John Adams, Ron Paul, the Constitution and Liberty
The Constitution spells out liberty but what other essential ingredients are absolute requirements to retain that liberty? by Lou Poumakis
(libertarian)
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The liberty America inherited from the Founding Fathers and the Constitution has long been recognized as being a very fragile legacy, one that is highly dependent on the people themselves. In "Thoughts on Government" – 1776, John Adams said:
"The wretched condition of this country, however, for ten or fifteen years past, has frequently reminded me of their principles and reasonings. They will convince any candid mind, that there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is "an empire of laws, and not of men." That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics."
He upheld the "Republic" as the best of all possible forms of government but also said:
"The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body."
These ideas, which reflected the thinking of the founding fathers almost to a man, led to the formation of our government based on the Constitution. It contained many safeguards such as a periodic election process, explicit limitation of powers and the distribution of those powers among the three branches of government. Nevertheless, John Adams recognized its deficiencies and had reservations:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
Adams was not alone with these concerns. Benjamin Franklin when asked what kind of government the Constitution instituted, responded "A republic if you can keep it." Jefferson, concerned about the future, wrote: "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction."
Ron Paul, in an address to Congress at the beginning of the century, "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" ([link edited for length]), supported the views of these men and pointed out the many areas of life that were once free and are now under government control. He saw the need for character, quoting Samuel Adams as saying:
"Samuel Adams, likewise, warned future generations. He referred to ‘good manners’ as the vital ingredient a free society needs to survive. Adams said: ‘Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.’" ... "The message is clear, if we lose our love of liberty and our manners become corrupt, character is lost and so is the Republic." ... "But character is determined by free will and personal choice by each of us individually. Character can be restored or cast aside at a whim. The choice is ours alone and our leaders should show the way."
I am very much a supporter of Ron Paul but I cannot agree with what he says here about character. A person’s character is what he is in his heart and not something that can be changed at a whim. Regaining lost liberty will not insure the restoration of lost character. A person, through self-discipline, can improve his character but only when it is based on a firm set of beliefs as to what constitutes right and wrong. These beliefs form the philosophical basis for moral standards and character. One cannot unequivocally stand against evil without a foundation that cannot be shaken and this is only realizable through faith in something beyond one’s self, something that transcends this world and this life. George Washington understood people and, concurring with John Adams, warned against supposing that morality (character) could be maintained without religion.
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
History has shown us that the concerns of the founding fathers were well founded. Establishing a republic with the great extent of freedom we have enjoyed is one thing, keeping it is another matter. We have ignored their warnings, strayed away from the true faith and lost most of the liberty our forefathers bought for us with their blood, sweat, tears and lives. We cannot regain it without a return to the faith these men had. It’s easy to place the blame for our loss of liberty on the liberals, the communists or the international bankers or whomever and, to the extent these groups have contributed toward the national moral and religious decline, we can do so legitimately. But we need to look at ourselves as well. Do we, the champions of liberty in America, think we can sustain any liberty we might gain with the moral standards and character prevalent in this country today? Were we somehow to regain liberty but not the faith and the character true faith instills, we would lose our liberty very rapidly and would soon be right back where we were before. The future of America is entirely dependent on the character of the American people, which in turn depends heavily on the influence of Christians and Christianity.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 28
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Lou Poumakis only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Lou Poumakis is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Good point. However, there is alot of hipocracy among christians (human nature) making it hard for nonbelievers to respect christianity. The Bible provides an unchanging foundation of right and wrong. If there is no foundation then it is up to every person to decide for himself what is moral. I'm not saying that govenment should legislate morality. The founding fathers certianly didn't think so either. But without the Bible as a foundation, morality, or man's view of right and wrong will change over time. Religion without the Bible as the foundation will result in a change in what is considered right and wrong over time. We can look at history and see incredible imorality commited in the name of "religion". So what I am saying is that I agree with George Washington about the difficulty of maintaining morality without religion. But religion alone with no Biblical foundation will not maintain morality.
Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
Free man, I appreciate your concern but when George Washington said religion, he meant Christianity and even more specifically Reformed, Protestant Christianity. The Bible is essential, being understood as the basis of the Christian faith.
Atheism cannot produce any sort of consistent morality. It lacks a both a stable frame of reference and an authority that stands above the individual himself. What morality it does have is only a residue of previous religious influence.
On "Atheism cannot produce any sort of consistent morality." You're just parrotting the christian myth. Read the book I suggested above as it totally disproves this myth.
On the concept of "an authority that stands above the individual himself", that's the authoritarian model, the anti-thesis of libertarianism. It's also the cornerstone of all organized religions used to control the masses.
I've read several authors on theological and philosphical subjects and feel I have a good grasp of the principles involved. But we can't interact in this sort of forum by asking each other to read books. If we can't deal with principles, we probably can't interact at all.
I don't see how you can think atheism can produce a consistent morality when it can't supply any absolutes. Because man is what he is, he lives in a constant state of flux. Each generation and even each individual feels perfectly free to establish a new set of moral standards. This should be obvious from the most cursory glance at history. It should also be obvious that moral standards have changed over time. They are not what they were a century ago and there's no telling what they'll be a century from now.
Christianity has the Bible, a book that has not changed for thousands of years, a book furthermore that claims divine authorship. It is the word of the God that created the world and everything in it. Now, I realize you don't believe that now but putting aside all the powerful arguments in support of the premise, many people do believe it and that is the key. So long as the Bible is believed by a sufficiently large segment of the population, it provides a restraining influence on man's tendency to move away from the moral standards it embodies, standards that formed the basis for western civilization and kept it relatively intact for two millennia.
I won't tell you what books you should read but if you've any interest in investigating what the other side has to say, here's a website you could visit:
Absolutes are not necessary for morals. Every society develops rules, either written or unwritten, for how members should behave between each other. These rules are the society's morals. What's interesting is how much common ground there is between different societies' morals (which was the basis for the creation and study of common law). One of the really interesting points of UPB theory is that you can logically test each rule to see if it is a UPB. You can easily prove that not stealing is a UPB and that the christian god's command in the bible to put to the sword all non-believers is not a UPB.
What's really ironic is praising a book that instructs it's followers to commit attrocites (ex: parents must stone to death their daughter if she's not virgin for her wedding) and is filled with contradictions as a source of morals.
Luckily our society will not tolerate true christian behaviour (as defined by the bible). Unfortunately it does tolerate the hypocritical, pseudo christians (the smorgasbord variety that pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to believe is their god's word, while claiming it all is).
Roy as christians we are no longer under such a strict law. You said "parents must stone to death their daughter if she's not virgin for her wedding". This law was instituded in the phase of mosaic law. The reasoning behind such harsh penalties has probably never been completely clear to us. God had a very distinct purpose to create a pure and moral people and that is the best reason we have that he laid out such harsh penalties.
Christ brought to us a new perspective. He said himself that he didn't come to destroy mosaic law but to fulfill it. In doing so, he gave us a new view of attacking immorality at its root. In the mind. In the days of Moses it was simple, "thou shall not kill". But christ tells us to attack that in our minds. Do not have anger towards your brother because anger would lead to hatred and eventually murder. He brought us a moral foundation to attack the beginnigs of immorality in our minds. Ulitmatly he iterated that the highest law of God was to serve no other god but equal to that law was the golden rule to love thy neighbor as thyself. Because if you loved everyone as you wanted to be loved acts of immorality would seldom occur.
Now imagine a society that believed in this law. This law of loving everyone as themselves. When you can imagine that you are imagining the very society that existed in the 17th and 18th century here in America. They agreed on principle. They agreed on Christ's principle and in doing so it brought forth the fruit thereof. Arguably the greatest nation to ever exist. America
Without God and the absolutes God gives us, morals are in a perpetual state of flux. They change with the mood or wishes of anyone powerful enough to enforce his will on those around him. Also, we have moral anarchy; each individual can decide for himself what is right and what is wrong. As Robert Winthrop put it, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet." When faith in God constrains men to abide by His unchanging code of ethics, they can be free. Without that faith, man’s innate desire to better his own condition, regardless of the consequences to his neighbor, necessitates the imposition of societal constraints and freedom is lost.
The society described in the Bible is dependent on faith in God. Any public compromise of that faith constitutes treason and carries the death penalty. The family is the primary institute of society and crimes against the family, such as adultery, are also treasonous. In our society, the state is primary and crimes against the state are considered treason and carry the death penalty. The case you cite is a woman who lied about her lack of virginity, which demonstrated her disregard for the family and for the law of God, the law that holds society together. It wasn’t just a slip, a slight deviation, on her part. She would have known the seriousness of the sin she had committed and, had she admitted the fault prior to agreeing to the marriage, the penalty would have been much less severe. But in going through with the marriage commitment she declared herself to be a rebel against God, God’s law and the institution of marriage. She was a cancer in the body of society that had to be removed before the infection spread. This law, if prosecuted consistently, would probably have resulted in very few executions and would have led to a far more virtuous and healthy society than the one we live in today.
I3roken,
As a Christian, you should realize that the God that gave the law through Moses is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not change and every word He speaks is for our good. Christ said in Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The only law He could possibly have been referring to was the law of Moses. It is not only not obsolete but it gives us our marching orders as to how to be salt and light in a dark and putrefying world.
"Now imagine a society that believed ... this law of loving everyone as themselves. When you can imagine that you are imagining the very society that existed in the 17th and 18th century here in America."
Is that the society that existed? I could have sworn that 17th & 18th century society believed in liberty & equality so long as you were a white decendant of Europe. All others were either 3/5 a citizen living in slavery, or they were savages subjected to genocide. And for the truly immoral createns who lived then just like they still live now, these were subjects whom they could rape, murder, abuse, and pillage outside of the scope of the law.
I think when people claim that our society is descending into moral decay, they're either ignoring or revising history. The fact is that we've never ascended to widespread morality, but in most respects we are much further along now than we ever have been. Humanity as a whole has battled with morality for its entire existence, and even many of those who claim to follow the Bible aren't exempt from the fight now nor have they ever been. Morality doesn't come from a book. Morality comes from the conscience. And it's in each persons hands to decide how they conduct themselves.
I'm just going to list a few examples here, as the list of morality could go on and on. But do you feel enough guilt by the thought of it to keep yourself from harming another to include theft, abuse, rape, slander, or murder? When you have a moment of poor judgement and commit an immoral offense, are you filled with shame and guilt? Do you feel sadness for those who are subjected to injustice by others?
These aren't feelings that are taught to us by a book. They are innate in the vast marjority of us. Those who don't hold these feelings suffer from some level of sociopathic disorder. And I don't believe for one minute that my subjection to Christianity had anything to do with these feelings that overwhelmingly force me to treat others as I'd want to be treated. They are a combination of human instinct and a nurturing upbringing.
Proof of this can be found in primitive societies who have had little exposure to western civilization. They hold their own religions that explain the unexplainable and define social rules, but that's just a natural progression of any civilized society. And even more convincingly it can be found in nature. There are many other species who live socially, bound by innate rules, and it took no book to explain to them how they should treat their brothers & sisters in order to live peacefully within their social structure.
There always has been and there always will be an element of immorality in society. The only question is to what level do we allow it?
I would argue that we are much further advanced in morality now than we were in the 17th & 18th centuries, especially in the US. Our arguments of morality are now largely about issues that don't even affect anyone but the persons involved - drug use, homosexuality, consensual sexual deviance, atheism, etc... There is no longer slavery & persecution in this country. No segment of society is subjected to gross injustice. We solve our disagreements in large part through disussion, not violence. You might call bull on this statement, but it is absolutely true.
Our murder rate per capita is lower today than it was from about 1920 - 1942 and again from about 1970-1990. It's impossible to compare this in earlier centuries, as stats weren't widely recorded. Additionally, in contrast to the claims that Christianity binds us morally, murder & crime rates when compared across modern countries correlate very closely with poverty, education and incarceration rates, and most our secular friends in Europe & Asia (including China) beat us on most every point. You would think that a society with as much liberty and "morality" as ours would also put a higher regard on education, advancement of the disadvantaged, and rehabilitation of disadvantaged, non-violent criminals. Unfortunately, we fall short to most other wealthy nations on all of these marks, and thus our crime rates and levels of "moral deviance" are higher as well.
All I can say to your last post is that I am absolutely thankful that we don\'t live in a Christian theocracy where something as simple as premarital sex would be a capital offense, or even a criminal offense at all. Not a day goes by that I don\'t think about the atrocities of the Taliban and Islamofascist rule and give thanks to our forefathers for having the foresight to setup the Constitution as a secular document, taking great care to not mention god or Christianity once, and using the word religion only once to state \"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States.\" And then they took the same care again to only once use it in the Bill of Rights to state \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\"
This has left it very clear for our courts and leadership that the intent of the founding fathers was to create a nation free of religious law, religious leadership or religious persecution, where anyone could freely practice their religiion of choice or no religion at all, and not be subjected to laws mandated by any religion.
And that is what is so great about this country. That is true freedom.
Thanks for your comment. Much of what you say is very true but it seems we have had substantially different teachers, particularly history teachers. You believe as you do and I as I because of the differences in our respective backgrounds.
I agree with your statement "that we've never ascended to widespread morality" but not because we have been held back. Mankind is not inherently good but rather, is inclined to evil, in the sense that each individual is out to improve his welfare as against that of others. To deny this is to deny what is obvious to the most casual observer. Do you believe that these politicians now in office are ther to benefit society as oppsed to getting as much as they can for themselves while they can? If so, you are a fool and are deluding yourself. If you agree, then my point is made. They are no different from the rest of us. If we're honest, we must say we would do the same were we in their place.
So where do honesty and justice come from? It is not from within us, that is painfully clear. It is from a book; the book we call the Bible is the unique source from which these virtues spring. It tells us we are to love one another, even our enemies, that we are not to steal or kill or testify falsely or even harbor in our hearts jealousy for our neighbors wealth. This book differs from all other books because it is the word of the one who created the universe, this world and each one of us. We, our original parents, decided they didn't need God or his book and could get along in this world without him. They thought they could decide for themselves what was good and what was evil, what was right and what was wrong and we have been doing so ever since. The result has been continual war and strife, men slaughtering one another in an effort to get as much as they can for themselves throughout all of history.
Contrary to what you have been taught, the Christianity of Western Civilization has been the one source of philosophy that has operated counter to this self-centered human nature we all share. In particular the Puritan Calvinism that founded this country has resulted in the most good for the most people the world has ever seen. Why? Because they accepted the word of God at face value and attempted to implement his laws as their rule of life. They didn't do so perfectly, far from it but even so they accomplished much. This country was "Colombia, the gem of the ocean" and people from everywhere flocked to her shores for the freedom and prosperity she offered.
It was the Bible and the law of God within it that made the difference, that differentiated us from the rest of the world. But now, in our great, recently acquired wisdom, we've decided to throw all that away and to go back and wallow in the ignorance of our pagan forefathers. If we persist, we will suffer the consequences. This civilization we now enjoy cannot continue to exist without the faith that brought it into existence to begin with.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
