(The following was written by Mr. Zack Strong and published on the Independent American Party website.)
America finds herself adrift in a world of moral relativism and ever devolving moral standards. Words like “religion” and “piety” and “virtue” arouse derision and violent opposition from intellectuals, politicians, media personalities, and average citizens alike. Through the years, religion has gradually been stripped of its once prominent position in public dialogue, public schools, and the hearts of Americans. Concerted efforts have been made to destroy religion while cultural trends, such as America’s unprecedented prosperity and peace, have caused moral laxity.
Calculated attacks in the media, in Hollywood productions, in the arts, and in music have made a mockery of piety, religion, and traditional values. In particular, devout Christians are called “prudes” and their morals ridiculed as backward and intolerant. Values such as chastity before marriage are laughed at while promiscuity is unabashedly promoted. Homosexuality, divorce, and abortion, among other vices, are openly embraced. The family unit is under attack as never before. The importance of getting married and having children is downplayed. Modern America has flipped tradition on its head.
Secularized propaganda has infiltrated public school curriculum and replaced religious education. Common Core, No Child Left Behind, and other programs have contributed to a lack of learning and character development. Courts have colluded by ordering copies of the Ten Commandments removed from schools, Bible study to be suspended, and have repeatedly ruled prayer to be unconstitutional. These attacks have reached outside of public schools as religious monuments and statues – items such as crosses, statues of Jesus, and replicas of the Ten Commandments – have been ruled offensive. Courts have decided in favor of removing these monuments based on the First Amendment which, ironically, was intended to prevent against these very abuses.
Not only has public opinion concerning religion devolved, but public practice of religion has also suffered greatly as a result of these orchestrated attacks on America’s heritage. As one generation grows up devoid of religious devotion, they pass their traditions on to their children who later perpetuate the trend. Rampant drug use, crime, and promiscuity began taking over the cultural landscape in the 1960s – the same time that moral education was effectively removed from schools. Not only did religious devotion plummet midway through the twentieth century, but general morality and values took a downward plunge.
America was once known for her dedication to high moral standards, piety, and virtue. America is now known as the vice capital of the world. These disturbing secular and amoral trends run starkly against the American Founding Fathers’ vision for the United States. The American Founders were demonstrably to-a-man Christian, yet they endeavored to fashion a society where one’s morality, goodness, and civic affability, not necessarily one’s religion, was the vital feature.
Thomas Jefferson encapsulated this sentiment when he famously wrote, “It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” So long as an individual did not perpetrate “injurious” acts against another, he would be a welcome member of society (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782). Though the law could have no hold on one who had not violated another’s equal rights, the Founders understood that morality was the crowning virtue of a free people.
With his usual wit, Benjamin Franklin observed that “no point of Faith is so plain, as that Morality is our Duty; for all Sides agree in that. A virtuous Heretick shall be saved before a wicked Christian” (Benjamin Franklin, “Dialogue between Two Presbyterians,” April 10, 1735). Though a loose adherent to organized Christian faith, Franklin nevertheless believed strongly in Christianity’s doctrines and even wrote in that he strove to “imitate Jesus” (Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, Dover Edition, 65). Above all, a mature Franklin prized doing good and being moral.
Though misconstrued by most to be at best a deist and at worst an atheist, Thomas Jefferson said of himself, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus” (Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816). Jefferson believed that Christ’s doctrines were “levelled to the simplest understandings” and that it was by “getting back to the plain and unsophisticated precepts of Christ, that we become real Christians” (Thomas Jefferson to Salma Hale, July 26, 1818). Furthermore, Jefferson stated that he looked forward “with anxiety to see the dawn of primitive Christianity” when the pure principles of Christ would be once more preached and practiced (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822).
What are the “primitive” precepts of Christianity? Christ Himself taught that the two great commandments of His Gospel were that “Thou shalt love the Lord God with all heart, and with all soul, and with all they mind,” and that “Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:37,39, King James Version). These two sentiments are shared by all religions to greater or lesser degree. Individuals are simply expected to be good people. This is what Franklin and Jefferson were attempting to communicate.
In holding with these two commands to be good and do good, the American Founding Fathers sought to shape a society that was good, moral, decent, and virtuous. The foundation of free society, they believed, was morality. To reiterate, though the Founders were themselves Christians, they believed that all faiths and creeds should be legally protected and therefore established the First Amendment. The Founders went around endlessly promoting morality, virtue, and civility in their public addresses, writings, and private correspondence.
Another Founder, Benjamin Rush, recommended the “religion of JESUS CHRIST” as the best system of morality. Yet, Rush expressed a desire for all good principles to have their equal protection. Said he, “Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishment, that I had rather see the opinion of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles” (Benjamin Rush, “A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools,” 1786). As long as the adherents of any given religion were moral, that was all that could be expected.
John Adams was another influential Founder who ceaselessly wrote about morality and religion. In 1776 he made the following observation, “All sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue. Confucius, Zo-roaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this.” Adams continued by saying that “if there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?” (John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776). Though an incredibly pious Christian, Adams saw the value in moral teachings no matter their source. If a principle or precept led people to become virtuous, it should be upheld.
The Founders believed that all good philosophy should teach morality. Thomas Jefferson remarked, “Every religion consists of moral precepts.” Furthermore, he stated that “the practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, he [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts, that they shall not be effaced by the whimsies of our brain. Hence we see good men in all religions, and as many in one as another” (Thomas Jefferson to James Fishback, September 27, 1809). To reiterate, helping individuals to be moral and good was the supreme role of every philosophy, as well as the duty of a citizen.
How does one come to find morality or religion? Thomas Jefferson believed that each individual possessed a conscience given to him by God which helped him discern right and wrong. Jefferson explained it this way: “He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules or our moral conduct a matter of science . . . [Man] was endowed with a sense of right and wrong . . . this sense is as much a part of his nature as the sense of hearting, seeing feeling; it is the truth foundation of morality . . . The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of a man as his leg or arm” (Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787). Thus, all people have a natural moral compass. The only thing necessary, then, is to exercise and hone that sense.
To help hone the sense of right and wrong, the Founders believed that religion was the best support. Benjamin Rush believed that “the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican government” (Benjamin Rush, Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786). Rush was not alone in this opinion.
John Jay wrote that a primary goal of society should be “to promote and extend the influence of the Gospel on the Education and Conduct of the rising Generation.” This, he maintained, would “increase the Number of virtuous Individuals, and thereby augment the General Welfare” (John Jay to Noah Worcester, June 21, 1819). Another lesser known Founder, William Samuel Johnson, while addressing graduates at Columbia College said that the purpose of their education was to “qualify [them] to better serve [their] Creator and [their] country.” By applying themselves to the various branches of “useful science,” they could “cultivate [their] minds” and become wise and virtuous. He encouraged them to remember that their knowledge was meant to help themselves and others. Holding to the “principles of piety towards God” and becoming “just and upright, true and faithful, kind and merciful, affable and benevolent,” was paramount (quoted in Eben Edwards Beardsley, Life and Times of William Samuel Johnson, LL.D., 141-145).
Our Founding Fathers were certain that becoming truly moral was the purpose of life. Said Benjamin Franklin, “Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End . . . Faith in Christ, however, may be and is of great Use to produce a good Life, but that it can conduce nothing towards Salvation where it does not conduce to Virtue is, I suppose, plain . . . Faith without Virtue is useless . . . In short, ‘tis the Doing or not Doing all the Good that lies in our Power, that will render us the Heirs of Happiness or Misery” (Benjamin Franklin, “Dialogue between Two Presbyterians,” April 10, 1735). Only when individuals were doing good and acting virtuously was society functioning properly.
The Founders likewise understood the dangers that arise when a society drifts from moral and true principles. Many of them issued warnings to stay on the path of virtue. America today would do well to heed these warnings. Several of their pertinent admonitions are cited below.
As the American Revolution was brewing, Samuel Adams wrote, “He who is void of virtuous Attachments in private Life is, or very soon will be, void of all Regard for his Country. There is seldom an Instance of a Man guilty of betraying his Country, who had not before lost the Feeling of moral Obligations in his private Connections.” He pleaded that “the utmost Pains be taken by the Publick, to have the Principles of Virtue early inculcated on the Minds even of Children, and the moral Sense kept alive, and that the wise Institutions of our Ancestors for these great Purposes be encouragd by the Government.” Adams strongly believed that “no People will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when Knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own Weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders” (Samuel Adams to James Warren, November 4, 1775).
Later, Samuel Adams repeated his earlier counsel when he explained, “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.” He posited that “while the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” Adams concluded, “How necessary then is it for those who are determind to transmit the Blessings of Liberty as a fair Inheritance to Posterity, to associate on publick Principles in Support of publick virtue” (Samuel Adams to James Warren, February 12, 1779). Virtue is the most effective weapon of any people.
However, perhaps the most stunning and well put warning came from John Witherspoon who stated: “Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigor, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed” (John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man,” May 17, 1776).
When society leaves its moral moorings, it drifts to and fro into ever deeper and more potent vice and corruption. Pride, often a result of prosperity, prevents people from self-correcting. The cycle of vice, pride, and immorality worsens. America is currently in the midst of a downward spiral of vice and corruption. The only way to end the cycle and lift ourselves out of the mire is to make concerted efforts to change our thoughts and actions, be grateful to the Almighty for our blessings, and to honor true principles by living them and being good people.
In the end, we must all do what Henry Laurens recommended. He wrote, “Put your whole trust in God. Resign yourself to his Will. Act well your part in Life and be not afraid of any thing that Man can do to hurt you. The greatest Evils in this Life are comparatively but of Short continuance, a good Conscience will carry a Man of Spirit chearfully through and give him the inexpressible Satisfaction of dying in full hope and prospect of being for ever happy in the presence of his Creator. And even in this Life, Comforts and Consolations are the attendants of Virtue and rectitude of manners” (Henry Laurens to James Laurens, May 24, 1775).
If Americans of all faiths and creeds will turn to their God and be moral and decent and honest and true, the United States can avoid the calamities and destructions endured by other peoples throughout history when they had become immoral. We must revive a public dialogue about religion. We must avoid movies, music, entertainment, philosophies, and individuals that promote vice. We must make moral teachings a part of public school curriculum. We must found our homes on morality and goodness. Truth must be our North Star and morality our endless goal. Let us be moral and virtuous and band together to become a righteous people once more. With the help of Divine Providence, we will at last succeed in fulfilling our Founding Fathers’ vision for the country they built, and we will be happy.
Monopoly government does not handle law under polycentric law. That’s what makes it polycentric; see the link.
No level of government has any business addressing pornography, prostitution, or any other victimless crime.
Much quicker than one generation. But you are correct, not overnight.
As I said, government still makes the law, and while it should stay out of people’s personal affairs- to stop all levels and branches of government from addressing certain matters, including social topics, completely -is unrealistic because they are impossible to not legally address, especially on topics like pornography and prostitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law
“These are thorny problems regardless of whether you have a monopolistic or polycentric system of law.
A polycenteric system of law can handle a rebuttable claim of maturity.”
…And guess who regulates the law & the legal codes?
“Disagreed. I believe it will be a lot more stable and functional than what we have now, although probably not at first.”
And that prosperous stability won’t happen overnight; in fact I doubt it could even happen within one generation.
Off the subject, why isn’t the IAP logo up on IPR? You included the Prohibition Party logo, yet they’re not on the ballot anywhere while we’re on in several states and growing.
Disagreed. I believe it will be a lot more stable and functional than what we have now, although probably not at first.
What do you think happes in those cases now? The very rich and well connected find ways to evade the law right now.
These are thorny problems regardless of whether you have a monopolistic or polycentric system of law.
A polycenteric system of law can handle a rebuttable claim of maturity.
They were wrong. I am right.
Not all theories can be correct; that does not mean that all theories are wrong.
I disagree. I see no basis for any such “right.”
Yes I’ve had neighbor problems before, fyi.
Granted, a world of anarchy would be a billion times better then a world of totalitarian government; but it would not be a stable & functional world.
Cody says: “I can agree to that, but in the worse-case scenario, the guy won’t stop the behavior and he happens to be super rich and has a lot of legal and political connections and especially a lost of radical libertarian lawyers that insist he has the right to do those things on his property and anyone saying otherwise are ‘infringing’ on his property & constitutional rights to ‘free speech’.”
Libertarian lawyers have nothing to do with it! Have you ever had a serious neighbor problem? There’s not a whole lot you can do about it now, actually, unless you’re willing to sue the person as an individual, which you could certainly do in an anarchistic society. I had an absolutely terrible problem for 6 years, bad enough that it could have become violent if I hadn’t just hidden away from the crazy lady. Cities can only do so much–which isn’t much now, actually.
I think anarchy could work very well, and I would love to try it.
*lot of radical libertarian
“Same as if they were broadcasting slasher movies on a giant screen, doing loud chainsaw work at night, setting off fireworks etc. If a simple discussion among neighbors can’t tak care of it, some form of artbitration or court. In extreme cases of irreconcilable differences someone may move, although I think that woud be rare. I believe the vast majority of people would work it out peacefuly without any outside intervention or drastic measures. Actually more so than now, because government force has a ripple effect of making people less moral, ie more force-initiating and more provoking, in their private lives.”
I can agree to that, but in the worse-case scenario, the guy won’t stop the behavior and he happens to be super rich and has a lot of legal and political connections and especially a lost of radical libertarian lawyers that insist he has the right to do those things on his property and anyone saying otherwise are ‘infringing’ on his property & constitutional rights to ‘free speech’.
Plus there are the other issues I brought up on animal-rights vs. cultural rights or constitutional rights to practice sacrificing animals or something similar, or especially on those contentious issues of the ‘age of consent’.
Plus there’s the issue of child pornography; while through the LP perspective you can argue that the rights and physical person of the child are at worst being violated- yet what about those circumstances where the child was “mature” enough in their mindset to knowingly consent and participate in it? Would then the laws against child pornography in such circumstances be anti-Libertarian?
And I’m well aware that some in the LP have called for laws against child pornography to be repealed, FYI.
“Sure it can.”
The communists said the same thing about Russia in 1917.
Sorry but while I’m all for greatly reducing the size of government- simply returning back to our constitutional limitations is enough- and still, government does have the right to address social and moral issues as long as the legislation does not infringe upon any part of the U.S. & state constitutions itself.
Same as if they were broadcasting slasher movies on a giant screen, doing loud chainsaw work at night, setting off fireworks etc. If a simple discussion among neighbors can’t tak care of it, some form of artbitration or court. In extreme cases of irreconcilable differences someone may move, although I think that woud be rare. I believe the vast majority of people would work it out peacefuly without any outside intervention or drastic measures. Actually more so than now, because government force has a ripple effect of making people less moral, ie more force-initiating and more provoking, in their private lives.
Sure it can.
Our culture and economy is entirely different from Afghanistan, never mind the religion.
My way? What way is that?
Simply returning back to our constitutional limitations isn’t something that has been constantly tried for hundreds of years, Jill.
And the examples I presented show that you simply can’t keep all levels of government out of the moral/social sphere completely; at some point the line has to be drawn.
Well, we’ve been trying it your way for hundreds of years, Cody, and it hasn’t worked. I’d say it’s time to try something else.
Jill, utopias are a pipe dream; everyone is going to have different ideas about how things are run, and not everyone is willing to play along with what you may think might end up becoming universally accepted.
Plus, even when you think you accomplished one, someone, or some group is bound to screw it all up.
Like I said, pure libertarianism cannot work.
Cody says: “pure libertarianism CANNOT work in practice- having government watered down to almost pure anarchy and this country would turn into Afghanistan (minus the religious fanaticism).”
I think a purely libertarian world would be a more likely success than a world where a minority dictates their morals to the majority. Plus, I’d much rather live in the former than the latter.
“As for nudity, pornography, prostitution, and obscenity, of course government should have no say at all. However, property owners should be able to enforce their own rules about these things.”
If only it were that simple; what if one property owner started acting out on the above topics on his property, yet doing it within eyesight and earsight of his neighbors that lived right next to him to the point that his neighbors and their kids couldn’t go outside without hearing or seeing him either walking around naked, having rough sex on his front lawn, or yelling foul things at his neighbors and their kids? What then, should the neighbors built a high soundproof wall in order to not see or hear him?
You know, Libertarians have a lot of good ideas- some of which we do need to apply in this country, BUT on a philosophical and also a realistic basis, pure libertarianism CANNOT work in practice- having government watered down to almost pure anarchy and this country would turn into Afghanistan (minus the religious fanaticism).
I agree.
Cody does bring up some hard cases where libertarians can legitimately disagree.
As for nudity, pornography, prostitution, and obscenity, of course government should have no say at all. However, property owners should be able to enforce their own rules about these things.
“Animal cruelty: while animals aren’t people, they do have some basic rights, & I’m glad governments make reasonable laws against animal abuse.”
Problem- what about certain ethic communities where it is part of their tradition to kill or abuse animals? Like that one native tribe that hunts whales as part of their culture- or in some of the Haitian or Creole communities that still practice voodoo and include beheading a chicken or a goat as part of their ceremony? Should their culture and rights be respected over the rights of the animals that they hurt or kill, or should be be vice versa, or what?
“Age of consent: Molesting or harming children is of course an act of aggression that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, age of consent laws are ridiculously arbitrary & in serious need of reform.”
What about those cases were the sexual or immoral act with the child was consensual- that the child knew what he or she was getting into and knowingly agreed to it? Like the cases where a 12 year old boy has sex with his teacher and afterwards viewed what he did with her in a positive light? The Mary Letourneau case, as an example.
While I agree some of the ‘age of consent’ laws out there are ridiculous, nevertheless such issues can’t simply go unregulated or legalized in every single aspect.
I might be a Constitutional Libertarian, but still I do not believe that vice and taboo issues should simply go unregulated and unrestrained; on some things there must be legal restraint and regulation.
Plus if a state, county, city, or town wanted to ban or prohibit something the people in that area considered immoral or obscene- then as long as they are permitted to do so in our US Constitution, and their state constitution, then they have the legal and ethical right to do so.
Animal cruelty: while animals aren’t people, they do have some basic rights, & I’m glad governments make reasonable laws against animal abuse.
Age of consent: Molesting or harming children is of course an act of aggression that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, age of consent laws are ridiculously arbitrary & in serious need of reform.
Everything else you mentioned is no business of government, & it is wrong and immoral for government to interfere in such matters. I stand for free speech & free expression. Government should butt out.
Counterpoint- do we not have various laws and ordinances against nudity, pornography, prostitution, animal cruelty, age of consent, and extreme forms of obscenity?
Many of those topics fall under morality and social issues, and they are already legislated and regulated by government; so is the government wrong by addressing and even prohibiting some of these subjects in certain areas and situations?
I completely agree with Jed’s comment at 5:59 above.
I base that belief on what my Bible says, actually. I take the part where we don’t judge literally.
Cody, again, I believe it is immoral for any government to legislate traditions, mores, standards of decency, Religious views and/or tenets, etc. Not unconstitutional, immoral. As in wrong.
I’m talking about ALL levels of government, and the Tenth Amendment is one example of letting the states dictate on matters that isn’t designated to Congress or the federal government.
In fact please show me where in the U.S. Constitution that legislating or regulating moral or social issues is prohibited?
Plus there’s plenty of quotes in the article from the Founding Fathers that pretty much back up what Zack is talking about here. Even if the Founding Fathers were opposed to Theocracy, or state religion, they still felt in just and in conformity with the principles of liberty that moral virtues and traditional values can still be protected and even promoted by the government, and/or those within it.
Gotta agree with Jed here.
“BTW Jed, while government may not have the right to dictate morality, through our constitution it does have the right to regulate it according to it’s constitutional limitations.”
Checking my copy of the Constitution now, don’t see the part where it says government has anything at all to do with morality. In fact, it limits government to distinct responsibilities, and that’s not one of them.
Regardless, we were talking about morality, not constitutional law. I like the constitution, but I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t go far enough to protect individuals against all government, including state & local.
*those that
How is that Theocracy Bondurant?
In fact it sounds like it is referring simply to God judging those you govern wrongly on a spiritual basis and not a secular one.
BTW Jed, while government may not have the right to dictate morality, through our constitution it does have the right to regulate it according to it’s constitutional limitations.
There is a lack of morality in this country today, but it’s not the kind the IAP & CP preach about.
It is immoral to force your religious views on others.
It is immoral to force people to accept your standards of decency.
It is immoral to keep free people from engaging in any contract, including marriage.
It is immoral to claim dominion over another’s body & control what he or she can or can’t do with it.
It is immoral to imprison people for victimless crimes.
You want to be moral people? Do good deeds for others, give to charity when you can, live a virtuous life, and mind your own business.
Really? Direct from the IAP website:
“(I) believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.” – See more at: http://www.independentamericanparty.org/education-center/the-proper-role-of-government/#sthash.gOrUynyV.dpuf
Sounds like a theocracy to me.
Paulie is somewhat correct about that.
However, the IAP does not promote theocratic notions or theocracy, period.
Unlike the ignorant crap that Riley Hood puts out- this is a sensible and accurate take on what has become of morality and traditional values in our nation, and what we need to do to get them back.
The vague name was actually a brilliant move on the part of George Wallace supporters in the 1960s and 70s. It made it much easier for them to get on the ballot.
Independent American Party is too vague of a name for a party wanting to promote Christianity as the sole pillar of their political belief system. When I hear “independent” I imagine more than simply not referring to oneself as a Democrat or Republican.