Two Different Cases, Same Mistake

 

Craig Payne

Craig Payne teaches at a community college in southeastern Iowa.

      Just after Christmas of 2003, the Associated Press released a story headlined “Why Keep Some Old Testament Laws and Discard Others?” for newspaper publication nationwide. The opening two sentences of the article read,

Among the issues raised during the bitter dispute over homosexuality in the Episcopal Church this year is why Christianity has upheld some Old Testament laws and discarded others. Why eat pork, for instance, but oppose same-sex behavior?

      However, the question itself reveals a misunderstanding of the source of moral claims. Despite the argument that “no one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on anyone else,” most moral issues, including issues involving matters of sexuality, do not revolve around explicitly religious doctrines.

The Natural Law

      Even in pre-Christian times, the Roman writer Cicero argued for “conformity to Nature’s standard” in moral matters. According to the Stoic philosophers, the great rationality under girding the natural universe also (in smaller measure) persuades humans of what is morally right and natural for them.

      In the 1200s, Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas distinguished between “divine” laws, which are religious laws only applying to those who hold to a specific religion, and “natural” laws, which apply to all of us because of our common human nature, regardless of our religious beliefs. “Do not eat pork” is an example of a “divine” law, a biblical law applying only to observant Jews. “Do not murder,” on the other hand, is an example of a “natural” law, applying to all of us regardless of our views of the Bible, Christianity, Judaism, or religion in general.

      We see this tradition of “natural” ethics even in our own Declaration of Independence. Americans felt justified to break away from Great Britain’s rule because they believed England had violated “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” These “laws of Nature” are not based on any specific religion, but are a general guide for all humanity.

      As Aquinas writes, it is not only “religious” knowledge that helps us “discern what is good and evil,” but also “the light of natural reason.” Our natural reason enables us to perceive wrongdoing against “the laws of Nature,” the moral laws governing human behavior.

Unintentional Support

      In my local paper recently, a young woman wrote in support of same-sex marriages. She began her argument by stating, “Everyone has a different morality,” and continued on to assert that we shouldn’t “judge” same-sex marriages as wrong. She mentioned a lesbian couple she knew who recently “had a baby”—which is rather obviously not true, biologically speaking.

      Then she concluded with this: “Everyone thinks differently on morals. As long as people don’t harm another person, we should let them do what they want.”

      Evidently the letter-writer did not notice her unintentional support for the concept of the natural law. She argues, on the one hand, that “everyone has a different morality.” On the other hand, she makes a blanket, objective, one-size-fits-all moral claim—that no one should “harm another person.” What she obviously does not realize is that the very same natural law that persuades her that harming another human is wrong is also the natural law that should persuade us of right and wrong in matters of sexuality.

Natural Law and the Bible

      In case the reader feels I am taking away from the authority of the Bible in moral matters by stressing the authority of the natural law, let me point out that this view of “natural” human morality is actually endorsed by the Bible itself in many places.

      For example, the Old Testament book of Psalms states that nature itself “pours forth speech” and “reveals knowledge.” The Psalmist goes on to say, “There is no speech or language” where the voice of nature “is not heard.” In the New Testament, the apostle Paul writes regarding all humans that “the Law of God” is “written in their hearts,” so that our “conscience bears witness” of right and wrong. These moral laws have been evident “since the creation of the world” and are “understood through that which has been made.”

      Therefore, whether or not people accept the authority of any particular religion, they are still accountable to the natural laws of morality. The fact that these natural laws of morality are commanded and defended in the Bible does not excuse anyone from observing them, just because he or she does not accept the Bible’s teachings.

The Second Case: Hanging the Ten Commandments

      These natural laws “written in our hearts” apply to another issue currently in the news. Here in Iowa, a mini-controversy has arisen regarding the hanging of the Ten Commandments in the Iowa Statehouse. Court administrators of the Iowa Judiciary have said such a display could be viewed as “an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the state,” especially since a similar display in Alabama was so ruled by the Alabama judiciary. Columnist Ellen Goodman argues that such a display is explicitly “sectarian” and thus biased toward Judaism and Christianity.

      However, to borrow from Aquinas once again, laws against murder, theft, false witness, and so on, are not specifically “divine” laws, but are “natural” moral laws. Even the commandment to observe a Sabbath rest may be seen as a concession to natural human frailty and weakness. The Ten Commandments are therefore not “sectarian.” Even though revealed to Moses as divine commands, they are also available to us through the “light of natural reason.”

      Even in the Bible, people knew murder and theft were wrong before the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses, as we can see in the story of Cain murdering his brother Abel. Prohibitions against such acts are commands “written in our hearts.” So what better place to hang these commandments than in legislative and judicial buildings?

The Same Mistake

      We see, then, that the controversies over hanging the Ten Commandments in public buildings, as well as the controversies over same-sex “marriages,” really stem from the same mistake. Many people wrongly think that these are explicitly religious issues and therefore should be matters of private conscience, not public policy. However, as we have seen, the moral commands issuing from the natural law are matters of public reasoning, not private conscience.

      These are not issues of “sectarian” religious belief. They are issues that apply to us all, religious or not.     Ω

“Civilizations have often decayed when the tastes and habits of the ‘uncultured majority’ spread upward to demoralize the ‘cultured minority,’ producing internal barbarization.” —The Lessons of History, by Will and Arial Durant, p. 92