Some Christians, in reflecting on the making of law, attempt to be “fair” by saying Christians ought not seek to legislate Christian morality. This is seen to be wrong and oppressive, and so rather than advocate laws that are consistent with Christian morality, they decide to advocate laws that are inconsistent with Christian morality, such as transgender laws, and justify this by standing on radically secular moral pluralism.
For example, the transgender bathroom bill asserts that a person’s personal feeling about their gender has the force of law. What, however, is the moral principle justifying this law, and how is it that some Christians find themselves defending this alien moral principle?
That for a Christian this is intellectually and morally indefensible, and is tantamount to a denial of Christ, is what the following argument seeks to show.
All law is the expression of some moral system. Morality is at the root of law. For example, thievery is illegal because it is first determined to be immoral, i.e. that it is a violation of property rights. The illegality of it follows upon its being considered immoral. The same holds for murder, which is a violation of the divine right to life. The same principle of morality also holds for traffic laws, which are established on the ethic that it is wrong to endanger people’s lives.
This is not to say that all things that are immoral are also illegal; it is to say that at the root of law is the principle of right and wrong, i.e. morality.
Why does this matter?
The answer is that when determining the legality or illegality of some action there is also some moral system presupposed by the discussion. To speak of morality is to speak of some guiding principle and system which determines whether something is said to be wrong or right, permissible or impermissible, and finally legal or illegal. The presupposed moral system provides the criteria by which the case is assessed and determined.
Thus, when society enters into the discussion of whether something is right or wrong, what is at the heart of the question is the competing moral systems. According to radical secularism, the problem with legislating religious morality is in determining which religion’s morality. To adopt one religion’s moral system at the expense of others is, according to them, to embrace an oppressive religious tyranny. For radical secularism, this problem is insoluble and so, in the interests of justice, religion is removed as a relevant criteria for moral and legal reasoning. But which moral system’s notion of justice is actually being advocated here?
The problem at the heart of the critical question, "which religion's morality?" is not actually avoided by removing religion from the equation. Why? Because there are still remaining moral systems and ideologies, and so the question remains: "Which moral system?" and "Whose moral ideology?" Not all are compatible, coherent, or even moral.
Why consent to one moral system or another such that one of them is privileged with the force of law?
In the case of radical secularism, the presupposition is that of the removal of the transcendental from the moral equation, and consequently from the legal equation. The very logic of radical secularism necessitates that God be absent as a consideration. In short, radical secularism is by very definition godless. Therefore, atheistic approaches to morality and law are a fortiori given precedence in radical secular approaches to morality and law.
Since law is a consequence of whatever moral system it is sponsored by, then radical secular law becomes a force of and for atheism. Law becomes an arm of atheism. Since God is excluded in principle, the atheistic moral system produces laws consistent with its inner atheistic logic, inexorably alienating the transcendental. Law ends up simply enforcing what is available to atheistic interests.
The question then must be addressed, what inherently godless morality and consequently godless approach to law is available to a Christian? Laissez faire? Relativism? Nihilism? Authoritarianism? Utilitarianism? Pure democracy? Republicanism? Tyranny?
If a Christian must first exclude God from his legal reasoning so as to advocate some radically secular moral system and law in order to be “fair,” then the Christian is bound to legislate against Christ Himself. He sets up a system in the name of some notion of justice whose logic militates against Christ. In dividing off the Church from the State, he creates a godless State that by definition cannot incorporate anything of God. Thus these Christians deny Christ by burning incense to Caesar.
