THE refusal of Kentucky County clerk Kim Davis to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples has brought into sharp relief the issue of the separation of Church and State in the United States. More fundamentally, it has highlighted the collision course that is often travelled when one seeks to resolve conflicts between religious faith and conscience and the legitimate spheres of the State in transacting its business.

Davis, an apostolic Christian, was jailed by a federal judge for disobeying his order to issue these licences. She has insisted that gay marriage is a sin and issuing marriage licences to these couples is a sinful act, which she would not condone as a matter of conscience and duty to God. She refused to have her name associated with these licences and disobeyed the judge’s order who in turn placed her in jail. Reports are that she has been released.

Davis has garnered support from largely the Christian religious right. Her action raises some fundamental questions which are not really new, but which highlight the intractable problem of living out the implication of one’s faith against what the State or Caesar demands.

Jesus Himself was confronted with a similar dilemma when His detractors asked him whether they should pay taxes to Caesar or not. Jesus’ answer was classic: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 12: 21) Jesus was not telling his audience that he agreed or disagreed with taxes being paid to the occupying power. But He was recognising the legitimacy of government; the practicality of the legitimate sphere of governance that a government enjoys; and the clarity of conscience as far as one’s duty to God is concerned. I suspect that if the conversation was continued one could reasonably assume that Jesus would have left people to answer for themselves what their appropriate decision should be. Expect Caesar to push back when his taxes are not paid. If ending up in the arena with the lions was a price that a godly conscience demanded, then so be it.

The fact is that as a public official who holds her job as a privilege from those who elected her, Ms Davis does not have a right to determine which group of people she should or should not hand licences to. As an employee of Caesar she is duty-bound to carry out the wishes of Caesar. If those wishes conflict with her Christian conscience, then she should leave the employ of Caesar.

Caesar or the US Constitution cannot be recalibrated to accommodate her strongly held religious convictions. Those who are encouraging her to think so, including her legal team, are doing her a disservice. It is clear where this is headed for, unless the Supreme Court reverses itself on the matter of same-sex marriages or a constitutional amendment overturns this decision. She will have to carry out the duties as prescribed, resign, or be fired from her post. These are just the hard, cold facts, especially when you are dealing with a Government that cherishes the Rule of Law.

A nation is a composite of diverse groups, opinions, interests and agendas. This is why a country cannot have laws that satisfy one group at the expense of another. Recognising the separation of Church and State, this is one of the reasons prayers are banned in public schools in the USA. There has been a howl of protest largely from the religious right concerning this. They argue that this has led to a fall in the moral standing of society. What is clear is that Christian groups will support prayers in schools when Christians do it. As soon as Muslims, for example, clamour for the same privilege, they object vociferously.

There is a county in Florida in which a Christian group was leaving Bibles at a particular location in schools for students to pick up with parental approval. A group representing atheists got wind of it and insisted that they too be allowed to put out their atheistic literature. The end result is that the entire thing evaporated into thin air as the Christians objected and the school district was forced to discontinue any placement of literature in those locations.

I would find it difficult if not impossible to live under a theocratic form of government. As has been noted throughout history, placing political power in the hands of godly or religious people has not always, if ever, worked in the best interests of the governed. There is always a tendency to tyranny as the religious impose their views on others. History records the egregious excesses of Christians, especially in the era of the crusades and the Inquisition in the Roman Church. President Obama was severely criticised for making reference to such excesses at a recent prayer breakfast.

As a priest having observed how religious people behave over the years, and having been a careful, unblinkered student of Christian history, I must sadly conclude that the behaviour or disposition of Christians will not be any more gentle or humane than that of other groups if they should be given political control over the lives of others. They may not cut off heads like the Taliban or ISIS or restrict freedoms like the Ayatollahs in Iran, but you could rest assured that thoughts will be policed and behaviour would have to conform to strict, regimented Christian morality. Yes, Christians must continue to struggle in their insistence that public morals and behaviour should conform to the mind of Christ. But in free democratic societies we cannot believe that these things are a given. We contend against diverse ideas, opinions and interests and certainly cannot impose our own ideas on others. The triumph of Christian ideas are best seen in how we comport and conduct ourselves; in how we live out the demands of love and justice in the public sphere; in how we treat our neighbours with kindness, sincerity and truth. The more we do this is the more the leavening influence of Christian morality in society will be felt.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest and social commentator. Send comments to the Observer or stead6655@aol.com.