The Moral Liberal

Religion vital aid to free institutions, Alexis de Tocqueville

Steve Farrell — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:04:15 +0000

I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion - for who can read to the bottom of hearts? - but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks. - Alexis de Tocqueville, as quoted in "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation," Jon Meacham

Founder's-styled election reform, by Steve Farrell

Steve Farrell — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:23:21 +0000

When it comes to limited government as defined by the Founding Fathers, the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism sides with the inspired electoral college process created in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one which rather than making for a pure democracy (or something like unto it) gave us representative government - but more than that: mixed forms for representation coupled with a variety of checks and balances that prevented power from concentrating, as well as providing a check on passionate and frequent overthrows of the law. Change was not to be impossible when desirable, but only after a deliberate process of debate, reasoning, and separation of time from any supposed crisis (outside of war). The Electoral College system set up for electing Presidents of the United States is part of that inspiration. The Idaho Values Alliance, the Idaho Affiliate of American Family Association notes today:

Not too many people are happy with the current proess of selecting presidential nominees – too long, too expensive, too confusing. The simplest solution would be to go back to the system envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. According to the Founders, what this season should be about is not electing a president but electing the people who will elect a president. As Article II of the Constitution says, Election Day is not the day to choose a president but rather the “Time of chusing (sic) the Electors.” This is a reflection of the often-forgotten historical truth that the Founders created a republic, not a democracy, when they established the government of the United States. The Electoral College was designed by the Founders to consist of those people that the voters of each state have chosen, on the first Tuesday in November, to actually select the next president of the United States. We should not, at this stage of the process, be hearing from presidential candidates but rather from candidates for the position of Elector. We should be hearing from Idahoans seeking to convince us, by the criteria they will use in casting their votes, that they can be trusted to pick a president on our behalf. The system is designed to work in such a way, according to Article II and the 12th Amendment, that we would not know who our next president is until the sealed Certificates listing the votes of every Elector from every state are opened by the President of the Senate in the presence of a joint session of Congress in Washington, D.C. Then, if no one candidate received a majority of the votes, the House of Representatives would choose the next president from the top five vote getters in the Electoral College. Bottom line: if we’re disenchanted with the current process, there’s no reason not to go back to the Constitution and do it the way we’re supposed to.

We agree, but add: An additional step to true election reform would be to repeal the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, which amendment called for the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people, rather than by the Founder's method, which was the election of Senators by their state legislatures - a radical departure. The Founder's formula sought to provide a vital check against the concentration of power on the national level, provide a balance of power between the states as well (by giving every state, large or small, two Senators directly responsible to their respective state governments and interests), and also a check against socialistic schemes for the forced redistribution of the wealth which they were sure would arise in the more democratic house (and thus this was a check on the dangers of pure democracy). And to coincide with these, election of Senators by their state legislatures was supposed to provide for more statesmanship, more independent thought, more sense of history, more sense of moral maturity, for the thought was that by in large these Senators - thus elected - would be the tried and tested senior statesmen from each state. When one really considers what the Founder's did, and what later generations undid with the 17th Amendment, we are also led to exclaim, "If only we were to repeal and return, here would be true campaign-finance reform!" For it would mean, in large part, an end to millions of dollars from corporations and other private interest groups flowing into election campaign coffers for senatorial and presidential elections. Only in the House would the problem continue to be the problem we have today ... just as the Founders predicted and wanted. It was the House that represented directly the passions, whims, and or legitimate concerns of the people, and yes, groups of people (associations). There they would be aired in either their glory or shame ... but they would be aired ... and then hopefully, even if some of the more shameful measures made it through, then in the Senate, a more mature legislative body, representing a different constituency would provide the balance, checking the bad, and only concurring with the good. Powered by ScribeFire. Quotation used with the permission of our friends at the Idaho Values Alliance

Changing Definitions

Steve Farrell — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:44:16 +0000

Definitions can be important. An important technique of the socialist revolution against religion, morality, and true liberty has been to hijack words and reinvent their definitions to their exact opposites. One example is the word liberalism. In the founding era, liberalism, or as we call it today, classical liberalism, was an outlook on political science that believed in limited government (thus maximum liberty) on the one hand, tempered by an educated and moral people on the other hand (which can also imply liberality, or fairness, or loving one's neighbor as himself), which hopefully translates into "ordered liberty," or "freedom to do what is right." And again, freedom to do what is right means the state will stay out of your way in things like your career choices, or how you run your business, or what how you exercise your religion, so long as you don't hurt anyone, or deprive them of their sacred rights in the process. But if you do, then the state has a legitimate interest in looking into the matter, and restraining or punishing you if necessary. Others would add to this definition by stating, as Joseph Smith did, that "to every kingdom there is a law, and to every law there are certain bounds and conditions." I like that. For true liberty can only exist where there are certain basic laws in place (with some logical and fair-minded flexibility), otherwise there is anarchy, followed by the rule of the jungle, and after that, complete tyranny as a police state steps in (at the invitation of the victims) to restore order. Freedom to exist, must have a reasonable set of limits. But beyond these, we are very liberal with man's freedom of choice. That was liberalism. Minimum government, with a few good moral and eternal laws keeping freedom within reasonable bounds, and of course, an educated and moral populace so that those limits will be, for the most part, respected. Liberalism today, to illustrate my point, is the precise opposite of the original and true definition; that is, maximum government and control on the one hand, and yet absolute freedom in the morality department to do whatever one pleases, that is, as Karl Marx taught, there is no morality, there are no eternal truths, there is no reason or legitimacy in a few fixed laws and bounds, it's all relative, relative to empowering the state. Why? Because what we have is the pincer strategy - pressure from above, and pressure from below. Pressure for centralize power mixed, as government is the answer for everything; and pressure from below because without moral limits cries comes every sort of crime, in ever increasing numbers, which cries for ever increasing intervention from the state. Or as someone once said, "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." And yes, here's the kicker, it all backfires on the politically correct immorality grouping of the day, who will with ever centralizing power have their "freedoms" taken by and by with everyone else's. Welcome to Reality 101. The hijacking, and redefinition of the word "gay" by the left, is another obvious example ... and thus what was once a pathology, homosexuality, is now redefined as "normal, happy, healthy," everyone smile ... even though the suicide rate among gays is exorbitantly high. It just isn't a happy lifestyle. Never has been. Another word re-invented by the left to its opposite is discussed in today's National Review Online, by Rich Lowry; it is fascism. Fascism, as this editor has long taught (but which has not been taught in the schools or the media), is but a form of socialism. Indeed, Lenin's NEP was fundamentally a fascist model, as was Gorbachev's Peretroika. That is, by way of one example, complete state ownership of the major industries, highly regulated status of the other industries and businesses, and free enterprise for Mama and Papa businesses. On another level, there was private ownership in those regulated and Mama and Papa industries, but it had aggressive, freedom destroying limits. Publishers could freely compete, but not with a variety of political views (they had to pull the party line), but they could only compete for audiences; e.g. the senior audience, or the youth, or, let's say, manufacturers. Thus, they had the economic benefits of private ownership and competition, but not freedom of speech as we understand it. Similar examples abound. Lowry reviews a book by Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism," that exposes the fraud of the conservative right and Christians as fascists. Fascism and communism are sisters of the left. Both are highly centralized liberty destroying variations of the same idea. Definitions are important. Read the review: Rich Lowry on Liberal Fascism on National Review Online

Liberty Letters Quote of the Day: Burke On Tyranny's Changing Faces

Steve Farrell — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:24:04 +0000

[8] It is very rare indeed for men to be wrong in their feelings concerning public misconduct; as rare to be right in their speculation upon the cause of it. I have constantly observed, that the ^*38generality of people are fifty years, at least, behindhand in their politicks. There are but very few, who are capable of comparing and digesting what passes before their eyes at different times and occasions, so as to form the whole into a distinct system. But ^*³⁹in books everything is settled for them, without the exertion of any considerable diligence or sagacity. For which reason ^*40men are wise with but little reflexion, and good with little self-denial, in the business of all times except their own. We are very uncorrupt and tolerably enlightened judges of the transactions of past ages; where no passions deceive, and where ^*41the whole train of circumstances, from the trifling cause to the tragical event, is set in an orderly series before us. Few are the partizans of departed tyranny; and to be a ^*42Whig on the business of an hundred years ago, is very consistent with every advantage of present servility. This retrospective wisdom, and ^*43historical patriotism, are things of wonderful convenience; and serve admirably to reconcile the old quarrel between speculation and practice. ^*44Many a stern republican, after gorging himself with a full feast of admiration of the Grecian commonwealths and of ^*45our true Saxon constitution, and discharging all the ^*46splendid bile of his virtuous indignation on King John and King James, sits down perfectly satisfied to the ^*47coarsest work and homeliest job of the day he lives in. I believe there was no professed admirer of Henry the Eighth among the instruments of the last King James; nor in the court of Henry the Eighth was there, I dare say, to be found a single advocate for the favourites of Richard the Second.

No complaisance to our Court, or to our age, can make me believe nature to be so changed, but that public liberty will be among us, as among our ancestors, obnoxious to some [9] person or other; and that opportunities will be furnished for attempting, at least, some ^*48alteration to the prejudice of our constitution. ^*49These attempts will naturally vary in their mode, according to times and circumstances. For ambition, though it has ever the same general views, has not at all times the same means, nor the same particular objects. A great deal of the ^*50furniture of ancient tyranny is worn to rags; the rest is entirely out of fashion. Besides, there are few Statesmen so very clumsy and awkward in their business, as ^*51to fall into the identical snare which has proved fatal to their predecessors. When an arbitrary imposition is attempted upon the subject, undoubtedly it will not bear on its forehead the name of ^*52Ship-money. There is no danger that ^*⁵³an extension of the Forest laws should be the chosen mode of oppression in this age. And when we hear any instance of ministerial rapacity, to the prejudice of the rights of private life, it will certainly not be the ^*54exaction of two hundred pullets, from a woman of fashion, for leave to lye with her own husband.

^*55Every age has its own manners, and its politicks dependent upon them; and the same attempts will not be made against a constitution fully formed and matured, that were used to destroy it in the cradle, or to resist its growth during its infancy.

^*56Against the being of Parliament, I am satisfied, no designs have ever been entertained since the Revolution. Every one must perceive, that it is strongly the interest of the Court, to have some second cause interposed between the Ministers and the people. The gentlemen of the House of Commons have an interest equally strong, in sustaining the part of that intermediate cause. ^*57However they may hire out the usufruct of their voices, they never will part with the fee and inheritance. Accordingly ^*58those who have been of the most known devotion to the will and pleasure of a Court, have, at the same time, been most forward in asserting an [10] high authority in the House of Commons. When they knew who were to use that authority, and how it was to be employed, they thought it never could be carried too far. It must be always the wish of an unconstitutional Statesman, that an House of Commons who are entirely dependent upon him, should have every right of the people entirely dependent upon their pleasure. It was soon discovered, that the ^*59forms of a free, and the ends of an arbitrary Government, were things not altogether incompatible.

^*60The power of the Crown, almost dead and rotten as Prerogative, has grown up anew, with much more strength, and far less odium, under the name of ^*61Influence. An influence, which operated without noise and without violence; an influence, which converted the very antagonist, into the instrument, of power; which contained in itself a perpetual principle of growth and renovation; and which the distresses and the prosperity of the country equally tended to augment, was an admirable substitute for a Prerogative, that, being only the offspring of antiquated prejudices, had ^*⁶²moulded in its original stamina irresistible principles of decay and dissolution. The ignorance of the people is a bottom but for a temporary system; the interest of active men in the State is a foundation perpetual and infallible. However, some circumstances, arising, it must be confessed, in a great degree from accident, prevented the effects of this influence for a long time from breaking out in a manner capable of exciting any serious apprehensions. Although Government was strong and flourished exceedingly, ^*63the Court had drawn far less advantage than one would imagine from this great source of power.Edmund Burke, Thoughts On the Present Discontents, 1784 Liberty Letters hopes the lesson is obvious: don't suppose that a politician, political party, or partisan political movement is up to no good (including the one that you may be involved with) simply because none of the historical words that spell tyranny are in vogue. The word "socialism" is a clear example. It is a bad word, with a bad reputation; and so it is rarely used, and always changing names and faces. Thus we have socialism, communism, fascism, fabianism, democratic socialism, liberation theology, the third way, compassionate conservatism, corporatism, planned economies, state-monopoly capitalism, futurism, the welfare state, internationalism, the regulatory state, and so forth. They all mean the same thing in the great fundamentals, and there are so many other labels that can be used, are used, and will be used. Burke's lesson is fundamental, and speaks of a re-occurring motif in history. That is why we must look at the principles involved, to the fine print, and think - not look to the labels, not get caught up in blind partisanship, and in personality worship. Forced redistribution of the wealth, intrusive regulation of private property and industry, denial of freedom of religion in any setting, regulation of the press, controls over private associations, graduated income taxes, centralized control over education, huge property confiscations by the state, the creations of national banks in private hands with an exclusive monopoly, etc., are all fundamentally the same, but will rarely be mentioned in the flashing lights of their packaging that they are steps toward tyranny, or indeed, already tyrannical. Liberty Letters is a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism

Is Joseph Smith A Christian Prophet? By Steve Farrell

Steve Farrell — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:38:54 +0000

Thanks to Mitt Romney's presidency run, who hasn't heard a thing or two about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (nicknamed "The Mormons") and their founder the Prophet Joseph Smith in the past several months? The trouble is, ambition and partisanship being what it is, and misinformation on the Church and its prophet being all too easy to pick up from peddlers who earn a paycheck picking dead man's bones, and by the re-telling of silly, sensational, and salacious stories; wrong, strange, and wild ideas abound, such as this one: "Mormons" aren't Christians - and so, neither is Mitt Romney, and, so, there ya go! He is a mere "opportunist," a "flip-flopper," to so testify. That line of thought is easy for the uninformed to accept, especially when the media, a supposed unbiased source of news and information, joins in with the anti-Mormon chorus, by refusing to use anything but the once derisive nickname "Mormon Church," rather than the Church's correct name, The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints, nearly every time it pens or broadcasts a story. The same is true of its refusal to call the "The Book of Mormon" by its full name, printed in gold on every single cover: "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ." It has a different ring, now, doesn't it? Open up the cover, and turn to the title page, and we discover the book's purpose, "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations." I think you see where I'm taking this. Go a few pages into the book and one of its first prophets, Nephi, declares to his future readers "we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." That is, to look to Christ as their personal savior, as I do, as Romney does, probably since he was but a lad sitting on mom and dad's lap on family night, singing "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam!" There are in fact, in this volume translated by the young man, Joseph Smith, far more references to Jesus Christ and His atonement per page than there are even in The New Testament (which we also study and believe). A 36 to 1 advantage on the word atonement alone. The book's climax recounts the appearance of Jesus Christ, shortly after his resurrection in Palestine, to His "other sheep" here in America; where we find he taught the same gospel, healing their sick, raising their dead, blessing their children, teaching them to pray, and organizing His church with twelve disciples - or special witnesses - just as he had in the old world. The book's last prophet, Moroni, the same depicted upon the top of our temples with trumpet in hand announcing the restoration of the primitive gospel of Christ in this latter time, concludes his testimony by inviting everyone, everywhere to "come unto Christ, and be perfected in him." Well, you get the idea. Now, Joseph Smith was the translator of this American testament of Jesus Christ, but he also had much more to say about the Savior and His gospel in speeches, letters, journals, and additional books of scripture, than can be found in the Book of Mormon. But I want you to discover those for yourself, in the privacy of your own home. I invite you to read the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith, hear and now, available for free in multi-media format; and decide for yourself, 'Christian or not?' After you have, if you feel so inclined, I would hope that you will pass on to others, especially family members and close associates what you have read, learned, and felt. It may change your life, and bless you and your family forever. At the very least, it will shed light on what us "Mormons," that is, we members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, really believe. As a convert, who has over a long course of years paid the price to know its doctrines, I declare from the bottom of my heart that you will be pleasantly surprised, deeply moved, and intellectually and spiritually fed, by what you find. It is my witness that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God, a modern mouthpiece and witness for Jesus Christ. May you take the time to read, ponder, and pray about his words so that you may know for yourself, as I have come to know. God bless you. SF. The Teachings of Joseph Smith

***

Please note: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse political candidates, nor does The Center for Moral Liberalism, which is a private organization unaffiliated with the Church, or any political party.

Liberty Letters: Chesterton on Conservatism vs. Progressivism

Steve Farrell — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:21:02 +0000

As to the two major modern political thrusts defined; G. K. Chesterton quips with a bit of wit and biting precision: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." - G. K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News, April 19, 1924 Is this not as applicable today as it was then, in the United States here and now, as it was in England a century ago? The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax.com pundit Steve Farrell and friends, and are a project of The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism. Help support the Liberty Letters and The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism by purchasing your copy of Steve Farrell's inspirational novel, "Dark Rose" - a novel Jon Dougherty of World Net Daily praised as "An enchanting story of faith and family that is as enlightening as it is encouraging." Read more reviews here.

Liberty Letters: De Tocqueville on the Christian Influence for Equality

Steve Farrell — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:10:11 +0000

The religion which declares that all are equal in the sight of God, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law. Religion is the companion of liberty in all its battles and all it conflicts; the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims. - Alexis de Tocqueville, as quoted in Edwin Hall's "The Puritans and their Principles," 1846 Long forgotten by a state school system infected by Supreme Court rulings, ACLU lawsuits, and Education Associations that worship Dewey and Humanism, while banning God and Christianity; is that it was Jesus Christ's teaching of the common brotherhood of men, the Golden Rule, and the equal accountability of ALL before the Judgment Bar of Christ; that exercised a mighty hand in inspiring equality before the law, inalienable rights, and the principle of representation in the founding of our republic. The day of the notion of the "King is Law" was over. The ringing reversal that "the Law is King" replaced it. And to state it as clear as clear can be. Every man now found pleasure in appealing to his own copy of the Bible to cite principles of Higher Law to protect himself and his neighbor against tyrants and bullies. It turned the world upside down, shook off the shackles of superstition and ignorance, and set man on the pathway to freedom, prosperity, faith and knowledge as never before. Thank goodness, and thank God. If only we the blessed recipients of this Heaven granted bounty have enough gratitude to insure future generations of youth, of every faith, and none at all, are not left in the dark, and denied the freedom to learn, the Way, the Truth, the Light that set us free. The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax.com pundit Steve Farrell, and are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism.

My Counselor, my Lifeline, by Steve Montgomery & Ronald B. Scott

Steven Montgomery — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:25:54 +0000

As a true-blue paleo-conservative, you might think it strange that I a few friends who tend towards the opposite end of the political spectrum. One of these friends (ok, he's more of an online acquaintance than a "traditional" friend) is Ron Scott, a founding editor of "People Magazine," and writer for "Life Magazine." With Ron's permission I am posting his testimony, as given a little more than a year ago now, and what turns out now to be fitting eulogy of President Gordon B. Hinckley.

My Counselor, My Lifeline

Weston First Ward Conference

Weston, Massachusetts

January 14, 2007

Ronald B. Scott

Way, way back in 1967, a few months after I returned home from serving a two-year mission to New England, I enrolled in a creative writing course at the University of Utah. The set-up for one essay assignment went like this: · While hiking, you have become stranded on a cliff, a couple of hundred feet below and above safe ground. · Rescuers have located a rope, but it is just long enough to reach down to you; there is no way to secure it, so you won't be able to rappel down; the only way to go is up. It will be a tough -footholds and handholds are scarce. Count on lots of falls, short ones if the man belaying -holding the rope -is reliable. He is your lifeline. · As for your lifeline, your belayer, - the person holding the rope - you have a choice. Choose who you would trust most with your life? Explain your choice providing as much descriptive detail as possible. Predictably, most of the kids wrote tributes to a mother, a father, a brother, or a favorite uncle. A few pragmatists selected peers who were also skilled mountaineers, or strong linebackers. My choice was so unusual - he was neither a relative nor fearsomely strong - that the teacher read my essay to the class. Now, 40 years later Bishop Zenger asked me -just last night - to tell you about the man I chose and why I selected him way back when, and to cover the years in between...so I will resort to verbal snapshots: · Although I had known, been aware of the man for most of my life, I didn't start paying attention to him until I was a pre-teenager. He was the soft-spoken first counselor, the number two man in the stake presidency for what seemed like an eternity. When I first heard him speak from the podium at stake conference - and every time thereafter - I assumed he was the visiting general authority. He sounded like a general authority. Calm, self-assured, kind. · He was very, very good counselor which meant he was always very, very good at listening. Later, he briefly, very briefly, served as stake president. · He was a few years older than my own father. In fact, he'd taught dad in seminary, and later hired him. The man I would designate as my lifeline returned from a long and tough session with his tight-fisted boss. He had been negotiating raises for two chronically underpaid long-term employees. Things had not gone as well as hoped and he was indignant as he quoted Luke off the top of his head: "for the labourer is worthy of his hire..." He was something of a scriptorian. · My first lasting impression came during a routine family dinner in his home. I was a middle-teen then. His blessing on the food included a brief family prayer. It was like no other prayer I had heard before. Or since, for that matter, except from him. I had the distinct impression that he was having a one-on-one, frank and open exchange with the Lord...Of course I couldn't hear the other side of the conversation, but I was pretty certain my lifeline could. It was a truly awesome thing to...to hear...and to feel. · A year or so later I found myself wrestling with God, like lots of young people do. Old people too. I had read just enough history to be troublesome; absorbed just enough philosophy to have doubts, and knew just enough math to know that some things in life just don't add up. · And, so there we sat on the lawn behind his modest white-clapboard cottage in East Millcreek talking about the meaning of life, God, and, especially, the church. Because I was close friends with one of his children we had a few impromptu chats over the years. Assuming, as I did, that my lifeline was on a first name basis with God I wanted him to tell me that God had told him the church was true. Believe me, I would have taken his word for it, no follow-up questions would have been necessary. · I couldn't get up the courage to put it to him quite that bluntly, so we waltzed around "testimony" issues and my "doubts" and so on for quite a while until finally he said something like "Well, you've told me all about your questions and doubts, how about telling me about what you don't doubt. There must be a few things about the gospel, the church you believe to be true." Sure enough there were. I ticked off a few fairly safe ones and a couple of provocative ones for good measure. He looked me square in the eyes and said: "Here's what you do. Hold on tight to what you know to be true and let it lead you to all the rest." I'm here today because of what he said way back when. I'm still applying his advice. · A few years later I was ready to accept a mission call to Japan or Hong Kong or Korea. I was the youngest of my circle of friends, seven or so -and nearly every one of them was called to serve in Asia. Or so it seemed. My lifeline just happened to supervise all the missions in this area of the world. And so, putting one and one together, I assumed that's where I was headed too. I was floored when my call arrived in the mail and it specified New England. A week or so later, My lifeline called to congratulate me and get my reaction - I'm reasonably certain this memory is paraphrased only a little. "I'm pleased but very surprised," I confessed. "I expected a call to a mission in Asia." There was thoughtful silence on the phone line. He broke it with a simple question: "What's the date on the letter from President McKay." I gave him the date. "Ah," he said, audibly relieved. "I was out of town then." I laughed loudly. "I thought missionary callings were supposed to be inspired." "Oh they are," he insisted. "They're like an inspired game of darts: if you know the young man, it just helps you aim the dart a little better." · I served the mission, returned to college, wrote my essay about him, and went off to New York to write for Time. But, good journalists keep track of people and they take copious notes. I kept track of him; I read all his speeches; saved news clips about him. I learned that he had once wanted to be a journalist - that he too had once dreamed of writing for Time Magazine before he was persuaded, right out of college, to join a large international organization based in Salt Lake City, one where he spent his entire 70-something year career. · He hadn't laid eyes on me in at least six years, perhaps more, when I ran into him at a press conference in Manhattan. He was now a senior officer and I knew he had personally directed an effort aimed at drawing more African Americans into his organization. I was very proud of him. His plan was working well. So we reporters wanted to know all about it, especially where it might lead the organization. Like the good counselor he had always been would be for many more years to come, he humbly redirected our enthusiastic, flattering questions to his boss. · He is a serious man, but he does not want for a sense of humor. As I mentioned he knows something about prayers and praying. A friend, a particularly snappy, colorful dresser and now a stake president in New York was asked to give a closing prayer in a business meeting that included my "lifeline." "That was a particularly fine prayer," he said. "And the Lord may have taken you more seriously if he wasn't distracted by your snazzy tie." · Over the years since, we caught up many times, directly, indirectly and almost. There wasn't time to chat, or even shake hands. He is very busy. Very public. Aides surround him wherever he goes. Well- wishers too. They deserve time with him and I don't intrude. I had my turn up close and personal sitting on the lawn in his backyard 40-plus years ago. · We nearly collided in the service concourse under a sports arena in Worcester a few years back. He shot me one of those sidelong "I know you from somewhere" looks as he continued on down the hallway and I gave him one my best "you know me but you have places to go, people to greet" smiles. I suspect he would have recognized me straight out if I had not lost so much weight since he last saw me - yeh, right - and if the hairdresser had not messed around with the color of my hair. He is old now. Really old. In his late 90s. Yet, his mind is very sharp. As he battles cancer, he races on like a man possessed, determined to stand for something right up to the very moment he keels over in his tracks. He has always stood for something. Stood up for truth, decency and kindness. Stood up for people, the lucky and unlucky, the rich and poor and insisted that they talk to each other. Like a good boy scout, he has striven to leave the "camp site" in better shape than he found it. He has succeeded. Ever the good counselor he continues to listen well and respond with breathtakingly simple advice. Such was the case last Spring when he stood before us to give a speech he had once gamely entitled "My Last Will And Testimony." His voice was ripe with righteous indignation as he opened with these words, which I have condensed a bit: When a man grows old he develops a softer touch, a kindlier manner ...I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. We are involved in terrible wars with lives lost and many crippling wounds. Coming closer to home, there is so much of jealousy, pride, arrogance, and carping criticism...Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. ... I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor be ... in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? ... Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children. I stand here today as a witness for my counselor, my lifeline. He is honorable. He is inspired. And, he is awesomely inspiring. He takes people as they are and helps them transform their weak spots into hard ones, and forge their hard ones into steel. When his day is done, as it soon will be, the record will show that no mortal man - except Joseph Smith and Brigham Young - had a greater influence on the Church of Jesus Christ than the man I described in a college essay 40 years ago when he was a young apostle. If I were stranded on a granite cliff today, I would want our leader and our prophet Gordon Bitner Hinckley manning the rope. He is my counselor, my lifeline and friend. I bear that simple witness, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Why 'One Nation Under God' Matters, by Steve Farrell

Steve Farrell — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:32:07 +0000

Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 16 "One nation under God" was the nasty little phrase that aroused the righteous indignation of the infamous 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional, and still inspires secularists of various stripes to oppose it today. That the voluntary recitation of this phrase might become forbidden under Constitutional claims - of all things! - reminds me of the thoughtless comments of a group of public school teachers several years ago regarding the possible re-introduction of the Ten Commandments into the public school system. These teachers came to the one-sided consensus that teaching the Ten Commandments had little or no value in the classroom. Nothing could be further from the truth. Numerous principles of constitutional law rest on the foundational belief that in America, God presides. Here are three of those principles:

Our rejection of kings.
Our belief in the pre-eminence of Higher Law and, thus, inalienable rights and a republican form of government to protect those rights.
Our belief in equality before the law.

America's Rejection of Kings Of all the powerful arguments against a belief in kings, Thomas Paine's 1776 work, "Common Sense," tops the list. In it Paine rejected kings and kingly prerogatives via an appeal to scripture, reason and history, but primarily scripture. He noted:

The Almighty hath here (in the Bible) entered his protest against monarchical government. Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. [Before] then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases) was a kind of republic, administered by a judge, and the elders of the tribes [who were freely elected, and a Seventy, who were the equivalent of a Senate]. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts.

"Government by kings," said Paine, was not the invention of God - as skeptics contend today - but "was first introduced into the world by the heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom." Israel first dabbled with the idea of kings, he stated, when they solicited the great general Gideon for such a post. "Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son's son." But Gideon, a type and a shadow of another great general, Washington, rigorously refused this tempting offer: Said he, "[Only] the Lord shall rule over you." Gideon, not only "declined the offer," but he "denied their right to give it," for absolute power in the hands of any man was an affront to God. God must be the only King, and that was important. Paine continued:

But where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the Divine Law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute government the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.

This belief that God and His law were Supreme, and that the Constitution rested upon that foundation, repudiated monarchy and inspired the colonists - and Paine wasn't the first and last Founder to tie biblical principle to the establishment of a wiser approach to government and law - to believe that no man or group of men should ever be trusted with unchecked power. It taught the colonists a principle students and citizens need understand today, that even good men are corrupted by untrammeled centralized power, and the results of such blind trust are catastrophic. And so we have reason No. 1 that "one nation under God" is important - it means no kings, and no state are to be worshipped in America. What's wrong with that? Higher Law and the Foundation of a Republic Monarchies tend to tyrannize the people and strip them of their rights, and so do pure democracies. This is so because pure democracies create rights and give governments power to give or take away civil and personal rights according to majority vote, plain and simple - or, often, by way of a noisy minority. If the majority, or noisy minority, wants to strip away your rights (call it ‘mob rule'), so be it in a democracy. We forget it was not only the king of England, but also the freely elected Parliament that deprived the colonists of their rights. Jefferson wrote in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence: "They [the English] have by their free election, reestablished [the disturbers of our harmony] in power." (1) The British commons (the freely elected branch) could have exercised their check at a key moment against a measure that pushed the colonists to complete unity and war against their mother country - but they didn't. "The bill passed the commons by a vote of more than four to one," records George Bancroft in his classic "History of the United States." (2) The reason? "The British government inflamed the passions of the English people against America." (3) Jefferson rejected a repeat of that possibility with this Declaration: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty [especially Religious Liberty] and the pursuit of Happiness [Private Property]." (4) Jefferson, therefore, appealed to a Higher Law, as did Paine, pronouncing the biblical conviction that these rights are the pre-existent gifts of God to all his children - rights that no king, no House of Lords, no House of Commons can abridge, eradicate or claim to create. And so we have reason No. 2 that "One Nation Under God" is important: In order for men's rights to be preserved and protected from both kings and the democratic mob, there must be an acknowledgment of a Higher Law that declares these rights inalienable to which the people may appeal with confidence, conviction, and moral authority. The kind of government that does this best, the Founders proclaimed, is a republic, for a republic is ruled by law, not merely by the whims of the one, the few, or the many. So what's wrong with that? Equality Before the Law Yet recognition of God as Our Father and the only king in the universe roused another political leap for man - or, as Jefferson believed, a political return to "ancient principles" - one of them being the conviction already noted, that "all men are created equal." This was no inconsequential improvement, and Jefferson did not happen upon it alone. The tenet was deeply rooted in the religious theology and history of a very religiously minded group of colonists. The 1762 election sermon by Boston Reverend Abraham Williams spelled it out: "All men [are] naturally equal, [having] descended from a common Parent." (5) Or, as the apostle Peter put it, "God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (6) And then again as Paul boldly put it to the Gentiles at Mars Hill, "God that made the world ... hath made of one blood all nations of men ... [for each of us, he clarified, are] his literal offspring." (7) A stirring thought. All are his children: in or out of the faith, in or out of a nation's borders. From this perspective, vital principles of law emerged. Children of God, endowed with agency, higher than the beasts, ought to be free and ought to have an equal right to consent to the laws that govern them. Likewise, as all men would one day stand before the bar of Heaven to be judged according to their works - regardless of who they were, rich or poor, president or pauper - so should it be on Earth. This meant equality before the law, or no special immunities, no privileged political or religious classes. What a leap out of the political Dark Ages for man! And so we have reason No. 3: "One nation under God" matters: One nation under God stands as a firm testimony that we are all equally His children, all equally free and all equally accountable - thus earthly governments ought to honor this equality. So what's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. "One Nation Under God" is the chief cornerstone of our liberty. Its foundation rests upon that first so-called ‘personal' (and thus ‘forbidden') commandment, "thou shalt have no other Gods before me." If we expect to remain a people without kings or an Almighty State; if we desire to continue as a republic of laws with Inalienable Rights; and if we hope to endure as equals before those laws, all of us, equally possessed of those rights; we had better halt that legal trend that strips men, women, and children of their Inalienable Right to freely express their conviction (in public and in private) that God lives, that we are all His children, that His laws are just and true, and that we will all one day be held equally accountable before them. Such a return to freedom of speech, religion, and press - on these and other religious and moral issues - finds the mark with religion, for "one nation under God" is not offensive, not unconstitutional, and not unnecessary, but essential for believers and nonbelievers alike. It is the American way. It is the path to liberation. Center for Moral Liberalism President, Steve Farrell, is a pundit with America's News Page, Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, and the author of the highly praised, inspirational novel "Dark Rose." Footnotes 1. "We the States: An Anthology of Historic Document and Commentaries thereon, Expounding the State and Federal Relationship," Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, William Byrd Press, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, 1964, p. 16. Copies of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence can be found online. 2. Bancroft, George, "History of the United States," Volume 3, p. 481. 3. Ibid. 4. Declaration of Independence. 5. Hyneman, Charles S., and Lutz, Donald S. "American Political Writing during the Founding Era: 1760-1805," Volume 1, Liberty Press, Indianapolis, 1983, p. 5. 6. Holy Bible, Acts 10:34-35. 7. Ibid., Acts 17:26-29.

'Thou Shalt Not Profane God:' A Public or Private Principle of Law? by Steve Farrell

Steve Farrell — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:32:10 +0000

Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 17 “One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric,” indicated a Supreme Court justice over three decades ago. (1) The justice said it, and many have parroted it ever since under the supposition that something very clever, very liberating, very American had been said. Building on this ‘maxim,’ the contention today is that consistent with the right to free speech, but more especially consistent with that new ‘right of all rights’ - privacy - every human may say whatever he wants, however he wants, wherever he wants, for whatever purpose he wants without the law running interference - with this “wink, wink” proviso: said speech is politically correct, that is, if “wink, wink,” said speech strikes against the existing Christian, capitalist, constitutional order, but if not, “wink, wink,” another set of rules apply, rules which severely restrict free speech. That’s why under the flattering front of reverencing God’s law, and yet respecting that new arbitrary higher law - man’s privacy - even more, one commandment after another is struck down as ‘too personal’ to have part in the law, or for that matter to have ever had part in the law. One such commandment is, “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” ‘This commandment is private - is it not?!’ - they exclaim. And one may in all fairness wonder, ‘Are they right?’ With the answer being, ‘That all depends.’ If the claim is that the law cannot force a man to speak the Lord’s name with a spirit of reverence and look of piety on his face, why then, the claim is true enough, as it has always been. Conscience is private, and faith can never be forced. But the command to not take the name of God in vain is a negative law, not a positive law - opening up the door for a legitimate public application, especially when one considers just what “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” denotes in its traditional legal sense. Oaths Few contend that “thou shalt not lie” does not, and ought not have public application in the law. There are so many laws on the books which reinforce the principle, for example: laws which deal with contracts, full disclosure, deceptive advertising, etc. The doctrine stands nearly undisputed. And call this a fact: no one disputes, or would discard the command when their property interests are on the line! So, the Creator of Heaven and Earth apparently got this one right - for now. Yet, a greater form of dishonesty exists, which if violated, brings stiffer sanctions and severer dishonor. It’s called perjury - that is, lying under oath - one of the most severe forms of taking the name of the Lord God in vain that is punished under U.S. law. How is this a form of taking the Lord’s name in vain? One who lies - after promising with right arm to the square, “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,” - has solemnly borne false witness in the name of God, thus polluting his holy name. (2) U.S. laws against perjury have always been acknowledged as being possessed of religious roots and principles. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines oaths and perjury as follows:

Oath: A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.

This understanding of the third commandment predates the Founding Era. The Jewish Publication Society translation of Exodus 20:7 reads: “You shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God;” while the King James version of Leviticus 19:12 reads thus: “Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God.” J.R. Dummelow’s, Commentary on the Holy Bible, says of the third commandment: “This prohibition applies strictly to perjury or false swearing, the breaking of a promise or contract that has been sealed with an oath in the name of God. He will not allow His name to be associated with any act of falsehood or treachery. His name must not be taken in vain, i.e., lightly or heedlessly.” (3) God’s eternal law is the root law whence cometh oaths and perjury, and every citizen ought to understand the root of such laws lest they be led to foolishly dishonor them, denounce them, or discard them. Jurist Samuel von Pufendorf, a man who heavily influenced the thinking of such American Founders as Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson explains the value of what he called “judicial oaths:”

By an oath it is held that a striking confirmation is added to our speech, and all the acts in which speech has a part. For it is a religious affirmation, in which we renounce our claim upon the Divine mercy, or call down the Divine punishment upon ourselves, if we do not tell the truth. And while the omniscient and omnipotent witness, who is at the same time the avenger, is being invoked, the presumption of truth is created by the fact that hardly anyone is thought so impious that he will dare thus insolently to call upon himself the dire wrath of the Deity. Hence it is understood to be the duty of oath-takers to approach the oath with reverence, and to religiously observe their oath. (4)

That is, in courts of law honesty is vital. Lives, fortunes, reputations hang in the balance. The solemn judicial oath reminds the oath taker that, ‘This is serious business. If one dares, by way of false witness, to bring harm to another’s life, limb, property, or reputation; or shield him or herself from justice; justice will be served, nevertheless, if not in this life, then in the next.’ It is a sober and vital appeal to conscience upon which the reliability of our justice system hangs. George Washington understood this: “Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?” (5)Washington knew that without belief in the Divine, truth becomes relative, and liars become men of virtue, for under this strange new moral order, “the ends justify the means.” He therefore warned:

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. (6)

Washington was right. We ought to pay attention. Promissory Oaths Not inconsistent with this view, President George Washington initiated the tradition of taking the Presidential oath of office, which swears or solemnly affirms fidelity to the US Constitution, with left hand on the Bible, right arm to the square, and the recitation of those closing words, once again, “so help me God.” We call this a promissory oath. It’s a good idea, and here’s why: It reminds presidents that they are public servants and not kings, protectors of man’s God-given rights, not bestowers of transient privileges - and this too: if they betray this higher sacred trust, they are unworthy of their office and will one day be held accountable before the Eternal Judge of the Quick and the Dead, whether impeached or not in this life. And as far as impeachment goes, by that oath the President or other public official is informed, so long as his people still recognize that Higher Law, they will appeal to that law, if necessary, as moral justification to oust him. The fact that (recently) some oaths have been stripped of the verbiage “so help me God,” (whether through ignorance, ill intent, or fear of an ACLU lawsuit), does not discredit where the root of these laws lay, nor the continued need for solemn oaths, on the one hand, and stiff penalties for perjury, on the other. It does, however, help explain why perjury appears to be on the rise, and why, recently, an American president and his backers treated perjury as little more than a minor transgression, even an exercise of the supposed ‘higher’ ‘right’ to privacy. The more God is removed from our minds as the author of the law, the more moral ambiguity becomes the modus operandi, the more the business of presidents and other high public officials may be perceived as being too important to be bothered with such trifles. Without Authority The second principle of American law which sides with the third commandment, concerns authority. An 1831 church doctrine reads: “[B]ehold … many there be who are under … condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority.” (7) The Holy Bible, 1800 years earlier, put it this way: “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” (8) Aaron was called to the ministry by a prophet of God, who received inspiration in that regard, and who personally ordained him. The point being, there are proper channels of authority in all things, and in the case of the ministry that authority belongs to the Lord and His church, not the state and its rulers. His kingdom, Christ assured us, is not of this world, and as such the state may not ordain, license, appoint, or regulate the church and its ministry. Nor may it proscribe the positive moral behavior of its members. Meaning, the state may not force members of the congregation of Christ to give charity to the poor or financial support to this or that church ministry. To presume otherwise, and to act upon that presumption, is to speak for God without authority, to use his name in vain. This is a vital principle of law every American ought to be familiar with. To recognize that the source of such a law is God, and God’s laws are unchangeable, makes that knowledge ever more valuable, ever more fixed in our national mindset as a protection against that tyranny of the state over church and conscience which oppressed millions during the dark ages and the emerging reformation, and billions under 20th Century communism, and in several cases, thousands under colonial and state governments in early America as religious liberty moved forward against the resistance of the Church of England, foreign traditions, and both reasonable and unreasonable fears. Blasphemy The ultimate in using the Lord’s name without authority is “in claiming to one’s self the distinguishing attributes of Deity,” something many Kings, under the Divine Right theory of government laid claim to and which American law rejected. (9) This is a form of blasphemy. You would think we would have done away with this danger in our enlightened era, but no. It is particularly prevalent in leftist leaning states where either a man or the state is worshipped, or where Humanism has been set up as a national church of sorts, the kind which declares all men to be God’s, and every man’s viewpoint and actions of equal moral validity. Alexis de Tocqueville, (10) and before him, Plato, (11) warned of the same danger in democracies, this false and extreme take on equality which breeds and exalts simple-mindedness, contempt for the law and every form of authority, ushering in on its heels, revolution, anarchy, and finally tyranny to restore law, order and security. Profanity Usually, when one brings up the subject of “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” most think of prohibitions against profaning the name of Deity, or using the Lord’s name as a swear word. This, again, is a partial definition. Profanity implies using the name of God with abuse, irreverence, or contempt such as when one swears or connects God’s name to filth, crime, or the unseemly. It also concerns the similar use of degrading, polluted, soul destroying speech in reference to other sacred things, such as the sacred sexual powers or functions of the body, which we sometime categorize as obscenity, vulgarity, or lewdness. Such laws are now a part, and have always been a part of American law. The earliest examples are found in the first colonial charter in 1629. From that time forward, a common thread in nearly every colonial charter listed as crimes: swearing, or cursing, or profaneness; and besides these, the other forms of taking God’s name in vain, namely, perjury (bearing false witness) and blasphemy. Early Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Story summarized the common standard from which these laws were drawn in every colony as thus: The laws of England, the common law, and the law of God, which latter law ranked as the guiding star of all law, especially the criminal code. (12) Sure enough, profanity and obscenity laws sometimes have been too strict, and sometimes too lax, but never has there been a time when a majority of Americans have not found the value in setting legal limits in regards to just how far a man or a woman may go in his or her profanities, obscenities, and vulgarities in public settings. It’s just not true, to say that God’s laws against profanity are not part of the legal code, and not, in fact, an important part of that code. To this day, extremes in obscenity are not recognized as protected speech; nor are certain forms of lewd speech, which rank as either sexual harassment when between adult and adult, or a crime of the rankest dye when between adult and child. Most public schools have codes of conduct which prohibit profanity, and the courts have backed the right of schools to set such prohibitions. For a long while communication law has prohibited words from being uttered on the air, either for all audiences, or during certain hours, or during time blocks when children are most likely to be tuned in. The movie industry is, by law, required to rate movies in respect to the moral and religious values of parents and children. Few of us object to such reasonable standards, and so it just doesn’t make sense to propose to claim that there are no limits to free speech, that such things as sexual harassment, or lewd speech directed at a minor are protected because they are ‘private.’ There are reasonable limits, and here’s the truth, one of the roots of these reasonable limits is found in the so-called ‘personal’ third commandment’s prohibition against profanity. Hate Speech Finally, a most perplexing question for the “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric” crowd, ought to be this: Why is it that often the same group which calls it just and constitutional to regulate and prosecute language that belittles or debases homosexuals, or ethnic minorities, declares language that belittles or debases Christians and Jews who worship God and Christ, lyric? If hate speech ought to be regulated (a debatable point especially since current definitions of hate speech are too often vague, and rulings are too often arbitrary), then shouldn’t the law be applied equally? Many Christians and Jews find the using of the Lord’s name in vain, as well as some of the more reckless attacks upon their sacred beliefs, offensive, and at times, hate-filled, as well. (13) Perhaps this might surprise some, but the intent of early American religious liberty legislation was not an attempt to promote an ‘anything goes’ free-for-all styled religious debate. The Founders hoped for free and open and intelligent debate between the faith’s, not the right to slander, to libel, to spew hatred, and thus bring on mob violence or political persecution against one’s opponents. Unfortunately, early on, some states and some citizens failed to recognize the difference, failed to define limits, and mob violence and political persecution resulted. If we are not careful, history may repeat itself, this time not with individual churches heaping persecution upon other churches, but with the secular state and its misguided supporters heaping persecution upon the church community in general. So here’s the truth. Like every other freedom, the right to free speech recognizes reasonable and responsible limits. Prohibitions against taking the name of God in vain is just such a limit - a limit America’s Founders believed in, a limit the Founders’ descendants (you and I) have been blessed with as a result, and a limit we ought to in a spirit of wisdom, faith, gratitude, and duty defend today. Such a limit finds the mark with religion, for it is reasonable, it is part of our history, and it was part of the check system put in place upon the state by a people who put God first. Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism President, Steve Farrell is a pundit with America’s News Page, Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, and the author of the highly praised, inspirational novel “Dark Rose.” Footnotes 1. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) 2. Talmage, James E. “Conference Report, October 1931,” Second Day-Morning Meeting 51, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 3. As quoted in Millet, Robert L. “Selected Writings of Robert L. Millet,” Gospel Scholars Series, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 2000, p. 447. 4. von Pufendorf, Samuel. “On the Duty of Man and Citizen,” Book I, Chapter XI, Oceana Publications Inc. Wildy & Sons Ltd. New York, U.S.A., London, reprinted 1964. The original: Cambridge, from the House of John Hayes, Printer to the Celebrated University, 1682, At the Charges of John Creed, Bookseller, Cambridge. 5. Washington, George, Farewell Address. 6. Ibid. 7. Standard Works, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Doctrine and Covenants” 63:62. 8. Holy Bible, Hebrews 5:4. 9. Talmage, James E. “Conference Report, October 1931,” Second Day-Morning Meeting 50, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 10. de Tocqueville, Alexis. “Democracy In America.” 11. Plato. “Republic.” 12. Story, Joseph. “Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution,” Book I, Chapter 3 through Chapter 16, 1833. 13. General George Washington, during the Revolutionary War, was one Christian who was offended by such insulting, disrespectful language. Said he to his troops: “Many and pointed orders have been issued against the unmeaning and abominable custom of swearing; notwithstanding which, with much regret, the general observes that it prevails, if possible more than ever. His feelings are continually wounded by the oaths and imprecations of the soldiers, whenever he is in hearing of them. The name of that Being from whose bounteous goodness we are permitted to exist and enjoy the comforts of life is incessantly impeached and profaned in a manner as wanton as it is shocking.” His solution? “For the sake, therefore, of religion, decency and order, the general hopes and trusts that officers of every rank will use their influence and authority to check a vice which is as unprofitable as wicked and shameful. If officers would make it an inviolable rule to reprimand, and, if that won’t do, to punish soldiers for offenses of this kind, it would not fail of having the desired effect.” This military code did not force anyone to be religious, it merely required (and in practice, only invited) them to be mindful of the feelings of those who did. Author’s notes on Judicial Oaths: A. How is it that judicial oaths apply to those of various belief systems? Pufendorf answers: “In oaths the formula, in which God is described, while invoked as witness and avenger, must be adapted to that belief or religion which the taker of the oath cherishes in regard to God … [N]o one thinks he is swearing by God, if under another formula or under another name than that contained in his own religion, - the true religion in the opinion of the deponent. Hence also he who swears by false gods, whom he however holds to be true, is certainly bound, and in case he deceives, really commits perjury. For under some special concept he had before his eyes a general notion of deity, and so, in knowingly forswearing himself, he has violated, so far as in him lay, the reverence due the majesty of God” (von Pufendorf, Samuel. On the Duty of Man and Citizen: Book I, Chapter XI). B. Doesn’t the Constitution forbid religious tests? Yes, but judicial oaths should not be confused with religious tests, which tests require men to confess or demonstrate a positive belief or loyalty in God or Christ or to a particular denomination, or else be disqualified from office and/or have the privileges of citizenship revoked. Judicial oaths by contrast are but a pricking of one’s conscience, a tool of persuasion in a most serious situation, and if the man or woman under oath still chooses perjury, the punishment so far as the government is concerned is mere justice (negative law) for having done harm to another or to society in general through his or her perjury. Whereas, the religious punishment involved for perjury is reserved to the next life (which the government has no part in), and to a man’s conscience.

Private Property: Right From God, Friend of Republics, by Steve Farrell

Steve Farrell — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:39:25 +0000

Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 18 To possess a memory is to be blessed with a priceless good. It is our link to the past, our guidepost to the present and our passport to the future. It is who we are, what we believe and how we fit in. It is that fixed vantage point in a world of confusion that gives us a degree of security, stability and moral direction. One need not tell us what would happen if we were to sever the cord that connects a man, a family, or a nation to who he is and what he has learned. Such a clean-slated one might be transformed into a naive Pinocchio or a tra-la-la Pollyanna, whose lack of experience would lead him or her into the grasp of one of a million ‘Honest Johns' who offer frills and thrills that later come crashing down upon them in a carnival of deception and slavery. Memory is critical, both to individuals and to nations. Yet America has lost her memory, lost her fixed vantage point, lost her sense of the laws that protect liberty for all, not just liberty for the few. I speak of America's failure to recall the historical belief that liberty is only possible within the confines of fixed law. Today, the law floats upon the winds of emotion and upon the arrows of moral appeals which miss the mark about religion, and which miss the mark, also, about our Founders' republic, the very republic which was established to protect religion and the inalienable rights religion proclaims as the common lot of mankind. The Pre-eminence of Higher Law So let us enter upon a brief reminder: Our rights, our liberties, our best laws are the result of the wisdom of our Forefathers in placing God's law above man's law-literally setting the biblical law as both the foundation stone and the keystone in the arch of the great body of American law. Blackstone, the most frequently quoted legal authority in the early days of our Republic noted:

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but . . . with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former. (1)

It was upon this same rock-solid conviction that Thomas Jefferson declared to all the world:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness [the right and control of property]." (2)

That is, since God is the author of our Rights, no king or president, no House of Lords or Senate, no House of Commons or House of Representatives, no Supreme Court or unelected bureaucrat can ever abridge those rights. Which leads to Jefferson's next point: "To secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men." (3) Or in other words, as the Alabama Constitution put it, "the sole and only legitimate object of government is to protect the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." (4) Which Right Is the Greatest? Government's job, consistent with Divine Law, is to secure our rights. That's clear enough. But it seems equally persuasive that there is one right upon which the survival of all others hinge-property. Jefferson wrote: "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property, and in their management." To which he added, the defense of private property is the standard by which "every provision" of law, past and present, shall be judged. (5) This is partially so because the definition of private property, and its application in the law, is broader than we sometimes suspect. French economist Frederic Bastiat, in his 1850 treatise on The Law, explains:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right-from God-to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? (6)

Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1921 echoed the following:

"The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave." (7)

Thus, the three great rights, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence thundered, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," are but one great right-property;-and as such, protecting private property becomes the chief business of a republic, as Jefferson stated. Tyrants Know This Too If a belief in higher law and the protection of private property is the work of a republic, then, plainly, the work of tyrannical government is to abolish or control God, the author of that law, and eliminate or control property, the great right God guarantees. It's that simple. Just ask Karl Marx. "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property." (8) In saying this, it must be understood that Marx had the same broad interpretation of property in mind that the Founders did-for, said he, "the eternal laws of nature and of reason . . . [sprang] from [the] present mode of production and form of property." Religious principles like-"thou shalt not steal," "thou shalt not covet," "thou shalt not bear false witness," "thou shalt not kill (murder)," "thou shalt not commit adultery," "thou shalt have no other gods before me" (including the state), and the command that man shall be "lord over the whole earth," that is, lord over all living things-sustain the existing order of private property; as such, all of them are targeted for eradication as obstacles in the way of a revolution against the existing order. And so, it is that private property, religion and the religious definition of the family are one and the same enemy-property. And so, there is a strand of thought here that we must understand: An attack on our property is an attack on our religion, and vice versa. Founder John Adams understood why: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." (9) True religion proclaims the right to private property. True government upholds it. Tyranny targets both private property and religion for elimination. Enter Modern Liberalism and Its Sister Compassionate Conservatism Communism with a capital "C" puts a bad taste in most folks' mouths. Its real intent, the destruction of human liberty and the acquirement of personal power are generally known. But when you call the same underlying principles Compassionate with a capital "C" and Conservative with a capital "C," miraculously the prospect of tyranny is supposed to taste sweet. Compassionate Conservatism, a political movement which preaches from the Bible even while it grasps behind its back a red (but softer metalled) hammer in one hand, and a red (but duller edged) sickle in the other, does this. It's rhetoric is so persuasive that more than a few partisans on both sides of the political aisle actually believe it is Christian, rather than Socialist, and thus oppose or support it accordingly. But think again. Compassionate Conservatism states: "Individuals are responsible to love our neighbors as we want to be loved ourselves." This sounds Christian. The trouble is not enough private citizens are taking care of their neighbors. So what is Compassionate Conservatism's solution?

"It will be government that serves those who are serving their neighbors. It will be government that directs help to the inspired and effective. It will be government that both knows its limits and shows its heart. And it will be government truly by the people and for the people." (10)

That is, government will forcibly confiscate property in the tens of billions of dollars (that's only the beginning), and redistribute it to ‘private' groups it ‘trusts' to disperse the money back to the people. This age-old Communist trick of robbing Peter to pay Paul is defined by Compassionate Conservatism as "a different role for government. A fresh start. A bold new approach." (11) Thus, theft is compassion, forced giving is charity, attacking private property is conservative, and all of the above is new. It isn't. It is but shades of liberalism, socialism, and the other ‘isms' dressed up in new garb. James Madison, Father of our Constitution, rejected just such a scheme two centuries ago. He wrote:

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . This being the end of government, that alone is not a just government, . . . nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. (12)

It is easy to be ‘charitable' with other people's money. It is convenient to rewrite the Bible in the image of one's political ideology. And it is useful to re-invent government from the protector of man's God-given rights to government being God himself, even a god who defines-on a flex schedule-what our rights are. Power-seeking men and political opportunists will always attempt the same. That is why our Founders - men who found the mark with religion in public life - preached the pre-eminence of God's law, declared our rights fixed and inalienable, and established a Republic with but one central purpose in mind - the protection of private property. Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism President, Steve Farrell, is a pundit with America's News Page, Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com, associate professor of Political Economy at George Wythe College, and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose." Footnotes 1. Blackstone, Sir William. "Commentaries on the Laws of England," Section the Second, "Of the Nature of Laws in General." 2. Declaration of Independence. 3. Ibid. 4. Alabama Constitution, Article 1, Section 35. 5. Bergh, Albert Ellery, ed. "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson," 2d ed. rev. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907, p. 15:32. 6. Bastiat, Frederic. "The Law," p. 6. 7. As quoted in, Skousen, Cleon. "The Five Thousand Year Leap." Washington, D.C.: National Center for Constitutional.Studies, 1981, p. 173. 8. Marx, Karl, "Communist Manifesto." 9. Adams, Charles Francis, ed. "The Works of John Adams," 10 vols. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1850-56, 6:9, p. 280. 10. Olasky, Marvin: "Compassionate Conservatism." New York: The Free Press, 2000, pp. 218-219 (from a speech by George W. Bush). 11. Ibid., p. 218. 12. Saul K. Padover, ed. "The Complete Madison." New York: Harper & Bros., 1953, p. 267.

Moral Anarchy: Seedbed of Tyranny, by Steve Montgomery

Steven Montgomery — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:51:59 +0000

Ok, so it's a bad movie. But even bad movies can have great lessons. I speak of the 1999 theatrical flop, "Wild Wild West." In this movie, set in post Civil War America, President Grant (Kevin Cline), has a great line, which as it turns out, bears great application to our modern American culture. Upon learning to his surprise that the arch-villain was planning and waging a war against the United States he yells, "I didn't know that we were at war. You have me at a great disadvantage." Today, and at this very moment, a similar war is being waged against the United States of America. A war in which prevailing ignorance of its existence has put our country at a similar disadvantage. But this war is not one of bullets, tanks, planes, bombs or paratroopers. It is an ideological war and ideological bullets are being fired in a prolonged and protracted war against American society and culture. Those waging this war against America know that our society and culture must not only be demoralized but turned into a moral wasteland. The enemy knows that their utopia can only be built upon the ashes of anarchy and chaos. They therefore make war against all the wisdom that has come to men through the ages of experience. They seek to overturn and destroy the very foundations upon which society, government and religion rest. Anarchy usually always leads to tyranny, so moral anarchy is the goal. A "psy-ops war" war then is being conducted against us where Infidelity, atheism, unchastity, intemperance, civil corruption, greed, avarice, ambition--personal, political, national--are all glorified and promoted--in an effort to weaken us and our will to resist. The casualties in this war include those who have been pulled and thrust into new fields of action--hence the "peaceniks" who have mutated into environmental, NAMBLA, or GLSTEN activists. And new lines of thought--the moral relativists mutating into the worship of "self esteem", a belief in aliens, magic and "new age" psychology. These cultural activists are able then to shake the faith, undermine the morals, and pollute the lives of our American people. So much so that they are thrown far off balance all of their activities: economic; social; political; and religious. As a result liberty and freedom stand in danger of being replaced. And what's worse, replaced by the greatest, most widespread, and most complete tyranny that has ever oppressed man. In a lecture I attended in 1984 in Salt Lake City, Utah, Yuri Bezmenov, a former KGB agent, described how the Soviet Union's "Active Measures program" was used against target countries (see also this fantastic 1984 interview of Yuri Bezmenov). He listed how they would:

produce, promote and distribute illicit drugs
produce, promote and distribute pornography
design ways to get a society interested in sex, and more sex
promote senseless and culturally destroying music and art
infiltrate the media to steer efforts to weaken society morally (1)

Today, who can say that they have not been affected by this moral decay? Today--if we wish to avoid the consequences of this ongoing Cultural Revolution--we must awake and arouse ourselves to a sense of our awful situation. We must realize that we are at war and return the fire. But this is a war which must be fought by individuals, families and groups who seek moral reformation, for it is a war which must begin within the chambers of each person's heart. Let me explain in the words of former President Ezra Taft Benson, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

"The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature. "Human nature can be changed, here and now," said President McKay, and then he quoted the following: "You can change human nature. No man who has felt in him the Spirit of Christ even for half a minute can deny this truth. . "You do change human nature, your own human nature, if you surrender it to Christ. Human nature has been changed in the past. Human nature must be changed on an enormous scale in the future, unless the world is to be drowned in its own blood. And only Christ can change it (2).

You see, America's real arsenal of freedom is found in her liberty loving faith, moral character, and beliefs. Former President John Adams, understood what protected, prospered and made America great. In a letter to a friend many years after the war, he explained what it was that really won the war of revolution: "The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.... This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution (3)." Will America collectively remember what made her great? Will we change our minds and hearts? Before it's too late?

Notes

1. Bezmenov, Yuri, Remarks of a talk given in Salt Lake City Utah, December 1984. 2. Benson, Ezra Taft, "First Presidency Message: Born of God," Ensign, July 1989. 3. Adams, John (American president, 1735-1826). Letter to Hezekiah Niles, 13. February 1818

Al Burn's last letter, by Steven Montgomery

Steven Montgomery — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:42:40 +0000

This past week members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been mourning the passing of their beloved Prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, who will be laid to his final rest tomorrow (Saturday, February 2nd). Many have given their personal stories and eulogies, and he truly was a great man, a great example of Christian faith and virtue in practice–he lived what he believed . But it seems that unusual things such as deaths, according to folk myth, come in two's and three's. This week also saw the passing of another great Christian, and red-blooded American and patriot–Albert V. Burns. After sending out his last email, Al went to his mailbox and was struck and killed by a person who slid on the ice and could not stop. Al was not LDS, he was a practicing Baptist, but he loved the LDS people–especially LDS teachings on freedom and liberty, government and the Constitution. He will be sorely missed by those who knew how hard he fought for liberty. Here are a few of the remembrances of Al that I have received:

Al Burns was a true American who could teach any Mormon more about our doctrines on the Constitution and government than most Mormons could. Utah has lost a Constitutionalist on par with W. Cleon Skousen in the tragic death of Al Burns. Al was active in the community and in politics. He proudly proclaimed, "This is MY country, land that I love" in every word and deed. With people like Al the future seemed brighter. Many of you may not know Al Burns, he was nothing short of a class act. I am sure that where you live this is an 'Al Burns.' He is grandpa age, always in good spirits, attends all political functions, and more than that, knows the Constitution. He was always there, knew the issues and held people's feet to the fire, but always in a positive constructive way. Al Burns was one of the greatest men I have ever known. Though Al, as far as I know, never joined the LDS Church, he being Baptist, he and his dear wife moved to Utah because of the beliefs of the LDS Church and people in our Constitution. I have never met a Mormon who could quote LDS scripture and the teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, David O. McKay, etc., as Al Burns could. We have truly, truly lost a gentleman, a scholar, and a great, great Christian. It is a loss by any stretch of the imagination. He will be sorely missed. [Al could] quote Benson, McKay, etc and even the Book of Mormon you would swear he was a former stake President. When in Rome do as the Romans do. He would quote Mormon scripture to Mormons as he taught them what their own prophets had talked about.

And now, to give you a sense of his wit and understanding of the issues, here is Al's last letter written to both houses of Congress and the White House:

Gentlemen (and Ladies), My wife and I have read with great interest your plans to "stimulate the economy" by giving the majority of taxpayers (oddly, including illegal aliens) a tax rebate of $600 per individual or $1200 per married couple. My wife and I will certainly be willing to spend that money to help in stimulating the economy. However, if we may offer a suggestion: If giving us $1200 to spend will help stimulate the economy, we have a suggestion we offer free of charge. We would gladly undertake the added effort to spend $12,000 if you would send it to us, which would help stimulate the economy TEN TIMES as much! As Senior Citizens, we are sure that we could find ways to use the money productively. If you think about it, this escalation of the tax rebate scheme could be almost endlessly expanded. We, also, offer to get as many of our family and friends to join in this expanded effort as possible. Surely, this will allow us to SPEND the country into prosperity. When the national debt is already some $9 TRILLION, what difference will a few billion more make? Albert and Dee Burns

Take the Hinckley Challenge!

Steven Montgomery — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:40:56 +0000

As most of you probably know, President Gordon B. Hinckley, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, passed away last week at the ripe old age of 97. His funeral was held on Saturday, February 2nd. As a way to honor this beloved Prophet and to remember his legacy and teachings, a website has been created called, "The Hinckley Challenge," where those who wish to participate are challenged to read the Book of Mormon in 97 days. Simply go to "The Hinckley Challenge," create an account (free) and begin reading February 4th. This will be an attempt to get over 1 million people involved in reading the Book of Mormon. Please help in this effort by letting everyone know. To see an updated list of those who have already accepted the challenge go here: The Hinckley Challenge Warriors Thanks for your help and participation. ----- Steven Montgomery

Thou Shalt Not Kill ... a Convicted Murderer? by Steve Farrell

Steve Farrell — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:13:53 +0000

Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 19 Since the dawn of creation the law of God to man has been "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." (1) Today, we refer to this biblical principle in public law as capital punishment. Interestingly, regardless of the fact that the death penalty's origin is found in the Bible - nearly every society, religious or not, has adopted the death penalty as a suitable way to deal with murder. There is a good reason for this: the death penalty makes sense - for as harsh a sentence as death is, the penalty fits the crime, and is best for all concerned, whether the victim, the victim's family, the community at large, or the perpetrator. Here's why: 1. Murder is a crime for which the victim cannot come back and say, "I refuse to press charges." The victim has no voice. 2. Murder is a crime for which no payment by the criminal will ever fully satisfy the debt incurred. If one robs a store, the captured thief can pay back the debt, and in fact under biblical law (which some states are beginning to embrace in spirit via victim's rights legislation) is tasked to work for the man he robbed until the debt is satisfied double the value of the good stolen. (2) After such a bounteous payback, he is set free, and by his honorable labor, restored to a position of trust. But, again, a murderer can never bring back life. Thus, no matter how hard he labors, or how bounteous his payback, his debt remains unpaid, and society's trust remains un-won. His victim is dead and will remain dead. 3. The legitimate role of government involves the protection of life, liberty and property. Just as the role of the government is to raise an armed force and rain down deadly force upon a bloodthirsty invading army, so also the government is duty bound to inflict death upon the man who chooses to slaughter fellow citizens. Few if any object to the use of deadly force against an invading army. Yet those invading soldiers, ordered to fight (and likely whipped up by nationalistic propaganda to go into battle) are far less deserving of death than the assailant who has been proven guilty and has been convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers of shedding the innocent blood of his neighbor - and this of his own free will. Nevertheless, we do and must condone the use of deadly force by our armed forces in the event of an attack. Governments must protect life. This is no less true regarding individual life. Here too, death to the assailant - the far less worthy assailant - is the right answer. 4. Murder eventually revokes the full array of rights of citizenship. Some defend the murderer with the claim that he, like anyone else, has certain rights, including the right to life, which can never be taken away. This is true prior to conviction. In this country we assume a person is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the accused has all the same rights in the legal system as anyone else: i.e., the right to know the nature and cause of the accusation, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to counsel for his defense, the right to face his accusers, the right to trial before an impartial jury of his peers, the right to obtain witnesses in his favor, the right not to testify against himself, the right not to be tried twice for the same capital offense (if declared innocent the first time around), and the right to appeal. (3) But after all this takes place, and the jury proclaims guilt, and decrees a sentence, and the convicted criminal has exhausted all appeals, his rights as an American citizen ought to end. He freely chose to break the law and take the life of a fellow citizen - he must not now be free to avoid the consequences of his heinous choice. If the jury assigns death, his fate ought to be sealed, his right to life terminated. 5. The Death Penalty is not, as social activist lawyer Clarence Darrow once claimed, "an act of revenge"; it is an act of justice. Opponents of the death penalty have made hay of a few people, once upon a time, driving by a penitentiary in Michigan City, Ind., shouting "Burn, baby, burn!" as a man who raped and strangled a mother and drowned each of her three children one by one was electrocuted. As to the inventive "Burn, baby, burn!" fairytale, let's address a more important issue: Even if the account was true, why do we suppose some people react with outrage? Could it be they are bearing testimony to the slayer and future would-be slayers that murder hurts, that murder is not just a crime against the individual, but against all those who loved that individual, against all those who depended upon that individual, against all those who were and may yet have been influenced by that individual, and against all those in the community who now live in fear that a similar act might someday befall them or their loved ones? Certainly, no sane human being pastes on his face a perpetual smile after a family member or fellow citizen has been brutally murdered - nor should he. Consider the counsel of King Arthur to Sir Lancelot in the movie First Knight: "A man who doesn't fear anything is a man who loves nothing." Or with slight adaptation: "A man who has never felt righteous indignation has never known love." Or as American Founder Thomas Paine reflected regarding deaths, tortures and rapes inflicted upon America's sons and daughters, brothers and wives, neighbors and countrymen, by the British: "The heart that feels not now is dead." (4) Love is a good and strong emotion. When the object of that love is threatened or destroyed, people possessed of moral and emotional sense ought to be free to react with emotion equal to the threat, or crime - to the point of outrage if necessary. Frankly, no one can fully understand such emotions until they have ‘been there.' And so one wonders, could it be that some of these activist lawyers and pundits - who in far too many cases reject Judeo-Christian morality anyway - are guilty of confusing righteous indignation, true love, and respect for the laws of God and man, for revenge? One can be outraged; one can insist that stiff penalties up to and including the death penalty be administered, without being hateful and vengeful. Again Thomas Paine writes regarding America's call to arms against England: "Say not that this is revenge, call it rather the soft resentment of a suffering people, who, [have] no object in view but the good of all ..." (5) Even so, in an imperfect world, a desire for revenge will exist in the hearts of some victims. Their bitterness, however, does not change the nature of the crime committed, the proof of the murderer's guilt, nor the necessity for proportional justice. Murder is still murder, regardless of emotion and the imperfections of victims. 6. The justice of the death penalty is strengthened, not weakened, by the advent of new technologies such as DNA testing, which has recently been utilized to more firmly establish guilt or prove innocence. It does not logically follow that the death penalty should be abolished because such evidence ‘might' have reversed the fate of some previously put to death. It's too late for that. What's past is past. 7. So-called ‘racial profiling' and ‘rich/poor lawyer success rates' are poor excuses to eliminate the death penalty and thus rob justice. That some people inevitably ‘get off' because of the skill of a lawyer, celebrity status, political power, or a racial issue (prejudice can go both ways) is a great injustice - but it does not negate the validity of and necessity for laws and penalties. It should only motivate us to find ways to make these ‘untouchables' accountable before the law. We can't have anarchy. 8. Life imprisonment is a poor, immoral substitute for the death penalty. Such a plan heaps additional punishment upon victims by insisting that they pay for the living expenses, the education expenses, the recreation expenses, the medical expenses of the man who killed their kin. Such a plan is likened unto ‘socialism for and behalf of butchers.' Even worse, life imprisonment unnecessarily puts at risk prison guards, lesser criminals, survivors, jurists, judges, lawyers, witnesses, family members, little children ... everyone. Face it, murderers have been known to kill in prison, order outside hits while in prison, negatively impact the thinking of less violent prisoners in prison, and kill again once they are set free. That's why the average murderer on death row has killed three times before finally being put to death. Permitting a murderer to live is a paltry example of the so-called "progress of the law." Putting a man to death the first time around is better. It saves lives and sticks to penalizing felons, not the law-abiding. 9. The swift use of the death penalty deters the commission of murder in the first place. An ancient prophet asked: "Now, if there was no law given - if a man murdered he should die - would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?" (7) This question won't go away. To assume and/or manipulate statistics in order to say that the death penalty does not deter some murders is at best thoughtless and at worst smacks of ulterior motives. The desire for rewards and the avoidance of punishments affect every human being. We spend our lives pursuing the one and avoiding the other to the degree that the law and our native common sense and abilities aid us in that quest. Just look at the free market. Just look at the influence of religion. Just think about how driving speed is affected by the presence of a police officer and the possibility of a ticket. To claim that the fear of punishment, and such a severe and final punishment, will not deter murder is illogical. Our justice system's failure to swiftly and consistently apply justice - that is to swiftly and consistently administer the death penalty - is the real deterrence to deterrence. 10. A society that honors the sanctity of life by putting to death those who are destroyers of life is not murderous but godly. Allies of eliminating the death penalty often flout the religious command "Thou shalt not kill" (8) back in the face of religious folks who advocate the death penalty. This presumptuous and fanatical approach to a command of God certainly misses the mark on the spirit of the command's intent and the command's supporting doctrines. The Hebrew translation of the same scripture reads, "Thou shalt not murder." Murder is defined doctrinally not merely as killing, but more precisely as "shedding innocent blood." (9) Putting to death a convicted murderer who has been afforded a fair trial, and who has exhausted every appeal, is not the shedding of innocent blood, and thus is not murder, but justice on the one hand, and obedience to the law of God and man on the other. As already cited at the start of this article, the second half of, "Thou shalt not murder," reads: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." (10) In this regard, we read also in Holy Writ: "For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man." (11) And then again: "Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed" - likewise our "lands ... country ... rights ... and religion" when our enemies are upon us. (12). Therefore, when "Thou shalt not murder" is placed right smack in the middle of the big picture - as all religious principles ought to be - we realize the commandment incorporates the inalienable right to self-defense and the moral duty to protect the life of those within our jurisdiction as parents, neighbors, citizens, and/or officers of the law. Again, Thomas Paine persuades:

My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to ‘bind me in all cases whatsoever' to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. (13)

The punishment that common moral sense signified was death to the villain or to the villains. Paine reminds those who would shrink at such a high moral duty: "[T]he blood of his children will curse his cowardice." (14) (15) 11. The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. Giving ear to this secular stand against the age old wisdom of God causes us to lose site of the reality of life after life - and the tutorial benefits of the Law of the Harvest upon us all. The death penalty, in the eternal sense of things, is an act of love assigned by a merciful Being as the most appropriate, wise, and merciful sentence available to reform a murderer. In the New Testament Book of Hebrews we read:

My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him. For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chaseneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons. (16)

We do not want to be bastards, but sons. Both Christian and Jew understands that God's object whether he sends and or permits death, plagues, famines, or other obstacles in our lives, is our growth, here and hereafter - a hereafter that awaits all men, murderers included. 12. Finally, I address a question already alluded to but taken to an even greater extreme by a June 2000 National Review feature article, "The Problem With the Chair: A Conservative Case Against Capital Punishment." The question was asked: "If a democratic society executes criminals with the foreknowledge that some percentage of them are innocent, are all members of that society implicitly guilty of murder themselves?" Well ... God is more just and merciful than that. When the Roman soldiers nailed Christ - the only perfect man - to the cross, he pled, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Won't He similarly plead the case of those who do their best, to do their duty, before the laws of God and man when carrying out the sentence of men far less innocent? It seems best to trust, as did our forefathers, that if we do our best, He will judge us by the intent of our hearts in those areas where we may have remotely failed. It is He who established the law for the death penalty. His law is good. To abolish His just and compassionate law in an overzealous defense of dangerous criminals fairly tried and fairly convicted misses the mark with religion, defies common sense, and strikes a legal blow at the laws and justice of God, whose laws are at the root of the American judicial system. Center for Moral Liberalism President Steve Farrell is a pundit with America's News Page, Silver Eddy Award Winner NewsMax.com, associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, and the author of the highly praised, inspirational novel "Dark Rose." Footnotes 1. Holy Bible, Genesis 9:6. The full quote reads, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." 2. Ibid., Exodus 22:4-9. 3. The Constitution of the United States, Amendments 5, 6. 4. Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis," Installment 1, December 23, 1776. 5. Ibid. 6. Dickens, Charles. "Bleak House," Chapter 1. 7. Standard Works, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Alma 42:19. 8. Holy Bible, Exodus 20:13. 9. Proverbs 6:16-19, Jeremiah &:6-7, Jeremiah 22:6, Jeremiah 26: 11-15, Joel 3:19, Matthew 27:4, 1 Samuel 19:5, 2 Kings 21:16. 10. Holy Bible, Genesis 9:6. 11. Holy Bible, Inspired Version, Genesis 9:13. 12. Standard Works, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, Alma 43:47, Alma 46:12, Alma 48:14-16, Doctrine and Covenants 98:32-38. See also Holy Bible, Genesis 14 (Abraham defends his extended family via war); Exodus 2:11-12 (Moses defends, unto death, a Hebrew slave); Exodus 17: 8-16 (regarding defensive war); Exodus 32:6-7 (going to war as per our duty to our fellow men dieing in the field - "Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?" asks Moses); Deuteronomy 20:12 (If countries refuse our peace offering, but make war "thou shalt besiege it"); Numbers 10:9 ("If ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you ... ye shall be remembered before the Lord, and ... saved from your enemies.") 13. Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis," Installment 1, December 23, 1776. 14. Ibid. 15. Some Christian opponents of the death penalty claim that Christ did away with ‘the law,' and thus capital punishment. Christ, however, declared, "Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18) Christ fulfilled such aspects of the law as blood sacrifice (via his atonement), but he did not abolish the moral requirements of the law, which are eternal. Rather, he set a higher, tougher moral standard of the heart. Said he: "[E]xcept your righteousness shall EXCEED the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20, emphasis added) Likewise, Paul, known for his teachings on grace, nevertheless defended the moral law. He considered the saints to be "teachers of the law. ... [For] we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [homosexuals], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. ... " (1 Timothy 1:7-11). The righteous are called to live by the Spirit, a Spirit that inspires a higher standard, but if they fall, they again become subject to the lower law and its requirements. Paul writes, "What shall we say? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. ... Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." (Romans 7:7, 12). 16. Holy Bible, Hebrews 12: 5-8.

Why Sabbath Civil Laws Still Matter, by Steve Farrell

Steve Farrell — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:40:37 +0000

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe, and declare that the heavenly commandment "to remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy," is still in force. So taught apostle, Ezra Taft Benson, in 1971:

Sunday is a wonderful day, but how much more wonderful might it be if honored as a sacred Sabbath. Man has tried on several occasions to change God’s law of the Sabbath, but each attempt has resulted in failure. In the 19th century, England and France decided to observe the Sabbath only every twenty-one days in order that they might have time to build up their war-torn countries. After a trial period, however, a careful check showed that they had accomplished less total work than when they had rested every seventh day as the Lord prescribed. The Church accepts the Sabbath as a law unto man from the beginning. Early in the Bible we read that “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” (Gen. 2:3.) Later, when Moses was leading the exodus in the wilderness, the Lord instructed the Israelites on how to preserve the heaven-sent manna over the Sabbath day. “… the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” (Ex. 16:29.) Then, with the binding authority of the decalogue, the Sabbath law was made unmistakably clear. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Ex. 20:8–11.) As Latter-day Saints, we accept Sunday as the Christian Sabbath and proclaim its sanctity. We believe that in this dispensation of the fulness of times the law of the Sabbath has been revealed and reaffirmed unto the Church. “And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day; “For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; “Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times; “But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord. “And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full.” (D&C 59:9–13.) By direct revelation authority, the Church teaches that Sunday is the acceptable day for Sabbath observance as the Lord’s day. President Joseph Fielding Smith, commenting on the Lord’s day, said: “The Lord’s day was, of course, Sunday, and on this day the Latter-day Saints have been commanded to observe the weekly Sabbath. So far as the Latter-day Saints are concerned, the Lord has spoken. This settles the question.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 2, p. 59.)

Yes, this should settle the question. It is the path to happiness and greater prosperity. Note that Elder Benson gave the example of the French and British governments in the 19th Century. They learned the lesson that having civil laws in place that set aside the Sabbath Day as a day of rest (and or worship) have an economic benefit. And so they had the faith to admit their mistake, reverse field, and once again revere this Holy Day in civil law. But what of today? We, at the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism, understand this Sabbath Law principle to be just as applicable to believer and non-believer alike, and so that it has a place not just in religious law, but in civil law as well, today, as it did anciently. Let me illustrate. Under the first amendment right to freedom of religion, we wonder if an employer respects that right if he insists that any of his employers work on the Sabbath day, including those who presently don't seem to give a hoot ... but, let's be honest, given time, may in fact change that attitude with a little prompting from family, friends, pastors, missionaries, or conscience. As to the latter, ... it happens, it happens all the time ... and is a major source of frustration for those folks with changed hearts, as well as for those who teach them. Here's the problem. In the past three or four decades we've come to believe that Sabbath laws are in violation of the first amendment because in our "enlightened" eyes, such laws infringe upon the right of private employers to run their private business as they pleases, and to honor God, as they please. BUT what about his employees? Don't they have rights? And that's the point. It was always the point. As it was in Egypt when Pharoah decided to force the Israelites to work on that day to undermine their religion, their God, and their prophet; so it was in Soviet Russia, when Stalin mandated seven day a week rotating shift work to make it near impossible for those "hold out" Christians to hold on. So it is today. Sunday word is a direct assault on the religious freedoms of billions. When we think of Sunday employment in those terms, we come to realize that we need to rethink, and remake, and reinforce this inspired, eternal law, and the so-called blue laws which held it up. Let me recommend this for starters, employers can begin to turn the tide, without the aid of the law at all, by having the faith to close their doors on Sunday ... if only to respect the rights of their employees. Or better yet, by letting them do this because they love their employers, and care about their happiness here and hereafter. Next, we need to learn to rethink, how we think. Why is it that we have been tricked into thinking Sabbath laws violate the first amendment? Answer, we've let centralized education mechanisms, and John Dewey inspired teacher unions dumb down our children's education, refusing to permit such common sense considerations see the light of day in the classroom. Time to rethink our educational models, I think ... that is, only if we expect to stay free and happy.