Why Our Economy Failed, and Our Culture Is on a Downturn

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States, Signer of the Declaration of Independence.

John Adams gave us the skeleton key to unlock all of the mysteries surrounding the maladies facing our nation and our culture. Men are born to be free. The bible says, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1 NIV). The key to this verse is that Paul is speaking directly to Christians, and the verse pertains only to those who have accepted Christ as their Savior.

In Genesis 9, God establishes the governmental covenant with mankind. From that point on Man was to govern himself. Throughout history this governance has played out in the form of a despot, monarch, or totalitarian regime. When our nation was founded, it was founded on the principle that "We The People" could effectively govern ourselves. We would be a nation ruled by law not by men. It was the most brilliant system ever devised, but it has one fatal flaw.

The flaw is that it can only work as long as the people collectively agree to follow the laws; which are nothing more than an agreed upon minimum set of morals. Our system cannot handle immorality. The occasion law breaker will assert himself, and when he does, the systems survival depends upon that person being brought to justice by others representatives of the people who are more upright and care about the system. But what happens when those law breakers are not brought to justice?

The answer, as it is playing out in our economy, is that more and more lawbreakers begin to find opportunity. Once this begins to happen, good and upright individuals must act swiftly, if they do not, then they will be over run.

The ultimate conclusion to all of this is morality, even a minimum morality, cannot be agreed upon because the hearts of man are wicked. With out a source of ultimate morality, morals become subjective and relative to the point where no one can agree on a set of conduct.

Our economy and our culture are both doomed for failure and civil war. It is a conclusion that is inevitable. Our leaders are either unable or unwilling to bring to justice those who have disenfranchised there very people they were elected to protect. We protest to deaf ears. Our calls and letter means nothing, and come election time, we are forced to try to discern the lesser of the evils.

When a culture deserts God's law and tries to make its own, it runs into the unchangeable problem of subjective morality. John Adams gave us a direct warning that we have not headed. The real tragedy is that WE are the government in this country. A government simply reflects the will of its people. If many of us are honest, we are upset that government did not protect us from ourselves. The answer to the question, "what is wrong with our country?" is in the mirror.

The Source of Rights and Privileges

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776

Why is it important that this nation remain one nation "Under God?" Well I believe that the answer was provided by the founding fathers, and it is, inadvertently, the most brilliant part of the founding of this nation. I'll explain.

My parents never put many restrictions on me. I simply had to (1)have my homework done before I went outside to play, (2)finish my assigned chores, and (3)do whatever my dad told me. If there was ever any question, I was to refer to rule number 3. I never had any "rights" so to speak, but I did have privileges. For instance, I had a video game that I could play so long as the rules were followed. This brings up an important question. What exactly is a right and a privilege, and what is the difference.

An example of a privilege granted by our government is the ability to drive on public highways. The state gives that privilege and it can be taken away. Likewise, social security benefits and medicare are both privileges. The government created those things and so it can dissolve them as well. You may see a pattern forming here. Any benefit created by our government can technically be referred to as a privilege. It's something that can be taken away from us should a government decide we have not earned it in someway, or if they decide it has become detrimental to the state.

The key thing to remember is that any benefit insured by a granter is reliant upon that granter as its source. At anytime, the granter end the benefit. Ask anyone who worked for a company that went out of business whether that is true.

A right is technically unalienable; meaning that it cannot be taken away. By this time you may be seeing the logic problem. If rights are given by government then they can be taken away by it. They are therefor little more than privileges granted to "We the Children." It's no different than my video game privileges.

If however, a right is given by God, then only He can take it away. This is the brilliance of the founders. Even if a man doesn't believe in God, it is still to his benefit that rights be guaranteed by an invisible entity. In fact, if there is no God, the unbeliever has that much more guarantee that his rights are safe be being taken since the only thing that can take them away doesn't exist.

The difference between so-called democracies all over the world, and free societies, is that the citizens of free societies truly have rights that cannot legally be taken by government. That doesn't mean that one's rights can't be oppressed, but it will be quickly recognized as oppression.

Removing God from a free society effectively removes the immutable source of the rights of its people; at which point, the government will gladly step in as the guarantor of said rights. The thing that most either cannot see, or willingly accept, is that government then becomes god.

Why Conservatives Oppose Homosexual Marriage

During most election cycles, the issue of homosexual marriage becomes one that is hotly debated. I wanted to briefly discuss issues that I feel are hardly ever raised.

First homosexual marriage is and will always be legal provided this country remains free. It is currently legal for two individuals, who happen to be the same sex, to marry under the dictates of their moral and religious dictates. This debate is simply about state recognition of those vows. I think it is easy to confuse the issue and create imagery of homosexuals being physically prevented to march down the aisle at the Unitarian Universalists church and say vows to one another.

The issue is state sanctioning of marriage. This brings us to the issue of why states get involved in the sanctioning of marriage anyway. The sole reason is that the ultimate fruit of said marriage is the creation of more tax payers. It is, quite simply, an investment. I think we can debate the fact that homosexuals aren’t allowed to see their loved one in the hospital. I would support that bill in one second.

There are many marriage restrictions in this country and around the world. For instance, brother and sister cannot marry in this country. Some more examples of marriage restrictions are polygamists, under aged, close relation, and severely mentally disabled individuals.

This brings us to the most important question of this whole topic. Should love become the only qualification a state uses in recognizing a marriage, then what would be the logical explanation for denying father and daughter from marrying; or, for that matter, father, daughter, cousin, and friends from all marrying one another and forming a commune?

I think the better question to ask is why do states sponsor marriage at all? This would be the more logical, non-emotional question to ponder. As long as they do, then there will have to be restrictions. There is no better question, from a state sponsorship point of view, than whether the consummation of said marriage happens between two rational humans who are of age to make a responsible decision, and whether said union has the potential to create more tax payers.