Religion and the State

While on my bike ride yesterday listening to some lectures (again) on my I-pod,  at a moment the wind/headphone combination was not deafening, the speaker brought up how religion in the state (and in government by necessary inference) is inescapable.  I'll share it with you - processed through my brain and regurgitated to you using my words.  Hopefully it's somewhat intelligible.

Which human institution makes laws, recognizes laws, and enforces laws?  Easy question.  The state does it.  You can for practical purposes substitute the word "government" or more specifically "civil government" and we're still talking about the same thing.  Every law carries with it a sense of "thou shalt do this" or "thou shalt NOT do this" - it cannot be escaped.  Take any law, and consider that if you break it you are at least in theory - if not in practice - liable to some sort of punishment, even if it is very minor.  So, the state tries to influence your morality (your actions, "mores") through legislation.  Yes, every law is an imposition of morality.  Not only is it possible to "legislate morality" but it is the ONLY kind of legislation there is!  The concept of shalt and shalt not - the recognition of obligation, is the domain or religion, or at least in the domain of a place in which God or an ultimate authority is recognized.

Surely we can have a law code and laws without recognizes a god or God, can't we?  Not one that you can make sense out of.  Where is the authority behind a law or law code?  It has to reside somewhere.  If there is no authority behind a law or law code then that means it really has no backing and no legitimate power.  Consider any law and you will come to three possibilities regarding authority:

1.   The authority might reside in the individual.  If that is so, and there can be no higher appeal or authority in regards to that law, then we have a planet with billions of authorities and no one can legitimately have any say over what another person (authority) does to himself or anyone else.  This would be anarchy, and the whole idea of laws governing the society as a whole would not make any sense. 
2. The authority might reside in the people.  There is an ancient Latin saying: "Vox populi vox dei." which translates as "The voice of the people is the voice of God."  The "people" in this saying is the collective "people."  What is the problem with this?  This is a pure democracy - not a good thing.  There are no limits with this type of system.  If 51% of the people for whatever reason become persuaded that it is GOOD to kill you, to run over the old lady, or to do whatever evil (as we consider evil) deed you can think of, it would be by definition OK.  If the majority (i.e. the "people" is the ultimate authority behind legislation, then the rights of the minority are not protected - no one's rights are safe.  
3. The third option is that the authority resides in a personal, transcendent God - a being who is by definition just, good, and perfect.  Though humans are imperfect and are guilty of faulty application, if God has decreed through holy writ and divine fiat that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, then these become immovable limits to our folly.  They are safeguards that protect us from utter self-destruction - and they protect the (legitimate) rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.  The drafting and enacting of legislation can have a democratic element, but there are built in limits/safeguards. This is something a pure democracy does not and can not do.

Before I get ahead of myself, let me reemphasize the fact that in all three options I just listed, a "god" (i.e. an ultimate authority) is assumed and needed.  In any system where law has any meaning, an ultimate authority is needed.  You can't get away from it.  I'm sorry if I'm unnecessarily repeating myself, but I'm just trying to make things clear.  The ultimate authority of any system is the god of that system - because it is the ultimate authority.  You may not want to call it "God" but it is the "god" you (even if you're an Atheist)  appeal to nonetheless.  It is the ultimate authority you recognize.

So there is is.  You can't get away from the concept of God intertwined with the state.  You can't get away from some conception of religion - mixed with the state.  Out of the three options I listed above that last paragraph, which do you hold to?  Think about it next time you go on a long ride or run...