God, Religion, & Government

God, Religion, & Government

    From recent discussions with many of my friends, it seems to me that there is quite a bit of confusion between the meanings of the words ‘God’, ‘religion’, and ‘government'. Many people think that by referring to 'God', one is automatically bringing religion into the discussion. Is this really true, though? This article is my humble attempt to clear up this confusion.

Belief in God Vs. Existence of God

    First, let us look at the word “God” and see what it means. When referring to 'God', I am referring to a Supreme Being who is the Creator of all that exists. The word ‘God’ doesn’t automatically translate to Krishna, Allah, Jesus, or any other such deities. 'God' is the most plausible conclusion to the following logical arguments:

1. The Cosmological Argument shows the necessity of a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial Being who caused this universe to exist.
2. The Teleological Argument (Design Argument) shows the necessity of a Designer who is responsible for the design in the universe.
3. The Moral Argument shows the necessity of a Supreme Being because of the existence of “objective moral laws.”

The most reasonable conclusion from these three arguments is that there exists a Being who caused this universe to be created out of nothing, a Being who created all human beings with a conscience, allowing them to distinguish between “right” and “wrong.” He has also established some self-evident truths which we call "objective moral laws," such as:”‘It’s wrong to hurt or kill an innocent human being for one’s own convenience”; “Sex should be only within marriage”; “We should treat all human beings equally,” etc..

    In my opinion, many people are confused between the acknowledgment of the existence of God and the belief in God. It is NOT necessary to believe in God to acknowledge his existence. For example, Jack can review the evidence presented above and can reasonably conclude that God exists, without choosing to go any further than that and believe in that God. That’s a very honest position Jack is taking. He understands that there are unignorable reasons for the existence of God but he doesn’t want to open up his will/mind to personally believe in God. Here is where many of us stumble, in my opinion. We think that acknowledging God’s existence is equal to believing in him. If so, let us look at the error we are committing here.

If I deny the existence of God, I am indirectly saying:

1. The universe somehow came out of nothing. No cause was required for the universe’s creation. I don’t care about the law of causality.
2. A design doesn’t require a designer (i.e., a computer can exist without a designer, a painting can exist without a painter, Mount Rushmore could be caused by an unintelligent and impersonal cause, etc.).
3. There are no objective moral values. All moral values and truths are relative.

I do not think that many of those who deny the existence of God actually agree with the three points above, so how could they deny the existence of God? The only way I can think of is that they have equated acknowledging the existence of God with believing in God; they choose to reject one or more of the Laws so that they’re not forced to accept God’s existence or believe in Him.

Are God and Religion the same?

    Now let us look at the word ‘religion.’ Religion is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of people or sects. Every religion in the world has some good moral teachings. Also, all the major religions have exclusive truth claims. All religions CAN be false at the same time; however, they CANNOT all be true at the same time, because their truth claims are mutually exclusive. It is up to an individual to examine the truth claims of each religion and determine that religion’s validity. In my opinion, making blanket statements such as “all religions are wrong” or “all religions are correct” is a sign of intellectual laziness. In addition, one should adhere to a particular religion if he is convinced of the validity of that religion’s truth claims; on the other hand, if he is convinced of the religion’s invalidity, he should reject belief in it. It’s logically incorrect to claim that a religion is wrong just by analyzing the actions of its adherents. What if those adherents are not truly following the original teachings of that religion? If you want to show that a religion is wrong, you must show that its truth claims cannot be objectively verified.

    A ‘religious person’ is one who desires to practice the teachings of a religion. Since the teachings of all the major religions are mutually exclusive, it’s logically impossible to say that all religions point to the same God. The existence of a religion doesn’t necessarily affirm the existence of God; Buddhism is a classic example of this. Therefore, contrary to what many people think, a ‘religious person’ isn’t necessarily someone who acknowledges the existence of God.

    Consequently, it is logically impossible to equate God with religion.  Just because someone mentions God doesn’t necessarily mean that he is religious. The United States’ Declaration of Independence is an example of this. It says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (God) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights (given by God), Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”

    We can clearly see that, contrary to what many people think, the founding fathers of the Unites States didn’t mean RELIGION when they used the term ‘Creator’ (God). They were simply referring to the Supreme Being who created the universe, as I mentioned in the first part of this article, not specifically Allah, Jesus, Krishna, or any other deity. Some of the founding fathers were Christians and some were not Christians. If their intention was to create a Christian country, they would have used the word ‘Jesus’ instead of ‘Creator.’ If they wanted an Islamic country, then they would have used ‘Allah’ instead of ‘Creator.’

    Therefore, using the word ‘God’ doesn’t have to mean that you are invoking religion. If we keep this fact in mind, we can avoid much confusion.

The relationship between Government, God, and Religion

The Nature of Governments:

    We can see that there are many different types of governments in the world today. Consider the Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. The governments in these countries are “religious” in nature, meaning that the governments are controlled by the dominant religion of those countries. In the two countries I mentioned above, Islam is the dominant religion and the government enforces the Islamic law to all people in those countries. This is the reason you cannot practice any religion besides Islam in Saudi Arabia. There is no church (religion) and state separation in this type of government. England in the 16th century is another example of a land ruled by a religious government: the dominant religion (enforced by the Catholic Church) controlled the state. You cannot truly practice your religion in such countries unless your religion is the state religion. In this model, the dominant religion has the absolute power.

    Let us now look at countries such as China and the Soviet Union. The governments in these countries are based on an atheist foundation – they have nothing whatsoever to do with God or religion. In fact, they promote “state atheism.” In this model, the government has the ultimate power.

    Now let us look at the government of the Unites States. The Founding Fathers came from England where they were under a religious government. Having seen and experienced the peril of living under the religious government in England, they desired for their new country to be neither religious nor atheistic in nature. They knew that religious governments cannot offer true religious freedom to all people. They also knew that they couldn’t honestly be atheists as they couldn’t deny the existence of the objective moral laws. In their quest for a balanced form of government, they came up with this famous phrase -  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”.

    As you can see, the Founding Fathers upheld the objective moral laws which are self-evident to all men. They also acknowledged the existence of a Supreme Being who is the giver of these moral laws. At the same time, they did not include any particular religion as part of the government. To make sure that everyone was absolutely clear about this, they came up with the first amendment – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Thus, the founding fathers eliminated any possibility of a dominant religion controlling the state. They also ensured that people were free to choose any religion they want, or to not practice any religion. This defining feature is what makes the United States’ government very unique and well-balanced. This is why a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or any other religious person can freely practice his religion in the United States. In this form of government, the government exists to protect the rights of the people.

    At this point, many of you are tempted to throw stones at me by saying that I have no idea what happened in the United States in the past 250+ years! But before you do that, please read this carefully. I am not talking about the actions of the government but rather, the basis of the government. The actions of a government do not always necessarily correspond with the basis of the government. This is because a government is formed by people, not by angels. But you and I can analyze a government’s action and examine whether or not this action goes along with the foundational principle of the government. Slavery is a perfect example of this. The Declaration of Independence very clearly acknowledges the equality of all mankind, yet slavery became legal in the United States in 1857 (Dred Scott Vs. Sandford). The Supreme Court made it legal by proclaiming that “Blacks are non-persons.” So, in the Supreme Court’s view, they did not compromise the Declaration of Independence! But thanks to the unique foundation of the US government, truth prevailed 6 years after the Dred Scott decision. (Side note: there is a striking similarity between how slavery became legal in the US and how, in the Roe Vs. Wade case in 1973, abortion became legal in the US. The Supreme Court declared that a fetus is not a person just as in the past, the Supreme Court ruled that a black person is not a person! I am hoping for the day when the truth will prevail on this issue as it did with the issue of slavery.)

    As shown, the United States’ Government was founded on some unique principles. The Declaration of Independence boldly proclaims that the government exists to protect the rights of the people, those given to us by God. People are generally free to do what they want as long as their practice of freedom doesn’t hurt others. James Madison’s quote is very much applicable here: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The government is not the SOURCE of objective moral laws; rather, it exists to protect the people from others who abuse and disobey the moral laws. In this form of government, God, not the government, is viewed as the source of objective moral laws. This way it becomes a necessity for the government to legislate morality. This is the reason we have seat belt laws, DUI laws, traffic laws, and the like. If you look deeply level at each of these legislations, you can clearly see the objective moral laws they serve to protect. For example: DUI (or DWI) laws are in effect because they discourage a certain behavior, drunk driving, which can lead to hurting others. We all know deep in our hearts that hurting others for one’s own convenience is objectively wrong. Therefore, DUI laws serve to uphold the objective moral law of “Don’t hurt others for your own convenience.” Since all laws declare one behavior right and another behavior wrong, legislating morality is not only ethical, it’s unavoidable.

    Recent developments in the Unites States

    Now that we have looked into the different forms of governments, let us analyze what has been happening in the United States in recent years.
    

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with the radical left wing in the United States, has done a phenomenal job spreading the smokescreen called “religious rights,” portraying every moral issue as a religious issue. They infiltrate people's hearts and minds with the fear of religion, claiming that people who oppose certain moral issues are trying to support a religious government. One of my friends even accused me (because of my stand on abortion) of wanting America to be like Iran! His confusion was from the misunderstanding that abortion is a religious issue. Of course, a religion may or may not support abortion, but abortion is not a religious issue; rather, it’s a moral issue. Remember that religions are formed because of the existence of objective moral laws, not the other way around. Unfortunately, due to the ACLU’s influence, the majority of people in the US think that moral laws come from religion. This is absolutely wrong!

    Another thing the ACLU keeps on trying to do is that at any time someone mentions God in a public setting, they file lawsuits claiming that religion has been introduced in state affairs. As we have seen above, God and religion are not the same. Acknowledging God doesn’t necessarily mean acknowledging a religion. Moreover, the First Amendment very clearly establishes the fact that we shouldn’t prevent the free exercise of any religion. A gross misunderstanding of “separation of church and state” causes a very unfortunate situation in America today. The separation of church and state does not mean you cannot have any religion in public places. Rather, its goal is to ensure that the government is NOT controlled by a dominant religion. The ACLU has very intentionally spread this misinformation among the American people, and more and more people every day falsely believe that the “separation of church and state” means the “separation of God and State.”

    The consequences of this confusion are very severe.  If there is no God, it means that there is no basis for objective moral values and duties. Everything becomes relative. There can be no absolutes. This causes us to slowly drift towards something called “moral relativism.” Moral relativism sounds very attractive, but it defies reality. Here is an example from a recent discussion I had with a friend who claims to be an atheist and believes that there are no objective moral values, everything is relative. When discussing the issue of slavery, this friend very vocally expressed his heartfelt view: one human being subjugating another human being is vile, in any period of history. From this, we can see that deep in his heart, he believes that slavery is objectively wrong. At the same time, he maintains that he is a moral relativist! Those two points are incompatible; you cannot claim that something is objectively wrong and at the same time believe in moral relativism.

What should we do?

    If we do not explain and emphasize these self-evident truths to our younger generations, we are inviting further moral decay into our world and inviting even greater tragedies than we experience today. We shouldn’t be surprised to see more events like the Newtown shooting in the near future. Therefore, we should do everything in our power to uphold and share the objective moral laws, and thus also the existence of God. We should teach our children the importance of abiding by these moral truths. We should also prevent the election of any candidates who openly denies these objective moral truths.