Before
writing this, I read many papers written by the authors the Founders
turned to for wisdom and
understanding, prior to penning the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Washington’s Farewell Address, etc.
Unless you are trying to justify a particular thought, or impose your
own will and appetite on an individual or society, you will find the
conclusions to be not my opinions, but irrefutable truths. Of course, if
the former is your pursuit, then this paper will only serve as an
irritant and a challenge for you to further twist the truth (if that
were at all possible).
Cicero in his De
Republic Legibus, talked about REASON in the following way, “I will
not make this argument long. …that animal which we call man, endowed
with foresight and quick intelligence, complex, keen, possessing memory,
full of REASON and prudence, has been given a certain distinguished
status by the SUPREME GOD WHO CREATED HIM; for he is the only one among
so many different kinds and varieties of living beings who has a share
in REASON and thought, while all the rest are deprived of it. But what
is more divine, I will not say in man only, but in all heaven and earth,
than REASON? And REASON, when it is full grown and perfected, is rightly
called wisdom. Therefore, since there is nothing better than REASON, and
since it exists both in man and God, the first common possession of man
and God is REASON. But those who have REASON in common must also have
Right in common. And since Right REASON is Law, we must believe that men
have Law also in common with the gods (saints).
…Further, those who
share Law must also share Justice; and those who share these are to be
regarded as members of the same commonwealth…”
First, there is
God, the Creator. Then there is His creation, man. If there is going to
be Justice, there has to be subjection to God on man’s part. By
submitting to the Creator-creature relationship, one can establish a
personal relationship with God. Does not a person have a relationship –
objectively – regardless of whether or not they behave properly? Does
not one have a loving and just Father, no matter how they disregard Him?
A subjective relationship will lead to self-governance under “the Laws
of Nature and of Nature’s God”1 (we’ll refer to it as
‘moral/just reasoning’), the pursuit of righteousness, and enjoyment of
Liberty (by which we mean ‘freedom as a Right accorded to a moral person
by the Creator’) – as opposed to the pursuit of self-righteousness
(we’ll term it ‘amoral/unjust reasoning’), and living under the
restraints of legalism (by which we mean ‘rules and regulations
originating in the minds of men’). Individuals relate to one another on
one or the other of these bases – be it in a God-filled or godless
religion, body politic, social or any other group. While righteous
people may delegate powers to Representatives (SAID POWERS WILL BE
LIMITED TO THE POWER THEY HAVE OVER EACH OTHER’S LIVES, LIBERTY AND
PROPERTIES TO BEGIN WITH). There are no ABSOLUTES governing
self-righteousness, so, it follows, Representatives of this type of
thinking will do nothing more than impose their wills and opinions – by
command or prohibition. Forsake Liberty – live in bondage. Forsake
self-governance (restraint of human nature) – live in bondage.
So, for us to on
the same page, I define “morality” as “God’s code of conduct for happy
and good living”. “Amorality”, is “a man-god’s code of conduct for
living”. Finally, “immoral actions” are “wrongful conduct engaged in by
someone cognizant of morality”.
Of what value is
Life without Liberty and Property?
Of what value is
Liberty without Life and Property?
Of what value is
Property without Life and Liberty?
When one is in
jeopardy, all are in jeopardy.
God’s laws (that
is, ‘rules of action and interaction in the sciences and human
relationships’) are foundational and unchangeable. I would say, God’s
laws are revealed to man through conscience and reason. In order to
have a Right to Life,
Liberty and Properties – ABSOLUTELY – man can only pass rules and
regulations, which permit their execution.
Human rules and regulations are permissible, provided they do not
contradict God’s laws, which are – to quote the Founders –
“self-evident.” To make a law, a rule or a regulation that violates
God’s law, is amoral thinking deifying men and their government.
Unfortunately, in the United States today we
confuse Rights (as they are spelled out in the Declaration of
Independence and Constitution) with freedom of choice. These words are
NOT synonymous. People do not have a Right to act in an amoral or
immoral manner. THEY CHOSE TO. When people acknowledge the
Creator-creature relationship as referenced in the Declaration of
Independence, and act in a moral, self-governing way, then Liberty
(which, as we stated earlier, is a gift from God – not government) it is
theirs. Violating God’s laws puts Liberty in jeopardy and creates the
need for more force (government from the outside), as is happening today
in America. ‘Freedom’ merely denotes; status. It has no link to
morality, amorality or immorality. Everyone is free to a point, which
might be simply taking your next breath. Certainly, that’s not what the
Pledge of Allegiance references to - “with liberty and justice for all.”
Consequently, when
someone fails to acknowledge the Creator-creature relationship and
decides to believe in their own sovereignty, they can decide to oppress
another. Even if they try to love others, or to treat them as equals, it
is grounded only on their choice. Since it is this choice they view as
ultimate, there can be nothing wrong with their making the opposite
choice – because there are no absolutes. Obviously, this thinking
applies to all relationships.
As our
Representative Republic continues to crumble, giving rise to a Socialist
Democratic State in a New World Order, it only follows that the
government (not ours) has replaced Liberty with freedom, and Rights
with choice: “with Freedom and Choice for all” – certainly, to the
extent the government commands or prohibits your choices (whatever they
may be), and chooses to extend some degree of freedom. We should
remember, however, that our “choices” carry with them consequences -
here and now, and throughout eternity.
In relation to the stated above,
it seems logical to talk about propaganda. By ‘propaganda’ I mean the
method used by proponents of amorality to confound language with the aim
of shepherding conclusions to their way of thinking, producing and
propagating a being willing to accept their “truth” as the Truth. For
example: ‘Adultery’, ‘Fornication’ and ‘Sodomy’ describe human conduct
from a moral perspective. They give rise to conscience. On the other
hand, ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ - relatively new words having
their origin in the teachings of Darwin and Marx - describe human
conduct from a “scientific” perspective (which is, actually, a
perversion of the word ‘scientific’, since science is the study of
creation as it relates to the Creator both from a spiritual and physical
perspective). These words enable people engaging in immoral and
amoral conduct, to call themselves victims of some sort of circumstance
(and not hold themselves accountable), and, consequently, act as
would-be gods by setting aside conscience. ‘Gay’, ‘having an affair’,
and ‘living in a relationship’ are perverted definitions of words and
phrases, allowing people to distance themselves from accountability to
God’s Rules of Action.
Let me ask you
this: if the Rights accorded to us under the Constitution have their
origin in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (as stipulated by the
Founders in the Declaration of Independence), how do we interpret them
so that we can include conduct of an immoral and amoral nature? Could it
be that the amoral ‘Command Class’ (the definers of what’s right and
what’s wrong) we have chosen to put as rulers over us, appoint
“justices” of their own ilk? Morality should have nothing to do with
politics - other than defining the morality (or lack of it) in the body
politic.
Let me illustrate
my point by comparing the definition of the notion ‘morality’ as given
by two dictionaries that are 150 years apart. American Dictionary of
the English Language (Noah Webster, 1828) defines “ethics” as “the
doctrines of morality or social manners”, while The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language (1980) gives the following
definition: “a principal of right or good conduct”.
As is seen from the
above examples, the early American definition ties ethics to morality
(righteousness), but the modern American Dictionary fails to define it
at all. It basically ties ethics to moral and amoral conduct, which are
two diametrically opposite doctrines. How can that be? Propaganda in
practice.
How many other
words have been changed, added or deleted, so that Human Secularism
(that is, amorality) and the God-centered code of conduct (morality)
could be linked together (as if that were at all possible)? Consider
Clinton’s definition of “is”, and Bush’s definition of “WMD’s”,
“liberty” and “occupation”. By today’s standards, their actions could be
termed ethical.
As a result, when
an amoral person (a person believing in their own sovereignty), who
views their decisions as the “correct”, or “ethical” ones, considers a
situation and determines what the outcome should be, the outcome will be
“right”, or “good” (i.e. ethical) so long as it fits THEIR
interpretation. Their actions, regardless of what they are, are
irrelevant, provided the “ethical” conclusion is within their own will
and appetite. The ends justify the means. Such thinking is called
“situation ethics.” Amazingly, it is what’s practiced in the Judicial,
Legislative and Executive branches of the government, taught in schools
and too many churches, and is generally accepted by the populous. God is
replaced by would-be gods (or at least fools think He is).
Applying moral
principals, or holding one’s self accountable to the Mosaic law, which
is (or shall we say ‘was’?) the basis of our nation’s Civil Law, is
incomprehensible to the amoral mind – and paramount to the moral mind.
There are no laws on the books stating, “thou
shalt not kill, steal, covet”, etc. Law in America spells out penalties
for breaking these God-given Commandments. A
moral person reasons they must bring moral principles to the situation
(because God did not give us ‘ten suggestions’). To avoid conflicts,
save in self-defense, and preserve ABSOLUTES, people must hold
themselves to the Mosaic law (written in the heart of Christians – i.e.
moral principles), instead of seeing themselves as the “source” of God’s
rules of action.
Consequently, only a society, or
any other assembly, consisting of individuals applying moral (ethical)
principles to their rules of actions, can truly be called ethical.
We can’t call an unsociable
“ethical” amoral group a “society”, or a disassembled “ethical” amoral
group – an “assembly”, because that’s an oxymoron. Their foundation (if
they have one) is a coexistence of good and evil (as if it were at all
possible), which always leads to the establishment of tyranny. Fools use
the democratic process to establish Democracies, when in reality they
seek out the most ruthless Tyrant they can find, to impose what they
believe is their will on others. A Democracy (that is, a system of
government where the amoral rules and regulations originating in the
minds of men are called sovereign) always gives rise to Tyranny. As
further proof, I believe there is nothing about Democracy in the
Founders’ documents: we “Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands…”. So, people
holding themselves in subjection to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s
God” use the democratic process to elect Representatives to uphold the
law, not to be the source of it.
In relation to the above
question, we have to discuss another important issue. Many of the
world’s religions, including the one that should extend liberty, have
erred by trying to impose morality (usually through politics), rather
than try and accept the other party’s right to follow their own aim. You
might say that by doing this they have seen themselves as a “morally”
superior class. However, such an action precludes civil liberty and
morality. It is true that – when given freedom – people may choose
atheism, agnosticism, humanism, or any of a myriad of amoral gods. Yet,
that choice must be respected. Religions are either moral or amoral.
Regardless, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” must prevail in
hearts and minds, by any name, and/or in Courts of law, the Legislative
process and Executive decisions. That is, if there are to be any
ABSOLUTES - the only foundation which justice can stand on. People must
deal with each other as peers. The self-righteous imposing their
will and appetite on others, will experience the loss between themselves
and their Creator, as well as those whom they will inevitably try to
subjugate.
By analogy – politically speaking
– some Conservatives err by attempting to legislate morality (which is
in itself an amoral act); while the error of some that call themselves
Libertarians, is in not recognizing that to posses Liberty one must
acknowledge a transcendent obligation, because Liberty is not its
diametric opposites – license or legalism (i.e. conduct of an immoral or
amoral nature, unrestricted by law or morality) – these are the
attributes of a Libertine.
By the same token,
Democracy and Socialism by all their aliases (including “Modern
Liberalism” and any other similar ideology based on a mix of
‘righteousness vs. self-righteousness’ or ‘self-righteousness vs.
self-righteousness’) are all made up of “multi-culture unsocieties”.
It’s not a society when it’s held together by force. A thesis (political
position) and an anti-thesis (political position) in constant combat
always result in a synthesis (winning political position), and – all too
frequently – in the establishment of a despotic two-class society (a
Command Class and their human capital). Obviously, Despotism is only
opposed by Despots if the goal is simply to impose the will of a
different Command Class (a group of Despots). Then – as history teaches
all who will listen – the process starts all over again. As Alexander
Fraser Tyler put it in his Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic,
“From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence, back into bondage.”
By contrast, a Republic, such as
the one provided by our forefathers, requires the public to pursue
righteousness (adhere to God’s law) in order to survive. The public
under these conditions is governed by “the Laws of Nature and of
Nature’s God”, and, consequently, it must choose righteous
Representatives by the democratic process. ”We must remember, however,
that ‘Democracy’ and the ‘democratic process’ are not synonymous. As
John Adams put it, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and
righteous people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any
other…” In the 1700’s, James Madison supported the same idea by
contrasting a Democracy and a Republic, “…Democracies have always been
spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the Right of Property; and have
in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in
their deaths…
“A Republic, by
which I mean a government in which the scheme of Representation takes
place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are
seeking…” (Federalist Papers, No. 10 page 81)
Let us note,
political and social behavior is nothing more than an outward expression
of a person’s or a society’s religion (by which we mean ‘heart-felt
beliefs’), whether they be righteous (following the idea of “LIBERTY and
JUSTICE for ALL” or self- righteous (the justification of a Command
Class and their fodder, represented by ‘apathetic losers’ and ‘unheeded
patriots’). The turmoil we are experiencing in America is, in fact, a
religious war: amoral humanist socialist ‘man-gods’ are trying to
replace “one Nation under God” with “one nation under a Command Class”
(i.e. themselves). But, as Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy
in America in 1830, “…America is good (righteous), therefore America
is great. If America ever ceases to be good (becomes self-righteous),
America will cease to be great.”
A reasonable person proceeds by
seeking to purify their relation to God (the Source), primarily by
seeking His truth (which is the Truth). They may share their
convictions, but will avoid conflict, save in self-defense. People on
this path will be supported by the Higher Power. Unreasonable people, on
the other hand, see themselves as ‘the source’. They will end up in
self-destructive pursuits, because their demands will perpetually
conflict with other ‘sources’ and the Source.
Separation of
Church and State; ABSOLUTELY.
Separation of
God and Country; NEVER.
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT
-
Man was created to be a Servant. Life’s question is: whom do you
serve?
-
‘Capitialism’ is a word coined by Karl Marx. It is NOT a
description of a political system. Capital items are productive items
(including YOU) in the world of the Socialist. The great ongoing
religious and, hence, political question is: who owns / controls the
capital (YOU included)?
-
There is no such thing as a ‘Democrat’ or a ‘Republican’ anymore,
in that there are no ABSOLUTES, or principals of a foundational nature,
that can be applied to these labels that would give them definition. If
I were asked to define them, I would say that the only distinction
between them is in the degree of efficiency with which they exercise
involuntary socialism.
-
What is government’s role in the moral question? Simple.
Government can be either moral (that is, it functions under “the Laws of
Nature and of Nature’s God”) or amoral (i.e. it sees itself as god –
like the Human Secularist one we serve).
-
There exist and have always existed only two forms of government,
regardless of all the labels: ‘involuntary Socialism’ (where a Command
Class rules) and ‘voluntary Socialism’ (the one where Liberty prevails,
i.e. the people and their representatives govern themselves under “the
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”).
-
The prevailing government is a window to the will and appetite of
the people. It is established by apathy, command and/or prohibition.
-
A simple (and the only) definition of government is “FORCE” –
force for good or evil. Depending on which force we exercise on
ourselves and in our societies, we will be either good (productive) or
evil (consumptive and destructive).
-
Government is not a productive entity. In order for it to do
something FOR you, it must first do something TO you.
-
The people exercising majority rule and / or the legislature are
as powerless to repeal moral and economic laws, as they are powerless to
repeal physical laws. They cannot convert wrong into right, nor can they
divorce effect from cause.
-
In all human history, patience, forgiveness and self-denial have
been the most rare products of political “wisdom.”
-
In order to practice responsibility, one must accept the concept
of accountability. If accountability is merely a matter of choosing who
or what you are willing to be accountable to, and you believe in your
own sovereignty, then there is no such thing as responsibility or
irresponsibility, only chaos. If, on the other hand, we see
accountability as holding ourselves accountable to the transcendent “the
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, then, it follows, we will act
responsibly – that is, we will hold ourselves accountable to the same
rules to which we hold others.
-
It is OUR government when it functions under the Law.
It is THE government when it becomes the
source of the Law.
-
The Constitution and the first Ten Amendments (The Bill of
Rights) were never intended to be the law of the land. Quite on the
contrary, they were written to insure, as best the Founders could, the
law of the land. “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” would never be
breached by the government they were charged to found. When the
colonies’ old government (England) had breached the said Laws, it led to
the Declaration of Independence and revolution. Is history repeating
itself again?
-
Free from the law as it is with the changes called amendments,
the Constitution is nothing more than a tool to make amoral conduct
legal, and restrain liberty. The 14th, 16th, 17th
and other changes have served to destroy the nature and intent of the
Constitution – that is, restrain or hold the Federal Government
accountable to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. These
amendments empower government with powers outside God’s law, and those
who exercise the said powers are justly called ‘outlaws’.
-
All of our words and actions are results arising out of our
previous words and actions. If we take the time to look back, then we
can act in a reasonable way while going forward. If we start each day
with amnesia, we cannot ever hope to advance to higher levels of
enlightenment. Now, when I say ‘look back’, I don’t refer to some point
in time when some thing or event can be isolated to support your
foregone conclusion. Rather, look back for the understanding of the
consequences of the actions you are about to undertake. The only thing
that changes is names, dates and places.
-
“In the beginning of a
change, the patriot is a scarce and brave man, hated and scorned. When
his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it cost nothing
to be a patriot…” (Mark Twain).
-
Christianity was the religion America was founded on: all
political and social activities had their origin in the principles
outlined in the Bible. Christians that are apathetic toward their
political responsibilities are demonstrating apathy toward their
religious responsibilities, because what they do politically and
socially is nothing more than an outward expression of their religious
beliefs. Just like Life, Liberty and Property, political and religious
responsibilities cannot be separated and retained. Christ’s religion
(His heart-felt beliefs) was expressed in His social and political
activism. He flew in the face of religious and political leaders
practicing Human Secularism (man-gods).
-
‘And the Preacher said,
”There is nothing new under the sun.”’ Ecclesiastes 1:9
All rights reserved
Wildey J. Moore
Copy right 1998
Edited
by Natasha Zabel
