You wouldn't drive a nail with a screwdriver, so why would you promote morality with government?

As we all know, a common complaint the Religious Right has against people like us who dare to oppose their attempts at theocracy is that we're anti-Christian, amoral, irresponsible, etc. Some on the left respond by basically calling them ignorant and stupid. This sort of argument goes nowhere.

I have no problem with religion. I don't even have a problem with fundamentalist religion, per se. In fact I have a strong belief in God myself. I believe churches, synagogues, mosques and other such bodies have a fundamental right to teach what they want to as long as it doesn't harm the rights of those who choose not to associate with them. If the "Bible-believing" churches want to insist that the Bible is literally true (and the King James Version is the only credible one), so be it. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to keep women out of their priesthood, forbid abortions among their members and excommunicate those who break the rules, it's their call.

What I don't believe, however, is that religions have a right to dictate their version of morality in a government setting.

Teaching right from wrong to my two-year-old daughter is fundamentally _MY_ job as a parent, not the government's. I agree with even the most strident fundamentalist in the sense that faith and morality are extremely important subjects for one to learn. However, I strongly disagree with them that obligation by government statute is the way to do it. Forcing morality by law implies that neither I nor anyone else is competent enough to live their lives as good people, that no one is qualified enough to raise their own children, that all of the above is by definition the government's job.

Put simply, legislated morality is a form of socialism, and one that all free people have a moral obligation to oppose. I submit we'd have far fewer issues in this realm if more religious activists actually pursued agendas of morality, responsibility and clean living within their own faiths, which they have a right and in many ways an obligation to do, rather than take the lazy route and try to legislate it.

Although some blatantly revisionist "historians" among the Religious Right would have you believe otherwise, the United States was clearly founded by people with a deep sense of faith, but not by people with the intent of forming a government based on Christian doctrine. Separation of church and state not only protects the general population from oppressive theocracy, but also protects faiths from each other. It is the best way to ensure true religious freedom. It's simple, yet when applied correctly extremely effective. It's a beautiful thing, dare I say divinely inspired?

Learn more about this author, W. Lane Startin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about The case for separation of church and state?
We want to hear your view. Write now!