“In a secular republic founded on freedom of conscience, religious doctrine should serve as a private compass, not a legislative cudgel,” wrote a local commentator (LC) in the PJ 8/9 entitled “A Civic Reckoning.” Before we reckon, we first need clarity.

What does LC mean by “religious doctrine?” Such a broad term begs for clarification. Does LC think the doctrine of the sanctity of human life as in the commandment “You shall not murder” is just a “private compass” for religious people and irrelevant to the moral compass of the public?

Probably America’s most underrated founding father, Benjamin Rush, who politically called himself neither a Democrat nor an Aristocrat, but a Christocrat, said, “The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion… We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity, by means of the Bible…” According to Rush, ‘the principles of Christianity” were not at all a mere private compass, but a visibly public one impacting politics, education, and culture.

LC calls our nation a “secular republic.” Our government is a republic, but nowhere does our Constitution say “secular.” What does he mean by the term? Does he use the word “secular” to mean the exclusion of religious voices in the public square to shape public policy or does he mean it only in the sense of the church having no official legislative or executive seat in government? How can I begin to agree with him without first having him clarify his meaning of “secular?”

For the sake of clarity, we are a constitutional republic with enumerated, limited, and defined powers delegated to the government and with designated offices democratically elected. Our constitution constructs no wall against any citizen, organization, or church (including pastors) from having their say in society and government. All have the right to speak into and influence the public square.

Shrinking religious doctrine merely to “personal compass” mode, as LC suggested, leaves a void for others to speak into it unchallenged, like Nancy Pelosi and Kathy Hochul ironically as Catholics imploring Democrats to impose an anti-biblical nation-wide policy to advance the delusional world of boys transitioning to girls and girls to boys at taxpayer expense and possibly without even parental consent.

LC doesn’t want religious doctrine as a “legislative cudgel” in government. For the sake of clarity, does the same standard apply for politically-correct, amoral, and irreligious cudgels in legislation?

“Love” verses in the Bible, such as 1 Corinthians 13: 4- 7 brought out by LC in the context of LGBTQ, immigration and poverty aren’t clarified enough. Is he referring to a biblical love that dignifies all persons on the basis of being an image-bearer of God or is he inserting a worldly love celebrating, affirming, and coddling behaviors, actions, and relationships repulsive to Scripture? The two loves are not the same.

For the sake of clarity, the patience and kindness of love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth. Love refuses to contradict truth and truth confronts with love.

The Rev. Mel McGinnis is a Frewsburg resident.