Many Religious Right spokespersons attempt to argue that the First Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of religion was merely intended to prevent the establishment of one particular denomination of Christianity, and to keep the government out of the affairs of the church -- all while arguing that the Founding Fathers intended Christianity itself to be the official, legally recognized (and imposed) religion of the United States.

Dr. Thomas Lee Abshier, a former candidate for United States Senate, writes the following, which despite some internal contradictions and conflicting messages, both illustrates a common Religious Right view and acknowledges some problems with it.  He begins:

"The Founders intended that America be a Christian Nation, and they intended that we legislate social behavior using the standards of Biblical principle.  But, they erected a Constitutional wall against Congress establishing a single denomination as a State religion."

But with due caution, observes:

"But, the multiple writers, contexts, and eras make it easy to derive many possible interpretations from the Bible.  As a result, many denominations have arisen to support a particular perspective about Biblical truth.  The ambiguity about the perfect Christian doctrine is one important reason why a particular interpretation of scripture, or system or interpretation (denominational creed) should not be given a place of legally established superiority."

Great point.  He observes further,

"The Founders saw the tendency of the human heart to engage in control and domination in the name of God.  ...  This prohibition was not meant to prevent any and all religious expression in government, but rather to prevent a single creed or denomination of Christianity from using the power of the State to enforce compliance to a single denominational doctrine."

At the rate the good doctor is going, I won't need to write this article.  He's making my opening argument as well as I can.  However, there are more points to address, so let us go to work dissecting this unusually thoughtful piece.

First things first.  Let's admit it.  Nearly 100 percent of the Religious Right's drive for power is to legislate private behavior.  The Gospel is strangely absent from their platform.  So, let's see what it takes to "legislate social behavior using the standards of Biblical principle."

To legislate social behavior using Biblical principles, the government must render a theological decision on Biblical teachings.  But as the doctor observes, different denominations arrive at different interpretations of Scripture.  He correctly says that one particular interpretation shouldn't enjoy legally established superiority. 

Therefore, if the government enacted legislation based on Biblical principles, the government must first have arrived at a particular interpretation -- an interpretation with which some Christian denominations are likely to differ.

For example, some Christians rightly observe that there is nothing wrong with nudity, and that it is in no way contrary to Biblical teaching.  Yet the efforts to censor depictions of, or the practice of, nudity almost always come from people who claim to want laws to reflect "Biblical principles."  By trying to censor or otherwise criminalize nudity, they are trying to enact a particular interpretation of Scripture into law -- an interpretation with which many Christians disagree.

Such legislative acts run afoul of what even the Religious Right claims about church/state separation.

Next, in deciding whether or not to enact a Bible-based law, government must render a theological decision regarding whether or not it should be punishable.  Prostitution was frowned upon under Mosaic Law, but was not criminal in itself.  Yet you can bet that almost everyone who wants Bible-based laws would criminalize prostitution, or insist that it remain criminalized.

But that's yet another theological decision that the government has rendered, with which some Christian denominations might disagree.  By legislating morality, government is usurping the freedom of churches to interpret Scripture on their own and to live according to the findings of their faith.

The priority and emphasis that such a Biblical government would give to each Biblical principle is yet another theological rendering that some Christian denominations would dispute.  Scripture teaches that the love of money is a great source of evil -- yet not only are Religious Right groups and representatives completely neglecting to advocate greed laws, but many of them actively resist the making of laws that would prohibit amassing ridiculous amounts of wealth or require than excess wealth be given to the poor.  That's one Bible-based law that would spark outrage among over 90 percent of the Religious Right!

Moreover, by advocating the legislation of Biblical morality, they are immediately disregarding the beliefs of Christians who believe that legalism went out with the New Covenant.

One can make a strong case that Jesus' two commandments, to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, supercede the legalistic details of Old Testament law.  Other New Testament passages certainly reflect this: "The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10) and "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right." (James 2:8).

To many Christians, legalism and the bindings of Mosaic Law are things of the past, as Ephesians 2:13-17 and Colossians 2:13-15 suggest.

So, when Religious Right groups advocating legislating specific religious moralities, they are also stepping on the toes of Christians who adhere to the above two paragraphs, disregarding the rights of these Christians while giving the Religious Right's doctrinal beliefs a preferred, supreme position in law.

Finally, there is one more theological matter that the Religious Right isn't even contemplating prior to acting -- whether it's Scriptural to legislate religious laws outside the walls of the church in the first place.  By doing so, they are deciding that enacting such laws is Biblically sound -- when many Christian denominations also disagree with that.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 says that God will judge those outside the church.  Any reproof and correction based on Christian doctrine is to take place within the body of Christ, not the world at large.  Even in the frequently quoted passage Romans 1:18-32, there is no command or suggestion that believers try to impose their belief on them.  Indeed, God did exactly the opposite -- He let them go on their way, giving them over to the kind of life they wanted.

And, needless to say, the strife and tensions that always arise between religious (and secular) sects when one religious belief system is imposed by law, violates another New Testament teaching: to live in peace with the people around you.  The early church went out into a pagan world -- yet believers were instructed to live peaceably with them -- not make political trouble for them (Romans 12:18, 1 Peter 3:8-9, 1 Timothy 2:1-4, Titus 3:1-7, Hebrews 12:14).

In other words, the inevitable result of trying to establish religious law via the State is to egregiously violate of New Testament teachings about living peacefully with those around you.

So, in light of all this, what do we make of the Religious RIght's claim that the First Amendment's purpose was merely to prevent the establishment of one particular denomination or its precepts into law, and to keep the government out of the affairs of the church?

We end up discovering that the Religious Right's political agenda is unconstitutional even by their own claims.  When government tries to enact a Biblical law, it renders a theological conclusion that -- by necessity -- codifies one doctrinal view into law over and above the tenets of Christians that might disagree.  And by the act itself of so legisating, it is implicitly favoring the theological view that religious laws are appropriate for legislation -- to the disrespect of Christians who do not.

Therefore, even by the Religious Right's definition, the only possible Constitutional route is the secular view of government and lawmaking.

.