The Need For God in Government
A lot of attention has been given recently to the expression
of religious belief in government institutions. Most of this is
predicated on Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's refusal to move
a monument of the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Courthouse, which he oversees. Although the debate over whether
Moore's position is appropriate is important to consider (for a
very good discussion of this, see Albert Mohler's article at http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=8/27/2003#1216770),
I want to look at another, more universal aspect of the issue -
one that's not being discussed much by the pundits. That is, are
we justified holding to any laws at all if we exclude God as the
basis of their authority?
Now, this may seem like a strange question. "Of course
we should have laws," you may think. "Without laws,
how would society function?" That's a fair question.
However, my query is based not on the pragmatic effects of laws,
but on their authoritative nature. What right do legislatures
have in making rules for me to live by? Why should I be
obligated to follow rules created many times by people with whom
I disagree? If you're a human being and I'm a human being, then
what makes your rules better than mine?
1. Natural Law
Much of what we base western society on today is derived from
the concept of *natural law*. Natural law says that the ideas of
good and evil, justice and injustice are divine in origin. When
God designed man, He created us in a way so that we can identify
these concepts. St. Thomas Aquinas called the ability to discern
good and evil "nothing else than an imprint on us of the
divine light." (1)
The English philosopher John Locke took the concept of
natural law even further. Locke said that not only did God
design us to recognize concepts of good and evil, but He also
created us to be "free, equal, and independent." (2)
However, Locke understood that man is also naturally a communal
creature. Complete independence was impossible, partly because
of the need for other people and partly because of man's sinful
nature. Man was selfish and would seek his own benefit above
that of his neighbor's. He writes "The state of nature has
a law of nature to govern it... that, being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
liberty, or possessions."(3) Locke goes on to explain that
because we are God's creation and we serve His purposes every
individual must try to "as much as he can, preserve the
rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an
offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the
preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of
another."(4)
2. The Need for Government
It is the need to do justice that creates the need for
government. Because man seeks selfish interests a governing
institution must exist to judge between individuals and to
protect the liberties of all its citizenry.
"The law of nature would, as all other laws that concern
men in this world be in vain, if there were no body that in the
state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby
preserve the innocent and restrain offenders." (5)
In creating a government, Locke said that individuals
willingly give up certain freedoms in order to gain the safety
and advantage of living in a community. He termed this a
"social contract". We give up certain freedoms (such
as driving as fast as I like) and assent to the laws of our
community, but in return we become safer on the road since we
know other drivers are to also obey those laws. In the end,
everyone benefits.
By continuing to live in the community, we continue to agree
to the contract - it is what Locke calls "tacit
consent". We participate in and enjoy the benefits of the
community's laws, so we therefore support the contract. But all
this is predicated on the idea that the state should seek to
preserve the rights of the individual as much as possible. When
a political system fails to do so, the individuals have the
right to dismiss that system as corrupt. (6)
3. God and State
Notice that in all this, the government becomes necessary to
enforce laws out of a obligation to justice, justice based on
the concepts of right and wrong established by an omnipotent God
who created all men as equals. If God is removed from the
equation, then where does the authority and mandate for the
existence of government come from?
Some have suggested that government is there to enforce the
will of the majority, but this cannot be the entire basis of
government. If it were, then where do the rights of the minority
come from? Do we really believe that slavery was right because
it was legal or that the majority held it to be correct? Was the
extermination of Jews appropriate in WWII Germany because it was
popular? Thinking the majority makes something right is a
fallacy. Martin Luther King, Jr. noted this when he was
questioned by church leaders as to whether his civil
disobedience was the Christian thing to do. He wrote
One may ask: "How can you advocate breaking
some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the
fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I
would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not
only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.
Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust
laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust
law is no law at all".
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does
one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a
man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of
God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the
moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An
unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law
and natural law. (7)
We hear so much about the separation of church and state
today that I'm afraid we have forgotten the need for God as the
basis to justify government's existence and our personal
liberties. To be sure, this doesn't mean that we should mandate
a specific religion for the citizenry, for that would be
intruding on individual liberties. But it does mean that we
cannot separate God from government or from liberty and
equality. To do so would be to lose all justification for both.
What do you think? Where does government get its
authority? Write us at newsletters@comereason.org.
Until next month, God bless.
|
