Answer

The Implications of Christian Legal and Moral Advocacy and Engagement under an Agnostic Constitution

The relationship between religion and politics is usually difficult to define, especially because of legal ethics which there is a difference in opinion in terms of legal and moral advocacy. Often, legal ethics focuses on the legal professional members’ technical standards who at times feel the need to incorporate some Christian moral thoughts while making legal judgments. In view of the Constitution, religion and politics are separated. The Christian legal and moral advocacy and engagement under an Agnostic Constitution is to avoid religious arguments that are not accessible to all citizens due to different religions and Christian beliefs in a pluralistic society. This essay examines America’s Agnostic Constitution and its implications in a pluralistic society and outlines the most practical way to make a gospel-based legal culture.

America’s Agnostic Constitution and its Implications in a Pluralistic Society

The American Constitution’s agnosticism is evident in its godlessness, whereby it maintains overt silence on heavenly matters. According to Smith (2008), the Constitution fluctuated from the Confederation Articles and the Declaration of Independence documents, which made reference to God in one way or the other. No single mention or reference to the Almighty was evident in the Constitution. The constitution also prohibits incorporating tests based on religion to qualify for a position in the federal office (Smith, 2008). Hence, the omission of any reference to God in the Constitution drafted in Philadelphia was not a mistake but instead done deliberately to support a pluralistic society. 

However, an agnostic constitution is not necessarily a godless one. Choosing to stay silent about God does not automatically categorize one as an atheist or a secularist or something that blatantly dismisses religion and God. Smith (2008) argues that the U.S. Constitution does not proclaim God’s nonexistence and also does not unambiguously declare that its government is secular but remains discreetly silent about God. Being identified as an agnostic constitution is the one that best fits it, given it is the middle ground for atheism and theism whereby one group confidently believes in God’s nonexistence while the other believes the opposite. The U.S. is a community with varied religions and religious beliefs (Barnes, 2018). Identifying as an agnostic constitution means that it serves all American citizens equally without the favor of a particular religion or religious belief. It takes the middle ground that demonstrates the constitutional service to everyone in equal measures and without discrimination.

The Christian legal and moral advocacy and engagement have an expressive effect on the type of arguments Christians make, resulting in feelings of alienation or favoritism under an agnostic constitution. According to Barnes (2018), Christians often argue for public policy and law based on detailed religious rationales. There is a central tenet for Christians that guide their beliefs and convictions as individuals. In the Constitution, some laws are primarily meant to enforce people’s behaviors, and Christian principles are used as the basic guide for the laws. Christianity is understood as a religious philosophy and doctrine that legislators use to implement laws about how individuals should relate (Barnes, 2018). The Christian belief is widely shared, but when in the political front and a pluralistic community, it is always better to take the agnostic position and not take the middle point as some citizens may feel alienated or offended. 

Subsequently, Christian advocacy and engagement under an agnostic constitution can result in oppression and conflict with those with different conceptions of the role. Given the diversified nature of a pluralistic community, people are likely to have different beliefs on weighty matters of life (Barnes, 2018). Choosing to lean on Christianity is likely to breed disloyalty from the citizens because they believe that some beliefs will be given more importance than others. A group that has its views rejected is likely to feel alienated. Because of Christian engagement choice, some are likely to feel oppressed because their beliefs are not considered. 

How to make a Gospel-Based Legal Culture

The most practical and faithful way forward would be to engage in a layered belief strategy. According to Smith (2008), a person may show belief in a gospel-based culture while retaining reservations on other levels of the community. Adopting a belief while on one level or in some places, and suspending a decision at other levels or places can lead to the formation of a gospel-based legal culture. As the supreme law, the Constitution is made of judicial decisions, and a political system can have various ways of carrying out layered stances. Affirming a belief system at one government level using a nonbinding resolution and remaining noncommittal in others is a faithful way forward for the making of a gospel-based legal culture (Smith, 2008). This way forward creates the possibility of a belief to be viewed as that of the public at one level of the society and not in the other. Hence, by using the layering strategy and affirming a proposition at one level and not at another, the community seeks to accommodate diverse beliefs without bad faith.

Another way forward is for the Constitution to seek a perfect union with the people and naturally try to affirm the common beliefs on vital matters and leave out trivial issues that contribute to its supremacy over governments and other law firms. By maintaining the agnostic stance, the Constitution is practicing the layered approach to address the belief problem. Moreover, Smith (2008) posits that the Constitution also maintains supremacy over governments and other law forms, which in its own way show respect to different beliefs. The Constitution completes the strategy by maintaining a layered law and government structure, resulting in a layered approach to the public assertions (Smith, 2008). Governments at different levels can make objectionable affirmations, but the Constitution will at all times be unwaveringly agnostic. 

Another would be to allow people to disagree and grant them the freedom of speech. The Constitution allows freedom to dissent from any belief that one is in disagreement with and allows the expression of disagreement whereby they will not be prosecuted for doing so (Smith, 2008). By having the power to agree or disagree with any beliefs, individuals can choose their beliefs openly and decide to form a legal group with all individuals that share the same beliefs. The best way to ensure they engage in legal dealings would be to create a policy that details their religious nature and expressly prohibits beliefs against their own. Laws are crucial in Christian legal and moral advocacy as they govern behavior (Barnes, 2018). By creating a policy and advocating laws, individuals will have to follow the Christian guidelines and doctrines set, resulting in a gospel-based legal culture.  

Conclusion

In sum, the U.S. constitution is an agnostic one that permits governments at varied levels to demonstrate acceptance of some religious beliefs at some levels of government and in different ways while showing neutrality in other places. The Christian legal and moral advocacy engagement under the agnostic Constitution can result in various implications. Firstly, it can result in an expressive effect that would make the Constitution seem to favor one set of beliefs over others. As a result, people are likely to end up with alienation or favoritism as the Constitution will likely lean towards the Christian set of beliefs and doctrines. Secondly, it can lead to feelings of oppression and conflict due to Christianity’s nature, whereby they often argue for public policy and law based on specific religious rationales. There is a central tenet for Christians that guides their beliefs and convictions as individuals, which would be oppressive to those that do not share the beliefs and would likely result in conflict because of the U.S.’s diversified nature, which is a pluralist community. The reliable and practical way forward of making a gospel-based legal culture is to engage in a layered belief strategy to address the belief problem without leading to bad faith. Hence, an agnostic constitution does not support any beliefs or religious doctrines and is a safe way for the government to maintain peace and neutrality in the state through engaging in layering belief practices to promote all beliefs equally. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge the agnostic constitution in the U.S. and that there will be difficult religious issues that will need to be solved without resorting to a set of beliefs or doctrines. The constitution supports only the use of legal judgment that is guided solely by legal doctrines or rules.