Legal and moral responses #4

Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity responded over the weekend to my post, "Legally Right and Morally Wrong." Of the temporal, she writes:

As a political scientist, one thing that troubles me is the apparent elevation of the courts, not only in their own estimation, but in the public consciousness as well. Many people seem to have forgotten that the Founders intended there to be checks and balances among the three co-equal branches. All three of these branches -- the executive, the judges and the Congress -- were meant to be accountable to the people. Therefore, just because the courts have ruled something does not mean that the people cannot demand that the Congress, or the executive, act to change the direction of public policy more in keeping with the values of the people.

It is a false dichotomy to posit law and morality opposite and as separate entities from one another. Morality is expressed through law. They are one and the same.

The more I've thought and pondered the consequences of Terri Schiavo's death, the more I've come to believe that this is where the fight needs to focus. Additionally, Charmaine re-iterates a point made by pastor Craig Williams of tabletalk:

Where I would want to add to and extend what you've written is to say that it is precisely the eternal perspective that puts suffering in the appropriate context. I agree wholeheartedly that "the spiritual reality trumps mortality." However, while we do not fear death, and may even welcome it under some circumstances, we always remember that God's plans and His timing is not ours. The Christian response to suffering is to say: "Not my will, Lord, but Thine."

I agree whole-heartedly. My own life-experiences have taught me this! But what of it? This is a concept as foreign as anything possibly can be to even some in the Church, much less to the world-at-large. How do we communicate such an idea when the natural inclination of unsaved men and women is to run as far away from pain as is possible to get?