A secularized law is a law that is devoid of any inherent influences, grounds, or justifications from any religion. It has a neutral position in matters of religious convictions.
In a religiously pluralistic society, like the U.S., any of its laws must have secularized bases or foundations. Religiously grounded values cannot be universally, objectively, or conclusively validated. Such values can only be validated relative to the religious framework that one uses. For example, as Christians, we value marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. We justify its sacredness within our religious framework, namely a framework that is informed by the Bible. However, it is obviously the case that there are many non-Christian Americans, who do not use the same framework in justifying their beliefs. The imposition of such a view of marriage on non-Christians infringes on the rights and liberties of non-Christian Americans to choose their own religious or philosophical stances on the status of marriage. Some of these non-Christian Americans are atheists and agnostics, who are equally protected by the laws. So, in order to be neutral, from the perspective of the government (not from the perspective of the church), marriage should be treated as a legal contract between two consenting adults.
In a politically egalitarian society, like the U.S., people with different religious or philosophical views cannot be unfairly treated with unnecessary discriminations by the government that is supposed to protect the rights and freedoms of all of those who are legally under its jurisdiction, irrespective of their religious or philosophical views. An attempt to favor the views of a particular religious community will generally cause unfair treatments of others who do not belong in that religious community. Whether we like it or not, our current political and sociological realities inform us that we live in a religiously pluralistic and a politically egalitarian society. Due to such realities, we revise, interpret, or amend our laws. So, our laws, including the values that ground them, must be secularized. There are certain secular values that are appropriate for the formations of our laws, such as rights, liberties, justice, equality, fairness, tolerance, diversity, neutrality, pluralism, etc. Such values do not need to be religiously grounded. However, as Christians, our personal or moral interactions with people must be shaped by our spiritual values: love, righteousness, holiness, kindness, patience, faith, etc. Most of such values must be religiously grounded.
The fact that an act is immoral does not mean that it ought to be legally prohibited. A rational voter must be impartial. Irrespective of one’s convictions, one ought to vote for a law that one interprets as the best representation of the contractual conventions of legal standards or vote for a person who has a political vision that is more coherent with the ideals of our society that are reflected in the contractual conventions of legal standards. So, a rational voter can vote for a person who or a law that is opposed to one’s own (religious) convictions. For example, suppose we live in a society where (1) women are eligible to run for the presidency. Let’s say that in that society (2) we try to determine through an election whether we should allow the nomination of women. In addition, suppose that (3) you are a member of a religious group that believes that, according to God-ordained order of nature, women should not be permitted to lead a nation. Considering (1), irrespective of your religious belief [like the one stated in (3)], you should vote for allowing the nomination of women, which is a decision that conforms to the contractual conventions of legal standards [like the one stated in (1)]. You can reasonably ask a woman in that same religious group to reject the nomination, if such a woman is nominated. But you cannot reasonably ask, due to your own religious convictions, a woman outside that religious group to reject the nomination, considering that based on (1), she has the right to accept it.
In a religiously pluralistic society, like the U.S., any of its laws must have secularized bases or foundations. Religiously grounded values cannot be universally, objectively, or conclusively validated. Such values can only be validated relative to the religious framework that one uses. For example, as Christians, we value marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. We justify its sacredness within our religious framework, namely a framework that is informed by the Bible. However, it is obviously the case that there are many non-Christian Americans, who do not use the same framework in justifying their beliefs. The imposition of such a view of marriage on non-Christians infringes on the rights and liberties of non-Christian Americans to choose their own religious or philosophical stances on the status of marriage. Some of these non-Christian Americans are atheists and agnostics, who are equally protected by the laws. So, in order to be neutral, from the perspective of the government (not from the perspective of the church), marriage should be treated as a legal contract between two consenting adults.
In a politically egalitarian society, like the U.S., people with different religious or philosophical views cannot be unfairly treated with unnecessary discriminations by the government that is supposed to protect the rights and freedoms of all of those who are legally under its jurisdiction, irrespective of their religious or philosophical views. An attempt to favor the views of a particular religious community will generally cause unfair treatments of others who do not belong in that religious community. Whether we like it or not, our current political and sociological realities inform us that we live in a religiously pluralistic and a politically egalitarian society. Due to such realities, we revise, interpret, or amend our laws. So, our laws, including the values that ground them, must be secularized. There are certain secular values that are appropriate for the formations of our laws, such as rights, liberties, justice, equality, fairness, tolerance, diversity, neutrality, pluralism, etc. Such values do not need to be religiously grounded. However, as Christians, our personal or moral interactions with people must be shaped by our spiritual values: love, righteousness, holiness, kindness, patience, faith, etc. Most of such values must be religiously grounded.
The fact that an act is immoral does not mean that it ought to be legally prohibited. A rational voter must be impartial. Irrespective of one’s convictions, one ought to vote for a law that one interprets as the best representation of the contractual conventions of legal standards or vote for a person who has a political vision that is more coherent with the ideals of our society that are reflected in the contractual conventions of legal standards. So, a rational voter can vote for a person who or a law that is opposed to one’s own (religious) convictions. For example, suppose we live in a society where (1) women are eligible to run for the presidency. Let’s say that in that society (2) we try to determine through an election whether we should allow the nomination of women. In addition, suppose that (3) you are a member of a religious group that believes that, according to God-ordained order of nature, women should not be permitted to lead a nation. Considering (1), irrespective of your religious belief [like the one stated in (3)], you should vote for allowing the nomination of women, which is a decision that conforms to the contractual conventions of legal standards [like the one stated in (1)]. You can reasonably ask a woman in that same religious group to reject the nomination, if such a woman is nominated. But you cannot reasonably ask, due to your own religious convictions, a woman outside that religious group to reject the nomination, considering that based on (1), she has the right to accept it.
Comments