paying the toll

 Is religious belief the only path to emotional justice? I was writing about emotional justice just the other day. I'm not certain if anyone is reading or hearing what I'm saying, but I keep writing and posting anyway. Ideally one does what they think is best without an expectation of return. The reality of that is another thing altogether, but not what I'm interested in discussing at the moment. That falls into the, do as I say not as I do category. What I am thinking about is the function of religious belief in an individual, and its' role in society as a whole. Religion as a means to deal with inequities. Religion as a means to emotional justice. How else can man reconcile injustice when there is no replacement value for what is lost?

 When John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Monroe, and the lesser known figures were composing the Constitution of the United States; debating the content of that document during the Constitutional Convention of 1787; that was surely a topic of discussion. The separation of Church and State was not mentioned in that document however, only that no religious test should ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States.   The separation of Church and State doesn't appear until the first amendment, commonly called the establishment clause. That was ratified in 1791, four years later. Was their thinking based on punitive measures associated with religious beliefs? Was it in defining what was "right" and "wrong?" The first ten amendments, commonly called the Bill or Rights concerns the rights of the people, not the power of the government. Number one was religious freedom.  Certainly each denomination in the Christiam faith defines right and wrong in slightly different ways. The punishment for those wrongs can be vastly different as well. Whereas the Catholic Church teaches that no sin is unforgivable, eternal sin can exist. A fine distinction perhaps, but a distinction, nonetheless. 

 Did those framers of the constitution ponder such? I believe they did. Emotional justice isn't something that can be litigated. Emotional justice requires individual reconciliation, what the church may call forgiveness. Punitive justice is the only justice man is capable of. Those punitive actions may be physical actions against the person, or monetary ones. None of those address emotions however. 

 All religions seek to bring emotional peace to the practitioner of that faith. That is their purpose. They do so by providing an explanation for the unexplainable. Whether they do so through a plethora of Gods or a single figure, that is the purpose. The god(s) mete out punishment for wrongs. They are the dispenser of emotional justice! John Adams knew that, and the proof is in his statement that the constitution is wholly inadequate to any people that do not have morals or religion. The reason? The Constitution does not establish an official state religion, a religion providing punitive measures to be applied to all citizens. Remember, in other nations when their "government" does that? Think of Muslim nations as an example, their laws are guided by the Koran, a religious text. People may have their hands cut off, eyes gouged out and put to death for religious infractions in those nations. 

 As I listen to the news and see what's going on in the country and the world it does make me think about all of that. Religion played a vital role in the founding of this nation. That cannot be denied. John Adams said as much on more than one occasion. The United States of America was founded on Christian principles, on the basis of Christian teachings and beliefs. That belief was so strong it was excluded from government! A form of self denial if you really think about it. It's like the decision a parent makes in the best interest of their child. Indeed, they were giving birth to a nation. They were making a government for a moral and religious people. They were not defining morals or religion! Can as much be said today? Are our legislators doing the same today? 

 We certainly believe we are, ask anyone. The only ones saying otherwise are trying to attract followers or convert the non-believers. It has become somewhat fashionable these days to declare that you have no belief at all! It has also become quite the trend to flaunt abhorrent behaviors in a public setting to prove your disregard for generally accepted moral behaviors. Even some of our religious institutions are now allowing this, saying it isn't immoral. Doing so to provide "emotional" support? In that manner no "forgiveness" is required. No punitive measures promised from the God(s). That is what I see. And that, that is the very reason the founding fathers separated the church from the state! And today we see the government doing the very same, insisting that monetary compensation is justice! Compensation is not justice.

 Monetary justice does not provide emotional justice and the result is what we are seeing right now. More crime, more unrest, and more cries for justice that a government cannot provide! Emotional justice can only be achieved through individual acceptance. As Christians have been told since the very beginning, placed in the hands of God. Can money replace God? There will never be enough money for everyone. Justice will never be reached on a monetary scale. How much is a life worth? Life will always contain injustice. That is a simple fact. Whether you call it sin, or crime makes little difference. An injustice has been committed. An act that was neither reasonable nor fair. For some things justice can be served with a punitive measure of some kind. When what was lost can be replaced. 

 Can justice be served when there is no replacement value for what was lost? Perhaps that is possible, but it is something I don't understand. Cancer took my sisters life despite all the efforts of man to preserve it. Can I sue someone? Can I sue the hospital, the attending physician or any other entities? No, in this case everything that could be done was done. What if a mistake had been made? Would suing the offender provide justice? No, it would provide punishment to the offender. Would I then feel justice was served? No, I would not. The emotional loss cannot be replaced, the emotional toll cannot be paid by another. It's my thinking that is the purpose of the God(s). They pay that emotional toll for you if you allow that action to take place. Emotional justice granted by acceptance.