Socialism Defined

Marion G. Romney, “‘In Mine Own Way’,” Ensign, Nov 1976, 123

Brothers and sisters, I seek your faith and prayers as I attempt to direct your thoughts a little while to the fundamentals of the welfare program. I want to congratulate the Brethren and Sister Smith on the fine presentations they’ve made here this morning.
Brother Featherstone’s account of the talking wall brought to my mind an incident that I was told about. Not long ago two of our security men were working high up on the temple, inspecting it or something, in the night, when it was dark. Down in front of the temple, two or three inebriated men were hanging on the gate looking up at the temple, and one of them said, “Oh Moroni, speak to me.” And one of our men said, “Yes, what is it you want?”
I won’t tell you anything new this morning. I’ll give you some remarks that I’ve given many, many times—not verbatim, but the substance of what I’ve been teaching about the fundamentals of the Church welfare program throughout the Church in the last thirty-five years. I have entitled these remarks, “In Mine Own Way.”
As our modern societies follow the course which led to the fall of Rome and other civilizations which succumbed to the deceptive lure of the welfare state and socialism, I think it not inappropriate for me to emphasize again the Lord’s plan for the temporal salvation of His mortal children.
To emphasize the contrast between the Lord’s plan and some of the absurd practices of our day, I shall read a clipping or two from my miscellaneous file.
The first concerns a hippie couple who were walking down the street. They both had long hair and were dressed in typical hippie attire, complete with beads, sandals, and headbands. The fellow said to the girl: “I’m going over and pick up my unemployment check. Then I’ll drop in at the university to see what’s holding up my check for my federal education grant. After that I’ll pick up our food stamps. Meanwhile, you go over to the free clinic and check your tests, pick up my new glasses at the city health center, then go to the welfare department and apply for another increase on our eligibility limit.
“Then I’ll meet you at five o’clock at the federal building for the mass demonstration against this rotten establishment.”
I clipped the following from the Reader’s Digest some time ago.
“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. …
“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.
“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a hand-out.
“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet.’ But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?
“Let’s not be gullible gulls. We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence.” (Reader’s Digest, Oct. 1950, p. 32.)
Now a contrasting clipping entitled, “It’s a Good Thing There Wasn’t Anybody Around to Help the Pilgrims”:
“They landed in a forbidding wilderness. No Federal Housing, so they went to work and built their own. No Free Stamp Program, so they raised what food they ate, and when they didn’t raise enough, went without.
“No Free Schools, so mothers taught their children. No Recreational Programs—they were too busy working. No anti-draft riots—everyone was expected to share in the protection of his country. No Social Security—no security at all, except what each provided for himself.
“But there were compensations. No rioters demanding something for nothing. No unwashed ‘students’ telling their mothers what to teach. No wasteful bureaucrats paying themselves out of the workers’ production.
“Nothing, really, for the Pilgrims but hard work and a lot of it.
“Did it pay off?
“Our standard of living proves it.” (Christian Economics, Nov. 1972, p. 25.)
Now to the Lord’s plan.
“I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth,” He said, “… and all things therein are mine.
“And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
“But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
“For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.” (D&C 104:14–17.)
The underlying principles of God’s economy for the temporal salvation of His saints are clearly revealed in this scripture. Proclaiming Himself the creator of the earth and all things therein, He speaks of Himself as supreme landlord. He announces that it is His purpose to provide for His saints, at the same time declaring, “The earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.” He warns, however, that providing for His saints “must needs be done in mine own way.”
“And … this,” He continues, “is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.”
Following His way is indispensable to a well-ordered society.
We Latter-day Saints know that all men are brothers and sisters—“begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24)—that we are responsible for the welfare of one another. These concepts are inherent in all the doctrines of the gospel.
We know that the ills of this troubled world have come about because men have failed to do what the Lord has commanded them. This applies to economic problems as well as to all other ills. We know also that the only cure for them is to do all things whatsoever the Lord our God commands us.
We know that the day will come when “every man” shall share equally in the good things of earth, “according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D&C 51:3.) We also know that attaining such equality must await the time when all men willingly work to sustain themselves and, motivated by love for their fellowmen, liberally “impart” of their substance unto the poor and the needy, “according to the law of [the] gospel.” (D&C 104:18.)
It is the responsibility of every Latter-day Saint to work and so impart of his substance, regardless of the shifting standards of this world. We must uphold these principles and oppose every derogation of them. We must be careful not to adopt the commonly accepted practice of expecting the government or anyone other than ourselves to supply us with the necessities of life.
The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of great wealth, and possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.
We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even though we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice in self-respect and in political, temporal, and spiritual independence.
Let us work for what we need. Let us be self-reliant and independent. Salvation can be obtained on no other principle. Salvation is an individual matter, and we must work out our own salvation, in temporal as well as in spiritual things.
Paul’s statement, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9), has been misunderstood. Some have interpreted it to mean that works are not necessary. This is an erroneous conclusion.
The truth is that we are saved by grace only after all we ourselves can do. (See 2 Ne. 25:23.) There will be no government dole which can get us through the pearly gates. Nor will anybody go into the celestial kingdom who wants to go there on the works of someone else. Every man must go through on his own merits. We might just as well learn this here and now.
The first principle of action in the Lord’s plan for our temporal salvation is, therefore, to take care of ourselves. This principle is so important that the Lord said to Adam, as he was about to leave the Garden of Eden, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying—Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed shall be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” (Moses 4:23.)
Note that the curse was not placed upon Adam, but upon the ground for Adam’s sake. Rather than a curse upon Adam, it was a blessing to him. It launched him and his posterity upon the only course by which they can eventually reach that perfection enjoined by the Master. The fact that when the Lord cursed the ground to bring forth “thorns” and “thistles,” thereby requiring men to labor in order to derive a living from it, it was for their “sake”—meaning “good,” “advantage,” or “well-being?” This cannot be overemphasized.
Since that eventful day in Eden, the Lord has frequently reemphasized the fact that individual effort is the basic principle in His economy—both spiritual and temporal. Let us never forget that the Lord’s way to provide for His saints is “that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.” (D&C 104:16.)
The poor can be exalted when and only when they are enabled to obtain independence and self-respect through their own industry and thrift. Our duty is to enable them to do this.
“The rich are made low” when they evidence their obedience to the second great commandment—“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:39)—by imparting of their substance “according to the law of [the] gospel, unto the poor and the needy.” (D&C 104:18.)
In addition to maintaining our independence and self-respect by means of our own industry, and seeing to it that those to whom we extend Church welfare assistance do likewise to the full extent of their ability, we must never forget to honor our fathers and mothers. Since our obligation to so honor them is often observed in the breach and since the rewards for honoring them are so great and the penalty for failing to do so is so severe, I shall explain our obligation as I did in the October 1974 Welfare Services meeting, in the words of President Clark:
“This principle,” said he, “runs back to Mount Sinai.” It was there as you will remember that Moses received the “ten commandments, and one of them was ‘Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ (Ex. 20:12.) … I call your attention [first] to the command and then to the promise: ‘Honor thy father and thy mother’—the command. The promise: ‘That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ …
“Israel departed from this command, and in the time of the Savior the Jews had gotten so far away from it that the Lord took occasion to explain it to them and told them what it meant. You remember that on one occasion the Jews—[that is] the Scribes and Pharisees—came up from Jerusalem, trying to trick the Savior as usual, so they asked him why his disciples ate with unwashen hands, contrary to the teachings of the traditions of the fathers. The Savior did with them what he so frequently did with those who tried to entrap him, he answered their question by asking another, and the question which he asked of them was:
“ ‘Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
“ ‘For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: …
“ ‘But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
“ ‘And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.’ (Matt. 15:3–6 [italics added].)
“That is the account in Matthew. The account is virtually the same in Mark:
“ ‘For Moses said, [and Mark quotes] Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
“ ‘But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
“ ‘And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother.’ (Mark 7:10–12 [italics added].)
“This means [explains President Clark] that in place of observing the responsibility imposed by the Lord upon children to care for their parents, Israel had gone so astray that whenever a son or a daughter wanted to rid himself or herself of the obligation of caring for father and mother, he proceeded to say to father or mother, ‘From this time on, … I repudiate my obligation, and whatever I give to you is a gift (Corban), and not given under the commandment of the Lord.’ ”
Today the temptation, and too often the practice, is to turn father and mother over to public welfare and let the state take care of them. But to return to President Clark’s treatment of the subject:
“After calling their attention to this, the Savior said unto them, as recorded by Matthew:
“ ‘Ye hypocrites [that was the Savior’s statement about those who taught that we needn’t take care of our parents], well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
“ ‘This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
“ ‘But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ (Matt. 15:7–9 [italics added].)
“Now I repeat to you, brethren, that command is without restriction. It runs to Israel, in my view, wherever Israel may be, and its promise as well as its command follows Israel in whatever land they may reside.
“ ‘Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ (Ex. 20:12 [italics added].)
“This land of ours is a chosen land to Joseph. I believe the promise applies here. In the Book of Mormon we are told what will happen to those who dwell on this land if they do not keep the commandments of God, if they do not worship Jesus the Christ who is the God of this land. He tells what will come to us when we are full of iniquity, and if we disobey that commandment of the Lord we are thus far under the condemnation which the Lord decreed, and we are thus far forward on the road to being full of iniquity.”
President Clark concluded this particular discussion with this reminder:
“I have given you what the Lord has said. We may use our agency as to whether we shall obey or disobey; and if we disobey we must abide the penalty.” (“Fundamentals of the Church Welfare Program,” October 6, 1944, pp. 3–5.)
That the Lord will give us the wisdom and the courage to understand and live by this principle, I humbly pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Dallin H. Oaks on Freedom of Religion

Friends,

I hope that each of you will take the lengthy time to read this article. I especially liked his admission that at first glance he believed that the Supreme Court was right to shoot down any state sponsored prayers. Clearly, we would all be terrified to live in a country that forced us to recite a certain denomination's prayer. However, he acknowledged that what he didn't see was the long run consequences of this court ruling. Eventually it paved the way for the destruction of religious freedom. He even goes on to explain what an insane notion it is that we have come to a point in our history where religious organizations have to fight to maintain "reasonable" freedoms of religion.

I believe that this "slippery slope" (a term that academics use to anul or disqualify an opinion that may have long term or future ramifications) is a reality that conservatives face on all levels. Once the flood gates of attack are brought to bear on a constitutional right, there is very little chance that progressives will back off once their stated objectives are achieved. Down the road, they'll push that line in the sand a little more to the left. I agree with Dallin H. Oaks about the consequences of giving an inch because a generation from now, their may be no semblance to the freedoms that we currently possess.

This is a great article and I'd like to thank Todd for forwarding it to me.

Enjoy,

-Dave

Dallin H. Oaks, “Religion in Public Life,” Ensign, Jul 1990,


On 25 June 1988, in Williamsburg, Virginia, I signed the Williamsburg Charter on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1 Written by a group of farsighted U.S. religious, political, and community leaders, that charter celebrates and reaffirms religious liberty as the foremost freedom of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The sponsors’ invitation to participate explains that they were seeking “a fresh articulation of the ground rules for relating religion and public life in our time.”
Our church was one of six “prominent American faith communities” whose representatives were invited to make brief statements as they signed the Charter. This is what I said on that occasion:
“The people called Mormons have known the sting of official repression and the lash of popular fury. We endorse the need and join in this celebration and reaffirmation of religious liberty.
“The Declaration of Independence had posited these truths to be ‘self-evident’: that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights’ and that governments are instituted ‘to secure these rights.’
“The first words of the Bill of Rights provide the dual guarantees of religious liberty. The subsequent words that guarantee the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly provide the means to make our liberties secure, but it is the initial guarantee of religious freedom that explains why all these other liberties are desired.
“In our nation’s founding and in our Constitutional order, religious liberty is the motivating and basic civil liberty.
“In its Articles of Faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declares: ‘We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.’ ” (A of F 1:11.)
Freedom of Religion: The Basic Civil Liberty
The Williamsburg Charter declares: “The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions have both a logical and historical priority in the Bill of Rights.” Indeed, religious liberty is the oldest of the internationally recognized “human rights,” providing motivation, precedent, and support for the growth of other freedoms, such as the freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly. For many of the Founding Fathers, and for many Americans today, religious liberty is the basic civil liberty because faith in God and his teachings and the active practice of religion are the most fundamental guiding realities of life. Thus, for many citizens, religious liberty provides the reason all other civil liberties are desired.
The Declaration of Independence affirms that governments are instituted to secure the inalienable rights with which men and women are endowed by their Creator. The United States Constitution was established to provide a practical and official guarantee of those rights. Its provision securing religious liberty was divinely inspired, not only to bless the inhabitants of this nation but also to stand as an example to all the nations of the world.
Though a fervent believer in these things, I am certainly not naive about the realities of constitutional law. As a law clerk in the United States Supreme Court, I saw its nine justices grapple with the task of interpreting the First Amendment. Later, as a lawyer and law professor for more than twenty years, I did some of that grappling myself. As legal counsel, I helped draft the Bill of Rights for the Illinois Constitutional Convention of 1970. As a Justice of the Utah Supreme Court for three and a half years, I had the sworn duty to uphold and interpret the constitutions of our state and nation. What I have to say about the subject of religious liberty draws upon those experiences.
Restoring Religion to an Honorable Place in Public Life
The Williamsburg Charter reminds us that despite our constitutional prohibition against establishing a state religion, in many areas of the United States during the nineteenth century there was “a de facto semi-establishment of one religion in the United States: a generalized Protestantism given dominant status in national institutions, especially in the public schools.” In contrast, the Charter continues, “In more recent times, and partly in reaction, constitutional jurisprudence has tended, in the view of many, to move toward the de facto semi-establishment of a wholly secular understanding of the origin, nature, and destiny of humankind and of the American nation.”
Over time, these “wholly secular understandings” have attained “a dominant status,” until there is a “striking absence today of any national consensus about religious liberty as a positive good.” The Charter concludes: “The renewal of religious liberty is crucial to sustain a free people that would remain free.”
Support for the Williamsburg Charter is not a renunciation of the secular or a suggestion that one must choose between religion on the one hand and the whole body of secular learning on the other. That is a false dichotomy.
The hundreds of signers of the Williamsburg Charter, who come from every segment of life in the United States, are seeking to offset the symbol and pattern of hostility to religion and indifference to religious liberty that have characterized many court decisions, much media publicity, and some public understandings for more than a quarter of a century. They seek to restore religion to an honorable place in public life.
To “Live with Each Other’s Deepest Differences”
That task is nicely characterized by the question posed in the Charter, “How do we live with each other’s deepest differences?” In the United States, we have seen what the Charter calls “a breakdown in understanding of how personal and communal beliefs should be related to public life.” Recapturing that understanding is a task that will require a high order of intelligence, tolerance, and goodwill, but it is vital that we do so.
Learning how to “live with each other’s deepest differences” is very important for Latter-day Saints, whose mission requires them to be gracious in the few areas where they are in the majority and welcomed as considerate and productive in the rest of the world, where they are in the minority.
The Law: Hostile or Neutral toward Religion?
In my view, our current condition is rooted in the 1962 United States Supreme Court decision that the New York State Board of Regents could not require public school children to recite a prayer authored by the Regents. The essence of that decision was expressed in this sentence from the Court’s opinion:
“It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave the purely religious function to the people themselves, and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.” 2
Elsewhere in its opinion the Court explained: “Government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.” 3
When the school prayer cases were decided, I interpreted them to forbid state-authored and state-required prayers. As such, the cases, I thought, were correctly decided. What I did not foresee, but what was sensed by persons whose vision was far greater than my own, was that these decisions—defensible and probably even essential as rulings on the facts before the Court—would set in motion a chain of legal and public and educational actions that would bring us to our current circumstance, in which we must reaffirm and even contend for religious liberty.
In short, many understand the law today as being hostile rather than neutral toward religion—as forbidding all public prayers rather than simply prohibiting state-authored and state-required prayers in public schools. Instead of just preventing instances of state-sponsored religion in the public schools, the school prayer cases have unleashed forces that have sometimes been used to prevent the free exercise of religion.
At the time the first school prayer cases were decided, President David O. McKay saw the direction of those decisions with prophetic vision. In December 1962, he said: “By making that [New York Regents’ prayer] unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States severs the connecting cord between the public schools of the United States and the source of divine intelligence, the Creator himself.”
Then, he offered this farsighted caution: “By law, the public schools of the United States must be non-denominational. They can have no part in securing acceptance of any one of the numerous systems of belief regarding God and the relation of mankind thereto. Now let us remember and emphasize that restriction applies to the atheist as well as to the believer in God.” 4
Six months later, just after the Supreme Court’s decision forbidding Bible-reading in the schools, 5 President McKay said:
“Recent rulings of the Supreme Court would have all reference to a Creator eliminated from our public schools and public offices.
“It is a sad day when the Supreme Court of the United States would discourage all reference in our schools to the influence of the phrase ’divine providence’ as used by our founders of the Declaration of Independence.
“Evidently the Supreme Court misinterprets the true meaning of the First Amendment, and are now leading a Christian nation down the road to atheism.” 6
It is clear from President McKay’s references that he was concerned about the direction and long-range effect of these decisions. History shows that his concern was well founded.
A Developing Gulf between Religion and Public Life
In the beginning, eminent legal scholars like Dean Erwin N. Griswold of the Harvard Law School ridiculed the idea that the Supreme Court’s school prayer decisions would lead to a great gulf between religion and public life. In a notable lecture published in the University of Utah Law Review, Dean Griswold said: “To say that [these great provisions of the First Amendment] require that all trace of religion be kept out of any sort of public activity is sheer invention.” 7
However, as time went by, the combatants on both sides of this debate took more and more extreme positions. They joined issue on controversies that compelled the courts to rule on ever-more-technical details on the offering of prayers or the use of religious symbols in public places.
What the legal scholars did not foresee is the extent to which the school-prayer and Bible-reading decisions would shift the burden of proof with respect to religious practices in public life. In the past, religion had been an accepted part of public life in the American tradition; it now became something that had to prove its right to remain in the public square. The principles first announced in the early 1960s had by the 1970s hardened into mechanical constitutional formulas that could be interpreted in ways that were hostile to religion. Too many of the lawyers trained during this period have come to accept these wooden formulas as axioms, with the result that constitutional notions of religious liberty have been impoverished.
For example, the observance of a moment of silence as an alternative to school prayer was first suggested in a United States Supreme Court opinion. Twenty years later, after legislatures in nearly half of the states had passed laws authorizing a moment of silence in the public schools, the Supreme Court held one such law unconstitutional. 8
Gradually, what had been a supportive relationship between church and state (and at times excessively so) has become what many perceive as a hostile one. Now many see religion as suspect, while many others see government as repressive toward religion. It is now essential that a wise and public-spirited group like the Williamsburg Charter Foundation come forward for a purpose that would have seemed remarkable a century ago—to remind us of our religious heritage and to declare the value of religious liberty to a nation that was, in truth, founded to protect it.
The Need for Education on the Role of Religion in a Pluralistic Society
The Williamsburg Charter Foundation has wisely begun its effort by focusing on public education. Affirming that education is incomplete if it does not give attention to the role of religious liberty in American life, the Foundation has called for the public schools to teach about religious liberty in a pluralistic society and has prepared materials for doing so.
The need for such teaching should be obvious. As a result of misunderstanding the importance of religious liberty in our Constitutional order, many citizens and even some educators have come to consider it bad taste or even illegal for public school teachers even to mention religious influences or commitments. No wonder we suffer an appalling ignorance of our political and cultural origins.
In a study done for the Department of Education, New York University psychologist Paul Vitz documented the extent to which textbook authors have avoided references to God or to religion. Vitz concluded that many students could never learn from reading their history textbooks “that religion has played a significant role in American history.” For example:
• One American history textbook defines pilgrims as “people who make long trips.” Another text lists three hundred important events in American history, and only three of the three hundred have anything to do with religion. No religious event is listed after 1775—an apparent judgment that each of the other items, including the appearance of an electric streetcar on the streets of Richmond, Virginia, in 1886, was more important than any religious event in America since 1775.
• A reader for sixth-graders includes an Isaac Singer story in which a boy with a problem prays to God for himself and his goat, and when the problem is resolved, the boy thanks God. But the public school text omits the name of God and declares that the boy thanks “goodness.”
• Textbook discussions of pre-Civil War abolitionism and the recent civil rights movement commonly skim over or totally omit the religious origins of these great forces and the religious motivations of many who furthered them. 9
Removing the name of God and ignoring the influence of religious motivations distort facts and cloud understanding. If gold were someone’s God (and there are such people), could you give an accurate account of the western U.S. settlements attributable to the Gold Rush without mentioning the word gold?
The Williamsburg Charter Foundation is not the first group to call for more public school study about religion. In a 1986 editorial, the Washington Post called attention to a study by People for the American Way, which showed that American history textbooks hardly mention religion as a force in U.S. history. The Post observed: “The absence of any discussion of a subject that has motivated, inspired, and, at times, torn apart important elements of the population is ridiculous. … A student who has no curiosity about the beliefs of others will never be an educated person.” 10
In 1987 the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, an influential public education group, called for action by educators, textbook publishers, and civic leaders to halt what they called the “rigorous exclusion” of religion from school textbooks and curricula. 11
I have been gratified at the rapidity with which a supportive consensus has developed on this subject. It has caused me to wonder whether this consensus just grew rapidly in the last few years or whether it was always there—hidden, but too shy to emerge in an atmosphere of hostility and distrust.
I prefer to believe that individuals have always had the good sense to understand that a person cannot be educated without understanding religious traditions and conflicts. One cannot understand the great music of the Western world, such as music composed for the mass or Handel’s Messiah, and one cannot understand the great art of the Western world, such as the religious themes of the masters of the Middle Ages, without understanding the religious beliefs and traditions of the people by whom and for whom those works of art were created. It is surely true that a reader cannot understand the language and imagery of the great literature of the Western world without understanding the Bible.
The Williamsburg Charter Foundation proposes a public school curriculum titled “Living with Our Deepest Differences—Religious Liberty in a Pluralistic Society.” In this course of study, (1) the curriculum approach to religion is academic, not devotional; (2) the school strives for student awareness but does not press for student acceptance of religion; (3) the school sponsors study about, not practice of, religion; (4) the school exposes students to a diversity of religious views but does not impose any particular one; (5) the school educates about all religions but does not promote or denigrate any of them; and (6) the school may inform about various beliefs but does not seek to conform the student to any particular one. In my opinion, this is an appropriate program. It would serve the interests of the United States and its citizens.
Misunderstandings about Prayer in Public Settings
I conclude by referring to a current controversy that I think exemplifies the public misunderstanding from which we need to be liberated by educational efforts such as those of the Williamsburg Charter Foundation.
Initially, the United States Supreme Court’s school prayer decision outlawed only state-authored and state-required prayers. Later, the courts forbade any prayers in public school classrooms, even those that were privately composed or optional. The courts were concerned with the possibility that impressionable young students would be coerced by such publicly sponsored religious exercises. In contrast, the Supreme Court has clearly held that prayers at the beginning of a state legislative assembly are not forbidden. The Court reasoned that, unlike school children, legislators are adults, “presumably not readily susceptible to ‘religious indoctrination.’ ” 12
Despite the absence of coercion from prayers in adult settings, and despite the fact that prayers are frequently offered in legislative and other public meetings in every state in the union, 13 some have continued their efforts to force the abolition of prayers at government or other public meetings. As a consequence, immense resources of time and money have been devoted to thrashing out the constitutional limits on prayer in public places.
The Williamsburg Charter contains an insight that should help resolve such controversies: “It is false to equate ‘public’ and ‘government.’ In a society that sets store by the necessary limits on government, there are many spheres of life that are public but non-governmental.”
Similarly, I believe that much of the controversy over prayer in public places suffers from a failure to distinguish between governmental action and accommodation of private expression in a public place. The fact that prayer or other religious expression occurs in a public setting does not mean that the government is endorsing religion. It only means that public officials recognize the reality that many citizens have religious beliefs and care about religious matters.
A decision outlawing prayers in public school classrooms, which are tax-supported government institutions responsible for instructing impressionable youth, does not forbid prayers by and for adults in settings that are merely public, such as town meetings, patriotic programs, Parent-Teacher Association functions, and the like. Though offered in a public place, such prayers are personal—not governmental—devotions.
Some Recent Controversies
That distinction has been overlooked in some recent controversies in Utah.
A little more than two years ago, the American Civil Liberties Union pressed for the elimination of prayers at the beginning of Salt Lake County Commission meetings. The A.C.L.U. objected to the fact that most of the people who offered such prayers concluded them “in the name of Jesus Christ.” They claimed that this prayer language constituted an official government endorsement of the majority faith in Utah, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members pray in that way. In what many interpreted as a generous and appropriate response to that concern, the county commission enlarged its list to invite representatives of every religious organization in the county to take a turn, in rotation, in offering prayers at commission meetings. This apparently settled the issue. 14
More recently, similar controversies have arisen over prayers offered in Utah high school graduation exercises. A suit filed on behalf of two students in one school district objected that the prayers were “denominational,” since they mentioned the name of Jesus Christ. The suit asked that such prayers be “non-denominational.” 15
Interpreting this as a plea for a court order requiring that the name of Jesus Christ not be used in prayers offered at a public high school graduation exercise, I thought of the first school prayer decision. In that case, the Supreme Court said government had no power to author prayers to be offered by its citizens. Before we acquiesce in the use of judicial power to indicate what words cannot be included in a prayer, we should remember that if it is no part of the business of government to write a prayer, then it is no part of the business of a court to censor a prayer.
The United States Supreme Court voiced that principle just six years ago in rejecting an argument that the prayers in a state legislative assembly were illegal because they were always offered by a chaplain of one religious denomination. The Court said: “The content of the prayer is not of concern to judges where, as here, there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.” 16
Using this reasoning, I concluded that the attempt in Utah to have a court dictate what could not be included in a prayer would not succeed. But even a winning case can be expensive to defend, and in the graduation-exercise case, economic pressure forced a decision upon the school board. They evaluated the costs of resisting what would likely be a long court battle and concluded that it was not in the best interests of the school district to use its scarce resources in that way. Consequently, they announced that the high schools of that district will no longer have prayers as part of their graduation exercises. 17
A neighboring district announced that they would retain prayers in their schools’ graduation exercises, but they said they would be more careful to request “non-denominational prayers.” Similarly, the first district announced that they would continue to open their board meetings with prayer, but opened that particular session with what they called “a generic prayer.” 18
It is no part of the business of government to prescribe prayers or to censor them. Prayer is too sacred for its content to be the subject of a lawsuit. When the threat of a lawsuit causes someone to modify the content of a prayer, we are in desperate need of a Williamsburg Charter to remind us of the importance of religious liberty.
Tolerating Each Other’s Differences
If citizens of the United States cannot tolerate differences in the way others pray, we have suffered a tragic loss in the vitality of religious liberty. I am disappointed that anyone of any faith would abandon his or her chosen manner of prayer and offer a so-called “generic” prayer because someone threatened a lawsuit. Despite my own strong preferences, I would not even consider trying to influence a person of another faith to change the content of a public prayer, and I object to any use of legal pressures to accomplish such changes by anyone.
After I expressed this opinion in a speech last year in Boise, Idaho, a friend sent me a publication reporting a related opinion by a respected Protestant theologian. The newly-appointed chaplain (and former dean) of the Harvard Divinity School, Krister Stendahl, reportedly observed that in his school, with its tradition of pluralism, “it wasn’t quite kosher to mention Jesus [in a prayer]. You become so conscious of using a language which would be for everybody, so nobody was at home.” He reacted by stating his intent to “guard fiercely the freedom of every person to pray and speak in ways important to him or her—lest the specter of ‘pluralism’ mute authentic expression of devotion.” 19
Chaplain Stendahl made the following suggestion, which I believe is an appropriate procedure for one invited to offer a prayer in a public meeting containing persons of various faiths:
“It can never be wrong to pray in the presence of people of other faiths. But when one does that, one cannot use the word ‘we’ in an absolute sense, because that would mean that I surmise that only those who think like me are with me.”
Instead, he said, when preaching among those of other faiths—in a synagogue, for example, as he sometimes does—he is careful to speak in the first person. “I might say, ‘and this I pray, in the name of Jesus, who brought me into communion with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’ I think it’s quite fair to mention my Jesus in the synagogue, but I should speak my own language and not we it.” 20
The Legality of Graduation Prayers
Appellate court opinions issued in the last several years have split on the legality of prayers at high school graduation exercises. 21 Judges are divided on the question, and the United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the controversy.
I am hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will reaffirm the attitude of accommodation voiced in its decision sustaining the constitutionality of released time for public school students to attend religious classes. In that case, decided in 1952, the Court said:
“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” 22
Some Possible Solutions
As the law stands today, school boards who are challenged on the legality of prayers offered on public ceremonial occasions have several alternatives.
They might continue to have such prayers and risk the possibility of expensive litigation, though the costs might be shared with other districts similarly situated.
They might abandon a long-standing practice of having such prayers and risk being seen as having been manipulated by a litigation strategy rooted in the reality that lawsuits are cheap to begin but expensive to defend. A small but determined minority can use the cost of litigation as an instrument of intimidation to coerce a majority to accept minority social, cultural, or even religious standards that could not or at least should not be imposed by legal process in a fully litigated case.
A school district might substitute a moment of silence in which all are invited to offer private devotions, but this could be seen as a compromise unacceptable to anyone.
In my view, the one alternative that is entirely unacceptable is for a school district to attempt to prescribe or censor prayers to be offered at any function in the district.
I close in the spirit of the Williamsburg Charter, by quoting the First Presidency in a statement made more than ten years ago:
“Those who oppose all references to God in our public life have set themselves the task of rooting out historical facts and ceremonial tributes and symbols so ingrained in our national consciousness that their elimination could only be interpreted as an official act of hostility toward religion. Our constitutional law forbids that.
“As the ruling principle of conduct in the lives of many millions of our citizens, religion should have an honorable place in the public life of our nation, and the name of Almighty God should have sacred use in its public expressions.” 23
May it always be so!
[photos] Photography by Steve Bunderson
[illustration] Signing of the United States Constitution, (by Howard Chandler Christy); courtesy of Architect of the Capitol
[illustration] Freedom of Worship, (by Norman Rockwell); © The Curtis Publishing Company
Notes

1. The text of the Williamsburg Charter is reproduced in the appendix (pp. 127–45) of Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace, the Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy. (James Davison Hunter and Os Guinness, eds., Brookings Books, Washington, D.C., 1990). Professor W. Cole Durham, Jr., of the BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School gave excellent suggestions in the preparation of this manuscript.

2. Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 435 (1962).

3. Ibid., at 430.

4. “Parental Responsibility,” Relief Society Magazine, Dec. 1962, p. 878.

5. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

6. Church News, 22 June 1963, p. 2.

7. 8 Utah Law Review 167, 174 (1963).

8. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), discussed in Rodney K. Smith, Public Prayer and the Constitution, pp. 191–92 (Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources, 1987).

9. These examples are taken from the Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 21 July 1986, p. 23, and from William J. Bennett’s Payne Lecture, “Religious Belief and the Constitutional Order,” University of Missouri, 17 Sept. 1986, pp. 12–14. See also Warren A. Nord, “Liberals Should Want Religion Taught in Public Schools,” Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 21 July 1986, p. 23.

10. Washington Post editorial, 27 Dec. 1986; see also Washington Post, 22 Oct. 1988, p. A22.

11. Report, “Religion in the Curriculum,” described in Religious News Service, 6 July 1987, p. 4.

12. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983).

13. Rodney K. Smith, Public Prayer and the Constitution, (Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources, 1987), p. 237.

14. See generally, Patrick A. Shea, “Prayer Is Appropriate to Start County Commission Meetings,” Salt Lake Tribune, 9 Apr. 1988, p. A11.

15. “Jordan District Bans Graduation Prayer,” Deseret News, 27 Sep. 1989, p. Bl.

16. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 794 (1983).

17. Deseret News, 27 Sep. 1989, p. Bl.

18. Deseret News, 27 Sep. 1989, p. B2.

19. “Krister Stendahl Named HDS Chaplain,” Harvard Divinity Bulletin, vol. XIX (winter 1990):17.

20. Ibid.

21. Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822 F.2d 1406 (CA 6, 1987) (2–1 decision against); Jager v. Douglas County School District, 862 F. 2d. 824 (CA 11, 1989) (2–1 decision against); Sands v. Morongo Unified School District, 362 Cal. Rptr. 452, 214 Cal. App. 3d 45 (1989) (3–0 decision in favor). For a criticism of the “no endorsement test” that some judges apply to hold such prayers illegal, see Steven D. Smith, “Symbols, Perceptions, and Doctrinal Illusions,” 86 Mich. L. Rev. 266 (1987).

22. Zorach v. Clawson, 343 U.S. 306, 313–14 (1952).

23. First Presidency Statement, “America’s Religious Heritage,” 9 March 1979

Battling the School Board

Battling the School Board

A few nights ago, my wife and I attended a public School Board meeting with the hopes of encouraging them to approve a facility for the use of a Charter School that is preparing to open their doors this fall. Unfortunately, the School District is dragging their feet and making it impossible for the Academy to find the necessary facilities, which the District has an obligation to provide. So, many of us proponents of the charter school, went to the Board meeting to publicly voice our concerns and call for the Boards’ support in working with the new school.

Initially, the School District was very supportive of the Charter School coming to our area as it was being wooed by interested parents within our community. The Charter School has a fabulous curriculum, which results in their students scoring in the 88 percentile or better on standardized tests. That is a far cry better than the Public School in which only 50 percent can read and write at their own grade level. Even though the children of actively involved parents in the public school system most likely have similar success rates as compared with the children in the Academy, I still believe that children in the Charter School have a much greater advantage due to the fact that the Academy is filled with a more competent student body.

The problem is that the Public School is dragging their feet in locating facilities for the Charter School. It should be pointed out that the Charter School is a public school. It will be run off of public funds that come from the State and are independent of the Public School’s fiscal budget. In fact, the School District gets a sizeable kickback from the State for each Charter School attendee and they don’t even have to do anything to get it. It’s free money. Moreover, the Charter School must pay rent on the buildings that it leases, which brings in more money. Lastly, the Charter School would alleviate some of the overcrowding that currently exists in the local elementary school. These are all strong incentives for the School District to bring in the Academy.

Unfortunately, the School District is placing these benefits aside as they are now actively hindering the establishment of the Charter School. The District has known for almost 3 years that the Academy was hoping to open their doors in the fall of 2007. They made a very interesting move by leasing their only unutilized building to a small private school. That is a quandary. Let’s get this straight, tax payers are paying steep property taxes to support the public school system; a public school organization is trying to get access to a public school facility; and our local Public School Board turns around and approves a lease to a private school, which does not benefit any kids in the public school system. Why are my tax dollars going to assist a private school? It turns out that the Academy also sent the District a lease proposal for the school facility and the District completely ignored it. Further, the district can’t sell the facility because there is a reversionary clause in the deed to the property. If the property ceases to function as an educational facility, the property reverts back to the original owner or his heirs. So, if the property must be used as a school, why would they choose a private school over a publicly funded school? The fact that they ignored the Academy’s lease proposal definitely indicates that the District doesn’t really want the Charter School to come to our area.

Last year, we had hopes of testing our child to see if it was possible to move up a grade since she was born after the deadline. She was very competent with the material and her kindergarten teacher assured us that she was ready for 1st grade material. Upon inquiry, the school told us that our child would have to score in the 98% at the 2nd grade level if we wanted to enroll her in the 1st grade. Are you kidding me? That is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. If our daughter aced the 2nd grader test, wouldn’t that indicate that she was really ready for the 3rd grade? But according to the School District, her strong academic skills would only merit a move into the 1st grade (which is theoretically two grades below her ability). It’s no wonder why there are so many bored kids in the school system these days. They bend the kids to the system when they should be bending the system to the kids.

Then my wife learned a juicy tidbit of information. The old saying, “follow the money” always seems to hold true. It turns out that the School District gets “bonus” funds for each Talented-And-Gifted (TAG) student who enters their accelerated program. By pushing accelerated students ahead, the school essentially loses those bonus funds because the students who were moved up in grade level are no longer labeled “talented-and-gifted”. In a sense, placing students in grades where they are challenged is counter-productive to the fund raising efforts of the school. We can see why the School System really enforces the status quo.

These are the many reasons we have been fighting for the Charter School. I suppose that one can conclude that the District resents the presence of the Charter School because it makes them look really incompetent. Clearly, this must be the case or why would parents be pulling their kids out in droves if there wasn’t a strong academic benefit in doing so? The School District also knows that it is likely that students desiring to enroll in the Academy are talented and gifted students. Isn’t that why there parents are pulling them out; the School District is failing their kids? Couldn’t we infer then, that if the Charter School opens its doors that the School District is going to lose a good chunk of their better students and a good chunk of their funds?

The Charter School parents know that their children will be infinitely better off than the kids attending the public school. They know that their kids will learn better reading and math skills and will receive more personalized attention from their teachers. What is truly sad is that the Charter School will be a massive benefit to our local community. Our kids will be better off, the public school statistics will improve as more kids ace standardized tests, and the improved success of the school district will attract more quality people to our community. The truth is that the School Board made a brilliant decision by initially supporting the Charter School to come to our neighborhood. Unfortunately, politics has taken over and the net result is that all of us concerned parents will be forced to look outside our community to obtain a decent education for our kids.

We hope that politics will not thwart a really good thing!

Dave Smith

Hurray, for the Supreme Court!

Hurray, for the Supreme Court!

I am amazed that partial-birth abortions ever became a controversial issue. The law still allows women the ability to get abortions earlier in their pregnancies, but the Court only upheld the ban on partial-birth abortions. The fact that partial-birth abortions were ever legal is a horrific travesty. The moment the infant is fully removed from the birth canal, the baby immediately receives the full protection of law and possesses the right to live. However, pro-abortionists (I'm no longer calling them by their own label - pro-choice) use the vagaries of the legal system to validate the murder of their children, who are inches from delivery. There is no way anyone can argue that the baby is not a living human being at that point. They just believe a lie. Doctors and nurses who witness these atrocities say that the babies flinch with obvious pain when their skulls are pierced and their brains are literally sucked out. I am horrified that it has taken this long to get this awful practice banned.

I think that it is interesting that pro-abortionists have cleverly created a politically correct label for the practice of murdering innocent children. They call themselves "pro-choice." What a great label. We live in a country of freedoms. We can control and make decisions about nearly every aspect of our lives. We call these freedoms rights. Why then do we not have the right to abort our children? A friend once told me that just because we have the power to do something, does not necessarily mean that we the right to do it. I may have the power to take a gun into a crowded mall and start shooting innocent children (after-birth abortion --- sarcasm intended), but I do not have the right to do so. As a society, we declare that some human activities are criminal in nature and we pass laws with punishments affixed to them as a means of deterrence. The power to do something does not always beget the right to do it.

What is completely ironic is that pro-abortionists do have a choice. That choice came much earlier when they were copulating without thought of the consequences. They made a choice and knowing that even with birth control, there is always a chance of becoming pregnant. Cause and Effect! The slogan, pro-choice, is being misused here. A liberal would truly have to be a complete dolt to not know that pregnancy is a possible outcome of sexual activity. The truth is that pro-abortionists are really about avoiding the consequences of their actions. Their argument is just as ridiculous as a person jumping off a tall building in an attempt to kill himself. Once he has leapt from the building, gravity quickly accelerates him to his death. On the way down, the person committing suicide decides that he has changed his mind and asks a doctor to abort his fall. This is classic liberal stupidity. They want the freedom but not the responsibility. Every women on this planet has the freedom of choice, they are just misusing their freedom to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Unfortunately, women bear an unfair percentage of the responsibility, since the consequences of pregnancy rests entirely with them. After all, it takes two to tangle, but it is the woman who has to carry the child to term. Even though that's the natural order, it is unjust because men also carry part of the responsibility. In the process of banning abortion, we should also hold men financially liable for the support of their women during the pregnancy process. If the law requires women to carry the babies to term and the men to financially support the women while they do so, we might see more thought going into making babies.

Many liberals believe that we conservatives are laughable because we will argue against abortion, but support the 2nd Amendment at the same time. This argument shows liberal contempt for logic and reality. Abortion is about avoiding an inconvenience and the 2nd Amendment is about the right to defend your life. The right to own guns does not equal criminal shootings any more than automobile ownership equals drunk driving. Guns do not make people shoot other people anymore than cars make people drink too much alcohol and drive on public streets. People choose to use guns or drive their cars to kill other people. The guns nor the cars are responsible. When was the last time you heard of a gun or car standing trial for murder? It's just a piece of metal. The people who use them are responsible. In the same sense, women who murder their unborn children and the men who encourage them to do so are responsible. They are the ones who made the choice to end the life of another human being. In the councils of God, people who abort their children are no different from Cho, the Virginia Tech terrorist. They are the same creatures; soulless and evil.

It is surprising to me that it has taken this long to get this very small victory. Abortion should be completely criminalized. There should be life sentences attached to any woman who is convicted of murdering her undelivered child. (my politically incorrect term as opposed to unviable uterine tissue) Similarly, men who assist and encourage women to have an abortion should also be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and they should receive life sentences as well. On the other hand, there should be room in the law for therapeutic abortion as it has a legitimate medical purpose; to save the life of the expectant mother. In my opinion, abortion should also be available for rape and incest victims. But none of these cases involve convenience. Abortion is not being used as a form of birth control in these instances. All other abortions must be banned with the full punishment of the law.

What is truly sad is that the inconvenience is such a short period of time. There are so many families that cannot have children and would love to have a baby. After only nine months, the baby could be adopted to a loving family, and then the selfish mother can return to her selfish life. At least, her selfishness will have blessed a family eager for the pitter patter of little feet.

Kudos to the Supreme Court for upholding a law that protects the lives of all Americans; delivered and undelivered.

Republicanism Versus Democracy

I have really enjoyed writing these posts thus far and I have put a lot of energy, research, and thought into their creation. I have been thinking that for a while I wanted to write a post about the difference between a democracy and the republic form of democracy that we have. On this matter, my knowledge is very limited but I understand some of the key concepts and a bit of the history that was addressed at the Constitutional Convention on this matter. I bring this up because I really enjoyed Todd's comments and the inclusion of an article by Neil A. Maxwell on the virtues and handicaps of democracy. Neil A. Maxwell wrote a fantastic article and I agree that we as a democratic society need to be remember that this nation responds to the voices of 300 million people. It is impossible to think that all of those voices will agree or that they will always get along. We conservatives are by nature entrenched in the traditions and the institutions of our fore-fathers. We are the preservers and defenders of the successes that have combined to make this Nation the greatest in the world. It is the greatest in might, in freedom, and in economic living standards. Mr. Maxwell argued that sometimes we have to accept the fact that sometimes democracy will go counter to our beliefs, but that is the nature of democracy. I mostly agree with that statement. However, I felt that he missed one point that needs careful consideration. We must accept the voice of the people so long as that voice does not infringe upon the unalienable rights of the people. It is in this effort that I felt that we should have a discussion on the differences between a Democracy and a democratic Republic.

The fact that the United States of America is a republic is perhaps more significant than most might realize. Greek democracy was one of the first generally accepted examples of the rise of a government system controlled by the voice of its citizens. The people implemented laws and selected leaders by popular vote. As long as the voice of the people affirms good laws and good leaders, it works marvelously. However, if the people begin to implement terrible laws and elect corrupt leaders, the system decays very rapidly. When analyzing these systems, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, became very nervous about democracy because it could lead just as easily to tyranny as a monarchy or oligarchy could. This term is often referred to as a Tyranny of the Majority. Madison knew that direct democracy lead to the eventual decay of the Greek democratic state. Madison, therefore, brilliantly blended a democratic system within a republican form of government to allow for both self-rule as well as protections against a tyranny of the majority.

James Madison was the most significant voice in the creation of the U.S. Constitution and through his efforts, he helped to construct the greatest form of government that has ever existed. He was also the principle author of the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution, which thankfully, the other delegates had the sense to include. Madison initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights because he believed that the Constitution was in itself a Bill of Rights. Had they not included the 10 Amendments, we would have most likely lost all of our individual freedoms by now. James Madison knew that the greatest strength of democracy was also its greatest weakness. If the people chose corruption or aristocracy over value and moral, the system would self destruct. So he devised a way to prevent this by creating checks against democracy.

The system by which democracy is checked is called republicanism. (Not the political party) By definition, "It stresses the liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited power, expects citizens to be independent and calls on them to perform civic duties, and is strongly opposed to corruption." (Wikipedia - Republicanism in the United States) Furthermore, "It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters..."(same) What this means is that in a republic, the majority vote of the people can never override the law or rights of the minority.

Let's analyze the precepts of republicanism for a bit and see how they fit into the growing dilemma that pits conservatives against liberals. First, republicanism stresses liberty and rights as central values. This infers that before laws can be formed to govern human activity, there must be an understanding and definition of human freedom. The Founders wisely placed these definitions in the Bill of Rights. They are the conceptualization of Jefferson's poignant phrase from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truth's 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." (emphasis added) This is text book republicanism. Before we form laws to govern human activity, we must first acknowledge the existence that certain fundamental rights belong to the people. The government does not grant us those rights. They exist on their own merits. They were given to us by God and Government cannot rightfully take them away.

A thorough understanding of the Bill of Rights asserts very clearly, that those tenants belong to us. Regardless of any vote of the population, the government cannot lawfully take away my right to assemble or to worship. They cannot take away my God given right to arm myself in order to defend my life and the lives of my family and community. I cannot be forced to testify against myself nor be held in prison for years on end without a trial by jury. I have the right to enter into legally binding contracts. Most importantly, I have the right to live and the right to determine my own destiny. Any law that violates these tenants even if it was enacted by the voice of the majority, should be overturned by nature of our republican form of government.

Next, republicanism requires that the citizens be sovereign individuals. In this case, it means that we are the supreme law making body. As a whole, we are not subject to the authority of another as laws can and should only be created by the populace. This is where conflict arises because it is completely impractical for laws to be enacted that are beneficial to the whole. In any government system there will always be winners and losers that arise from any political incorporation or change. However, those laws can never supersede our unalienable freedoms and rights. The courts have charge to protect us from these incursions on our freedoms by the legislatures and executive branches. But now they too are caving to tyranny.

Lastly, republicanism requires that the citizens be independent. This empowerment comes from our ability to own and use private property. We cannot be independent nor free without the ability to acquire and utilize this God given right. We must be able to own property so that we can create a means, independent of the government to provide the necessities of life. Those include the ability to buy food, clothing, housing, transportation, and non-necessity consumables. If the citizens become dependent on the government for the factors of life, republicanism is instantly destroyed. They become subject to the government. Simply put, their necessities are provided by the government and they must, therefore, do what the government wishes or they will lose their ability to survive. Dependent citizens are slaves to this system. When this occurs in large enough numbers, political corruption explodes astronomically.

This comes about because political leaders use the destruction of personal independence as a means of gathering political strength. Their dependent constituents will support them because their re-election is necessary for their survival. If their representative loses, they may lose their entitlements. We see this over and over again in political elections. Politicians use scare tactics aimed at getting re-elected. This works because their constituents are dependent on them for the necessities of life. They look to them for their jobs, housing, food, and clothing. If those things are at stake because you can't provide them for yourself, you will fight hard to preserve them. You will sacrifice all your freedom to have them. For most, remaining alive is way more important than having freedom.

The point of this discussion is to illustrate why it is so important that conservatives win the political fight that is before us. Universally, every tenant of liberalism is aimed at destroying republicanism. Their campaign to liberate the populace sexually will enable them to influence many children in the rising generation towards their beliefs. Kids born in weak family environments will be easy prey for indoctrination in the educational institutions of our country. This is obvious since many of these kids will not have been properly educated by caring parents. Since these kids will be born in weak families, there will be a greater propensity to rely on government handouts for survival. Sexual perversion and promiscuity will lead to more and more kids learning and believing in liberal ideology.

Next, the liberal campaign for the environment is aimed at one unalienable right; the right to own, control, and utilize private property. Most conservatives would agree that negligent and irresponsible destruction of our environment is a bad thing. It's a bad thing when a company dumps toxic waste into a water system to save costs on disposal. This is a good use for the EPA and criminals such as this deserve stiff penalties. However, we draw the line at preserving the environment to point of destroying normal human behavior. (e.g. we can't build houses because it's deemed anti-environment to cut down trees) More recently, it's bad for the environment to breathe. (CO2 is a pollutant ---- Extreme sarcasm intended) A free people, must always be allowed to own property and they must be allowed to utilize that property in most manners that they deem necessary for their benefit. We cannot be a free people otherwise.

Lastly, the liberal campaign for social welfare is perhaps the most devastating of all. This campaign is built on a huge lie. It is the lie that society has treated them unfairly. It is unfair that some are born into poverty and others are born into riches. Some are born into minority families and others are born into (evil, dastardly) white families (e.g., the evil majority). This is a lie because, America is foremost a meritocracy. This is the vision that James Madison had of this nation. If you weren't born into wealth, go out there and literally make it yourself. However, this message is being lost on great hosts of people these days. Therefore, they seek to right these inequalities by redistributing wealth. In a sense, they steal it with their votes. Robin Hood is the ultimate liberal in this sense. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Isn't that the modern day phrase?

However, there are significant consequences that arise from this approach. First, it breeds a great deal of envy. People become unsatisfied with their own possessions and turn their hearts towards their neighbors' possessions. Next, the recipients become indebted to a system for their survival as we discussed earlier. Lastly, the victims (the haves) lose any economic incentive to produce. The fruits of their labors are forcibly taken from them and given to someone else. The natural result will be a weakening of society as a whole. The recipients become slaves and the victims will eventually sell themselves into slavery in order to stop the plunder. Eventually, socialism will always lead to the same eventuality - SLAVERY!

However, this can all be corrected if conservatives can realize the power of their message. That power lies in the heart of republicanism (not the party). If we can muster significant political pressure (i.e. the silent majority stops being silent) to legally force the government reembody the ideals of unalienable rights, limited government, and individual sovereignty, we will see a significant decline in the decay of this nation and a rebirth of morality and economic progress. These will flow as natural consequences of getting government off the backs of Americans and letting them thrive. There is so much potential for success if the sound of our good laws can stifle the sounds of some many corrupt voices. Let freedom Ring!

-Dave Smith

Tragedy in Virginia

Dr. Laura was talking today about how this tragic act of violence at Virginia Tech is nothing compared with the violence that people endure on a daily basis in the middle east and elsewhere. That is absolutely true. On the whole, we Americans are generally free from horrific acts of barbarism and violence. When I heard about this cowardly act this afternoon, I called my wife to tell her to turn on the news. She had already been watching the ongoing coverage as reporters were scrambling to gather information. (Albeit – the more horrific the better – but, hey, drama sells)

Doesn’t that say something special about this place we call the United States of America? Horrific violence is not the norm, in fact, it’s the exception. I’ve never been shot at, nearly blown up by a car bomb, nor had crazy people try to hi-jack my airplane and crash it into a building. I am so thankful to be living in a place where people are outraged and shocked by such gross examples of pure evil. Thank goodness that we live in a place where most people like following the law and are generally concerned about the welfare of their neighbors. My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones today.

While I was listening to the press conference with the President and the campus police chief, something almost elusive crept into my mind and really started to bother me. The President and Police Chief were answering questions from the media and the kinds of questions and responses seemed terribly inappropriate.

The first thing that got my attention was the criminalization of this event. There was nothing criminal about it. All criminal behavior can be summed up by people breaking the law for personal gain. This evil man did not murder these 32 people for some sort of personal gain. He was terrorizing the school to satisfy something else; like revenge or hate. We’ll probably never know for sure but his acts were not those of a criminal but those of a terrorist. He was no different than a suicide bomber. I wonder why, no one in the mainstream media made this obvious connection? Most likely, the media does not want us to be sympathizing with innocent Iraqi’s or middle easterners for that matter when troop withdrawal is a major political issue right now.

Then the media interrogation took a new form. It was like a pool of hungry crocodiles lurking in the water, eying a lone wildebeest. What was the ethnicity of the shooter? What kind of weapons did he have? There have been reports that he used a semi-automatic handgun, can you confirm that? What did the crime scene look like? Were the students shot randomly or execution style? These questions are not word for word but the gist of the questions have stuck with me all day. Don’t these questions seem outrageous to you? These questions reveal a lot more about the character of the reporters than they might have realized.

A tragedy had just occurred. Innocent blood had been spilt. But, they were not as concerned about the innocent blood as they were about the ramifications this incident has on their social agendas. First off, the ethnicity of the shooter has a great deal of bearing on the liberal mind. If the shooter is from a minority ethnic group, the portrayal of the shooter will be much more sympathetic to his “misguided” actions. His acts must be out of some sort of desperation because he belongs to a group of Americans who are continually disparaged by the mainstream. The more of a minority that the shooters happens to be, the more sympathetic the media will be to his plight. However, if the shooter turned out to be a white guy, then yeah, let the pit bulls loose. This shows real liberal racism. What that shooter did was wrong regardless of race and if he happened to be white then I would expect the same punishment.

“What kind of weapons did he use and there have been reports that he used a semi-automatic handgun,” illustrates a different liberal agenda. This is the issue of gun control. I told my wife that every time a crime such as this occurs, the anti-gunners start salivating. This is good stuff, the kind of stuff that can get people riled up enough to give away their freedoms. Does it matter what kind of weapons he used? Had he bludgeoned 32 people to death, would it get the same kind of coverage? Just this evening, one news agency suggested that the shooter allegedly used a 9mm, which could hold 19 rounds. I laughed at that because most hi capacity magazines for a 9mm can only hold 15. 19 round magazines are specialty purchases and they are definitely not the norm nor generally easy to come across. They then went on to explain that these magazines would have been banned under the Brady Bill but since it didn’t get renewed, this happened. Had the shooter had 10, 10 round magazines he would have been able to shoot 100 people just as easily if he only had 7, 15 round magazines. The building was locked and he, therefore, wasn’t under any kind of pressure from law enforcement. Even if he only had 10 round magazines, he would have been able to easily kill the same number of people. Even if he had a revolver, he would have been able to do kill just as many people. This is just another example of media misrepresentation to sway ignorant public opinion. The Brady Bill would not have reduced the casualty list one bit. This man was bent on hurting as many people as he could and magazine capacity would not have slowed him down in carrying out his evil plan.

Then they moved onto the grotesqueries of the carnage. Their motivation to do this is obviously rooted in selling airtime. The more gruesome picture that they can paint for us, the more entertaining it will be for the people watching the ongoing coverage. I still can’t believe that one reporter wanted to know if this was an execution style of shooting like occurred earlier in the Amish community. An execution style of murder brings to mind pictures of Nazi death camps. It really conjures up some horrific thoughts and they eagerly wanted to know if this happened. The authorities kept repeating that they could not answer those kinds of questions. Obviously, if they revealed too much, it might taint their investigation. Regardless, the media was desperate to know the gory details and asked this question in a variety of ways, hoping to get the scoop for which they were looking. Very little was asked about the families or where families could meet up with their children. The President brought that up and gave a number where parents could call to get information about the status of their kids.

What does this tell me? It tells me that the people America trust to give them the facts are clearly motivated by ideologies that generally override the truth. If they were interested in the truth, they would have been asking entirely different sorts of questions. If they were interested in the innocent blood that had been spilt, they would have been asking different sorts of questions. The information that they gleaned to uncover, was whether or not this incident would forward their political and financial agendas. I read once that a reporter said that Rush Limbaugh is not a credible source for news because he is in the entertainment business. It seems that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN are also in the entertainment business. Does that mean that they aren't credible? (How dare I?)

What should have been asked was what can American’s do to help? Where can cards of condolences be sent? Is there a relief fund to help with any medical expenses that will be incurred by those recovering from their wounds? Does the University need any help with counseling services or other trauma treatments? These questions were quickly glossed over with little or no sincerity. This is because, their most pressing questions really told us who these media people really are. When real tragedy strikes, they swoop in like BUZZARDS, hungry for ratings and delighted when it promotes their political agendas. They are a people who COULD CARE LESS about the real tragedy of the day!

By the way, I've been looking all over the web for any details about how assistance or funds might be given to aid in this tragedy. Sadly, there is nothing that I can find. If anybody finds anything like this, please forward it to me and I'll post it on this blog. In the meantime, pray for all that is involved in this terrible mess. Check out Michelle Malkin's blog. She has some interesting details about today's tragedy. You can link to it on my sidebar.

-Dave Smith

No Good School Options

Friends,

Lately, we have been struggling with where to send our kids to school. I have had numerous conversations with friends and other parents only to find that nearly universally; most parents are seriously concerned about the lack of quality of education that exists today. The problem is this. A really good education costs a lot of money at a private school and a really bad education is free at a public school.

Private education has been and will always continue to provide our kids with the highest level of discipline within the classroom as well as the best academic skills when they leave for the workplace or higher education. But for that service, it costs a lot. In my area, private schooling starts at $9,000 a year and goes up from there. Then there is the home schooling route. This route provides the greatest possibility for academic success. The curriculum will be completely catered to the individual. However, kids who are home schooled have trouble interacting with their peers. This consequence is obvious. Students in public and private schools are interacting with their peers all day long. They learn to deal with other kids through their own experiences. Sometimes this is good and other times this is bad. But on the whole, this is life. Kids who graduate home schools tend to perform very well academically but they possess very poor social skills. Unfortunately, poor social performance may have a significantly greater consequence in the real world of business than a poor academic performance.

The last and worst option is public education. In this arena, teachers cater their curriculums to a lower caliber of student because it is the government mandate that no child be left behind. That means that if a few students begin falling behind, the teacher will have to slow down so as not to leave them behind. At a private school, these stragglers would be given an ultimatum. Perform or get out! Furthermore, since it is the law that every child be educated, there will be a group of students at a public school whose parents could care less about their academic performance. These parents view school as a form of free day care. Since most studies connect academic success with parental involvement, its safe to say that in any cohort of public students there is going to be a sizable percentage of students who don’t care about learning and will consequently drag the rest of the class down.

Moreover, what is being taught at public schools is controlled by the government and it is not necessarily what the parents of those kids would wish to be taught. In private schooling, parents ultimately control the curriculum because if the schools fail to provide a product worth purchasing, parents will withdraw their students and the business will go bankrupt. In public schooling, parents have little choice as to what is being taught. Even if those teaching contradict our values and our traditions, we must cope with the consequences that government education brings.

There is an obvious solution to the problem of “free” public education. The answer lies at the word “free.” See, a public education is not really free. We are still paying exorbitant prices for a lousy return on our most precious investments. How are we doing this? You are paying through your property taxes or other local and state taxes to repay various bond measures and public fiscal expenditures. The result is that you are paying a great deal for a very bad product. Since it’s our money, the voters have the right to determine how those funds are best used.

The best solution to solve this public school problem is to return to free market economics. Privatize! Schools would then, like any other private firm, be forced to compete for business. In this sense, the product that they would be competing to sell would be a good education. This would be accomplished by simply allotting each taxpayer with school aged children a voucher. This would be like a government reimbursement for taxes already paid, to subsidize our personal payment to a private school. Parents could then use this voucher to send their kids to any school into which their kids were accepted. Remember that under this plan, all schools would be private and students would have to apply for admittance.

What would the consequences of a voucher system be? Since schools would be forced to compete, many of the systemic failures would naturally be eliminated. Kids could be expelled for bad behavior or for academic failure. Kids would have to produce if they wish to go on in school and if they don’t, the state could provide trade schools to give kids working skills in lieu of an education. They do this in socialist Europe – I lived in France for 2 years and I had a chance to talk with lots of kids and college students. In order to go to college you have to pass the Bac – like the SAT in America. If you don’t pass the Bac then you can’t go on. The Bac is also designed to only pass approximately 30% of those who take it. Your option at that point is to go to trade school and enter the work force. The point is that kids would learn a totally different message than they are learning now. You have to produce if you want to go to the next level. Right now, kids are moved ahead even if they fail to learn the material. After all, we don’t want them to have bad self esteem! (Extreme sarcasm added) Most importantly, kids who excel could be moved ahead according to their competence with the material. There would be no incentive for schools to keep kids locked in “peer groups” as is currently the case. For the students, there are no downsides to privatization.

Furthermore, if parents did not like the curriculum, they could pull their kids out and send them to another school that was more in line with their wishes. After all, public education belongs to the people and not the bureaucrats. With fierce competition, schools failing to provide a good product would go out of business. Vouchers would also be ideal for good teachers by naturally creating a market for quality teachers. Really good teachers would command a higher salary than poor ones because they would be more valuable to the school as a means of selling their product, better education. Simply put, schools would be able to brag about their “teaching talent” as a means of attracting more students and more money. This would also instantly break the “Union” which is now holding the education of our kids’ hostage.

On the other hand, opponents of Vouchers argue that this system would create an unfair system that would perpetuate the usual societal injustices. The response to that simpleton argument is this. Do not schools in “richer” geographical areas provide a better education than schools in the inner city or “poorer” geographical areas? The problem is that your geographical location determines a lot about the kind of education that you can get. In the Voucher system, performance will be the underlying factor. Kids from any demographic or social situation could get into the best schools if they work hard. What a positive message! In stead of teaching kids that they don’t have to work to succeed, they would learn the rewards of hard work early in the school years. In stead of kids getting chided by their peers for academic success, they will be praised. With a more academically inclined student body, teachers would be able to teach to a much higher caliber of student than in our current system. I see no downsides. We would be replacing a lumbering, static system with a dynamic, merit based system.

There is only one danger. Since the government would, in a sense, be paying for nearly every education in America, they could interfere with the curriculum that is taught. For instance, what if a voucher school opened as a religious school with a Christian or Muslim philosophy? In the voucher system, they should be able to set their own rules and curriculum requirements independent of government interference. We must be careful that we prevent the government from controlling what the market will naturally control. If there was an economic demand for this school, they would stay in business. What I’m saying is that the market will determine these things freely and naturally. However, there must be safeguards that would prevent ridiculous lawsuits or unreasonable government interference. The government should only be able to oversee that kids are learning in a safe environment from any sort of criminal mischief. (Not politically correct mischief—that’s left up to the parents to determine what curriculum is appropriate and inappropriate)

I stand in favor of this system, because it would open up a lot of good possibilities for our kids. If the government was unwilling to work with taxpayers on this issue, we should all get refunds for the taxes we pay for public education if we have to send our kids to private schools. After all, we are giving the government our money to provide a product that fails in every sense of the word.

-Dave