Statue of Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, champion of religious freedom and separation of church and state.
Seems that this question divides into two parts. (1) What about universal ethical principles that are found in a specific religion, or in different religions, and also in the ethical norms in our legal traditions? There is a chicken / egg debate here about where the principles originated. Many devout practitioners would hold that that their most cherished and firmly held moral beliefs emerge directly from the sacred teachings of their faith or hold that much of our shared moral framework originated historically within their faith. I would certainly affirm this belief for the Judeo-Christian tradition. (2) What about specifically religious principles that are supported by some interpretation of the sacred texts but are not addressed by or objectively supported by more general ethical theories such as discussed in Part 1 of this article? For example, the first specifically religious ethical rule of the Ten Commandments is to worship YHWH God exclusively, but this would not be considered a universal moral obligation. In other words, a religious practitioner would not expect someone outside of their faith to affirm worship or or commitment to the specific God of their faith, nor expect such to be a matter of legal obligation.
To a greater or lesser extent, every culture and nation has to deal with the interface between religious practice and the legal structure, and the inevitable debates that emerge between the religious and the secular, as well as the differences in culture and practice within major faith groups. Thinking specifically of United States history, on one hand, faith traditions have been a wellspring that has informed the formation of our legal / ethical structures and also has significantly influenced our traditions of ethical education. Further, many if not most of the reform movements in our nation's history have been motivated and energized by people of faith. On the negative side, however, it is also the case that religious disagreements as well as the ideals of devout practitioners of religion have contributed to many conflicts, forms of oppression, and even wars in our history.
Controversy often emerges when specifically religious moral rules or cultural practices (item (2) above) are embedded within the legal structure, and changes in cultural standards and practices transpire while religious norms remain relatively constant or change in a different way. Further, there is a tendency for religious groups that have majority political influence to infuse (or at least to maintain) the principles, rules, and moral framework of their religion into the legal framework of the society. Whereas it is generally recognized that the United States was formed as a model of religious tolerance and freedom, eight of the original thirteen states named an official Christian affiliation (specific branch or denomination) in their founding documents, and almost all of the states had some type of religious requirement for participation in the government, until these rules were eventually removed in the nineteenth century. (Note 1) Historically, controversy eventually ensues when religious rules and Scriptural guidelines that have been woven into the the legal framework of the different levels of government come into conflict with other rights and freedoms that are embodied in the more general moral framework of the society.
The meta-question that reaches over this type of controversy is: Why? Why do we continue to take specific articles of religious teaching that may be properly administered and applied within the life and practice of a specific congregation or within a specific religious denomination and apply them to general society with the force of law? Perhaps a more innocent, but I would say unfounded, basis for this practice is a notion that the religious moral principle is consistent with some kind of natural law. But in practice, these laws and practices end up being enforced by majority rule. The more sinister motivation for this practice is the effort on the part of the religious to use the government as a proxy to enforce their religious norms, or as a means to counteract the fear and uncertainty connected with changes in ethical norms. A corollary of this is the failure of the religious leadership to stand against majority enforced norms that are in favor with the empowered class at a given time when it should be evident that the ethical norm is specifically religious in nature.
The effort to use the legal system as an extension of religious or scriptural norms by virtue of the availability of political power is a practice that does not stand up to scrutiny against a legitimate moral philosophy, nor to an honestly and consistently enforced separation of religion and law. Further, rather than advancing the cause of the religion, it has the effect of further alienating those outside of the faith. The honest ethical thinker should recognize that this practice is wrong and lacks the integrity that should characterize a sincere practitioner of religious faith.
To be continued.
Endnotes:
Note (1): Delaware, Rhode Island, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey did not have an official religious affiliation.
Source: "Religion in the Original 13 Colonies," ProCon.org. https://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000069