Friday Minute: Friday Minute: Religious conscience in public debate

The burden of proof for any moral question in public life is clearly on those advocating it. Once established in the proving ground of history, the burden then shifts to those opposing a religious conscience in public life.

As religious conscience and the moral high-ground are removed from public debate, there are few checks and balances to the moral low-ground. The result is that governments are faced with an increasing futility in regulating any behavior.

Alma confounded Korihor, not only as a skillful jurist but as a humble prophet whose life became a testament to honoring God, both privately and publicly. Man-made institutions focus on conduct, but God focuses on the motives that drive conduct. Effective self-government is unattainable without the moral underpinning which supports it.

While the burden of proof assures fairness in evidentiary matters, the proof of God’s wisdom, especially on bedrock moral issues in the public forum, is no burden at all.

William Monahan is a 1980 graduate of BYU Law School. He practices law and teaches law and ethics. A former Phoenix stake president and current high councilor for the Queen Creek Arizona Chandler Heights Stake, he is active in Interfaith and a U.S. Air Force veteran.