Unbelievers & Law

I was transported back to the 1980’s and 90’s on my drive to university this morning listening to a podcast.

I could hear myself making the same arguments to my high school students then. Kate Cohen in a Washington Post editorial was pushing back on “religious exemptions” used by some to exclude themselves from the mandate of law. Ms. Cohen then suggested as someone who is “not a believer” she would like exemptions from “religious laws.” Cohen’s basis for her belief? It is “in contravention of reason and morality.”

Now those who follow me on social media, my websites, and teaching videos know that I have deep respect for other points of view. But everyone who knows me also realizes that my first response will always be to ask straightforward questions. So here are the questions I would ask Kate Cohen.

“How do you define ‘reason’ and ‘morality’?” “What is the source or origin of those concepts, ‘reason’ and ‘morality’?” And most important of all “Who gets to answer these questions, and then, apply them?” Again, those who know me know that these are questions I ask everyone all the time, whether in high school, undergraduate, PhD studies, or casual conversation.

And my answer will always be the same: the standard for ‘reason’ and ‘morality’ must have a TRANSCENDENT source. If there is no outside, supernatural origin for decision making about right and wrong, then we are left with human definitions, sources, and decision makers. And if we are left solely with humans at the helm we are left with a haunting question, “Who will decide which humans decide and how will those decisions be made?”
[The picture is of a Catholic cathedral in France taken by my nephew Luke Renoe: Visual Art which hangs in our home, a marker of TRANSCENDENCE. Kate Cohen’s article can be found here.]

Leave a Comment