To Mandate or Not to Mandate, What is the Answer?

One of the most amazing remarks that I have pondered over the past few days, relates to the idea that it is wrong to attempt to "legislate morality", as though this were an option.  It seems that the proponents of this position believe that society, or even a human can be neutral on such matters.  The seemingly benevolent perspective that "my faith is between me and Jesus, and I should not force someone to embrace my beliefs", sounds enticing enough.  However, the former statement makes absolutely no sense!  A relationship with Jesus Christ cannot be forced, just as generosity to those less fortunate cannot be legislated (ala... "Pay their fair share").  The end of Christianity is not about "getting into heaven" or "getting out of hell", rather it is about knowing God's presence in one's life.  Such a reality cannot be legislated.  However, the more important question is, "did Jesus give us such an option?"  The fact of history is that culture is always moving in a direction, either toward or away from the Holy One.  Thus, we cannot force faith in Christ, neither can we be silent.  We are in quite a predicament.  If we choose the former, we are labeled as closed minded, intolerant bigots, attempting to make everyone fit their Procrustian bed.  However, if we go with the latter, we risk signing society over to an utterly Godless end.  What shall we do?  Perhaps C. S. Lewis can provide instruction at this point:       

"Enemy-occupied territory—that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage. When you go to church you are really listening--in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us from going. He does it by playing on our conceit and laziness and intellectual snobbery. I know someone will ask me, ‘Do you really mean, at this time of day, to re-introduce our old friend the devil-—hoofs and horns and all?’ Well, what the time of day has to do with it I do not know. And I am not particular about the hoofs and horns. But in other respects my answer is ‘Yes, I do. I do not claim to know anything about his personal appearance. If anybody really wants to know him better I would say to that person. ‘Don’t worry. If you really want to, you will. Whether you’ll like it when you do is another question.’"

Holy Sabotage, not neutrality.  Let us put aside the languid niceties which champion the perspective that morality should not be mandated (lest we realize that such a statement is in and of itself the same kind of thing).  Our mission is vital and our enemy, both devious and desperate.  Would you believe that he would resort to the level of campaigning for benevolence.  Yes!  Use our own tactics against us!  Would you believe that he would infiltrate our own ranks, beginning a calculated counter-revolution of an "individualized" faith, which seeks to liberate us from the "tyrannical" rule of the church.  The fathers of the enlightenment would agree, but God does not, and one must not foolishly fall into such a web, for while the treat looks good, it will devour us all.