Liberty Depends On Self-Government

Robert Meyer | February 1 2005

In 1797, our second president John Adams made a statement that would be literally astounding and intolerant by contemporary benchmarks: "...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." Volumes could be written regarding that statement alone. What Adams is getting at is that self-government under the auspices of a certain moral standard is necessary to perpetuate liberty.

The issue of liberty was first seriously confronted by me as a sophomore in high school, when a social studies teacher told the class that freedom is not about being able to do whatever you want to do when you want to do it. I had thought of freedom the same way as many 15-year-olds did, as emancipation from parental authority and the like. I knew my teacher was correct in his assertions, but I couldn't think of any way to define what liberty actually meant.

Today we complain about government encroachments on civil liberties, but fail to realize that much of this comes about as we fail to govern ourselves according to a moral and religious foundation. Where there is a vacuum of chaos the government must step in to fill the void. Proper self-government makes this unpleasant process unnecessary.

There are remedies to deal with being left in the lurch as regards personal behaviors. It is simply a matter of conveniently changing definitions. We see this deconstruction moving at break-neck speed as the term "moral values" is warped and redefined. Once upon a time everyone understood that moral values pertained to personal conduct. Of course in modern times we are too enlightened for such restrictive and stifling descriptions. So moral values have become the advocacy of a proscribed set of social issues that all those embracing a given worldview tend to hold commonly.

Put into practice it might go something like this: It doesn't matter who you sleep with, whether you take recreational drugs, or if you are an avid reader of pornography(that's none of anyone's business, after all), just as long as you are for an increase in the minimum wage, free health care for everyone, and a tax increase for the guy who makes more than you. Supporting these things qualifies you as "a moral person".

Giving it a religious interpretation, we might say that some people embrace the Jesus who said "judge not, lest though also be judged," or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." On the other hand, they would be more than willing to cast the first stone, along with a few others, at the Jesus who admonishes, "go and sin no more". A theology and gospel of expedient half-truths is happily celebrated today. As I often say, we are hiding the secular humanist camel in the religious tent.

I thought it was significant when a famous rock group released a record album entitled, "what were once vices are now habits" some three decades ago. Now we have "progressed" to where vices are not merely habits, they have been promoted to civil rights and "moral values". In the local paper some time ago, a contributor informed readers that the legal opportunity to terminate an unborn child was a "moral value". I never would have guessed had I not been told.

All of our founders understood that "liberty of conscience", meant that no government should force a man to worship God other than in the way he sees fit. But such liberty of conscience never absolves man from his duty to serve and obey God (see George Washington's Thanksgiving day proclamation). And that is at the heart of the real problem in America. We are trying to build a moral house of cards without reference to God's order. When the individual lacks moral discipline, the repercussions are transmitted and dispersed exponentially throughout society. The end result is that the government must intervene to restore order. This distorts the role and proper authority of government--and consequently results in the loss of liberty. This is why a constitutional republic is so hard to keep.