Just hear me out.
You should wear a seat belt. If you get into a wreck, wearing a seat belt significantly reduces the odds of you dying or sustaining serious injuries. As a husband and father, I wear a seat belt out of love for my wife and children - it's a simple precaution that goes a long way. I believe that for me not to buckle up would be both morally reprehensible and foolish.
But people should have the right to do things that are morally reprehensible and foolish.
Laws are meant to prevent one individual from harming another. I have the right to swing my fist, but that right ends a couple of inches from someone else's nose.
But what if I wanted to punch my own nose? It would be stupid, but I wouldn't be harming anyone else. That is, I would argue, a perfectly reasonable, perfectly constitutional right. In other words, I should have the right to be stupid, so long as my stupidity isn't causing harm to someone else.
Seat belt laws are dumb because they don't prevent one individual from harming another, they prevent a person from being stupid. A person shouldn't be stupid, but they should have the right to be stupid.
Here's why this matters...
We live in a world that is in a perpetual state of trying to erase the line between morality and legality.
There are always those who push for the two questions "Can I do this?" and "Should I do this?" to become one. In the past, this was done moreso, I think, by the Christian Right. Today, this is being done by the regressive Left. Then, it was things like marijuana laws. Now, it's things like speech laws.
All of it, regardless of how well intentioned, is bad. And it's bad because it's legislating morality.
Now, there is a degree to which all laws are an imposition of morality. I've spilled much virtual ink on this and it's an important concept that needs to be understood, especially in a globalized world with vastly different competing worldviews. The aforementioned notion that one individual should not harm another individual is itself an imposition of morality, so you do have to start somewhere. The morality that is the baseline law upon which the U.S. was founded is that you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So long as your exercise of these rights doesn't infringe upon another's exercise of theirs, no individual or entity can infringe upon yours.
Yet, here we are with belt laws.
How did we get here?
I've said this before and I will here say it again: When you remove God in title, you still retain a god in function.
Our country is secular. Unlike most national both historic and present, there is separation of church and state. There are no religious tests or requirements for public office. This is good, but it complicates things.
You see, when a ruling body says "Thus saith the Lord," tying its rule to the divine, it makes itself the highest seat of authority. It positions itself as both the law-giver and the moral law-giver. But when a ruling body doesn't do that, there's an empty seat. It remains the law-giver, but there's now a vacancy for the position of moral law-giver.
Who's going to fill it?
All said and done, it boils down to two options: The Individual or the State.
Individual - It's up to each person to decide what is right and wrong. Parents take responsibility for teaching their children whatever morality they see fit, be in accordance with the Bible, the Quran, Reader's Digest, or whatever, imparting to them what they should and should not do. Once a child reaches adult age, they are free to pursue whatever moral framework they see fit, and the cycle continues.
State - The government takes responsibility for teaching its citizens what is right and wrong. Certain behaviors are rewarded, others are punished, and what is immoral also becomes illegal. What you should not do becomes what you cannot do, and what you should do becomes what you must do.
The government used to be referred to as "big brother". Now, I think a more apt title might be "mom and dad". The more the family unit falls apart, the more the responsibilities that were once assumed by parents (like teaching their children right from wrong, wisdom from folly) are placed in the hands of the state.
To put it another way, parents can either teach their children that they should wear a seat belt or the state can mandate that they must wear a seat belt. People can either choose to do something wise and personally beneficial, or the government can mandate that they cannot choose to do something foolish and potentially harmful.
The latter, I believe, is what the founding fathers aimed to avoid.
And as Christians, this is something we should stand vehemently opposed to.
Firstly, because it always comes around full circle. Even if the laws being implemented are those of a Christian morality, there will always come a time when the cartridge is in the other barrel, and at that point we'll be looking down it (as we are now).
And secondly, the legislating of Christian morality actual brings about that very change. The greatest enemy of the Christian faith has never been persecution. Indeed, quite the contrary - Christianity has always flourished most speedily in the face of adversity. No, the greatest enemy of the Christian faith is nominalism, which is exactly what you get when you legislate Christian morals. Laws don't change hearts, and Christianity is a matter of heart change.
But aren't Christian values the best for society?
Yes, I would argue so. But if that's the case, then we need not fear the marketplace of ideas. The free marketplace is about survival of the fittest, and if God created the universe in which these ideas are to be tested, we can rest assured that they are the fittest.
So, yes, we should wear seat belts. But no, we should not have seat belt laws.
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principle." - George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)