It is a bit lengthy but parts are highlighted that we can concentrate on. Very interesting. Trust in the Lord, if it doesn't happen now, it will happen...Prophecies will be fulfilled.
Our Divine Constitution
President Ezra Taft Benson
My beloved brethren and sisters, what a glorious blessing to be
assembled in another great general conference of the Church. I ask for an
interest in your faith and prayers as I speak to you about a subject that is
very close to my heart and that affects the worldwide Church.
We have recently celebrated the bicentennial of the signing of
the United States Constitution. That commemoration marked the beginning of a
series of bicentennial anniversaries of events leading up to the ratification
of the Constitution, implementation of the government it created, and the
writing and ratification of the Bill of Rights. We look forward to the future
commemoration of each of these important events during the next four years. It
is as a result of these events that we are able to meet today in peace as
members of the restored Church of Jesus
Christ. For this we should all
be eternally grateful.
I desire, therefore, to speak to you about our divine Constitution, which the Lord said “belongs to all
mankind” (D&C 98:5; italics added) “and
should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh,
according to just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77; italics added).
The Constitution of the United States has served as a model for
many nations and is the oldest constitution in use today.
“I established the
Constitution of this land,” said the Lord, “by the hands of wise men whom I
raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80).
For centuries the Lord
kept America hidden in the hollow of His hand until the time was right to
unveil her for her destiny in the last days. “It is wisdom that this land
should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations,” said Lehi, “for
behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for
an inheritance” (2 Ne. 1:8).
In the Lord’s due time
His Spirit “wrought upon” Columbus, the pilgrims, the Puritans, and others to
come to America. They testified of God’s intervention in their behalf (see 1 Ne. 13:12–13). The Book of Mormon records that they
humbled “themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them” (1 Ne. 13:16).
Our Father in Heaven
planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government
as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel.
Recall what our Savior Jesus Christ said nearly two
thousand years ago when He visited this promised land: “For it is wisdom in the
Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free
people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth” (3 Ne. 21:4). America, the land
of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored
church.
The Declaration of
Independence affirmed the Founding Fathers’ belief and trust in God in these words: “We
hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
The Doctrine and Covenants
states, “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are
framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise
of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life” (D&C 134:2). Life, liberty,
property—mankind’s three great rights.
At the conclusion of
the Declaration of Independence, they wrote, “And for the support of this
Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
This Declaration was a promise that would demand terrible sacrifice on the part
of its signers. Five of the signers were captured as traitors and tortured before
they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in
the Revolutionary War; another had two sons captured. Nine died from wounds or
from the hardships of the war. The Lord said He “redeemed the land by the
shedding of blood” (D&C 101:80). Nephi recorded that
the Founders “were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other
nations” (1 Ne. 13:19).
The years immediately preceding the Constitutional Convention
were filled with disappointments and threats to the newly won peace. Washington
was offered a kingship, which he adamantly refused. Nephi had prophesied hundreds
of years before that “this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles,
and there shall be no kings upon the land” (2 Ne. 10:11; italics added).
Between the critical years of 1783 and 1787, an outsider viewing
the affairs of the United States would have thought that the thirteen states,
different in so many ways, could never effectively unite. The world powers were
confident that this nation would not last.
Eventually, twelve of the states
met in Philadelphia to address the problem. Madison said at the beginning of
the Convention that the delegates “were now digesting a plan which in its
operation would decide forever the fate of Republican Government” (26 June
1787, Records of the Federal Convention, 1:423).
“The Lord knoweth all
things from the beginning,” said Nephi, “wherefore, he prepareth a way to
accomplish all his works among the children of men” (1 Ne. 9:6).
Four months later, the
Convention delegates had completed their work. As Gladstone said, it was “the
most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of
man” (William Gladstone, North American Review, Sept.–Oct. 1878, p.
185), and the Prophet Joseph Smith called it “a glorious
standard … a heavenly banner” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book
Co., 1938, p. 147).
The delegates were the
recipients of heavenly inspiration. James Madison, often referred to as the
father of the Constitution, wrote: “It is impossible for the man of pious
reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been
so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the
revolution” (The Federalist, no. 37, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge, New York: G.
P. Putnam’s Sons, 1983, p. 222).
Alexander Hamilton,
famous as the originator of The Federalist papers and author of
fifty-one of the essays, said: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a
system, which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and
agreed upon by such a diversity of interest” (Essays on the Constitution of
the United States, ed. Paul L. Ford, 1892, pp. 251–52).
Charles Pinckney, a
very active participant and author of the Pinckney Plan during the Convention,
said: “When the great work was done and published, I was struck with amazement.
Nothing less than the superintending Hand of Providence, that so miraculously
carried us through the war … could have brought it about so complete, upon the
whole” (Essays on the Constitution, p. 412).
Within ten months, the
Constitution was ratified by nine states and was therefore in force for them.
Prophecy had been fulfilled.
During his first inaugural address in 1789, President George Washington, a man who was raised up by
God, said: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand,
which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States.
Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent
nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency” (First
Inaugural Address, 30 Apr. 1789).
In compliance with Article 6 of the Constitution, the very first
act passed by Congress and signed by President Washington on June 1, 1789, was
the actual oath to support the Constitution that was to be administered to
various government officers.
The dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, as dictated by
the Lord and found in the Doctrine and Covenants, contains these words: “May
those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution
of our land, by our fathers, be established forever” (D&C 109:54).
Shortly after President Spencer W. Kimball became President of
the Church, he assigned me to go into the vault of the St. George Temple and
check the early records. As I did so, I realized the fulfillment of a dream I
had had ever since learning of the visit of the Founding Fathers to the St.
George Temple. I saw with my own eyes the record of the work which was done for
the Founding Fathers of this great nation, beginning with George Washington.
Think of it: the Founding Fathers of this nation, those great
men, appeared within those sacred walls and had their vicarious work done for
them.
President Wilford
Woodruff spoke of it in these words: “Before I left St. George, the spirits of
the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said
they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet
nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you
now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and
were faithful to God’” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G.
Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946, p. 160).
After he became
President of the Church, President Wilford Woodruff declared that “those men
who laid the foundation of this American government were the best spirits the
God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits …
[and] were inspired of the Lord” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1898, p. 89).
Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different
Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders. We are fast
approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: “Even this
nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the
ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will
be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the
Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (19 July 1840, as
recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt
Lake City).
For centuries our forefathers suffered and sacrificed that we
might be the recipients of the blessings of freedom. If they were willing to
sacrifice so much to establish us as a free people, should we not be willing to
do the same to maintain that freedom for ourselves and for future generations?
Only in this
foreordained land, under its God-inspired Constitution and the resulting
environment of freedom, was it possible to have established the restored
church. It is our responsibility to see that this freedom is perpetuated so
that the Church may more easily flourish in the future.
The Lord said, “Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your
brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law
of the land” (D&C 98:6).
How then can we best
befriend the Constitution in this critical hour and secure the blessings of
liberty and ensure the protection and guidance of our Father in Heaven?
First and foremost, we must be righteous.
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (The
Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851,
4:31). If the Constitution is to have continuance, this American nation, and
especially the Latter-day Saints, must be virtuous.
The Book of Mormon warns us relative to our living in this free
land: “Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if
it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath
given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be
brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if
iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the
righteous it shall be blessed forever” (2 Ne. 1:7).
“And now,” warned Moroni, “we can behold the decrees of God
concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall
possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his
wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when
they are ripened in iniquity” (Ether 2:9).
Two great American Christian civilizations—the Jaredites and the
Nephites—were swept off this land because they did not “serve the God of the
land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12). What will become of
our civilization?
Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the
tradition of the Founding Fathers.
Have we read The Federalist papers? Are we reading the
Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding
by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the
Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we
know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it?
As Jefferson said, “If
a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never
will be” (Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 6 Jan. 1816).
Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we
are properly represented.
The Lord said that “he holds men accountable for their acts in
relation” to governments “both in making laws and administering them” (D&C 134:1). We must follow this
counsel from the Lord: “Honest men and wise men should be sought for
diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever
is less than these cometh of evil” (D&C 98:10).
Note the qualities that the Lord demands of those who are to
represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest.
Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our
letters, our teaching, and our advice.
We must become accurately informed and then let others know how
we feel. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is our duty to concentrate all our
influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that
which is unsound. ‘Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use
it. … From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get” (History
of the Church, 5:286).
I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by
Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who
love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this
Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of
the Constitution.
I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred
document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has
placed His stamp of approval upon it.
I testify that the God
of heaven sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this
government, and He has now sent other
choice spirits to help preserve it.
We, the blessed beneficiaries of the Constitution, face
difficult days in America, “a land which is choice above all other lands” (Ether 2:10).
May God give us the faith and the courage exhibited by those
patriots who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
May we be equally as
valiant and as free, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
The Times in Which We Live
President Gordon
B. Hinckley
Our safety lies in repentance. Our strength comes of obedience
to the commandments of God.
My beloved brethren and sisters, I accept this opportunity in
humility. I pray that I may be guided by the Spirit of the Lord in that which I
say.
I have just been handed a note that says that a U.S. missile
attack is under way. I need not remind you that we live in perilous times. I
desire to speak concerning these times and our circumstances as members of this
Church.
You are acutely aware of the events of September 11, less than a
month ago. Out of that vicious and ugly attack we are plunged into a state of
war. It is the first war of the 21st century. The last century has been
described as the most war-torn in human history. Now we are off on another
dangerous undertaking, the unfolding of which and the end thereof we do not
know. For the first time since we became a nation, the United States has been
seriously attacked on its mainland soil. But this was not an attack on the
United States alone. It was an attack on men and nations of goodwill
everywhere. It was well planned, boldly executed, and the results were
disastrous. It is estimated that more than 5,000 innocent people died. Among
these were many from other nations. It was cruel and cunning, an act of
consummate evil.
Recently, in company with a few national religious leaders, I
was invited to the White House to meet with the president. In talking to us he
was frank and straightforward.
That same evening he spoke to the Congress and the nation in
unmistakable language concerning the resolve of America and its friends to hunt
down the terrorists who were responsible for the planning of this terrible
thing and any who harbored such.
Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will
continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. We do not know how long
this conflict will last. We do not know what it will cost in lives and
treasure. We do not know the manner in which it will be carried out. It could
impact the work of the Church in various ways.
Our national economy has been made to suffer. It was already in
trouble, and this has compounded the problem. Many are losing their employment.
Among our own people, this could affect welfare needs and also the tithing of the Church. It could
affect our missionary program.
We are now a global organization. We have members in more than
150 nations. Administering this vast worldwide program could conceivably become
more difficult.
Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the
president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and
held accountable for their actions. This is not a matter of Christian against
Muslim. I am pleased that food is being dropped to the hungry people of a
targeted nation. We value our Muslim neighbors across the world and hope that
those who live by the tenets of their faith will not suffer. I ask particularly
that our own people do not become a party in any way to the persecution of the
innocent. Rather, let us be friendly and helpful, protective and supportive. It
is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down.
We of this Church know something of such groups. The Book of Mormon speaks of
the Gadianton robbers, a vicious, oath-bound, and secret organization bent on
evil and destruction. In their day they did all in their power, by whatever
means available, to bring down the Church, to woo the people with sophistry,
and to take control of the society. We see the same thing in the present
situation.
We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was
and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right
and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in
his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty
(see Alma 48:10).
On the Larry King television broadcast the other night, I was
asked what I think of those who, in the name of their religion, carry out such
infamous activities. I replied, “Religion offers no shield for wickedness, for
evil, for those kinds of things. The God in whom I believe does not foster this
kind of action. He is a God of mercy. He is a God of love. He is a God of peace
and reassurance, and I look to Him in times such as this as a comfort and a
source of strength.”
Members of the Church in this and other nations are now involved
with many others in a great international undertaking. On television we see
those of the military leaving their loved ones, knowing not whether they will
return. It is affecting the homes of our people. Unitedly, as a Church, we must
get on our knees and invoke the powers of the Almighty in behalf of those who
will carry the burdens of this campaign.
No one knows how long it will last. No one knows precisely where
it will be fought. No one knows what it may entail before it is over. We have
launched an undertaking the size and nature of which we cannot see at this
time.
Occasions of this kind pull us up sharply to a realization that
life is fragile, peace is fragile, civilization itself is fragile. The economy
is particularly vulnerable. We have been counseled again and again concerning
self-reliance, concerning debt, concerning thrift. So many of our people are
heavily in debt for things that are not entirely necessary. When I was a young
man, my father counseled me to build a modest home, sufficient for the needs of
my family, and make
it beautiful and attractive and pleasant and secure. He counseled me to pay off
the mortgage as quickly as I could so that, come what may, there would be a
roof over the heads of my wife and children. I was reared on that kind of
doctrine. I urge you as members of this Church to get free of debt where
possible and to have a little laid aside against a rainy day.
We cannot provide against every contingency. But we can provide
against many contingencies. Let the present situation remind us that this we
should do.
As we have been continuously counseled for more than 60 years,
let us have some food set aside that would sustain us for a time in case of
need. But let us not panic nor go to extremes. Let us be prudent in every
respect. And, above all, my brothers and sisters, let us move forward with
faith in the Living God and His Beloved Son.
Great are the promises concerning this land of America. We are
told unequivocally that it “is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall
possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other
nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus
Christ” (Ether 2:12). This is
the crux of the entire matter—obedience to the commandments of God.
The Constitution under
which we live, and which has not only blessed us but has become a model for
other constitutions, is our God-inspired national safeguard ensuring freedom
and liberty, justice and equality before the law.
I do not know what the future holds. I do not wish to sound
negative, but I wish to remind you of the warnings of scripture and the
teachings of the prophets which we have had constantly before us.
I cannot forget the great lesson of Pharaoh’s dream of the fat
and lean kine and of the full and withered stalks of corn.
I cannot dismiss from my mind the grim warnings of the Lord as
set forth in the 24th chapter of Matthew.
I am familiar, as are you, with the declarations of modern
revelation that the time will come when the earth will be cleansed and there
will be indescribable distress, with weeping and mourning and lamentation (see D&C 112:24).
Now, I do not wish to be an alarmist. I do not wish to be a
prophet of doom. I am optimistic. I do not believe the time is here when an
all-consuming calamity will overtake us. I earnestly pray that it may not.
There is so much of the Lord’s work yet to be done. We, and our children after
us, must do it.
I can assure you that we who are responsible for the management of
the affairs of the Church will be prudent and careful as we have tried to be in
the past. The tithes of the Church are sacred. They are appropriated in the
manner set forth by the Lord Himself. We have become a very large and complex
organization. We carry on many extensive and costly programs. But I can assure
you that we will not exceed our income. We will not place the Church in debt.
We will tailor what we do to the resources that are available.
How grateful I am for the law of tithing. It is the Lord’s law
of finance. It is set forth in a few words in the 119th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. It comes
of His wisdom. To every man and woman, to every boy and girl, to every child in
this Church who pays an honest tithing, be it large or small, I express gratitude for the
faith that is in your hearts. I remind you, and those who do not pay tithing
but who should, that the Lord has promised marvelous blessings (see Mal. 3:10–12). He has
also promised that “he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming” (D&C 64:23).
I express appreciation to those who pay a fast offering. This
costs the giver nothing other than going without two meals a month. It becomes
the backbone of our welfare program, designed
to assist those in distress.
Now, all of us know that war, contention, hatred, suffering of
the worst kind are not new. The conflict we see today is but another expression
of the conflict that began with the War in Heaven. I quote from the book of
Revelation:
“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought
against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
“And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in
heaven.
“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the
Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the
earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
“And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come
salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his
Christ” (Rev. 12:7–10).
That must have been a terrible conflict. The forces of evil were
pitted against the forces of good. The great deceiver, the son of the morning,
was defeated and banished, and took with him a third of the hosts of heaven.
The book of Moses and the
book of Abraham shed further light concerning this great contest. Satan would
have taken from man his agency and taken unto himself all credit and honor and
glory. Opposed to this was the plan of the Father which the Son said He would
fulfill, under which He came to earth and gave His life to atone for the sins of
mankind.
From the day of Cain to the present, the adversary has been the
great mastermind of the terrible conflicts that have brought so much suffering.
Treachery and terrorism began with him. And they will continue
until the Son of God returns to rule and reign with peace and righteousness
among the sons and daughters of God.
Through centuries of time, men and women, so very, very many,
have lived and died. Some may die in the conflict that lies ahead. To us, and
we bear solemn testimony of this, death will not be the end. There is life
beyond this as surely as there is life here. Through the great plan which
became the very essence of the War in Heaven, men shall go on living.
Job asked, “If a man die, shall he live again?” (Job 14:14). He
replied: “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the
latter day upon the earth:
“And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my
flesh shall I see God:
Now, brothers and
sisters, we must do our duty, whatever that duty might be. Peace may be denied
for a season. Some of our liberties may be curtailed. We may be inconvenienced.
We may even be called on to suffer in one way or another. But God our Eternal Father
will watch over this nation and all of the civilized world who look to Him. He
has declared, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Ps. 33:12). Our safety lies in
repentance. Our strength comes of obedience to the commandments of God.
Let us be prayerful. Let us pray for righteousness. Let us pray for
the forces of good. Let us reach out to help men and women of goodwill,
whatever their religious persuasion and wherever they live. Let us stand firm
against evil, both at home and abroad. Let us live worthy of the blessings of
heaven, reforming our lives where necessary and looking to Him, the Father of
us all. He has said, “Be still, and know that I am God” (Ps. 46:10).
Are these perilous times? They are. But there is no need to
fear. We can have peace in our hearts and peace in our homes. We can be an
influence for good in this world, every one of us.
May the God of heaven, the Almighty, bless us, help us, as we
walk our various ways in the uncertain days that lie ahead. May we look to Him
with unfailing faith. May we worthily place our reliance on His Beloved Son who
is our great Redeemer, whether it be in life or in death, is my prayer in His
holy name, even the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
The
Divinely Inspired Constitution
Not long after I began to teach law, an older professor asked me
a challenging question about Latter-day Saints’ belief in the United States
Constitution. Earlier in his career he had taught at the University of Utah
College of Law. There he met many Latter-day Saint law students. “They all
seemed to believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired,” he said, “but
none of them could ever tell me what this meant or how it affected their
interpretation of the Constitution.” I took that challenge personally, and I
have pondered it for many years.1
I hope I will not be
thought immodest if I claim a special interest in the Constitution. As a lawyer
and law professor for more than twenty years, I have studied the United States
Constitution. As legal counsel, I helped draft the bill of rights for the
Illinois constitutional convention of 1970. And for three and one-half years as
a justice of the Utah Supreme Court I had the sworn duty to uphold and
interpret the constitutions of the state of Utah and the United States. My
conclusions draw upon those experiences and upon a lifetime of studying the
scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets. My
opinions on this subject are personal and do not represent a statement in
behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.
Creation
and Ratification
The United States Constitution was the first written
constitution in the world. It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and
prosperity during the changed conditions of more than two hundred years.
Frequently copied, it has become the United States’ most important export.
After two centuries, every nation in the world except six have adopted written
constitutions,2 and the U.S. Constitution was a model for all of them. No
wonder modern revelation says
that God established the U.S. Constitution and
that it “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh,
according to just and holy principles.” (D&C 101:77.)
George Washington was perhaps the first to use the word miracle in describing the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In a 1788 letter to Lafayette, he
said:
“It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the
delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also
different from each other in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices)
should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to
well-founded objections.”3
It was a miracle. Consider the setting.
The thirteen colonies and three and one-half million Americans
who had won independence from the British crown a few years earlier were badly
divided on many fundamental issues. Some thought the colonies should
reaffiliate with the British crown. Among the majority who favored continued
independence, the most divisive issue was whether the United States should have
a strong central government to replace the weak “league of friendship”
established by the Articles of Confederation. Under the Confederation of 1781,
there was no executive or judicial authority, and the national Congress had no
power to tax or to regulate commerce. The thirteen states retained all their
sovereignty, and the national government could do nothing without their
approval. The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the
unanimous approval of all the states, and every effort to strengthen this loose
confederation had failed.
Congress could not even protect itself. In July 1783, an armed
mob of former Revolutionary War soldiers seeking back wages threatened to take
Congress hostage at its meeting in Philadelphia. When Pennsylvania declined to
provide militia to protect them, the congressmen fled. Thereafter Congress was
a laughingstock, wandering from city to city.
Unless America could adopt a central government with sufficient
authority to function as a nation, the thirteen states would remain a group of
insignificant, feuding little nations united by nothing more than geography and
forever vulnerable to the impositions of aggressive foreign powers. No wonder
the first purpose stated in the preamble of the new United States Constitution
was “to form a more perfect union.”
The Constitution had its origin in a resolution by which the
relatively powerless Congress called delegates to a convention to discuss
amendments to the Articles of Confederation. This convention was promoted by
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two farsighted young statesmen still in
their thirties, who favored a strong national government. They persuaded a
reluctant George Washington to attend and then used his influence in a
letter-writing campaign to encourage participation by all the states. The
convention was held in Philadelphia, whose population of a little over 40,000
made it the largest city in the thirteen states.
As the delegates assembled, there were ominous signs of
disunity. It was not until eleven days after the scheduled beginning of the
convention that enough states were represented to form a quorum. New
Hampshire’s delegation arrived more than two months late because the state had
not provided them travel money. No delegates ever came from Rhode Island.
Economically and politically, the country was alarmingly weak.
The states were in a paralyzing depression. Everyone was in debt. The national
treasury was empty. Inflation was rampant. The various currencies were nearly
worthless. The trade deficit was staggering. Rebelling against their inclusion
in New York State, prominent citizens of Vermont had already entered into
negotiations to rejoin the British crown. In the western territory, Kentucky
leaders were speaking openly about turning from the union and forming alliances
with the Old World.
Instead of reacting timidly because of disunity and weakness,
the delegates boldly ignored the terms of their invitation to amend the
Articles of Confederation and instead set out to write an entirely new
constitution. They were conscious of their place in history. For millennia the
world’s people had been ruled by kings or tyrants. Now a group of colonies had
won independence from a king and their representatives had the unique
opportunity of establishing a constitutional government Abraham Lincoln would
later describe as “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
The delegates faced staggering obstacles. The leaders in the
thirteen states were deeply divided on the extent to which the states would
cede any power to a national government. If there was to be a strong central
government, there were seemingly irresolvable differences on how to allocate
the ingredients of national power between large and small states. As to the
nature of the national executive, some wanted to copy the British parliamentary
system. At least one delegate even favored the adoption of a monarchy. Divisions
over slavery could well have prevented any agreement on other issues. There
were 600,000 black slaves in the thirteen states, and slavery was essential in
the view of some delegates and repulsive to many others.
Deeming secrecy essential to the success of their venture, the
delegates spent over three months in secret sessions, faithfully observing
their agreement that no one would speak outside the meeting room on the
progress of their work. They were fearful that if their debates were reported
to the people before the entire document was ready for submission, the
opposition would unite to kill the effort before it was born. This type of
proceeding would obviously be impossible today. There is irony in the fact that
a constitution which protects the people’s “right to know” was written under a
set of ground rules that its present beneficiaries would not tolerate.
It took the delegates seven weeks of debate to resolve the
question of how the large and small states would be represented in the national
congress. The Great Compromise provided a senate with equal representation for
each state, and a lower house in which representation was apportioned according
to the whole population of free persons in the state, plus three-fifths of the
slaves. The vote on this pivotal issue was five states in favor and four
against; other states did not vote, either because no delegates were present or
because their delegation was divided. Upon that fragile base, the delegates
went forward to consider other issues, including the nature of the executive
and judicial branches, and whether the document should include a bill of
rights.
It is remarkable that the delegates were able to put aside their
narrow sectional loyalties to agree on a strong central government. Timely
events were persuasive of the need: the delegates’ memories of the national
humiliation when Congress was chased out of Philadelphia by a mob, the recent
challenge of Shay’s rebellion against Massachusetts farm foreclosures, and the
frightening prospect that northern and western areas would be drawn back into
the orbit of European power.
The success of the convention was attributable in large part to
the remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes
on the Constitutional Convention:
“There never was an
assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in
their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed
to them.”4 Truly, the U.S.
Constitution was established “by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord]
raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80.)
The drafting of the Constitution was only the beginning. By its
terms it would not go into effect until ratified by conventions in nine states.
But if the nation was to be united and strong, the new Constitution had to be
ratified by the key states of Virginia and New York, where the opposition was
particularly strong. The extent of opposition coming out of the convention is
suggested by the fact that of seventy-four appointed delegates, only fifty-five
participated in the convention, and only thirty-nine of these signed the
completed document.
It was nine months before nine states had ratified, and the last
of the key states was not included until a month later, when the New York
convention ratified by a vote of thirty to twenty-seven. To the “miracle of
Philadelphia” one must therefore add “the miracle of ratification.”
Ratification probably could not have been secured without a
commitment to add a written bill of rights. The first ten amendments, which
included the Bill of Rights, were ratified a little over three years after the
Constitution itself.
That the Constitution was ratified is largely attributable to
the fact that the principal leaders in the states were willing to vote for a
document that failed to embody every one of their preferences. For example,
influential Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris negotiating a treaty and
therefore did not serve as a delegate, felt strongly that a bill of rights
should have been included in the original Constitution. But Jefferson still
supported the Constitution because he felt it was the best available. Benjamin
Franklin stated that view in these words:
“When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage over
their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their
prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and
their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be
expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so
near to perfection as it does. … The opinions I have had of its errors, I
sacrifice to the public good.”5
In other words, one should not expect perfection—one certainly
should not expect all of his personal preferences—in a document that must
represent a consensus. One should not sulk over a representative body’s failure
to attain perfection. Americans are well advised to support the best that can
be obtained in the circumstances that prevail. That is sound advice not only
for the drafting of a constitution but also for the adoption and administration
of laws under it.
Inspiration
It was a miracle that
the Constitution could be drafted and ratified. But what is there in the text
of the Constitution that is divinely inspired?
Reverence for the
United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if
its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I
have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as
scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery
or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the
president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part
of my religion,”6 also said that it was not part of his belief or
the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.”
“On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the
changing needs of an advancing world.”7
That was also the attitude of the Prophet Joseph
Smith. He faulted the Constitution for not being “broad enough to
cover the whole ground.” In an obvious reference to the national government’s
lack of power to intervene when the state of Missouri used its militia to expel
the Latter-day Saints from their lands, Joseph Smith said,
“Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing
them. … Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect
themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be
weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.”8 This
omission of national power to protect citizens against state action to deprive
them of constitutional rights was remedied in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted
just after the Civil War.
I see divine inspiration in what President J. Reuben Clark
called the “great fundamentals” of the Constitution. In his many talks on the
Constitution, he always praised three fundamentals: (a) the separation of
powers into three independent branches of government in a federal system; (b)
the essential freedoms of speech, press, and religion embodied in the Bill of
Rights; and (c) the equality of all men before the law. I concur in these
three, but I add two more. On my list there are five great
fundamentals.
1. Separation of powers. The idea
of separation of powers was at least a century old. The English Parliament
achieved an initial separation of legislative and executive authority when they
wrested certain powers from the king in the revolution of 1688. The concept of
separation of powers became well established in the American colonies. State
constitutions adopted during the Revolution distinguished between the
executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Thus, a document commenting on
the proposed Massachusetts Constitution of 1778, speaks familiarly of the
principle “that the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are to be
lodged in different hands, that each branch is to be independent, and further,
to be so balanced, and be able to exert such checks upon the others, as will
preserve it from dependence on, or a union with them.”9
Thus, we see that the inspiration on the idea
of separation of powers came long before the U.S. Constitutional Convention.
The inspiration in the convention was in its original and remarkably successful
adaptation of the idea of separation of powers to
the practical needs of a national government. The delegates found just the
right combination to assure the integrity of each branch, appropriately checked
and balanced with the others. As President Clark said:
“It is this union of independence and dependence of these
branches—legislative, executive and judicial—and of the governmental functions
possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this
unrivalled document. … As I see it, it was here that the divine inspiration
came. It was truly a miracle.”10
2. A written bill of rights. This
second great fundamental came by amendment, but I think Americans all look upon
the Bill of Rights as part of the inspired work of the Founding Fathers. The
idea of a bill of rights was not new. Once again, the inspiration was in the
brilliant, practical implementation of preexisting principles. Almost six
hundred years earlier, King John had subscribed the Magna Charta, which
contained a written guarantee of some rights for certain of his subjects. The
English Parliament had guaranteed individual rights against royal power in the English
Bill of Rights of 1689. Even more recently, some of the charters used in the
establishment of the American colonies had written guarantees of liberties and
privileges, with which the delegates were familiar.
I have always felt
that the United States Constitution’s closest approach to scriptural stature is
in the phrasing of our Bill of Rights. Without the free exercise of religion,
America could not have served as the host nation for the restoration of the
gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified. I
also see scriptural stature in the concept and wording of the freedoms of
speech and press, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and
seizures, the requirements that there must be probable cause for an arrest and
that accused persons must have a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury,
and the guarantee that a person will not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law. President Ezra Taft Benson has said,
“Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious conviction all lead me to accept
the divine origin of these rights.”11
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.” This inspired
Constitution was established to provide a practical guarantee of these
God-given rights (see D&C 101:77), and the language implementing that godly objective is
scriptural to me.
3. Division of powers. Another
inspired fundamental of the U.S. Constitution is
its federal system, which divides government powers between the nation and the
various states. Unlike the inspired adaptations mentioned earlier, this
division of sovereignty was unprecedented in theory or practice. In a day when
it is fashionable to assume that the government has the power and means to
right every wrong, we should remember that the U.S.
Constitution limits the national government to the exercise of powers
expressly granted to it. The Tenth Amendment provides:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States
respectively or to the people.”
This principle of limited national powers, with all residuary
powers reserved to the people or to the state and local governments, which are
most responsive to the people, is one of the great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution.
The particular powers that are reserved to the states are part
of the inspiration. For example, the power to make laws on personal
relationships is reserved to the states. Thus, laws of marriage and family rights
and duties are state laws. This would have been changed by the proposed Equal
Rights Amendment (E.R.A.). When the First Presidency opposed the E.R.A., they
cited the way it would have changed various legal rules having to do with the
family, a result they characterized as “a moral rather than a legal issue.”12 I would
add my belief that the most fundamental legal and political objection to the
proposed E.R.A. was that it would effect a significant reallocation of
law-making power from the states to the federal government.
4. Popular sovereignty. Perhaps the
most important of the great fundamentals of the inspired Constitution is the
principle of popular sovereignty: The people are the source of government
power. Along with many religious people, Latter-day Saints affirm that God gave
the power to the people, and the people consented to a constitution that
delegated certain powers to the government. Sovereignty is not inherent in a
state or nation just because it has the power that comes from force of arms.
Sovereignty does not come from the divine right of a king, who grants his
subjects such power as he pleases or is forced to concede, as in Magna Charta.
The sovereign power is in the people. I believe this is one of the great
meanings in the revelation which tells us that God established the Constitution of the United States,
“That every man may
act … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man
may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
“Therefore, it is not
right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective
exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and
responsibility. In this condition men are accountable for their own sins and
cannot blame their political conditions on their bondage to a king or a tyrant.
This condition is achieved when the people are sovereign, as they are under the
Constitution God established in the United States. From this it follows that
the most important words in the United States Constitution are the words in the
preamble: “We, the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
President Ezra Taft
Benson expressed the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty when he said,
“We [the people] are superior to government and should remain master over it,
not the other way around.”13 The Book of Mormon explains that principle in these words:
“An unrighteous king
doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. …
“Therefore, choose you
by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the
laws. …
“Now it is not common
that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right;
but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not
right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business
by the voice of the people.” (Mosiah 29:23–26.)
Popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a
king or other sovereign, all citizens must share the burdens and responsibilities of
governing. As the Book of Mormon teaches, “The burden should come upon all the
people, that every man might bear his part.” (Mosiah 29:34.)
President Clark’s third great fundamental was the equality of all
men before the law. I believe that to be a corollary of popular sovereignty.
When power comes from the people, there is no legitimacy in legal castes or
classes or in failing to provide all citizens the equal protection of the laws.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not originate
the idea of popular sovereignty, since they lived in a century when many
philosophers had argued that political power originated in a social contract.
But the United States Constitution provided the first implementation of this
principle. After two centuries in which Americans may have taken popular
sovereignty for granted, it is helpful to be reminded of the difficulties in
that pioneering effort.
To begin with, a direct democracy was impractical for a country
of four million people and about a half million square miles. As a result, the
delegates had to design the structure of a constitutional, representative
democracy, what they called “a Republican Form of Government.”14
The delegates also had to resolve whether a constitution adopted
by popular sovereignty could be amended, and if so, how.
Finally, the delegates had to decide how minority rights could
be protected when the government was, by definition, controlled by the majority
of the sovereign people.
A government based on popular sovereignty must be responsive to
the people, but it must also be stable or it cannot govern. A constitution must
therefore give government the power to withstand the cries of a majority of the
people in the short run, though it must obviously be subject to their direction
in the long run.
Without some government stability against an outraged majority,
government could not protect minority rights. As President Clark declared:
“The Constitution was framed in order to protect minorities. That is
the purpose of written constitutions. In order that the minorities might be
protected in the matter of amendments under our Constitution, the Lord required
that the amendments should be made only through the operation of very large
majorities—two-thirds for action in the Senate, and three-fourths as among the
states. This is the inspired, prescribed order.”15
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention achieved the
required balance between popular sovereignty and stability through a power of
amendment that was ultimately available but deliberately slow. Only in this way
could the government have the certainty of stability, the protection of
minority rights, and the potential of change, all at the same time.
To summarize, I see divine inspiration in these four great
fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution:
·
•
the separation of powers in the three branches of government;
·
•
the Bill of Rights;
·
•
the division of powers between the states and the federal
government; and
·
•
the application of popular sovereignty.
5. The rule of law and
not of men. Further, there is
divine inspiration in the fundamental underlying premise of this whole
constitutional order. All the blessings enjoyed under the United States
Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law. That is why President J.
Reuben Clark said, “Our allegiance run[s] to the Constitution and to the
principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.”16 The rule of law is the basis of liberty.
As the Lord declared in modern revelation, constitutional laws are
justifiable before him, “and the law also maketh you free.” (D&C 98:5–8.) The
self-control by which citizens subject themselves to law strengthens the
freedom of all citizens and honors the divinely inspired Constitution.
Citizen
Responsibilities
U.S. citizens have an
inspired Constitution, and therefore, what? Does the belief that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired affect citizens’
behavior toward law and government? It should and it does.
U.S. citizens should
follow the First Presidency’s counsel to study the Constitution.17 They should be familiar with its great
fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill
of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the
principles of the rule of the law. They should oppose any infringement of these
inspired fundamentals.
They should be
law-abiding citizens, supportive of national, state, and local governments. The
twelfth Article of Faith declares:
“We believe in being
subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring,
and sustaining the law.”
The Church’s official
declaration of belief states:
“We believe that
governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men
accountable for their acts in relation to them. …
“We believe that all
men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they
reside.” (D&C 134:1, 5.)
Those who enjoy the blessings of liberty under a divinely inspired
constitution should promote morality, and they should practice what the
Founding Fathers called “civic virtue.” In his address on the U.S. Constitution, President Ezra Taft Benson quoted
this important observation by John Adams, the second president of the United
States:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”18
Similarly, James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the
Constitution,” stated his assumption that there had to be “sufficient virtue
among men for self-government.” He argued in the Federalist Papers that “republican government
presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other
form.”19
It is part of our civic duty to be moral in our conduct toward all
people. There is no place in responsible citizenship for dishonesty or deceit
or for willful law breaking of any kind. We believe with the author of Proverbs
that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Prov. 14:34.) The
personal righteousness of citizens will strengthen a nation more than the force
of its arms.
Citizens should also be practitioners of civic virtue in their
conduct toward government. They should be ever willing to fulfill the duties of
citizenship. This includes compulsory duties like military service and the
numerous voluntary actions they must take if they are to preserve the principle
of limited government through citizen self-reliance. For example, since U.S.
citizens value the right of trial by jury, they must be willing to serve on
juries, even those involving unsavory subject matter. Citizens who favor
morality cannot leave the enforcement of moral laws to jurors who oppose them.
The single word that best describes a fulfillment of the duties of
civic virtue is patriotism. Citizens should be patriotic. My
favorite prescription for patriotism is that of Adlai Stevenson:
“What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? … A
patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short,
frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a
lifetime.”20
I close with a poetic prayer. It is familiar to everyone in the
United States, because U.S. citizens sing it in one of their loveliest hymns. It expresses gratitude to God for liberty, and it voices a prayer that he
will continue to bless them with the holy light of freedom:
Our fathers’ God, to
thee,
Author of liberty,
To thee we sing;
Long may our land be
bright
With freedom’s holy
light.
Protect us by thy
might,
From a talk given 5 July 1992 at the Freedom Festival in Provo,
Utah.
Religion
in a Free Society
Recently a group of religious and political leaders and scholars
from all around the world met in Budapest, Hungary, to discuss the practical
challenges faced by the former communist nations that are moving toward some
form of religious liberty. The concept of religious freedom is revolutionary
for many countries, and they are struggling with many potentially divisive
issues: To what extent should public schools recognize and teach religion? How
much should the state regulate a church’s charitable activities? Should
churches be exempted from general laws? To what degree should church and state
be separated? Should there be an official state church?
Do those issues sound familiar? They should. The Founding
Fathers of the United States wrestled with them more than two hundred years
ago, and they continue to be serious topics of discussion and debate to this
very day.
The principles and philosophies upon which the U.S. constitutional
law is based are not simply the result of the best efforts of a remarkable
group of brilliant men. They were inspired by God, and the rights and
privileges guaranteed in the Constitution are God-given, not man-derived. The
freedom and independence afforded by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are
divine rights—sacred, essential, and inalienable. In the 98th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord
indicates that the “law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that
principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all
mankind, and is justifiable before me.” (D&C 98:5.)
I focus my comments on sixteen significant words found in the
First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
These words are simple and direct. Their message and meaning
appear to be clear. But through the years presidents, Congress, and the courts
have interpreted them in so many different ways that many people today have no
sense of the perspective upon which they were based.
Believe it or not, at one time the very notion of government had
less to do with politics than with virtue. According to James Madison, often referred to as the father of the
Constitution: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not
upon the power of the government—far from it. We have staked the future of all
of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern
ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” (Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians,
New Hampshire: Plymouth Foundation, 1984, p. 361.)
George Washington agreed with his colleague James Madison. Said
Washington: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (James D.
Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of
the President, 1789–1897, U.S. Congress, 1899, vol. 1, p. 220.)
Nearly one hundred years later, Abraham Lincoln responded to a
question about which side God was on during the Civil War with this profound
insight: “I am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is
always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that
I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.” (Abraham
Lincoln’s Stories and Speeches, ed. J. B. McClure, Chicago: Rhodes and
McClure Publishing Co., 1896, pp. 185–86.)
Madison, Washington, and Lincoln all understood that democracy
cannot possibly flourish in a moral vacuum and that organized religion plays an
important role in preserving and maintaining public morality. Indeed, John
Adams, another of America’s Founding Fathers, insisted: “We have no government
armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality
and religion.” (John Adams, The Works of John Adams,
Second President of the United States, Charles F. Adams, 1854.)
Yet that is precisely the position we find ourselves in today. Our
government is succumbing to pressure to distance itself from God and religion.
Consequently, the government is discovering that it is incapable of contending
with people who are increasingly “unbridled by morality and religion.” A simple
constitutional prohibition of state-sponsored church has evolved into
court-ordered bans against representations of the Ten Commandments on
government buildings, Christmas manger scenes on public property, and prayer at
public meetings. Instead of seeking the “national morality” based on “religious
principle” that Washington spoke of, many are actively seeking a blind standard
of legislative amorality, with a total exclusion of the mention of God in the
public square.
Such a standard of religious exclusion is absolutely and
unequivocally counter to the intention of those who designed our government. Do
you think that mere chance placed the freedom to worship according to
individual conscience among the first freedoms specified in the Bill of
Rights—freedoms that are destined to flourish together or perish separately?
The Founding Fathers understood this country’s spiritual heritage. They
frequently declared that God’s hand was upon this nation, and that He was working
through them to create what Chesterton once called “a nation with the soul of a
church.” (Richard John Neuhaus, “A New Order for the Ages,” speech delivered at
the Philadelphia Conference on Religious Freedom, 30 May 1991.) While they were
influenced by history and their accumulated knowledge, the single most
influential reference source for their work on the Constitution was the Holy Bible. Doubtless
they were familiar with the Lord’s counsel to the children of Israel as they
struggled to become a great nation:
“And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto
the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which
I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all
nations of the earth:
“And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if
thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God.
“Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in
the field.
“Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy
ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks
of thy sheep.
“Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store.
“Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt
thou be when thou goest out.
“The Lord shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be
smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee
seven ways.
“The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy
storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless
thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
“The Lord shall establish thee an holy people until himself, as
he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy
God, and walk in his ways.” (Deut. 28:1–9.)
In other words, that nation that keeps God’s commandments and walks
in His ways will prosper. The framers of our Constitution knew that, and they
tried to lay a solid moral foundation for a society that could be so blessed. As they
did so, perhaps they thought of Roger Williams and others like him who made a
heroic fight for religious freedom.
Roger Williams began his ministry in England, where his zealous
work to free the church from the influence of the king brought the wrath of the
government upon him. Eventually he and his young wife were forced to flee to
the New World. But instead of finding himself among like-minded reformers in
America, he encountered much of the same resistance and persecution until he
established a new colony called Providence in Rhode Island. Here America had
its first taste of true religious freedom, and the success of the Providence
colony convinced many that the concept tasted good.
The Founding Fathers very likely were aware of the experiences
of Roger Williams and others when they wrote in the First Amendment that the
government cannot impede the free exercise of religion. They wrote that the
church and the state were to be separate, independent entities, not to
eliminate morality and God’s law but to make sure that the power of government
could never be used to silence religious expression or to persecute religious
practice. Once again quoting George
Washington: “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the
Constitution, framed in the convention where I had the honor to preside, might
possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly
I would never have placed my signature to it.” (Maxims of
Washington, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1894, pp. 370–71.)
What would Washington have thought if he could have foreseen our
day? Would he have signed the document?
I believe he would have been troubled to see a time when
citizens are forbidden to pray in public meetings; when people claim
that “you can’t legislate morality,” as if any law ever passed did not have at
its heart some notion of right and wrong; when churches are called intruders
when they speak out against public policy that is contrary to the commandments
of God; when many people reject the correcting influence of churches if it
infringes on daily living; when religion is accepted as a social organization
but not as an integral part of national culture; when people bristle if
representatives of churches speak in any forum except from the pulpit.
Indeed, some people now claim
that the Founding Fathers’ worst fear in connection with religion has been
realized; that we have, in fact, a state-sponsored religion in America today.
This new religion, adopted by many, does not have an identifiable name, but it
operates just like a church. It exists in the form of doctrines and beliefs, where morality
is whatever a person wants it to be, and where freedom is derived from the
ideas of man and not the laws of God. Many people adhere to this concept of
morality with religious zeal and fervor, and courts and legislatures tend to
support it.
While you may think I am stretching the point a bit to say that
amorality could be a new state-sponsored religion, I believe you would agree
that we do not have to look far to find horrifying evidence of rampant
immorality that is permitted if not encouraged by our laws. From the plague of pornography to the
devastation caused by addiction to drugs, illicit sex, and gambling, wickedness
rears its ugly head everywhere, often gaining its foothold in society by
invoking the powers of constitutional privilege.
We see a sad reality of contemporary life when many of the same
people who defend the right of a pornographer to distribute exploitive films
and photos would deny freedom of expression to people of faith because of an alleged
fear of what might happen from religious influence on government or public
meetings. While much of society has allowed gambling to wash over its
communities, leaving broken families and individuals in its soul-destroying
wake, it reserves its harshest ridicule for those who advocate obedience to
God’s commandments and uniform, inspired standards of right and wrong.
As M. J. Sobran recently wrote: “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction,
expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get
uppity about it.” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978,
pp. 58–59.)
There are probably many reasons for the change in public
attitudes toward religion. Certainly we’ve had too many wolves posing as
shepherds, prompting a national skepticism toward any who profess to represent
God. The news media, which
rarely report on the good things churches are doing in the world, almost never
miss an opportunity to tell people when active church members do wrong. We read
about crimes that are committed by former Sunday School teachers, ministers,
or missionaries. But when was the last time you read that a crime was committed
by someone who hasn’t stepped inside a church in forty years?
For that matter, when
was the last time you saw religion or people of faith portrayed positively in
any film or television program? For the most part, Hollywood’s attitude toward
religion is typified by the expression of cartoon character Bart Simpson, whose
mealtime grace consisted of these words: “Dear God, we pay for all this stuff
ourselves, so thanks for nothing.” Can you imagine how embarrassed and disappointed our Founding
Fathers would be to know of the blasphemous disregard many of those of the media
have for God our Eternal Father. In fact, noted film critic Michael Medved
accuses Hollywood of a deliberate attempt to undermine organized religion: “A
war against standards leads logically and inevitably to hostility to religion,
because it is religious faith that provides the ultimate basis for all
standards.” (“Popular Culture and the War against Standards,” speech delivered
at Hillsdale College, 18 Nov. 1990.)
Organized religion finds itself increasingly on the defensive.
Not only are people questioning the right of the church—any
church—to be involved in matters of public policy, but some are even beginning
to wonder whether the church is entitled to exert any kind of meaningful
influence on people’s lives. As one churchgoer
recently said on a radio talk show, “I think the world of my minister—as long
as he doesn’t try to tell me how to live my life.”
Is it any wonder, then, that religion now finds itself under
attack in legislative assemblies and in the courts? In fact, the United States
Supreme Court recently discontinued the time-honored judicial standard that
gave considerable legal latitude to the free exercise of religion. Allowing
people of faith to practice their religion free from the burdening effects of
public policy is, according to the court, “a luxury that can no longer be
afforded.” While the justices acknowledged that the ruling would “place at a
relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged
in,” they said it was “an unavoidable consequence of a democratic government.”
(Oregon Employment Division v. Smith, 1990.)
I do not promote the religious practice that was in question in
that case but I am concerned with the long-term implications of the decision.
Wherever religious groups are in the minority and are not considered part of
the mainline religious community, the potential for state intrusion upon their
religious practices is real. With legislative bodies responding most often to
the will of the majority, the free exercise of religion by minority faith groups
is in peril.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (HR 2797) is presently
before Congress. This important piece of legislation is designed to restore the
protections for religious freedom that existed before this recent Supreme Court
decision placed those protections in jeopardy. Because the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act is necessary for the preservation of the free exercise of
religion, it demands our support.
The constitutional provisions relating to government and
religion were not intended to control the religious rights of people. Rather,
they were intended to expand them and eliminate the fear of government
intrusion. These provisions were meant to separate religion and government so
that religion would be independent. The experiences of Roger Williams and other
reformers provided the Founding Fathers of the U.S. with important facts to
help them deal with the potential risks of a state religion corrupted by
politics. Consequently, they drafted an article in the Bill of Rights to
guarantee religious freedom from government as opposed to government freedom
from religion.
In fact, the framers of the Constitution probably assumed that
religious freedom would establish religion as a watchdog over government, and
believed that free churches would inevitably stand and speak against immoral
and corrupt legislation. All churches not only have the right to speak out on public moral
issues, but they have the solemn obligation to do so. Religion represents
society’s conscience, and churches must speak out when government chooses a
course that is contrary to the laws of God. To remove the influence of religion
from public policy simply because some are uncomfortable with any degree of
moral restraint is like the passenger on a sinking ship who removes his life jacket
because it is restrictive and uncomfortable.
Today, the buzz words family values are being incorporated in almost every politician’s
thirty-second sound bite. But what does that phrase really mean? Whose values
are we going to embrace: the values of politicians? The values the media tell
us we should cherish? The values of special interest groups and organizations?
The values of rank-and-file Americans, as determined by scientific survey?
Obviously, it would not be politically expedient to say that the values that
the Founding Fathers drew upon are eternal, unchanging values. But that is a
fact. The values that made America great are, in reality, the commandments of
God. They provide the foundation upon which the American republic was built.
And if American democracy seems shaky today, it’s only because that foundation
has been eroded and weakened under the guise of separation of church and state.
Maybe Washington really was
speaking of our day when he said, “If I could conceive that the general
government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience
insecure, no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual
barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of
religious persecution.” (Maxims of Washington, p.
371.)
Samuel Adams, who is sometimes called the father of the American
Revolution, wrote: “I thank God that I have lived to see my country independent
and free. She may long enjoy her independence and freedom if she will. It
depends upon her virtue.” (Wells, The Life of Samuel
Adams, 3:175.)
That means it depends on us. If we would maintain the
independence and freedom the Founding Fathers intended, we must work to
preserve and protect the moral foundation upon which they built the U. S.
government. We must stand boldly for righteousness and truth, and must defend
the cause of honor, decency, and personal freedom espoused by Washington,
Madison, Adams, Lincoln, and other leaders who acknowledged and loved God.
Otherwise, we will find ourselves in the same predicament President Lincoln
observed in 1863.
Said Lincoln:“We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no
other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the
gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and
strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our
hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and
virtue of their own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too
self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too
proud to pray to the God that made us!” (A Proclamation
“to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation.”)
Let us resolve to make our own families truly free by teaching
them that God holds us all accountable. His laws are absolutes; breaking them
brings misery and unhappiness; keeping them brings joy, happiness, and the
blessings of heaven. Let us teach our families and others the importance of
moral responsibility based on the laws of God.
The freedom we give thanks for is at stake—for ourselves and for our
posterity. No nation or people that rejects God or His commandments can prosper
or find happiness. History and the scriptures are filled with examples of
nations that rejected God. Let us be wise and remember the source of our
blessings and not be timid or apologetic in sharing this knowledge with others.
No comments:
Post a Comment