To hear so many public figures, or even ordinary people who publicly sound their opinions, say it, many might answer “yes” to the above question. So many people, on all sides of any issue, see so many wrongs in a country, including ours, that need to be corrected. It seems to be the fashion these days, indeed, the fashion throughout the ages, to seek solution to moral and social ills in reason and in legislation. We humans tend to look to the source of power for the righting of wrongs; usually, that source of power, intended for the preservation of truth and justice (when Superman is not available, of course), is the government. We go to the halls of legislation and law enforcement to right social and moral wrongs. In doing so continually, we are demonstrating the great confusion we have over (1) the purpose and capability of government and (2) the cause of moral and social problems.

I have discussed these two issues extensively on this blog, so I will not go into these issues presently. Instead, I will focus on answering the original question: “Can legislation and reason change America’s moral climate?”

I choose to answer this question, by presenting to my readers a parable, in the form of a dream that Benjamin Rush had in September of 1808, which he related in a letter to his good friend John Adams in that same month. Benjamin Rush was deeply concerned about the effects of alcoholism on the American populace, especially after observing how one of his patients had abused it. This moral pestilence troubled him deeply, and followed him into his sleep. Hence the dream:

After having recently observed the fatal effects of intemperance in the use of ardent spirits in one of my patients, and reflecting afterwards upon the incalculable evils they are spreading through our country, I went to bed a few evenings ago at my usual hour, and during the night I dreamed that I had been elected President of the United States [may I insert here, that Dr. Rush was a very humble man?*]. At first I objected to accepting of the high and honorable station [See? What did I tell you?], but upon recollecting that it would give me an opportunity of exercising my long-cherished hostility to ardent spirits by putting an end to their general use in our country, I consented to accept the appointment and repaired to the city of Washington where I entered upon the duties with spirit and zeal.

The secretaries brought me a number of letters and reports. I laid them upon a table and told them I would do no business until I got a law passed by Congress to prohibit not only the importation and distilling but the consumption of ardent spirits in the United States and counties in which spirits were consumed in the greatest quantities. Petitions flowed in upon me from all quarters to advise Congress to repeal the law, but I refused to comply with them.

One day sitting alone in my council chamber, a venerable but plain-looking man was introduced to me by one of my servants. I offered him a chair and delicately asked him what his business was with me. “I have taken the liberty,” said he, “Mr. President, to call upon you to remonstrate with you against the law for prohibiting the importation, manufactory, and consumption of ardent spirits. He said the law was well enough for a month or two, during which time all the drunken men had become sober, but, protracted as it was for nearly a year, it did such violence to the physical and commercial habits of our citizens that it had not and could not be carried into general effect; that many of the persons who had conformed to it had been sick form drinking nothing but cold water; that the plow and the wagon stood still from the want of that strength in the men which they formerly derived from their morning dram; that the stage drivers and coachmen everywhere fell from their seats from the same cause; that the clergy in many places were unable to preach and the lawyers to plead from the want of a little grog to moisten and oil their organs of speech; that women everywhere became unusually peevish and quarrelsome from a relaxation of their nerves brought on by the want of a little brandy in their tea; and that all the West India merchants, distillers, and tavern-keepers in the country were in an uproar; and that unless the water and small beer law were instantly repealed, we should soon have our country filled with hospitals and our jails with bankrupts.”

“Hold, sir,” said I. “You don’t know the people of the United States as well as I do; they will submit to the empire of Reason, and Reason will soon reconcile them to the restrictions and privations of the law for sobering and moralizing our citizens.”

“Reason! Reason! Mr. President. Why, you forget that it was Reason in the form of a Goddess that produced all the crimes and calumnies of the French Revolution, and that it was by a book entitled The Age of Reason that Tom Paine demoralized half the Christian world. You forget too that men are rational only, not reasonable creatures. … But Mr. President … permit me to mention an empire of another kind to which men everywhere are yield a willing, and in some instances, involuntary, submission, and that is the Empire of Habit. You might as well well arrest the orbs [planets] of heaven in their course as suddenly change the habits of a whole people. Even in little things they resist sudden innovations upon their ancient and general customs. Peter, the husband of the late Catherine of Russia, lost his life for an attempt to change a part of the dress of his subjects. The inhabitants of Madrid once rose in a mob to oppose an edict which was intended to compel them to use privies in order to prevent the accumulation of night soil in their streets. An hundred other instances might be mentioned of the fatal or mischievous consequences of opposing the settled habits and prejudices of nations and communities.

“Indeed, Mr. President, I am sorry to tell you, you are no more a philosopher than you are of a politician, or you never would have blundered upon your spirit law. Let me advise you to retire from your present station and go back to your professor’s chair and amuse your boys with your idle and impracticable speculations, or go among your patients and dose them with calomel and jalap [internal medical purges] –”

“Stop, stop, sir,” said I. “What do you mean by thus insulting the First Magistrate of your country? Here, John (calling to my servant), turn this man out of doors.” The noise of John coming hastily into the council chamber, and the vexation I felt in being thus insulted, awoke me and made me happy in discovering that the whole of the scene that I have described was nothing but a dream.”
Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration of Independence, by David Barton, pages 153-156; cites Letters of Benjamin Rush (edited by Lyman Butterfield), volume 2, pages 977-979
*DISCLAIMER: It is not the intention of the author to be sarcastic, but the styling of Rush’s words here prompted him, and said author could not resist inserting a little humor. Said author does indeed believe in the humble character of Doctor Benjamin Rush.

There is a lesson that can be learned from this. Rush saw a legitimate problem, and he cared about it enough to try to fix it, as much as was within his power. His solution came through the means of strict legislation, that was sure, he thought, to stamp out the problem (liquor) once and for all. He was convinced that the people of America would “submit to the empire of Reason” — that they would see the wisdom in such legislation, and would jump on the bandwagon of anti-alcoholism, “President Rush”-style. This, of course, did not seem to happen. Such was the complaint among the people, that Congress was flooded with petitions, and “President Rush” was himself personally visited by one of the protectors. This anonymous visitor seems to have taken less concern for the moral health of the nation than for other things; and he did not seem to argue very strongly in support of his view, until he argued that men are more creatures of habit than creatures of logic.

This was his unshakable point. It is a point that we Christians especially seem to miss in so many of our efforts to reclaim our culture and win the hearts and souls of our fellow-men. We think that it will only take reason and the arm of the law to at least preserve the corps of what is long-dead. We try to work up and to manufacture what only the Holy Spirit can do with willing and obedient vessels. As I wrote recently, our refusal to learn this lesson is reaping bitter fruit. Let us learn it and apply it while we still have time.

Thanks for reading Founding Father’s Quote Friday! If you would like to participate in the weekly meme, visit this link, and write me a comment, with a link to your blog, letting me know that you participate. If you participated today, leave a comment with a link to your FFQF post below! Thank you!

After an absence from this blog, and from my own meme “Founding Father’s Quote Friday,” I now resume my pen typewriter. I also apologize (do I do that more than I blog, I wonder?) to my readers and to FFQF participants. My absence was the result of necessity.

Today, we pose the question “Does one size fit all?” Meaning, “Is one form of government appropriate to all kinds of peoples, nations, societies, cultures, and so forth?” It seems ridiculous at first to think so, because all people are different; but it seems that it is viewed as unpatriotic these days to say that the United States Constitution, or ‘democracy,’ is not going to work for all people.

Let’s see what Founder Alexander Hamilton had to say about this:

… I hold, with Montesquieu, that a government must be fitted to a nation as much as a coat to and individual; and consequently, what may be good at Philadelphia [the unofficial United States capitol at the time], may be bad at Paris, and ridiculous at Petersburg [then capitol of Russia].
To Marquis de Lafayette, January 6th, 1801

We are told that all people have an inner desire for freedom (which is true), and that therefore all people should experience political freedom no matter what their beliefs, culture, or moral standards.

While this is a nice sentiment, and one would naturally hope that this could be realized, it is a sad impossibility. Only those who are capable of governing themselves in such a way that is consistent with the order, peace, and protection of society, can sustain any form of popular government.

I will no doubt be accused of bigotry by saying this, but it is truth nonetheless. Only the moral standards of God, who created man, are fit to govern man sufficiently and properly. God has made it clear that His word has been revealed to us in the form of the Holy Scriptures. If you have any doubts about this, I would suggest that you research the facts, internal and external. Some of the greatest internal evidences that have convinced me personally of the Scriptures’ superhuman origin are the scientific and medical facts which were hidden within the passages of the Bible, some of which have been discovered only during this past century. Ray Comfort has listed these facts in his book Scientific Facts in the Bible, available at Amazon.com. Another evidence is the Bible codes. Good reads on this subject include Dr. Chuck Missler’s The Cosmic Codes, and W. E. Filmer’s book God Counts. There are many other evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and supernatural origin, but these two categories of evidence are totally mind-blowing.

Free government has worked in America as long as America has respected and observed those standards. When she departed, she departed from her origins of civic freedom as well. Now, we need politicians to look out for us, and protect us from ourselves. Such is the price a nation pays for deserting its own good by deserting God’s law.

In a day and age when our society embraces moral relativism and religious relativism, in a day and age when these demented philosophies have produced more major problems than we seem to be able to grapple with, and in a day and age that refuses to turn to God in the midst of escalating licentiousness and decadence, the words of our wise forefathers need so much to be considered and applied.

It is now several months since I promised to give you my reasons for preferring the Bible as a schoolbook to all other compositions. Before I state my arguments, I shall assume the five following propositions:

1 . That Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy.

2. That a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the Bible than in any other way.

…

Every just principle that is to be found in the writings of Voltaire is borrowed from the Bible; and the morality of Deists, which has been so much admired and praised where it has existed, has been, I believe, in most cases, the effect of habits produced by early instruction in the principles of Christianity.

Benjamin Rush, A Defense of the Use of the Bible in Public Schools

Why then, if these books for children must be retained, as they will be, should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.

Fisher Ames, Essay on School Books (1801)

Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college — its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? What is there to prevent a work, not sectarian, upon the general evidences of Christianity, from being read and taught in the college by lay-teachers? … Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety, industry, so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the sacred volume?

Chief-Justice Joseph Story, Opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844)

Beginning with this month, I have decided to stop issuing monthly themes for the Founding Fathers’ Quote Friday meme. My reason for this is simply, it will make it easier for bloggers to participate, and encourage other bloggers to become participants (hopefully). There is the possibility that inspiration will strike me and I will issue a certain theme accordingly; however, I don’t plan on regularly issuing themes.

Today, I would like to quote from one of my most favorite Founders — George Washington. I think that he is, without dispute, the greatest of them all. The other Founders had their fine qualities, and I think that most all of them were men of worthy character, but they all knew that Washington surpassed them in virtue. Too bad our countrymen do not judge public personages by the same measure anymore.

One of Washington’s amazing qualities, which shone through especially during his turbulent presidency, was his astounding ability to stay aloof of party disputes. He was not “undecided,” so to speak; in principle, he was a staunch Federalist. However, he did not allow himself as a personal individual to be defined by political parties and factions. And because he won the respect and admiration of all, most everyone (save the handful of rascals who could not have cared less about principle) respected that in Washington.

So when Washington prepared to exit the Presidency, and public life forever, he prepared an address to encourage and warn his countrymen. He prepared this chiefly with the help of Alexander Hamilton, who had been Washington’s right-hand-man since the War for Independence. Hamilton, although the virtual founder of the Federalist Party and its outspoken leader, has been considered to be an unwavering partisan; but his record shows that he agreed Washington that political battles should be defined by core principles, not party lines.

Here are the words of Washington to our nation:

Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
(emphasis added)

Does this sound familiar to anybody?

People, when we stop putting our trust in God, we automatically put our trust in man. In a nation such as ours, with a “popular government,” where the people get involved in their political system, if there is not a general trust in God, and a living conviction that God’s principles ought to be followed, then trust will be put in a political figure. Since not all people agree in everything, the people will be divided into their respective factions, and trust in the leader of their faction to “save” them.

I don’t care if that leader says he’s a Christian, a conservative, or pro-life. Even if he is all those things in principle, we ought not to put our trust in him. That is what we did with George W. Bush, and with several presidents before him. Of course, it turned out that he was neither of those things, and our liberties were wrecked in the process. He was a prime example of a person who wears the name-brands of all the good things, but was just a partisan, and not guided by principle.

We can’t afford to make that mistake again.

Be careful with your wording. Religion and morality are two very different things.

We don’t need a supernatural being to make us be good citizens and make moral choices. You must take responsibility and choose to be a moral person – it is much more genuine than someone making those sort of life decisions just to appease a higher being. I often wonder if religious people would still be “good” if they were to find out that there really isn’t a god (or gods, etc.)

As far as religion goes – keep your religion (by all means – it’s your freedom to enjoy), but also keep your religion out of my laws (it’s my country too). Laws are meant to govern a population so as not to oppress those and allow us all to live without fear of discrimination, unwarranted cruelty and/or threat to our lives and health. Religious-based laws often end up doing the opposite (don’t even get me started on this one).

So, in summary – freedom, love and equality for all (not just straight, Christian men and the women that agree with them). It’s that easy – if your religion doesn’t agree with that you must ask yourself where has your religion gone wrong?

I wrote back a rather lengthy response, in order to do this discussion a fair amount of justice (though I could have gone on longer). I do wish people would leave some kind of a name, so I could be more polite and have something more formal to address them with, rather than just “Anonymous.” I decided that it would be better if I made my response a post, rather than such a long comment. Here is that response:

Hello Anonymous. Welcome to my blog, and thanks for reading and leaving your comment.

I agree with you that religion and morality are two distinct things, but I also believe, along with John Adams and George Washington, that morality, on a nation-wide scale, depends upon the influence of religion (since they were speaking in an 18th-century American context, they would have been referring to Christianity in general — no other religion was accepted as valid in America at that time).

Since you seem to disagree with this premise, let me lay before you the following facts:

(1) Man is not inherently good. Oh yes, he has a conscience, and I agree with you that even those who are not religious can make moral choices on their own. The Bible itself tells us this in Romans 2:14-15. However, George Washington boldly declared in his Farewell Address: “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.” In other words, while we may acknowledge that certain individuals may enlighten their minds, and act reasonably, rationally, and morally, societies and nations have not done this often enough or consistently enough throughout history, or even today, for us to trust that man, without accountability to a Higher Power, will do, or even know, what is right on his own.

(2) Please note that you are not just arguing with me on this subject. You are arguing with George Washington (quoted above), John Adams (quoted in the above post), Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and even Benjamin Franklin (read his scalding letter to Thomas Paine here). I’m not saying that these men were infallible; however, they did possess a lot of wisdom and virtuous character (recall that Washington has been called “the eighth wonder of the world” for his virtue) — enough to found the greatest and freest republic the world has ever known. So, you’d think that their words, not spoken off a whim, but rather, in solemn declarations to the public, would have some considerable weight.

To answer your statement: “You must take responsibility and choose to be a moral person – it is much more genuine than someone making those sort of life decisions just to appease a higher being. I often wonder if religious people would still be “good” if they were to find out that there really isn’t a god (or gods, etc.)”

I think you have a misunderstanding of how religion, or, I should say Christianity, works. Most world religions operate through fear or brainwashing to get people to be good and moral. Christianity, as the Bible defines it, is the work of God in a willing and repentant heart. By renouncing sin, turning from it, and to Jesus Christ and His righteousness, God gives us a new heart. Our appetite is no longer for sin or for the passing pleasures of immorality; God gives us a hunger for Him, and changes us. We act out of willing and grateful obedience for His forgiveness — out of love. Any goodness that Christians may perform is genuine because it is voluntary.

Think about this also: people may want to do right. They may go through all the hoops and hurdles, but there still is a problem. How do you know that everything you do is moral? Who decides what is and is not moral? Now, we may not dispute over things like murder, but how about covetousness? How about adultery? How about little lies? Some people may think those things are not very bad, while others are convinced they are. The truth is, that, they ultimately harm others and harm society. In a free society especially, such things have much bigger consequences.

Consider this also: why does morality matter? I mean, if there is no God, why bother? “Immoral actions hurt other people; that’s why it matters.” True, but how can you possibly tell what will hurt other people? And haven’t you noticed the strange tendency people have to justify the “small” wrong things they do saying “No one will know” or “it won’t hurt anybody”?

Once again, certain individuals may act upon these considerations, but this is not common, since humans are inherently selfish and short-sighted. Therefore, to entrust morals on a nation-wide scale to simple discretion is very dangerous, as Washington was quoted above as arguing.

You say to keep my religion out of your laws. Please define. It’s one thing to force others to convert to my religion, or profess certain creeds from my religion, by using the force of civil law. I am not attempting to do that, and I am not aware of any Christians who are.

But if it is moral laws that we are urging, based on our religious convictions, sorry — our Founders did that before we did. They outlawed sodomy, polygamy, forbade gambling, etc etc out of their own Christian principles. So what Christians want to say, pass laws banning abortion? First of all, it’s not a religious law. It’s a moral law (i. e., killing innocent life is morally wrong), and our belief that abortion is wrong (just like we believe murder, theft, etc is wrong) is based in our Christian beliefs. Maybe you don’t agree with Christianity, but if you have any real sense of morals, why would you object to such legislation? And how does that “religion-based” law hurt people? Maybe you should turn off the major news networks and do some studying.

You say that “laws are meant to govern a population so as not to oppress those and allow us all to live without fear of discrimination …”

It’s a bit hard for me to tell exactly what you are saying here, because I am assuming there is a part after “oppress those” which is missing. So my question is “‘those’ who?”

But let me say this: laws are indeed meant to discriminate. They are meant to discriminate criminals from the innocent, to lay down the difference between what is right and what is wrong in society.

The obvious question then is, “What is the ultimate standard between right and wrong?” If the rulers are left to themselves to decide, they very likely will make those decisions arbitrarily.

Having learned this lesson from history, our Founders set out to establish “a government by law, and not a government of men,” to use John Adams’ wording. But let me ask you this: without God, all law and all authority must ultimately trace to man. And therefore, all morality, all standards of right and wrong, would be the arbitrary dictates of man — usually the man/men with the most power.

Can you please tell me how you can get a government of law without God? I have asked this question to other atheists, and they have been unable to answer. Maybe you can help me, if you have any answer to this.

Today we will hear from an address which President John Adams gave to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Massachusetts Militia, on October 11, 1798:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.

But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising [sic] iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government 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 was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. … Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government. Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (edited by Charles Francis Adams), volume 10, pages 227-228.

He does not come out and say it, but their need be no doubt that he is making the point that our Constitution cannot successfully govern us without religion and morality in the people, both in those who administer the government (since they are bound by their sacred oaths of office), and by the populace (since the amount of civil government needed to govern society will rely wholly upon their moral principles and habits, or lack thereof).

I think we too easily forget this truth — even we who are informed on these matters. Tyranny is a horrible thing, but it is the price that a nation pays for its own depravity. Our Constitution no longer binds us, or governs us, because, as Alexander Hamilton warned, we have become “old and corrupt,” and are no longer “young and virtuous.” (1)

I regret to say that all our attempts to reinstate the Constitution through legal and other means, even if successful, would be in vain. Why is this? To echo Adams: “Our Constitution is WHOLLY INADEQUATE to govern a people that is not religious and moral.” We are not, as a people, religious and virtuous. Even the Christian Church of this country is not, as a majority, religious and virtuous — at least, not in the true and biblical sense. Whether we realize it or not, we have taken on a very, very deceptive form of humanism, and by being like the culture, have become like the rotten meat, and not the salt and the light.

Do I suggest that we take our country back by force of arms? No. It is much too late for that.

Beyond the fact that our forms of resistance, humanly speaking, are far too inferior for us to stand the slightest chance, it would only aggravate the evil passions which dominate our nation now. I think Hamilton put it best: “[T]he passions of revolution are apt to hurry even good men into excesses.” (2)

I think we tend to take terms like “war” and “revolution” a bit to lightly; after seeing the approaching horrors of tyranny, we are quick to revert to the Jeffersonian saying that

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. … what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” (3)

We easily ignore or forget, as Jefferson apparently did, the dearer cost than lives that war, particularly revolt, demands: innocence. Liberty is not preserved by the people struggling continually with their government; liberty is preserved by the people struggling to maintain virtue. War, and especially revolution, does anything but encourage virtue. On the contrary, it brings out the very worst in human nature. And when a nation revolts, it casts off the established authority, however excessive its power may have been, that once kept the people in check. At the same time, those who are most revolutionary (i. e., those who would cast off all control and all restraint) usually dominate revolutions and revolts. The outcome of such revolutions? Anarchy, and then another (usually more oppressive) form of despotism. Remember the French Revolution.

Every other revolution and revolt has had this fate — except the American Revolution. And the reason for our victory was not due to luck, or to our superior principles. I don’t even think that we could rightly say that American virtue insured its success. Rather, it was the hand and blessing of God. But as Washington said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.” (4)

What then, is to be done? A Great Awakening is needed to shake the Christian Church away from the things of this world that have deceived her, and bring her back to Christ. But such an awakening will have to be brought on by more than just supernatural manifestations — it seems that the Church has idolized the spiritual in place of the Spirit, and has sought for the manifestations of God’s power, and not sought the powerful God. When we realize that even the gifts of God will profit us nothing apart from God, then we shall begin the road toward true revival.

To wake the American church out of her Laodicean apathy, however, there may have to come times of severe tribulation. Perhaps only then will she realize that she is poor, blind, and naked, and only then will she run to Christ, and receive from Him heavenly riches, eye salve, and unblemished garments (Revelation 3:14-22).

After the call to revival has gone forth, and those who have ears to hear have heard and obeyed, and those who have hard hearts will fall away, the great possibility is that then Christ will receive His Church. Maranatha!

Again today, we examine our theme of “moral authority.” Our goal, once again, is to solicit the Founding Fathers on the question of “What is the foundation for morality?”

Today, we will hear from George Washington. He is definitely a fitting person to hear on this subject, as he has been called “the Eighth Wonder of the World” for his sterling virtue. Surely he can at least give us a few pointers as to the authority for moral standards. Here are his words, taken from his First Inaugural Address, of advice to the new American nation:

By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President “to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given.

… [T]here is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

I need not add anything; Washington said it all.

Last week we discussed the necessity of religious principle in the people of the republic in order for it to remain free. To use the words from last week’s quote: “Does [morality] require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative religion?”

It is here that we run into a little dilemma, however. Our modern minds read statements like this, and we are mislead into believing that this statement does not discriminate between certain religions. The use of the term “religion,” in our modern dictionaries, is far more general than its use by our American Founders. Here is the modern definition of the term:

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

But that is not how our Founders defined “religion” when they spoke of it in most cases. To illustrate, here is the definition of “religion” from Noah Webster’s 1828 American-English Dictionary:

1. Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man’s obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.

As most modern dictionaries, the most common use of a term is listed first; hence the number “1″ at the beginning of this paragraph. And then, in descending order, the lesser-used terms are listed. Let’s see what they are:

2. Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1.

Please notice that he uses as his authority for his definition, the Epistle of James 1, in the Bible. No doubt Webster was referring to the portion of that chapter which reads: “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

3. Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.

And then, like many modern dictionaries, he uses a sentence to illustrate in the mind of his readers, the full sense of this definition. Lo and behold, he uses this sentence, from Washington’s “Farewell Address”:

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

This sheds tremendous light upon the definition of “religion” used in this important declaration. With that in mind, let us now paraphrase Washington’s statement for the modern American reader:

Let us be very careful lest we suppose that a nation that neglects the duties it owes to God (that is, the duties which He Himself has revealed to us and commanded us) can still preserve its morality.

And here are the last two definitions of “religion” given by Webster. In his time, these would have been the definitions least used when Americans used the term “religion”:

4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, &c. as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion.

5. The rites of religion; in the plural.

How curious that the least used sense of the term has become the most-used definition today!

So, to answer our dilemma, with this information in mind, let us turn to Benjamin Rush:

The form of government we have assumed has created a new class of duties to every American. It becomes us, therefore … to enquire [sic] what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper instruction of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed [sic] inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament. …

All its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society and the safety and well being of civil government. A Christian cannot fail of being a republican. … for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness which are directly opposed to the pride of monarchy and the pageantry of a [king's] court. A Christian cannot fail of being useful to the republic, for his religion teacheth him that no man “liveth to himself” [Romans 14:7]. And lastly, a Christian cannot fail of being wholly inoffensive, for his religion teacheth him in all things to do to others what he would wish in like circumstances they should do to him [Matthew 7:12].

On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic (1798); quote from Benjamin Rush: Signer of the Declaration, by David Barton (1999), pp. 45-46

In the last three months, our FFQF meme has explored the themes of liberty, virtue, and the importance of motherhood, and by following that order we have been systematically exploring the ultimate foundations upon which the American form of government rests.

All this talk of liberty (as a just form of government), virtue (as the ultimate life-blood of liberty), and motherhood (as one of the most effective means to preserve and inculcate virtue into society, and pass it on to the succeeding generations) brings up the fundamental question: what is virtue? What is the authority that determines what is right and what is wrong? Do universal absolutes even exist? This meme will explore how our wise Founding Fathers answered these questions. We will also read some of their warnings to us, their posterity, concerning this vital issue.

To start off, we will hear from Alexander Hamilton (you probably guessed I’d quote him again). He was not one to mince words on the subject:

In all those dispositions which promote political happiness, religion and morality are essential props. In vain does he claim the praise of patriotism, who labors to subvert or undermine these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest foundations of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public happiness.

Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation deserts the oaths which are administered in courts of justice? Nor ought we to flatter ourselves that morality can be separated from religion. Concede as much as may be asked to the effect of refined education in minds of peculiar structure, can we believe, can we in prudence suppose, that national morality can be maintained in exclusion of religious principles? Does it not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative religion?

It is essentially true that virtue or morality is a main and necessary spring of popular or republican governments. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to all free governments. Who that is a prudent and sincere friend to them, can look with indifference on the ravages which are making in the foundation of the fabric — religion? The uncommon means which of late have been directed to this fatal end, seem to make it in a particular manner the duty of a retiring chief of a nation to warn his country against tasting of the poisonous draught [sic].Draft of Farewell Address for President George Washington (1796)

While this was a draft of Washington’s Farewell Address, and therefore, Hamilton was expressing the President’s views, Hamilton shared them very much. (And besides, if he had not, Washington would not have selected him to do the writing.) This portion of Hamilton’s draft harped on a theme that Hamilton had been emphasizing over the last several years, as the new philosophy of radical humanism promoted via the French Revolution divided America. Hamilton’s warnings to America are very fitting for today:

Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion. …

The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulchre destined to entomb all they revere and esteem. The politician who loves liberty, sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted. He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original)
The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

That flies in the face of everything our culture has accepted. If Hamilton thought that he was stating radical ideas then, he was certainly writing radical ideas for our time. But radical or not, they are true.