Religious and Civil Law

Christianity
And they sent some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to entrap Jesus in his talk. And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:13-17)

Confucianism
The moral law is to be found everywhere, and yet it is a secret. The simple intelligence of ordinary men and women of the people may understand something of the moral law; but in its utmost reaches there is something which even the wisest and holiest men cannot understand. The ignoble natures of ordinary men and women of the people may be able to carry out the moral law; but in its utmost reaches even the wisest and holiest of men cannot live up to it. (Doctrine of the Mean 12)

Jainism
The Law is that which leads to welfare and salvation. It forms conduct and character distinguished by the sense of equality among all beings. (Somadeva, Nitivakyamrita 1.1)

Islam
Hearing and obeying [those in government] are the duty of a Muslim both regarding what he likes and what he dislikes, as long as he is not commanded to perform an act of disobedience to God, in which case he must neither hear nor obey. (Hdith of Bukhari)

Ibn 'Umar reported the Prophet as saying, "The sultan is God's shade on earth to which each one of His servants who is wronged repairs. When he is just he will have a reward, and it is the duty of the common people to be grateful; but when he acts tyrannically the burden rests on him, and it is the duty of the common people to show endurance." (Hadith of Baihaqi)

Sikhism
By Divine Law are all forms manifested; Inexpressible is the Law. By Divine Law are beings created; by Law are some exalted. By Divine Law are beings marked with nobility or ignominy; by the Law are they visited with bliss or bale. On some by His Law falls grace; others by His Law are whirled around in cycles of births and deaths. All by the Law are governed, none is exempt. Says Nanak, should man realize the power of the Law, he would certainly disclaim his ego. (Adi Granth, Japuji 2, M.1, 1)

Judaism
If two sit together and the words between them are of Torah, then the Shechinah is in their midst. (Mishnah, Abot 3.2)

Rabbi Hanina the deputy of the priests, said, "Pray for the peace of the government; for, except for the fear of that, we should have swallowed each other alive." (Mishnah, Abot 3.2)

Buddhism
Then the people gathered together and lamented, saying, "Evil ways are rife among the people - theft, censure, false speech, and punishment have appeared among us. Let us choose one man from among us, to dispense wrath, censure, and banishment when they are right and proper, and give him a share of our rice in return." So they chose the most handsome, attractive, and capable among them and invited him to dispense anger, censure, and banishment. He consented and did so, and they gave him a share of their rice. (Dgha Nikaya iii.92-93, Agganna Suttanta)

Hinduism
May your counsel be common, your assembly common, common the mind, and the thoughts of these united. A common purpose do I lay before you, and worship with your common oblation. Let your aims be common, and your hearts of one accord, and all of you be of one mind, so you may live well together. (Rig Veda 10.191.2-4)

One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. (Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8)

The Messengers of God reveal the social and spiritual laws that provide the basis for harmonious human interactions. These are not just a set of guidelines and procedures for human activity. The Messengers express the eternal law, the word of God. The human spirit can receive the reflections of divine law, but the human mind cannot fully comprehend or in turn express them. "By Divine Law are all forms manifested; Inexpressible is the Law" (Sikhism. Adi Granth, Japuji 2, M.1, 1).

The moral law is to be found everywhere, and yet it is a secret. The simple intelligence of ordinary men and women of the people may understand something of the moral law; but in its utmost reaches there is something which even the wisest and holiest men cannot understand. The ignoble natures of ordinary men and women of the people may be able to carry out the moral law; but in its utmost reaches even the wisest and holiest of men cannot live up to it. (Confucianism. Doctrine of the Mean 12)

Divine law is the will of God that creates and sustains the particulars of all of creation. "By Divine Law are beings created; by Law are some exalted. By Divine Law are beings marked with nobility or ignominy; by the Law are they visited with bliss or bale. On some by His Law falls grace; others by His Law are whirled around in cycles of births and deaths. All by the Law are governed, none is exempt" (Sikhism. Adi Granth, Japuji 2, M.1, p.1).

With respect to society, divine law is the will of God as it pertains to maintaining our relationship with Him and each other. Our relationships with God and others are linked. The conditions placed on maintaining our relationship with God involve how we behave in our relationships to each other. The primary agreement with God, the covenant with him, requires submission to His will particularly as it pertains to how we treat each other. "The Law is that which leads to welfare and salvation. It forms conduct and character distinguished by the sense of equality among all beings" (Jainism. Somadeva, Nitivakyamrita 1.1).

The implications for this directive to the people of God throughout the world are fairly clear at least in the abstract. Most of us, for example, would agree that we prefer freedom and equality over oppression, education over ignorance, empowerment over helplessness, and wealth over poverty. Difficulties arise with the movement from the abstract to the particular. The world community is very complex. Cultural norms, religious practices and theologies, political allegiances, traditional animosities, geographic limitations, and a host of social circumstances militate against agreement on the best way to implement equal treatment and fairness in political, economic, and social terms. This is generally the case even among those who dedicate their lives to the service of God and humanity within the construct of a particular faith tradition.

Agreement about the directives for human behavior found in scripture is difficult within a given culture, much less across cultures. The admonition against killing, for instance, for some Hindus who cultivate sensitivity to all life, includes insects. In the United States, the implications of the commandment not to kill is culturally manifest in the struggles over the use of capital punishment, the legal right to end one's life, and discussions regarding whether abortion is murder. The diversity of scriptural interpretation reveals the temporal nature underlying the human situation. This is not the realm of the absolute. Our physical natures and everything pertaining to them are temporal. They are imperfect, conditional, and subject to change. The human mind cannot express the will of God. The human spirit or soul may glimpse the perfect beauty of God, but we can only respond imperfectly in the context of human situations.

Assumptions of the legitimacy of absolute positions of right and wrong in the context of the temporal world is a significant barrier to constructive consultation and a cause of considerable conflict among peoples and nations. The problem is exacerbated when political and religious leaders use allegiance to theological or moral absolutes to accomplish personal and political agendas. It results in the division of people over issues that have temporal not absolute solutions.

The primary requirement for effective participation in deliberations aimed at resolving human conflict is that the participants admit their fallibility. None speak for God. We do not know the eternal will of God. "God knows, and you know not" (Islam. Qur'an 16.74). "For that which is esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Christianity. Luke 16:15). If we are to engage hearts and minds in pursuit of justice, we cannot dictate absolutes to each other as though they are pronouncements of the will of God. Our decisions pertain to the realm of the contingent, the finite. Only God determines reality with absolute decisions. We must trust that God's law will not be threatened by our inadequacies and missteps in the processes of decision-making. "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Christianity. Luke 16:16-17). Each person must turn to God for guidance in the processes of negotiating solutions to human problems. God's dominion is not threatened by our imperfect perceptions and actions. For each of us, the pleasure of God's company is conditioned on our willingness to submit to His will and not by our ability to enforce a rigid understanding of it upon our neighbor.

The unity of the peoples of the planet derived from processes of consensus is a higher good than the forced dominance of a particular interpretation of scripture no matter how sophisticated or enlightened. Submission to the will of God and the law of love are primary. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew. 7:12). We will learn through choice, consequence, and prayerful effort the ways of building consensus for the maintenance of an increasingly more just, peaceful, and bountiful human community.

Arriving at consensus for action in the context of diverse views and agendas is a proactive expression of the golden rule. In most circumstances, unified human action is more likely to be an expression of the will of God than conflict and warfare. In order to arrive as best we can at the justice implicit in the commandment to love one another, we must develop processes for finding agreement or consensus. Fighting about how to be just in the context of global community is antithetical to the purposes of justice. Agreement about how to integrate the commandments of God into practice for global community requires peaceful deliberations. Overt force and coercion may produce external compliance, but the optimal path to justice requires the independence of hearts and minds to pursue the will of God.

Consensus permits unified action within the infinite reality God has provided for us. Whether establishing consensus through science or scripture, it requires willingness and openness to accept the truth, regardless of predispositions or biases going into the search. "Says Nanak, should man realize the power of the Law, he would certainly disclaim his ego" (Sikhsim. Adi Granth, Japuji 2, M.1, p.1).

Selfless objectivity is required of anyone researching some aspect of the physical world as well as seeking an understanding of the law of God. Good science as well as good spiritual understanding requires a selfless perspective. Allegiance to the truth is productive for both science and religion. Reality is unified; science and religion are reflections of that unity in the realms of the human mind and spirit respectively.

In the scientific realm, consensus is achieved through experimentation and reporting processes that employ mechanisms of peer review. The models, concepts, and theories developed regarding the ways things work are based on integrity in experimentation and reporting that is repeatable and can be examined by other scientists. All individual efforts are submitted to the scrutiny of other researchers.

The underlying unity of science and religion, the mind and the spirit, provides a basis for religionists in their efforts to find consensus for scriptural interpretation. Peer review processes and conceptual frameworks similar to those used in scientific discovery are also productive for the resolution of practical conflicts associated with scriptural interpretation. The unified nature of reality dictates the holistic integration of mind and spirit - science and religion. Religious understanding must be in harmony with reason and the findings of science. For the institutions of religion, the use of processes similar to peer review can assist articulation of spiritual principles into the institutions of society, regardless of particular cultural or theological biases and predispositions.

For the researcher, personal commitment to the truth, regardless of bias, is required for the integrity of research and reporting. In religious discussions, concepts of theology and right and wrong behavior need to be subject to a personal commitment to the truth as understood through scripture as well as through scientific observation. Humility before God and His creation permits parity with others in discussions concerning scriptural interpretation. An individual's understanding of scripture must bear open discussion just as an individual's research is subject to evaluation by other researchers. Individuals participating in resolution of human conflict must acknowledge that they do not speak for God or His Messengers with any finality, even as a scientist cannot claim ownership of an absolute description of reality. Nor are religionists responsible for insuring compliance with a particular view of the will of God just as individual scientists are not responsible for enforcing a particular view of reality.

Religionists and scientists must, in the context of this contingent reality, rely on processes of consensus-building. The prerogatives associated with revealing absolute reality to human beings belong to God. Individuals need not take over this responsibility for God and act in His stead. Consensus requires finding agreement despite diverse perspectives rather than conforming or forcing conformance to one inflexible concept of reality.

In this day, as science and religion must both be employed for the benefit of society, all participants need to admit that they do not speak as the author of reality, concede that God speaks to every human heart, and not assume to know how well someone is listening. Ours is but to construct decisions through consultation that reflect our best efforts at finding justice in the temporal realms of reality. Acceptance of this basic rule for pursuance of the will of God releases individuals to participate whole-heartedly with peers in arriving at the best solutions available. It also permits the integrated use of science and religion, reason and spiritual insight, in the pursuit of a healthier more just human community.

Unity provides the most efficient political mechanism for problem-solving in the social, political, and economic aspects of society. The primacy of unity in processes of consultation can be extrapolated from the golden rule. Basing decisionmaking on the ability to value others as we value ourselves is a spiritual perspective. It is also a practical perspective. An underlying principle associated with effective consultation is the value placed on unity, even more than being "right." This principle derives from recognizing the value of human life over the assumption of absolutely right or wrong positions. The selection of peaceful over bellicose methods of resolving conflict is based on the value of human life and well being over dominance in the resolution of conflicting opinions.

The principle is reflected in the use of majority rule; however, voting is a fairly crude mechanism for arriving at agreements. Consensus of opinion is preferable to an up or down vote in the resolution of most problems. Arriving at consensus through deliberations obviates the need to choose between or among conflicting solutions to a problem. The actual articulation of justice into the processes of governance is aided by frank discussion of issues that results in a consensus of opinion that includes all of the perspectives. If, however, consensus does not evolve from deliberations and a vote must be taken, the majority position is the next best alternative. If a consensus solution is not available, the fallback position requires a willingness to abide by the majority perspective.

The individuals who hold a minority perspective must abide in good faith by the majority view even if they truly believe that it is not the best way to proceed. Avoidance of anarchy or armed rebellion is the obvious reason to go along, but the principle has further practical outcomes. Supporting a position with which you disagree affords an opportunity for the proposal to succeed or fail on its own merit. If it succeeds, the end is accomplished. If it fails, the group will need to take another look at alternative solutions. The group will likely waste less time in making a course correction if there was wholehearted support of implementation rather than resistance. Resistance increases the difficulty of determining if the proposal failed because it was faulty or because it was sabotaged.

The limits to the practical benefits of majority rule are reached with decisions that result in more destruction to human life and well being than resistance would impart. Tyranny of the majority will be avoided to the extent that the minority perspective has a respected and effective voice. Social order is based on justice and equality. The processes of governance will be successful at providing harmonious and productive environments to the degree that they provide for the discovery of consensus solutions to social, political, and economic conflicts. "Take away from me the noise of your songs; To the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream" (Judaism. Amos 5.23-24).

Basing civil law in the will of God requires that none of the participants in consultation assumes the ability to speak for God. Realization of the relative nature of scriptural interpretation with respect to human understanding provides the central argument for the separation of church and state. It is a mechanism for protecting the independence of the individual to pursue truth in both the spiritual and temporal realms. Separation of church and state is an integral component of an environment of consensus-building because it ensures the independent investigation of truth. The laws of society must be based on political consensus-building processes that require the freedom of the individual to participate independently. Political freedom has its roots in religious freedom. This principle is acknowledged in the modern world in the context of societies that are evolving democratic institutions. It is by no means completely resolved as an issue for global community, even in modern democratic societies. For this reason, it needs continued support as a tenet of global community.

Sanction for the separation of church and state and its corollary, the independent investigation of truth, can be derived from the guidance of the Messengers of the various faith traditions. It is seen in their advice with respect to the relationship of their followers to civil law. For example, Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees over the issue of paying taxes. His response to them is instructive with respect to resolving the tension between religious and civil authorities.

And they sent some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to entrap Jesus in his talk. And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Christianity. Mark 12:13-17)

The Pharisees were interested in discrediting Jesus by pitting Him against Rome. The Romans were an occupying force. Many Jews were expecting a Messiah who would conquer the Romans. Jesus would lose credibility among the more militant population if He were to side with obedience to civil law. He would be in trouble with the Herodians if He spoke against paying taxes to Caesar. Jesus' statements support civil authority. However, He put it in the context of the will of God. The inscription on the coin was Caesar's. It, therefore, came under the authority of Caesar. However, God is the all possessing. Caesar and everything within his domain belong to God. However, Jesus was not just trying to keep both sides happy. He was making a distinction between the civil and religious authority. He instructed the Pharisees that, in this contingent world, respect for civil law is required.

Jesus provided another equally important teaching concerning religious and civil law in this interaction. He reproved the Pharisees for putting Him to the test. Religious leaders should not put people in conflict with civil authority. Nor should they use the religion of God to foster disunity in the furtherance of their short-sighted agendas. "Maintain religion, and do not stir up any divisions within it" (Islam. Qur'an 42.13). The litmus test for measuring the legitimacy of those who would advance the will of God and prosperity of humankind is whether they provide constructive guidance. Jesus addressed the Pharisees at a time of conflict between the Roman Empire and the Jewish people. He promoted love and unity between Jew and Gentile and thereby established a path for the eventual reconciliation of the conflict. Through His followers over the next few hundred years, that solitary, humble Jew conquered Rome with His message of conciliation and established western civilization as we understand it today. Many in the Jewish community at the time who rejected His message of peace went on to promote armed rebellion against the Roman Empire. They did not succeed.

The Messengers of God have always submitted to civil law and instructed their followers to do the same. They have promoted harmonious cooperation. None have promoted anarchy. The following passage from Buddhism refers to the benefits and methods of governance.

Then the people gathered together and lamented, saying, "Evil ways are rife among the people - theft, censure, false speech, and punishment have appeared among us. Let us choose one man from among us, to dispense wrath, censure, and banishment when they are right and proper, and give him a share of our rice in return." So they chose the most handsome, attractive, and capable among them and invited him to dispense anger, censure, and banishment. He consented and did so, and they gave him a share of their rice. (Buddhism. Dgha Nikaya iii.92-93, Agganna Suttanta)

In the following verse from Hinduism, the common purpose set before human society is the harmony of the community.

May your counsel be common, your assembly common, common the mind, and the thoughts of these united. A common purpose do I lay before you, and worship with your common oblation. Let your aims be common, and your hearts of one accord, and all of you be of one mind, so you may live well together. (Hinduism. Rig VedaRig Veda 4)

Support for government as distinct from the functions of religious institutions is in evidence in the following passages from Judaism and Islam.

Rabbi Hanina the deputy of the priests, said, "Pray for the peace of the government; for, except for the fear of that, we should have swallowed each other alive." (Judaism. Mishnah, Abot 3.2)

Hearing and obeying [those in government] are the duty of a Muslim both regarding what he likes and what he dislikes, as long as he is not commanded to perform an act of disobedience to God, in which case he must neither hear nor obey. (Islam. Hdith of Bukhari)

Obedience to governance is conditioned on the will of God in the above quote from Islamic texts. The individual is first responsible to God and then to civil authorities. This is not a statement of the prerogatives of the institutions of religion with respect to civil authorities. The institutions of religion must submit to civil authority. It is a statement referring to the responsibilities of the individuals in listening to their consciences. The independent investigation of truth is established in the conscience of the individual before God, not the institutions of religion.

Religious freedom as expressed in the individual's pursuit of truth is required for fruitful civil governance. The prerequisite to fruitful outcomes for human interaction is the submission of the individual to the will of God. God provides access to His guidance for any individual who humbly submits his own self before Him. No human being could be held accountable before God if this were not the case. It follows that the individual should listen first to guidance from God while considering the needs of the community. The corollary to the independence of the individual in seeking the truth before God is the responsibility of the individual in the processes of governance. It is the process that flows from sublimating self-insistence in problem-solving first to God and then to the well being of the community. It is the basis for effective consultation and consensus-building.

Conflict and contention can best be resolved through earnest and straightforward discussion in which the individuals risk their own ideas and agendas in the pursuit of justice. The key requirement is to resist taking over the prerogatives of God with respect to the other individuals in the process. The guidance obtained from communion with God is personal. It is not necessarily appropriate for another individual. We are not the intermediaries of the relationship between God and anyone else. Creative solutions are forged from the fire of conflict to the degree that the participants detach themselves from their positions for the sake of God. "God knows, and you know not" (Islam. Qur'an 16.74).

Submission to God in the context of conflict resolution assists in letting go of the tendency to view our positions as absolutes and opens our perspective to the realization of the other as we realize our selves. It provides a glimpse of the primary value of our being - a glimpse of unity. A particular solution is always temporal. When there is a conflict between our positions and unity of action, unity is preferable because it is a reflection of the value of our underlying unity in reality. The act of submission to God in the processes of consultation has the power to transform the contrary positions of opponents into cooperative solutions. It interjects selfless sincerity and respect into the conversation. In the context of the current global community, sincere consultation is a powerful tool for the resolution of conflict at every level of human endeavor in the political, economic, social, and religious spheres. The actions, positions, and statements of individuals are likely to be fruitful to the degree that selfinsistence is submitted to the will of God in the context of consultation. Selfless sincerity is a compelling force for opening hearts and minds to alternative solutions. "You will know them by their fruits" (Christianity. Matthew 7:20).

Global social order requires the assistance of religion at spiritual and practical levels. Religion as articulated by the Messengers of God is a mechanism for unity and cooperation. It provides the underlying structures for human social order at every level of consciousness and activity. Religion advances the truest interests of humankind. It is the upholder of human progress, advancement, and fulfillment. Religions throughout history have provided the social mainspring for cooperative order. The purpose of religion is human well being and prosperity, not conflict and destruction.

Religions have advanced the social organization of human society through stages of cooperation. Tribal ways of social life gave way to those of the city-state, which in turn gave way to those of the nation. We are now in the process of building global governance structures. The process requires the assistance of religion. It is in its unifying, cooperative nature rather than the condemnatory, insular, and defensive proclivities of some of its adherents that religion will assist this final stage of social unity on the earth. Religious leadership should promote inclusion rather than exclusion and reach for common ground rather than promote alienation and conflict. Inclusion brings individuals under the protection of the cooperative mechanisms of religion. Exclusion sets a course toward mistrust, fear, and hostility. The prerequisite to the use of religion's civilizing influence in today's multi-religious world is the recognition of the underlying unity of religions.

One thing, when it comes to pass, does so to the loss, to the unhappiness of many folk…to the misery of the gods and humankind. What is that one thing? Schism in the order of monks. (Buddhism. Itivuttaka 11)

O contending peoples and kindreds of the earth! Set your faces toward unity, and let the radiance of its light shine upon you. Gather ye together, and for the sake of God resolve to root out whatever is the source of contention among you. Then will the effulgence of the world's great Luminary envelop the whole earth, and its inhabitants become the citizens of one city, and the occupants of one and the same throne. (Baha'i Faith. Gleanings, 111)

Now is the gracious Lord's ordinance promulgated, no one shall cause another pain or injury; all mankind shall live in peace together, under a shield of administrative benevolence. (Sikhism. Adi Granth, Sri Raga, M.5, 74)

When the right principles of man operate, the growth of good government is rapid, and when the right principles of soil operate, the growth of vegetables is rapid. Indeed, government is comparable to a fast-growing plant. Therefore the conduct of government depends upon the men. The right men are obtained by the ruler's personal character. The cultivation of the person is to be done through the Way, and the cultivation of the Way is to be done through benevolence. (Confucianism. Doctrine of the Mean 20)

To the degree that the adherents of the various religions of the world use their view of religious orthodoxy to condemn those who profess a different faith, religion becomes the cause of disunity. The directives for human behavior in the various scriptures of the world's religions that are most likely to come into conflict are those addressing the particular needs of their respective cultures. If religious social laws and observances are absolutes, then one set of laws given through one Messenger is right, all the rest are wrong, and conflict over which is the right one is inevitable. The other possibility is that all of the Messengers are harbingers of the same eternal truth and provide particular guidance, not in absolute terms, but relative to the social needs of the times. The Messengers provide both an articulation of the eternal verities like the golden rule, which are in agreement in all of the scriptures, and guidance that was particular to the requirements of the day. The differences in the laws have to do primarily with the exigencies of the times and cultures that the Messengers addressed.

For instance, the laws associated with the dispensation of Moses applied to a people wandering in the desert. A nomadic people cannot build prisons. Responses to criminal activity like stealing would need to take this into consideration. Religious dispensations address the particular social circumstances of evolving human civilization. There are cultural and behavioral differences in the particulars of what constitutes social justice in the context of evolving human society. Though important, the differences are not absolutes and are not worth fighting over given the agreement in the world's scriptures over the fundamental verities which are mutually supportive.

When viewed in the context of a shared evolution of humanity on this planet, the religious and cultural differences associated with the last ten thousand years constitute a thin veneer. They are even less significant than the genetic variations that show up in skin, hair, and eye color. The superficial differences that we associate with biological differences do not constitute enough genetic difference to predict the similarity of the DNA belonging to any two individuals on the planet. For example, a woman in sub-Saharan Africa might have less in common genetically with her next door neighbor with whom she shares a cultural history than a woman living in China.

Though science can demonstrate the inconsequential nature of our "racial" differences in the context of their numerical and biological insignificance compared to the rest of our DNA, racially based prejudice and discrimination are rampant in human society. Religious differences that derive from the exigencies of the times that their respective Messengers were addressing are also not significant when compared to our underlying religious and spiritual unity.

While the attitudes associated with both racial and religious prejudices may resist change, the civil institutions of society must be based on equality before the law and need to guard the individual from all manner of discrimination including religious. The resolution of conflict in the affairs of the peoples of the various religious traditions requires submission to civil law as separate from submission to religious law. The institutions associated with civil law provide the mechanism for building consensus concerning truths derived from both physical and spiritual laws. The individual's freedom of religion and the right to the independent investigation of truth are the underlying principles that argue for the submission of religious institutions to civil law. The institutions of religion need to respect the rights of individuals to search for truth and choose their religious affiliation and therefore must accept the separation of church and state.

However, the need for the separation of religious and civil institutions is lessened and potentially obviated to the degree that the institutions of religion promote the individual's right to the independent investigation of truth with respect to both science and religion. Similar to the requirement for an open dialog between scientific and spiritual perception for the development of a healthy society, there should be a similar ongoing discussion over the relationship between civil and religious institutions.