Our nation was built on a Constitution, whose principles were garnished from the Word of God, as the absolute standard for truth and justice. Without the foundational basis of the absolutes of Scripture, there can be no feasible way of adopting any legal standard that would serve to ensure fairness and freedom to all the individual citizens in any form of government.
Our government was founded on Biblical principles, which ensure the rights of all, as equal, and subsequently, provides protection for the minority. Much of our jurisprudence was modeled after Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law of England (1723-1780 AD).
Francis Schaffer pointed out in his book, The Christian Manifesto, that “by the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were probably more copies of his Commentaries in America than in Britain. His Commentaries shaped the perspective of American Law at that time, and when you read them it was exactly clear upon what that law was based.”
Without an absolute basis for moral laws, justice is replaced by tyranny, as power becomes right, and the popular whims override the rights of the minority. Thus, the naturalist that seeks to drive an impenetrable wedge between religion and politics is simply advocating for his particular brand of anti-religion to be represented in the legal system, at the exclusion of all others. He is pushing for a fundamental shift in our jurisprudence that shall eventually destroy the rights of the individual for the sake of the collective.
Socialism is being ramrodded down our throats by the Hegelian relativists, who greedily push to hoard political power and exclude all others. Such a unilateral force would inevitably erase the freedom of the individual, which is paramount to the Judeo-Christian worldview and the very foundation of our American, Constitutional Democratic Republic. Such a policy would ensure that only the atheistic worldview be represented by our government. In spite of all their propaganda and rhetoric, it is the antithesis of true pluralism.
But, we must be careful to redact laws only on the basis of the absolute moral standard of God and not on our own cultural bias in issues that are not absolutely stipulated, within Scripture. The function of government is to create laws, which are predicated on the absolute bedrock of the moral mandates of the Creator in order to ensure equal justice and the freedom of all of its constituents.
It is not to force one particular brand of religion or denomination on mankind, but to provide a safe haven for the free practice of all religions. These religions can be permitted, as long as they do not interfere with the freedom of others, and as long as they do not transgress the foundational laws stipulated by the Constitution. This is the basis for a Constitutional Republic.
Here lies the important difference between the Judeo-Christian concept of justice and that which is derived from Islam, who seeks to force their religion on others by brute force, completely countermanding God’s wish to give man a free will. Faith is not a matter of birthright, nor is it exclusively a matter of the heart. Faith is a matter of the heart, as well as reason. If there is a God, then the universe has order and congruence and the mind of man cannot be sidelined as superfluous.
Reason cannot be ignored. True faith is rational and is in congruence to True Truth, and the reality of the spacetime continuum we inhabit. Moreover, if God has created man as a being, and not as an unthinking automaton, then the ability to choose through rational processes is an intrinsic characteristic of man as designed by God.
Any religion that forcefully imposes their dogma, circumventing the intrinsic right of all human beings to choose of their own volition, is contrary to the design of the Creator and it is an illegitimate mandate, which contradicts God’s design for humanity and government.
Contrary to the Muslim position, it is the will of God that mankind should have a free will to enable us to come to Him by faith, and not by the point of the sword. He does not need man’s feeble force to bring light to those who would seek Him.
The false dichotomy created by the Islamic religion, which revokes all human worth and intrinsic value to the person, which they label an infidel, is in direct conflict with the will of the One True God. He created all human beings in His image to have infinite worth and value, regardless of their faith, intelligence, ethnic roots, economic stature, or any other human superficial designation.
This is the rock-bottom fundamental premise instituted by God, for our entire human civilization, and it cannot be compromised, without creating the most heinous direct affront to God and to the sanctity of human life. The sanctity of all human life is an irrevocable and universal axiom established by the Creator. Any nation or religion that transgresses this fundamental axiom is in direct conflict with the Creator.
God calls us to reason with Him and come to the knowledge of His True Truth by the individual act of faith, and not at the point of the sword. Furthermore, Islam attempts to force upon all others their cultural relativistic norms devised by their clerics with equal adamance to what they claim to be God’s direct revelation. We must not ever elevate our human dictates to the same stature as God’s revelations. This is also a direct affront to God.
We must not allow the Islamic radicals to warp this ideal, with their erroneous and legalistic views, which blur the distinctions between moral absolutes and personal cultural preferences. This invariably results in a tyrannical government, which strips sectors of the society, as well as individuals, from their God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Justice is not served either by allowing only the atheists and agnostics to impose their brand of immorality on society, which also robs sectors of our human family of their individual rights, such as the unborn human being. Moreover, if those, who hold to the Judeo-Christian worldview, do not exercise their right and duty to vote and influence our government in the direction in which we believe it should go, then we are abrogating our responsibility to God in becoming the salt of the earth and in rendering unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. In other words, God wishes for His children to participate in government.
If not, we are not only failing in our civic responsibility to be a participating citizen of our nation, but we are also failing in our sacred moral and religious duty to be the defenders of the downtrodden and abused. To abstain from the fray is to abrogate our civic duty, as lawfully abiding citizens of our country, which morally constrains us to vote our conscience. In essence, we are then abdicating the control of the direction of our government to those who champion the naturalistic worldview.