn or grow.

Banning thoughts and ideas is a more restrictive concept than any you'll find in the Bible. The Constitution ha no place for it and neither should we.

Next episode: “The Devil Made Me Do It” – I'm entitled to be bad.

I        In fact its posting is itself beyond the pale in many communities

ii       Indeed, they are among the most important and famous religious principles that we know.

iii       Or anywhere else for that matter.

iv       Wed like to believe this is the goal of both, but we know that such is not always the case.

v        But it may be different tomorrow. Remember that “now” is always changing.

vi       Most laws apply equally to those who agree with them and those who do not, but are the product of the majority – a majority of Congress. There are times, however, when particular minorities are exempted from the laws – for example conscientious objectors didn't have to fight even when others were subject to the draft, and Congress often exempts its own members from laws it imposes on others. The Supreme Court, moreover, has no hesitation in deciding what the Constitution “means,” sometimes based on its view of the intent of the writers and sometimes in spite of that intent.

vii       To the Danbury Baptist Association.

viii     The original idea wasn't his either. According to Wikipedia, it “echo[ed] the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams – who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" – Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”]

ix        See, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Jefferson was the author.

x        Of course morality is a relative concept, and the standards may differ depending on the society in which you live.

xi       Moreover, since they disagree on morality, it is not surprising that different societies have different views on some of these issues.