Legislating Sexuality

by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

It’s Not Just About Sex
by: Albert Mohler June 28, 2005

David Steinmetz is a professor at the Divinity School of Duke University. In a recent article, he raised a very significant insight about the controversies over homosexuality in several churches. He wrote: “In the end, it is not just about sex. It is about the moral and religious framework within which sexual issues can be decided. For liberals and conservatives alike, sex is the concrete and visible sign of a series of theoretical and less obvious disagreements over central matters of faith.” He’s right, of course. A church’s stance on issues of sexuality reveals the larger contours of its theological and biblical commitments–and its worldview. Any possibility of compromise between these two positions? “Moderates would like to find a safe middle ground between these two competing positions. Unfortunately, there isn’t one,” he writes. Right again, Professor Steinmetz. The authority of scripture is the fundamental issue. Understanding that, all the other issues are really symptoms.

“It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.” –George Washington

Commentary on Legislating Sexuality
By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
06/28/2005

This article provides an important, and provocative perspective on the Christian view of sexuality and Biblical authority. It confronts the hard position on Christian sexuality which many people fear. When viewed properly, Christian morality serves to provide a warning to protect a man’s soul, much like a sign that warns a hiker to stay away from the edge of a mountain trail. The cliff is not evil; it simply operates automatically as it acts on the hiker who steps too far off the path. The man who violates God’s rules of sexuality will likewise experience the automatic consequences built into God’s construction of the universe. But since the time lag between cause and effect in human behavior can be delayed, the violator may miss the lesson and feel justified in ignoring the Biblical counsel for chastity.

The Biblical guidance about sex is given to protect our hearts from the damage of misusing our spiritual free will prerogative. Pleasure masks the pain as we fall prey to the seduction of unGodly sexual expression. And even after having fallen into the pit, we often remain unaware of our wounded state for long periods. The most protective posture we can take with regard to avoiding the pain of unGodly sexuality comes when we embrace the wisdom of God’s Law. The teaching can guide us in right action even prior to our maturation in experience and wisdom. The key to Godliness is the submission of our sexuality on the altar of His Law. But, submission in this area of life is especially difficult because sex seduces us with pleasure, tempts us with rebellion, and motivates us to reformulate our worldview. We rationalize our personal sexual expression regardless of the guilt and the voice that warns us of danger, and eventually the voice of conscience dims. We each face the choice between submission and rebellion as we confront our sexual expression; and the way we submit to Scriptural sexuality is an indicator of our spirit of obedience and submission God’s leading in our lives.

As a nation, in the year 2006, we still recognize that government has a place in the regulation of sexuality, although the boundaries are being pushed back toward total permissiveness. We still regulate and prosecute prostitution, pedophilia, rape, incest, and polygamy. But, even in the recent past adultery and homosexual sodomy were likewise prosecuted. The memory of such “backward” times has been washed with literature such as “The Scarlet Letter” and court decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas.

Thus, the question is not whether government should be involved in establishing the rules of proper sexuality, but what acts of sexuality defile the group spirit. Government has the inherent position of legislator, judge, and executor; as such, we who are subject to its power and judgment should advocate for a government that embraces the highest and most Godly moral standard. As a society, we must ask at what level of personal imperfection we wish to leave to the peer and parent discipline. The Bible clearly illustrates the effect of righteous and evil kings; during times of righteous government, the people prospered. The Biblical account clearly indicates that the people and towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were cursed and destroyed when they fell into sexual sin. Thus, the question is not whether government should establish laws that regulate and enforce proper sexuality, but what acts should be prohibited and what enforcement should be used.

When we consider establishing governmental rules and imposing societal correction upon those who violate the proper God-given boundaries of sexuality, our condemnation and action should be equivalent to the level of impact their sexual misconduct has on society. For instance, fornication, which is any act of uncommitted sex with another person, is clearly prohibited by scripture. God’s prohibition against fornication was established because fornication has a clearly pernicious effect on society on many levels. Uncommitted sex is the vector through which many diseases propagate; some of which threaten life. The personal and societal cost of the various STDs transmitted by unGodly sexuality probably amounts to billions of dollars worldwide. Public funds are diverted to research and treatment that could otherwise forward valuable social programs such as education and public works. But the even more decaying consequence of fornication is the initiation of pregnancy in unstable family units. And often, the death of an innocent new life follows by intentional murder. Such violation of our humanity weighs heavily on the hearts of many of those caught in the trap of the perpetrator/victim. And finally, every act of fornication marks the human heart, bonding itself to another human soul. When the relationship breaks after the passion dies, the soul tears, and the heart repairs by bleeding, scarring, and hardening.

Commitment is the only safe place for the expression of sexuality, and God’s Word, the Biblical Scripture merely warns the wise man of the potential for harm. Those who ignore the warnings consider themselves liberated from fables, myths, and ancient superstition; they believe they have evolved out of primitive cultural repression and can now partake without guilt or consequence in a natural human passion. But in fact, the laws of God have not changed; man himself merely attempts to remake God’s laws to please his own tastes and desires. Instead of breaking God’s laws, man’s soul is broken by his violation of the natural order. As the Universe’s designer and Lawgiver, God established the natural cause and effect relationship between particles; he has likewise ordained the rules that define the proper relationship between souls. The forces exerted by physical matter are obviously immutable, but the forces pressing on our souls appear subject to revision by man’s decision and will. The real drama of life plays out as a battle between man’s will and God’s Law.

Man is seduced by pleasure to choose destructive strategies to govern his life. But, when the methods he selects counter God’s ways, he experiences pain, large or small, now or later, but always he reaps the consequences of his errors eventually. God’s rules cannot be violated; the consequences of actions must merely be suffered. A delay in feeling the pain provides the opportunity for more violation, a deeper delusion, and eventually a harder fall. The appearance of the harmlessness of sin cannot be used as experimental evidence to validate the claim of Biblical error with regard to sexuality. Un-Biblical sexuality is not a victimless crime. The Christian sexual code of conduct is not just a theological concept associated with the principles of a religious system. People who engage in uncommitted sexuality are damaged by the experience, and societal resources are taxed to care for (or protect itself against) the legions of damaged people. The web of social health, in which we depend to maintain order and provide for our interdependent needs, weakens in a society of broken hearts.

If there truly is a social cost associated with unGodly sexuality, then we must confront how to respond appropriately to those who are seduced by the siren call of sexuality. I believe that as a community we should support the repair and rehabilitation of the individual who has transgressed the line of Godly law with education, encouragement, and support. The administrators of this rehabilitation should offer an integrated network of support to aid in recovery and rehabilitation that could include church, professionals, peers, and families. Each damaged person needs a program that caters to his specific needs, since every man is in various stages of denial or confession, and must pursue his own path of soul rehabilitation through repentance and renewing of his mind with the principles and ways of Righteousness.

Each person needs an individualized intervention to help him to overcome the belief structures that support his justification of behavior. Every man can replace his habitual actions and passions with new productive behaviors. He can commit to a process of renewing the mind by prayer, counsel, meditation, and disciplining his thought life. The personal drives must be properly directed; accountability and group support help to reinforce the ego and mind. Until a man realizes the cost and reward associated with this new behavior, he feels no motivation to change. And, until a man has the support of a team, he will often find it difficult to overcome the addictive tendencies and habits of the flesh. When the entire group speaks with one voice, all supporting recovery and sexual sobriety, the man will find the road to recovery and transformation much easier.

As stated above, we already prohibit the commission of many sexual acts. But, when we confront the issue of fornication, many have hardened their hearts to the point where they believe that “the government has no right to legislate morality or acts between loving and consenting adults.” Thus, while we largely still recognize the validity of criminalizing prostitution, we have less moral certainty about the societal and eternal consequences of fornication. Thus, the question many ask is whether the state should legislate sexual morality to prohibit fornication and adultery.

In a nation where God’s Law is known with the same certainty as the laws of gravity or electrodynamics, every person would see the obvious consequence of violating the higher law of God. The group ethic of such a society would push all the leaders and points of moral accountability to correct the violators of sexual propriety. The churches, professionals, peers, and families of a violator would intervene in the life of the individual who was overtaken by his improperly expressed sexuality. But, our society has fallen from its Biblical roots, and many have justified their sexuality with a philosophy of a “new or liberated” sexuality. Those who advocate fornication have become bold, going on the attack against Godly sexuality, declaring that those who hold to the standard of Biblical sexuality are using an archaic moral concept to impose a sexual ethos on an age where such prohibitions are anachronistic. The new PC ethic considers it intolerant to restrict any sexual behavior between loving adults. This new group im-“morality” considers it a violation of a person’s right to choose what to do with their own body. They use the 14th Amendment and the concept of the right to privacy to justify the impropriety of the State to intervene in non-public behavior. Likewise, they use the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech to counter those who would govern “my expression” of my body. The upside down morality of the 21st century has declared the sin of judgment the gravest violation of personal sovereignty, and declare it wrong to intervene in anyone’s choice of sexual expression. Such a societal state is symptomatic of the extremity of our nation’s transit from Biblical Godliness.

Legislation codifies the proper patterns of behavior a society expects of its members; and every law must contain consequences to be administered when those standards are violated, otherwise the law is only a suggestion. No law is needed when the society operates by a group consensus, and all members comply. But, since all societies have rebels, especially against God’s rules, laws become necessary to maintain a social order within a specified operating range. This is especially true of Godly social conduct, since the human heart inherently resists such behavior. Usually, the trigger that will inspire government to intervene and establish law and consequences is an extreme violation, or a number of similar violations closely spaced, that clearly violates the common sense of the group code of boundaries. When the group attention is activated and focused, the representative legislature then feels forced to identify a behavior as an infraction and define the appropriate consequences to enforce compliance.

The question we confront in this essay is, “Should society legislate against fornication?” This single issue most starkly represents the dividing line between the Christian and Secular man; both who consider their stands moral, yet often find themselves on the opposite side of the question of proper sexual expression. Both sides know that human sexuality clearly falls within the consideration of moral definition, with the Secular man possibly justifying fornication because of its appearance and feeling of mutual consent, love, passions, pleasure, release, and a return to life without entanglement. The Christian man may judge fornication as immoral in spite of the obvious benefits listed by the Secular man. The Christian may justify his position based on a belief that God has decreed such behavior injurious to the soul, and/or he may see the wisdom of such prohibition because of seeing the effect of casual sexuality on the stability of society. He may see that public morality is the foundation of societal stability and therefore supports the legislation of Godly sexuality. But, his sexual appetites may blind the Secular man, and he may ignore or minimize the cost of fornication, or he may attribute that costs to other factors out of blindness or rationalization. The Secular man will thus oppose the Christian in his efforts to enforce individual adherence to Godly sexuality.

When we introduce the concept of an absolute standard of Godly sexuality, the discussion becomes polarized. Those who wish to maintain their sexual freedom and rebellion against Godly sexuality begin to rationalize their behavior. They inject circumstances they believe justify an exception. Some will argue that extramarital affairs are justified because of unhappiness and incompatibility. Some justify fornication because of simply desiring to share the love they feel at the moment or the need to determine sexual compatibility before marriage.

But sex between uncommitted partners is a public act, and it should be considered as such when legislating and creating the group moral standards. While the act seems private at the moment, its relational implications and sequelae affect the larger society. Thus, if a couple chooses to create a sexual bond, they should make a public declaration of their intent and commitment. Having made their commitment public, they can be held accountable for their behavior, and in turn expect the public support from both God and man to maintain the bond and endure the difficulties. The sexually hot relationships can turn cold with illness, children, and life circumstances. And, the cold relationship can turn warm and caring with interest, responsiveness, and acting in the ways of right relationship. Every relationship can work, but some relationships take a huge amount of sacrifice, acceptance, and personal change to be actually satisfying. Thus, more wisdom should precede the decision to marriage than the hormonal attraction and longing of the soul for companionship. Do not embark on the journey of marriage without first counting its cost; carefully consider the many implicit expenses inextricably embedded within the marriage contract.

In deciding whether the government/society should legislate against fornication, one of the considerations we must address is the concept of marital longevity and sexual fidelity. The basis of the prohibition against fornication is that it damages the soul; a warning which we see clearly in the Biblical Scriptures. And subsequently that the nation will suffer because damaged people are the building blocks of society.

To justify establishing a standard, the standard must produce good results. Thus, as a society, we must in some way have evidence that the standard of sexual fidelity, before and during marriage has a beneficial effect. To justify such a standard we should see the results of relationships based on fidelity. Evidence for waiting till marriage and fidelity after marriage can be found in, “The Case for Marriage”, by Linda Waite, and “The Case against Divorce”, by Michael Medved’s wife.

Having counseled many couples that have been confronted with an unfaithful spouse, I can testify to the damaging emotions and feelings that arise when trust has broken. Likewise, the sexual experiences prior to marriage lead to expectations, both of hurt, and performance that may be irrelevant to a current relationship. Ideally, two people will have enough maturity to separate the past from the present, but being realistic, we are all caught by memories and previous life drama.

From my personal experience of 16 years of counseling patients in very difficult marriages, I believe in general that marriages without the baggage of prior relationships are much easier to mold. Every person does not choose to engage in the process of shaping his expectations, tastes, and personal habits. But, when people change their unhealthy patterns, every marriage can work.

Marriages can recover when the individuals are willing to make the required changes. Every marriage can be enjoyable as long as both parties sincerely engage in the process of personal change toward an Absolute Right behavior. The fascination of the infatuation will subside, and then we must confront the facts that every individual has unique tastes. And, not every need, desire, and taste should be satisfied, as there are some which will contradict or interfere with the righteous personal satisfaction of one or both partners. We can grow closer when we share our issues of like/dislike through open and honest communication; knowing the perspective and needs of both parties allows us to give and take behavior and change to reach an equitable and righteous center. And while we must ultimately submit to a correct Absolute standard of Right behavior, we are not required to simply capitulate to a concept of the Absolute without fully embracing it. The human heart willingly submits to a fundamental change of values only when it becomes truly convinced of the Righteousness of the newly proposed standard. And, usually the heart is convinced only after clearly seeing or experiencing the pain of violating that standard.

The possibility that every relationship could be happy removes one of the pressures to engage in premarital sex to determine compatibility. Marriage will work if each person chooses to make it work. And since every marriage can work, the question of who to marry becomes more practical; we can choose goals, passion, peace, excitement, competition, status, growth, therapy, support, or security as the standard(s) for choice. Regardless of the criteria, we use for choosing a mate, there will be deficiencies and assets, satisfaction and disappointments, irritations and soothing moments. Just enter into it with as much information and be as fully informed as possible, make your choice, live with it, and negotiate for personal and mutual satisfaction of needs.

Legislating our sexuality has become regarded as a distasteful anachronism reminding us of the unbending Puritanical legalism, public stocks for humiliation, and scarlet letters for adultery. We want to free ourselves from ancient stigmas and dogmas that appear irrelevant to a new era. We want to explore our adulthood with freedom, engage in personal choice, take or escape the consequences, and exercise the implied rights of body-ownership to use our property as we wish. Thus, the sense of personal sovereignty is confronted at the most personal level when we consider the issue of legislating sexuality.

This same argument underlies the issue of a woman’s right to choose to abort her child, which of course intersects tightly with the issue of fornication. Thus, we will consider the special case of abortion resulting from fornication. This case provides an obvious confrontation between the opposing forces of experiencing the exhilaration of sexual freedom and the oppression of potential parental responsibility. The man who finds himself in this personal dilemma of freedom and slavery often responds with desperate acts to regain his freedom as he sees the chains forming to confine his life. In this state of panic and self-preservation, he is easy prey to the seduction of ego and pleasure; abortion presents as the easy option, the legal, socially acceptable way to end the problem. In fact, we can exalt this ritual of death as an expression of freedom. Thus, instead of sex leading to fruit, family, responsibility, and the richness of a complex and interdependent life, the aborted mother and father can both maintain the unencumbered life of an adolescent. The man who wishes to retain the right to play house and avoid the responsibility of his sexuality, can protest, vote, and advocate for the absolute right to intervene with deadly force to prevent the products of sexuality from proceeding to completion. Society has intervened on his behalf and framed his desire for legal abortion in the seemly noble virtues of freedom, personal choice, and defending against the invasion of an unwanted person. The seduction is great; it appeals to the ego’s desire to be captain of my soul, with no higher lord governing, and no need to justify my choices. Sadly, I am not the captain of my soul, I can only dutifully follow the True Captain if I wish to make a safe harbor. On my own, following my own passions, I will inevitably dash my ship of body, soul, and spirit on the rocks of temptation and human passion.

The central consideration in this issue of legislating sexuality involves one’s worldview about the relationship between God and one’s body. The Secular Humanist views God as non-existent or irrelevant to life; which leaves him free to construct his own rules about the acceptability of all forms of sexuality. For the Humanist, the issues of sexuality, conception, and abortion revolve around more ego and passion-oriented considerations. Such a man is a God unto himself, as he has assumed the authority and prerogatives of judging the world according to his own standards.

But, man can do little other than direct his own actions, speech, and thoughts. No man has the ability to control, create, or maintain the fundamental substance and substrate of life; he cannot legislate the fundamental laws of nature and humanity. Every man is subject to rules far larger than his own ability to perceive and act. The man who assumes that all his actions are without rule, other than his own, plays the supreme fool. But few would frame life in such stark terms. There are the few who stretch out their arms, stand on the beach, and cry into the setting sun, “I am God.” But, those who do so cannot be taken seriously, even though they attempt to present the posture of serious students of the spiritual world. (The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Psalm 14:1 & 53:1)

Rather, the more ordinary rebel against God is simply the humanist who believes that life is different than it was in Biblical time. They may believe that sexual mores of that day came from myths of a rule-giving God that were fabricated by the fearful minds of an unenlightened culture. Thus, we need no longer follow those superstitious taboos. But, if the old ways were, in fact, God’s ways, we will never outgrow them. If the old ways were not God’s, then they should change. Misinterpreted scripture and dogma can happen, but if those rules were truth, they never change. If man erroneously judges God’s will and way, it has no effect on the Law and fact of the unchangeable Truth of Father God.

Each culture has its own sexual norms, and the people of that culture will probably just accept and act on the default moral framework of the dominant moral standard. But, will God judge them for their honestly ignorant practices that violate the standards of perfection? Probably there is a combination of God’s judgment and self-inflicted consequences. God’s standard will always produce the best results in maximizing happiness and minimizing pain, but the automaticity of Law may be modified by grace, statistics, and the miraculous deployment or withholding of spiritual forces. The spirit realm is probably much more complicated than a simple good/bad judgment. On one level, sexuality has a very strong mechanistic sequence of real-life consequences, and our ignorance or honest misunderstanding of the law may have some small mitigating effect. Law exists and is operative whether I know of its presence or not. Still, the rebel may be more culpable and suffer more than the innocent child who trespasses an unknown Law.

Those who rebel against God attempt to condemn the concept of an oppressive and distant rule-giving God that would deny sexual pleasure, claiming that such a God is the creation of men. The liberated modern man considers such a God, one who would deny sexual pleasure between consenting lovers, implicitly abhorrent, and proof of the error of the Christian legal system. But, God is able to generate any system of morality that He chooses for His creation. The issue then becomes one of proving the plausibility of the authority and accuracy of Biblical text. Others have done an excellent job of validating the historical accuracy of the Biblical account, and the authenticity of the text we have received. We are left with the decision as to whether that account is accurate and divine. Clearly, if there is no divine revelation, then we are on our own, and the Secular Humanist should be given the most credence. If one of the other gurus, avatars, and teachers are divine, then they should be heeded.

Regardless, the very structure of the universe responds to error. The mechanism of executing that reaction may be a negotiation or war between heaven and hell, it may be divine judgment and decree, or it may be a simple response by all of the forces of humanity and nature converging together to create a response. But, we can be sure that every action will have a reaction, and that the mechanism of reaction is under the control of God (either as the programmer of the mechanism, or as the ongoing judge at each moment). Either way, God is intimately involved with the ongoing teaching of all His children. He has given free us will, and He desires obedience to the rules of His universe. It is by following His Way that we show our relationship and resonant with Him.

Throughout our nation’s history, we have attempted to establish Godly laws that govern personal behavior to benefit the nation’s health. The current common wisdom is that, “You cannot legislate morality”. But, all law is legislated morality; the question is only whose morality we are legislating. But, is there an alternative method to government legislation? Can the responsibility to teach and train the never-ending generations be entrusted to only the traditional social institutions of family, counselors, peers, and church? Can they be effective in the identification and correction of errant personal behavior? Thus, we shall discuss the proper venue for training morality.

Those who argue for only the distributed, society-based teaching and peer/mentor enforcement of morality do so on the basis of a libertarian model of government. Such a method has gained great popularity among the Republican and conservative movement. This modus of responsibility ties in tightly with the concepts of capitalism, personal responsibility, and private enterprise. The quote by President Reagan we often hear in this regard, “The government is not the solution, it is the problem.” The rebellion against governmental regulation has grown ever stronger among the Conservative, Evangelical, Right Wing, Libertarian, and Republican circles. Many in this camp wish to avoid any entanglement with the State and its authoritarian Big Brother persona monitoring and enforcing proper behavioral codes.

I agree that government can become ineffective, or a barrier to right action, due to the parasitic effects of tradition, survival, budgets, and intra agency competition. Nevertheless, government is part of our lives, and to the extent that government embodies Christ-like character, it will be a force for goodness in the society. The formation of character in every society will inevitably include a partnership between society and government. The State has a poor record of applying the individualized therapy required to help the felon reform after his violation. Thus, even though the path of wise government is not well traveled, we would be prudent to demand that our government be held to the standards of moral personhood. As a society, in academia, jurisprudence lay and clergy, we should study and debate the appropriateness of various types of group behavior. The government of the United States was formed to reflect the group will of the people. Thus, our land could form a partnership between the people and government. The government should function as a tool of the people to act as agents of correction and achievement. As adults, we are still sheep, still dumb, still needing a shepherd leader. Government will always act as a leader, and we should simply embrace that fact, and use government as our vehicle to continue the process of growth and maturation in righteousness.

Of course, those who live outside of the Law fear such a path because they know that justice will come. Likewise, government is feared by the Godly because of the potential and past proven misuse of the power of the State. Godly men know that the unGodly or misguided can easily take the reigns of power and enforce their own perverse standards. Regardless of one’s fears or political position, we already have a de facto morality being dictated upon us. Thus, as a righteous people with convictions about proper behavior, we should use our influence to sway the power of government to establish standards of Godly sexuality.

But, decisions about sexuality should be legislated at the local level. Every community should have the right to legislate their local morality based on the moral standards of a majority of each community. In our current system, we have shackled righteousness, and let unrighteousness run unleashed. Thus, the competition between fit and unfit competitors has been skewed toward the unjust. The result of the community taking responsibility for the moral behavior of its citizens will return a sense of power, effectiveness, and choice. As the social standards settle into a norm, the results of the experiment will be clearer, and the State may choose to establish unifying legislation. This concept falls under the category of States’ Rights.

If the flow of information is kept open, and the results of every form of social experiment is publicized, the results of every social experiment will be available to allow other cities and states to choose to modify their community standards. A Godly community would enact laws to identify violators of God’s Laws, and then bring them into an environment of true rehabilitation. Punishment does little good if there is no repentance. The healing is deep only when the mind and heart of the violator enthusiastically embrace the new behavioral standard. Such a change can take place by education, but an element of the miraculous is always involved in a person who has taken a walk on the dark side, tasted the fruits of Eve, and become addicted to the pleasures of the flesh.

If we embark down this path of governmental identification of right standards in the realm of sexuality, what is the properly applied corrective action?

I believe the corrective intervention for sexual trespass should be an essentially parental training program. Those who trespass God’s laws of sexuality should be referred to the appropriate counseling venues, e.g. parents, counselors, programs, and churches. Those who have shown themselves to be violent, habitually violating innocence by force, are the type who should be restrained from public contact until they have truly experienced and demonstrated a change of heart. And in general, the pedophiles, rapists, and other sexually violating addicts will continue to “use” when they are given freedom. Thus, a longer period of objective transformation, as well as a strong evaluation of the more subjective parameters of a person’s true rehabilitation is appropriate. In other words, wise men must judge the violator, and attempt to judge the heart of the man. And while this is difficult, we must not be afraid to apply such standards to people who have shown themselves to be powerless over their own addictions.

People should realize that their uncommitted sexual behavior with another person violates personal, interpersonal, and Godly boundaries. There is a strong whole-Bible precedent for judging sexuality on this standard. And, as a government of the people, and a people who in the majority have a belief in the standards of the Bible, we have the right to legislate Biblical standards. Such a policy truly is legislating morality, but it is not requiring one to worship God in a specific way, only to follow rules that have as their origin a Biblical view of God’s standards. We must realize that it is impossible to establish a values-free legislation. Allowing all expressions of sexuality without societal guidance is as much a moral direction for the society as the proactive guiding of society in marriage-only sexual expression.

The concept of “Separating Church and State” has lost its focus on preventing the imposition of religion on society. The Separation of Church and State movement has been enrolled into being the backbone concept that justifies establishing a society that endorses unrestricted sexuality. The intention of the Founders was to prevent the imposition of a State Religion. Such a concern is irrelevant to the issues we currently face regarding legislating about sexual behavior. Religious imposition would be seen in initiatives to impose denominational creeds in public life such as enforcing attendance at Sunday mass, requiring allegiance to the 5 points of Calvinism, or believing in the doctrine of eternal security. Rather, the Separation of Church and State issue has more to do with establishing the Secular Humanist religion as the de facto state religion, while outlawing all other religious expressions. The Secular Humanist agenda is to make the state safe for sex.

The First Amendment provides clear Constitutional guidance regarding church and state. Congress shall not establish a State Religion. By having symbols of faith in the public square we reinforce our common belief structure. Symbols remind us of our commonly held religion, but it is not the same as the imposition of a State Religion or theocracy. Symbols, fragments of scripture, slogans, and talk in legislative considerations may support a single religion, but they do not require one to worship it under the force of law. And no doubt, those who hold an opposing stand would desire such evidence of the group religious conviction be removed from the public square, but to do so on the basis of the First Amendment is to extrapolate its meaning to the level of being a proactive tool of secularism.

The use of Christian symbols in society in no way demands compliance with any single doctrine or creed. But, it does give the imprimatur of the State to Christianity, and all other religions will find themselves occupying a lower social status. But, in a democracy, anything can change. The people can choose to reflect their faith in public if they choose; this is one of the prerogatives of a democracy. But, by creating a government favorable to Christianity, and allowing the people to create public school systems that reinforce the faith of the families, we will more likely perpetuate ourselves as a Christian Nation.

We do not want a theocracy, as the imposition of a belief structure by a ruling Priest Class truly does remove the option of choice. The State should not force compliance with practice and belief in a religion. This type of religious test truly was the “establishment of a religion by Congress” that the First Amendment prohibited. Regarding the choice of religion adopted by the majority, we can only hope that they have chosen well since the legislation of the nation will reflect the group morality in a democracy.

Thus, as a nation, we want to base our worship and morals on Truth. If we truly believe we have chosen a correct moral structure, we should exalt and promote that morality with various public images. If we have made an error in our choice of the majority religion, it is the job of the minority faiths to show by their good works, and reason, that their form of theological concept excels and in fact represents Truth more closely than the current dominant paradigm.

Again, legislation based on the morality of a religious system shared by a community does not force worship of any sort. But, by attempting to scour the society clean of any trace of Christianity we are in fact engaging in the same erection of monuments to a specific religion. The religion of “no religion” becomes the State-sponsored symbol. And if no religion is present to guide the people in their choice of standards to guide legislation, the legislators operate in a moral vacuum that will draw in standards from any available systems that parade as “religion-free”. Thus, since Secular Humanism is man’s native state, he will naturally legislate on values of this de facto religion. All mankind naturally operates from the Secular Humanist’s code of conduct. Returning to Secular Humanism from Christianity is not upward evolution. We must recognize the innate pull to satisfy the animalistic ego, resist the call to answer it, and instead direct our intentions toward manifesting God’s Kingdom on Earth.