Religion began as a way to explain unfathomable gaps in understanding how the world and the things within it worked. It became a fundamental part of many lives because it gave the population faith and understanding as to why things functioned the way they did. Unexplainable events were concluded as the will of a higher being, as it was the simplest rational. Nonetheless, time has shifted, and with different ages comes change. However important they were when our kind had no other explanation for the universe or way to be governed; religious beliefs have become undermined by our development and advancement in the understanding of our morals and needs to provide order and reason: law.
Religion cannot come before law, as what law is based strongly on is: evidence, deductive reasoning and morals to justify actions and decisions. Something that is subjective and unconfirmed – religion - cannot compare to another that is stable and with evidence – law.
If religion is only for an individual to believe and benefit from, and is based purely on feeling or belief, then refusing to receive (immunizations where mandatory) or administer (transfusions in a life threatening situation) because of a religion would be irrational due to the fact that it would also affect others around the practitioner. It would be the same as one disagreeing on an idea, stating “because I feel so” as his or her only argument. In order to have rational, he/she would have to instead provide sensible reasons to prove his/her point or opinion. Religious beliefs and practices sometimes conflict with measures that are necessary for the protection and promotion of public health. Here, law must enforced to prevent the harm of others, as religion may become so rigid and inflexible that it becomes restricting and limiting to a disproportionate point in the healthcare system. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses will not receive or administer blood transfusions, even when such a transfusion is necessary to sustain life pursuant to their religious beliefs. Ideally, if a situation was to arise where a patient would need a blood transfusion, there would be another physician available. However, that is not always the case, especially since rural and smaller facilities often have fewer workers. In this case, the Jehovah’s Witness physician’s duty as the provider of care conflicts with his or her personal faith. However, he or she should not be excused over the expense of religion because failure to fulfill his duty as a physician at this time will harm another, possibly to the point of death. Under the law, he or she should serve a malpractice lawsuit, and a revoked medical license. These religious conflicts are not uncommon in health care settings, and not only cause distress, but have a negative impact towards patients.
When religious beliefs come before the laws of the country, and essentially become the laws of the country, the government is easily susceptible to becoming a dictatorship. The individuals living within the nation would be assimilated to the religion willingly, taught it at birth, or forced to believe it in fear of committing an illegal act. Most people would develop an inseverable faith to their religion, and those that did not would be suppressed by surrounding individuals. Due to the fact that god is seen as a superior above all humanity and things that exist to practitioners of religion, his word is followed without question. Granted that a dictatorship is a government run or ruled by a dictator, would you not agree that a theocracy is under a form of dictatorship, because the dictator would be god? God is not present physically in government, so...