Recently in Position Papers Category

While those who support the legality of abortion and those who oppose it are irrevocably divided, they are in agreement on one thing: the issue hinges on the question of human life.

It follows then, that if unborn life were to be strictly defined and quantified in law, the Courts would be bound to protect, rather than devalue the unborn.

Protecting the Unborn - An Incremental Approach.doc

While the issue of gay marriage itself is relatively straightforward, the legal aspects have become increasingly muddled as legal challenges mount, supporters and detractors lobby the legislature, and some cities and states attempt to legalize gay marriage by executive or judicial fiat. In order to fully understand what steps can be taken to shore up traditional marriage by law, it is necessary to be clear on the legal status of gay marriage in the United States.

Pre-empting Gay Marriage.doc

In recent election cycles, much has been made of the phenomenon of partisanship. Politicians on either side of the aisle as well as the media have laid a variety of societal ills at the feet of the demon named “Partisan Rancor.” If only there were less partisanship, less political division, the pundits say, America would be able to address the all the problems it currently faces.

This view of American politics is little more than wishful thinking; the electorate is composed of individuals, and individuals will always have disagreements with one another. It is the genius of the American political system that allows people to do precisely that, yet in a way that affords everyone a voice in the process. Open, vocal disagreement is a vital part of the American tradition of self-government.

On the other hand, the critics of partisanship are not all wrong when they decry the current political climate. While disagreements over issues and policies are good and necessary, conflict expressed as personal attacks or smear campaigns both cheapen public discourse and alienate voters. The public’s cynical views on politics and lackluster voter turnout can be attributed to such gutter politics.

A sense of unity among Americans is indeed called for; not a feel-good “go along to get along” sentiment that merely papers over the very real divides in the American societal landscape, but a sense of purpose that stems from something deeper.

The source of such unity is the Judeo-Christian ethic that served as the inspiration for America’s founding and undergirds our republic today. There is an important distinction to be made here; to claim that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles is not to say that the United States of America was founded upon the Christian religion. Many of the Founders had fled Europe to escape the tyranny of theocracy; America was designed to be different. In fact, prior to the American Revolution, Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island on the precept of religious freedom.

The Founders rightly saw that when government and religion were conjoined, both institutions became corrupt and bereft of purpose. The church became overly occupied with worldly matters and so neglected its spiritual duties, while kings saw fit to cloak their actions in spiritual language, raising themselves above reproach and opening the door to tyranny.

However, the Founders also recognized that liberty was a gift from God, and it is upon this principle that they made their case for independence and later nationhood. To them, “created in the image of God” meant that individuals were gifted with the capacity to reason and determine their own destinies; kings and governments had no right to strip citizens of their free will or constrain them from worshiping God as they chose.

It is for this reason that the First Amendment of the Constitution both enumerates the right to the free exercise of religion while prohibiting government from meddling in religious affairs. Because of this stipulation, religious practice was able to flourish in America. In 1831, when young Alexis de Tocqueville traveled across the young nation in an attempt to understand it, he was amazed to find that the vibrant religiosity common in American society was not mandated or enforced by the government; rather, it sprang up from the people as a spontaneous outpouring of spiritual devotion. Americans counted themselves religious devotees because they wanted to worship God.
Upon this realization, Tocqueville made the observation that in America, religious freedom was closely linked to the other freedoms enjoyed by the populace. According to Tocqueville,
“When there is no longer any principle of authority in religion any more than in politics… the constant agitation of all surrounding things alarms and exhausts them. As everything is at sea in the sphere of the mind, they determine at least that the mechanism of society shall be firm and fixed; and as they cannot resume their ancient belief, they assume a master…I am inclined to think that if faith be wanting in [man], he must be subject; and if he be free, he must believe.
Furthermore, Tocqueville observed that though America was composed of many diverse groups, it nonetheless remained a unified nation. He reasoned that the multitude of social functions and organizations such as churches, clubs, charitable organizations, and civic groups helped knit the various subsections of American society together as a whole.
In much the same fashion, Americans today have a powerful tool with which we can reforge our national unity: the principles upon which this nation was founded and the source for those beliefs. The Founding Fathers drew from the Judeo-Christian ethic in order to enunciate our “inalienable rights”—the right to govern ourselves, the right to worship freely, the right to protect our loved ones and our belongings.
These God-given rights unite all Americans of all creeds and from all walks of life, whether they be Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or irreligious. The ideals enumerated in the Constitution—which stem from the Judeo-Christian tradition—are the source of American nationalism.
When we use our currency (which displays the words “In God We Trust”), recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or even engage in the act of free speech, we are reinforcing the national myth that makes us whole. These actions connect the abstract ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to a concrete reality: one nation, under God, indivisible.
Organizations such as the ACLU ignore Tocqueville’s prescient words above when they attempt to chip away at the Judeo-Christian ethic that is the underpinning of American liberty. Uniting on the basis of that underpinning cannot fix all our problems overnight, but it is an excellent point upon which to re-open political dialogue in America. In order to tackle the challenges that lie ahead, it is essential that we remind ourselves and one another that no matter our disagreements, we enjoy the freedom to disagree for one reason: it was given to us by God.

Over the past three decades, few issues have proven to be as
enduring and as controversial as the issue of abortion. While abortion itself
is as old as human nature, Roe v. Wade pushed the matter squarely into the center
of the public's consciousness. Since 1973, the debate that has raged on can be
distilled into two central questions:

1) When does life begin?

2) What role should the government play with respect to the practice of obtaining and/or providing abortions?

As the Faith, Family, Freedom Alliance was founded to promote Judeo-Christian values and uphold the sanctity of life, our answer to the first question is unequivocal; life begins at the moment of conception. As such, our answer to the second question must be that it is the government's duty to intervene on the behalf of the unborn.

Every argument made for or against the procedure of abortion begins in assumptions which stem from these primary concerns. Thus, a principled case for protection of the unborn must begin with a clear definition of "life" before proceeding to a case for government action.

Life can be succinctly defined as "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

According to Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, a human embryo meets this definition of life. According to the Encyclopedia, an embryo is "the developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."

Proponents of abortion have often responded to such evidence with the claim that while the embryo or fetus may in fact constitute a living organism, it cannot be considered fully human. On the contrary: Human Embryology and Teratology categorically notes that "fertilization is a critical landmark [in the process of life] because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed...The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

As an organism which develops the capability to metabolize, adapt, and reproduce, an embryo meets the definition of life.

Its genetic uniqueness, as well as its developing cognitive abilities, classifies it as human.

As human life, an embryo or fetus is deserving of legal protection for reasons both Biblical and pertaining to good governance.

The Bible unequivocally illustrates the high premium that God places on human life. When instructing the Hebrews in the forming of a nation, God made it clear that murder was expressly forbidden. Leviticus 24:17 states that "If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death." Numbers 35 spends nearly 20 verses on the moral and legal ramifications of murder, and rightly so; a nation must be able and willing to protect the lives of its citizens. God's Old Testament law consistently applies "eye for an eye"  to the unborn as well as adults.

In addition to God's law, the American legal tradition carries its own justifications for furnishing the unborn with legal protection. However, opponents of such protection consistently raise the specter of "government invasion of privacy" in order to end such discussions. 

In fact, one of the central fallacies surrounding the abortion debate concerns the use of the word "privacy." For decades, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws and other pro-abortion advocates have sold abortion by billing it as "a private decision between a woman and her doctor." In fact, in the written majority opinion of Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun made multiple references to Roe's "right to privacy."

The supreme irony, of course, is that the "right to privacy" was lauded by the same Supreme Court majority which imposed abortion on demand by judicial decree across the United States. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing private about abortion, whether legalized or not. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was a matter of state law; after Roe, it became a national legal issue.

As the Fifth Amendment declares that US citizens shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it is simply not possible for the government to remain neutral on the issue of abortion--whether the federal government outlaws abortion, retains Roe v. Wade, or allows the states to craft their own abortion laws, the federal government will have a profound influence on the issue.

Rule of law is predicated on equal protection that is extended to all quarters of the population; certainly no subset of society is more vulnerable or more in need of legal protection than the unborn. 

Though science, religion, and the legal code often find themselves on the opposite sides of a multitude of disagreements, there is an unusual degree of clarity in the synthesis found on the issue of abortion.

The procedure itself is nothing less than the termination of human life.

God's law and our own consciences demand action.

Our government is bound by its own mandate to enact a shift in policy.

For the past ten years,[i] both state legislatures and the courts have heard the concerns of a steady stream of activists agitating for an "expansion" in the definition of traditional marriage. The ACLU, GLAAD, and other pro-homosexual activists argue for an overturning of the status quo on the grounds of individual rights, and through the assertion that legalized homosexual unions pose no threat to the institution of traditional marriage.

However, to approach this from the perspective of individual rights misses the point; the family unit shapes the individual; the family unit is the building block of society. The legalization and promotion of homosexual marriage threatens the integrity of the family by compromising the institution of marriage.

One might well begin by asking, why is family so important? Family is founded upon the institution of marriage; marriage was ordained by God. According to Genesis 2:24, "...a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."[ii]

Within the loving confines of the family, children are provided with both physical safety and financial security. As John Buethe of Men Against Discrimination notes,

"Two parents working together as a family also provided an economic unit that could build wealth.  The family concept working together raising children and building wealth is the building block of community and civilization."[iii]

Additionally, studies by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy demonstrate that the family unit is instrumental in the emotional and psychological health of children. Their findings indicate that marriage "increases the likelihood that children enjoy close relationships with their parents."[iv] Children who are raised in homes with a married mother and father are more likely to be emotionally well-adjusted, less likely to commit crimes, are less likely to engage in substance abuse, and tend to be more physically healthy. 

The research center Child Trends agrees: "Research confirms that children develop best in families formed by both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."[v] 

God ordained that it should be so, for it is traditionally through the family unit that children are taught about God. As Proverbs 22:6 states, "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it."[vi]

The viability of the family unit is dependent upon the strength of the institution of marriage. Unfortunately, the rise of the homosexual movement threatens to erode the bedrock of traditional marriage by sweeping away the definition of a "one man, one woman" union and replacing it with something rather more fluid.

Mary Ann Glendon points out that, at its core, expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships changes the focus of marriage. The family unit exists to protect, nurture, and raise children; homosexual marriage is a thing contrived "primarily for the benefit of adults."[vii]

David Blankenhorn demonstrates that there is a correlation between the rise in same-sex marriage and the weakening of traditional marriage by going straight to the source--he cites the advocates of homosexual marriage. As Blankenhorn puts it, "the deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization--the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization."[viii]

While many take comfort in the knowledge that most Americans oppose same-sex marriage and forty-one states currently have enacted Defense of Marriage acts, the danger to the status quo is greater than it appears. A Massachusetts court has ruled that the state constitution grants homosexuals the right to marry,[ix] and the city of San Francisco has handed out over 3,400 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution requires that rights granted to the citizens of one state must be recognized by law in other states. In effect, as long as homosexual marriage is legal in one state, it has the potential to threaten traditional marriage in the other forty-nine states.

If the institution of homosexual marriage extends to other states, the next step will be to "educate" children on the "normal, healthy" nature of homosexual relationships. In fact, in some parts of the country the re-education process has already begun. The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network is a nationwide organization that aims to push a positive view of homosexuality on pre-teen and teenage students. In 2000, A Boston affiliate chapter of GLSEN held a conference at Tufts University instructing attendees in gay sex practices. The audience included teenagers, and was funded by the Massachusetts Department of Education.[x]

Despite the efforts of homosexual activists, the family unit continues to function as America's primary defense against the widespread adoption of homosexual social mores. Both Christians and conservatives must make the defense of marriage a priority; a healthy, moral and productive society depends upon it.

At the outset of the 21^st century, America faces a number of economic challenges that have given its citizens pause; the subprime mortgage crisis, a rising tide of illegal immigration, industries which are moving offshore, and the aging Boomer population, which moves ever closer to retirement and collection of Social Security benefits. In response, many Americans look to the engine of government to alleviate their concerns and institute a new period of economic growth. While the impulse to expect solutions from politicians is understandable, in this case, it is incorrect: the free market is the guarantor of prosperity, not bureaucratic institutions or elected officials.

While many politicians decry the notion of "profit-seeking" and paint CEOS as greedy and unscrupulous, history has yielded two lessons regarding the free market: reliance on a capitalist economic system is the best way to ensure a prosperous society, and the practice of free market economics protects and enhances our fundamental political freedoms.

From the dawn of time, men and women have engaged in the act of bartering, for the simple reason that no one person can manufacture everything he or she wants or needs. From Esau selling his birthright for porridge[i] to the much larger scale of trade between ancient Israel and its neighbors[ii], the act of buying and selling is a vital component of human behavior.

As Adam Smith noted in The Wealth of Nations, this system of cooperation is created and sustained through voluntary interaction: no chieftain or government ordained that humankind exchange goods. Historically, buying and selling has occurred only when all parties believe they have something to gain from the exchange. Thus, "the real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."[iii]

The two concepts examined in the previous statement, price and value, are inseparable from capitalism, for no one wants to pay more than what he or she feels a good or service is worth. The sum total of the baker's efforts to bake bread, the time, labor, and parts that go into assembling an automobile--these determine what the products are worth. Because of the myriad of considerations which factor into the price framework, a system of such complexity cannot be created or effectively administered by a central entity.

When government becomes involved in economic activity, the result is usually a form of price control. Milton Friedman explained in Free to Choose that even during a period of economic crisis, such intervention hurts more than it helps. During the OPEC oil embargo of 1974, and the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, "...there was a sharp disturbance in the supply of crude oil from abroad. But that did not lead to gasoline lines in Germany or Japan, which are wholly dependent on imported oil. It led to gasoline lines in the United States because government agency did not permit the price system to function."[iv]
Prices transmit information to buyers and sellers about how much of a product exists, and how badly people want it. By disrupting the flow of supply and demand, the government turned a problem into a true energy crisis.

This is not to say that government has absolutely no role in influencing economic activity; rather, its role should be limited to a watchdog capacity. As an increasingly complex lattice of transactions is formed through economic activity, trust comes to play an integral role in a free market economy for one simple reason; for economic expansion to proceed, people must trust one another.

A hypothetical scenario which illustrates this involves a person who purchases a book on Amazon.com. The customer logs onto the internet, navigates to the proper page, enters his or her credit card information, and approximately two weeks later, receives the book in the mail. The buyer had no face to face contact with anyone else at any stage of the transaction, and had only Amazon's guarantee that they would indeed receive the requested product in exchange for payment.

And yet, this scenario plays itself out all over the world in countless venues; consumers do not see all of the moving parts of this machine called capitalism, yet the system works amazingly well...provided the players trust one another. Here is where government plays a vital role: by creating and enforcing laws against theft, embezzlement, and fraud, the rule of law is upheld and a clear, unequivocal message is sent to all participants in the
economy: no cheating. The knowledge that rule-breaking will be followed by swift and severe punishment is what sustains the trust behind transactions and ensures a robust economic system.

This understanding of the relationship between the rule of law and a prosperous society can also be found in the Bible. When God led the children of Israel out of Egypt, His
first priority was to establish a basic code of behavior for everyday Hebrew life. The Deuteronomic code stipulated everything from religious precepts to punishments for criminal offenses. These legal codes were administered by Moses and other judges.[v]

God commanded the children of to "keep all my decrees and laws and follow them...I will give [the land] to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey."[vi]
The prosperity that God promised was conditional, however; in order for the Hebrews to enjoy societal and economic growth, they would have to uphold the laws. Long before the underlying concepts of capitalism were explored by Adam Smith, God entrusted the children of Israel with the law, in order that they might build the trust necessary to sustain a society.

When that trust is violated, it leads to breakdowns in the system. An example of this is the collapse of Enron in 2001. Though Enron was in financial trouble, its executives deceived the company's shareholders and employees by assuring them of the company's "long-term viability."[vii] Enron's
bankruptcy, along with Adelphia, WorldCom, and a number of other corporations led to an economic slowdown at the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002. As these companies behaved in an untrustworthy manner, consumers lost confidence in their ability to deliver, and by extension, in the American economy itself.

Another example of this causal relationship between the erosion of trust and economic slowdown is the contributory role that the subprime mortgage crisis has played in the current economy. During the fall of 2006, a large number of consumers began to default on high-risk mortages they had incurred on property that they believed would continue to increase in value. When the increase in value did not occur, they lost the ability to refinance, and were unable to make payments on the properties. As a result, the housing
market has slowed to a crawl and demand for real-estate is low.

Periods of market instability such as the 2001 recession and the more recent bursting bubble of the housing market understandably provokes anxiety; such fluctuations are a sobering reminder of the fluid nature of a free market system. A free market economy is constantly recalibrating in response to the actions, desires, and needs of its participants. A statist economy, on the other hand, is characterized by its static nature--very little
surprises occur in a government-run economy. The downside to such predictability is in the nature of such a system. Governments cannot legislate prosperity; they can however, mandate poverty and create scarcity. The advantage of a free market lies in its responsiveness to humanity's wants and needs, and its capacity to meet them. This essential freedom inherent in such a system is engrained in the very bones of the American nation-state.

As Friedman, Smith, and others have noted, economic freedom in its own right; however, the free market is not merely desirable because of the prosperity it brings. It also serves as a catalyst for and a protector of political and human rights. Skeptics are quick to point out that increasingly capitalist China still has a woeful record on human rights, or that international corporations commonly exploit workers in developing countries. Despite these points, the historical record is clear: free markets disproportionately empower thedisempowered.

The empowerment offered by capitalism is nothing less than control over one's economic fate: the ability to gain upward mobility while providing for one's family. A potent example of this is Botswana Though it has little in the way of natural resources, Botswana is one of sub-Saharan Africa's most productive countries; its free market system has led to a steady increase in standard of living and quality of life for its citizens. Its neighbor Zaire, is rich with resources and arable land, yet is one of the poorest nations in the world. Zaire's statist economy is firmly controlled by an authoritarian government which has
been rocked by multiple revolutions, coups and assassinations.[viii]

This phenomenon can be explained by the close relationship between economic and political freedom. As Dan Griswold, associate director of Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute explains, "Economic liberalization provides a counterweight to governmental power and creates space for civil society. And by promoting faster growth, trade promotes political freedom indirectly by creating an economically independent and political aware middle class."[ix]

Nowhere is this more evident than in the founding of the United States. While the American colonies did not develop a sense of political union overnight, at the time of the American Revolution, the colonies had close economic ties to one another, laid by their allegiance to Britain, and cemented by the subsequent flows of commerce. The bountiful resources of the New World coupled with the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of
the American colonists had created bustling trade up and down the Eastern seaboard and growing prosperity for its inhabitants.

When King George III attempted to tax the colonists at will, the monarch made two mistakes; he had not counted on the fact that a higher standard of living raises citizens' expectations across the board, and he was threatening their livelihoods. The colonists expected the political rights that accompanied citizenship in the British Empire--primarily,
the right to bring their grievances before the government. This was not merely a stand on principle; the Americans wanted to protect what they had built from a rapacious government.

Seen in that light, it hardly seems coincidental that many of the Founders were middle-class land owners, and that the right to property was mentioned so prominently in the writing of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers understood that economic freedom establishes the existence of a private sphere in society. This is the hedge that limits government power, and provides the foundation for successive political rights.

The liberating power of capitalism is not merely a domestic policy; reliance on the triumph of economic freedom over tyranny was also the strategy that won the Cold War. Beginning with George Kennan's "Long Telegram," the US adopted the policy of containment, betting that the fragile and stunted Soviet economy would be unable to withstand the pressure. When the Politburo cracked and instituted the policies of glasnost and perestroika, the virus of free enterprise was introduced into the Soviet system.

As the Soviet leaders learned to their chagrin, the capitalist system has little tolerance for the corruption and waste endemic to statist societies. The character of the master in Jesus' "Parable of the Talents" is a perfect illustration of this ruthless efficiency. The master, who has entrusted his servants with varying amounts of money, returns to collect on his investments and finds that one servant merely dug a hole, and hid the talent in the ground. "...You should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest." 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him."[x]
In similar fashion, the corrupt Politburo was divested of their economic power, which was turned over to those who would "invest" more prudently: the Russian people.

Economic opportunity fanned the flame of hope, and the Russian people clamored for the political dignity that the Soviet Union had denied them. Once a vibrant market economy has been established, and government has granted political rights to its citizens, it's extremely tough for the governing body to turn back the clock--again, for reasons largely to do with expectations. As Thomas P.M. Barnett, a former Pentagon analyst noted, "good markets need good governments,"[xi]
and once a government has staked its legitimacy on its citizens' well-being, it would be extremely unwise to jeopardize economic prosperity by placing constraints on political or economic freedom.

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers or quick fixes to economic downturns such as the one facing the United States at the current time. Direct intervention by the government will almost certainly upset the balance of supply and demand, and tinkering with the mechanics of economic incentives often yields unintended consequences. However, if the government concentrates on enforcing existing laws, reining in taxing and spending, and encouraging efforts to equip students for competition in a global economy, there can be little doubt that American ingenuity and hard work will continue to ensure a
prosperous future for its citizens.

At present, a war is being waged for the soul of American culture. Liberal revisionists and secular historians are attempting to rewrite the pages of United States history, replacing all references to God and Judeo-Christian influences with bland references to "deism" and "Enlightenment thought." While many Christian and conservative voices decry the removal of prayer from schools, or the lawsuits brought against manger scenes in public squares, a more subtle assault on our heritage has commenced. Liberals are attempting to simultaneously label any public acknowledgment of God as "theocracy" and to further assert that America is not, and never has been a Christian nation. In order to turn back the coming tide of secularism, it is vital that we refute these false claims.

The first step towards restoring the primacy of the Judeo-Christian ethic is to debunk the false claim that acknowledging our religious roots is tantamount to "theocracy." The straw man of theocracy is often used by proponents of secularism to club dissenting voices into silence.

Theocracy can be defined as "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority."[i] Iran is a theocracy; while there is an elected president, he is little more than a mouthpiece. The Revolutionary Council, made up of Islamic clerics and headed by the Supreme Ayatollah, calls the shots (including which names make it on to the presidential ballot). Saudi Arabia is deeply theocratic (if less explicitly so): the Saudi royal family's "right to rule" rests upon their status as defenders of Mecca and Medina, the holy cities of Islam, and the tacit approval of the ulama, the religious leaders. For much of the medieval period, theocratic power was the only constant in Europe; political power was transient, shifting. The pope commanded armies, humbled kings, and launched crusades.

Given standards by which to identify theocracy, how does America measure up? At the national level, the president commands the military, and Congress authorizes war. Both the president and Congress are elected by the citizens. During such elections, religious leaders and organizations may not even endorse candidates without jeopardizing their status as tax-exempt organizations.[ii] Churches and religious leaders hold no political authority over our political leaders, and conversely, our government is barred from restricting religious practices.[iii]
Elements on the political left may claim that " America is heading towards theocracy,"[iv] but when compared to bona fide theocratic governments that exist today, such claims are pretty thin gruel.

While the United States is not, and never has been, a theocracy, there is something to the fears of the secular left: Judeo-Christian precepts are embedded in this country's DNA. From the moment the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts, religiosity has occupied a cherished place in American life. French Huguenots, fleeing the Catholic-Protestant wars, Puritans, Anabaptists, Lutherans, and Catholics--all came to American shores seeking to practice what the Constitution now promises: the free exercise of religion. In fact, while the Church of England was handing down ever more rules and regulations to citizens of the British Empire, Roger Williams was founding the colony of Rhode Island on the principle of religious freedom.[v]

A common charge often leveled against America 's Christian heritage is the claim that many of the Founders were not Christians at all: many of the founders were guided by philosophical precepts of the Enlightenment, and many students of the Enlightenment found the "Clockmaker God" of Deism attractive. While it is known that Jefferson, Washington and Franklin were deists,[vi] that is hardly the whole picture. Out of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, there were 29 Anglicans, 16 Calvinists, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, and 2 Lutherans.[vii] All of these men professed to be practicing Christians.

Furthermore, even the Founders who considered themselves to be deists believed that God had a hand in the formation of the United States. The deist Thomas Jefferson declared that "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."[viii]The deist George Washington expressed his belief that "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."[ix] The deist Benjamin Franklin told the Constitutional Convention "the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth -- That God governs in the Affairs of Men."[x] It speaks strongly to the nature and circumstances of this nation's founding that even those Founding Fathers who were not Christians saw God's hand guiding events.

There is another more subtle, yet even more fundamental link between Christianity and the founding of the United States : the concept of natural law. While the concept of natural law began with the Greek philosophers and was later adopted by St. Thomas of Aquinas, it later formed the backbone of much of Enlightenment thought. To many Enlightenment philosophers, engaged in the search for objective and absolute Truth, the idea that God laid down immutable and overarching laws that governed human behavior was a natural accompaniment.

Thus, when the Founders assembled to sign the Declaration of Independence, their list of grievances against the king was an issue of kingly vs. divine authority; as Jefferson stated, the signers believed that "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."[xi] The king's violation of the rights of his own citizens flew in the face of the precepts of natural law, which had been laid down by God Himself.

When the Founders gathered to list the king's slights as justification for revolution, they were appealing to a higher authority: that of God. John Locke, an English philosopher whose writings on life, liberty, and property had a profound influence on Jefferson 's own writings, had this to say: "The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure."[xii]

It is important to guard against the dangers of theocracy; that leads to corruption of religious vitality and erosion of individual freedom. Yet that is a distant threat--the United States has always been a world apart. Religion occupies a prominent place in theocracies because the government orders it to be so; in the United States , religious expression has always been a spontaneous expression of devotion to God; it is freely practiced by its citizens. Greater still is the danger that we will forget
where we came from and how we got here. The United States has prospered for over two centuries by holding its Christian heritage close, for the Founders were right: it is from God that our freedoms spring. So long as He is foremost in our thoughts, they cannot be taken from us.

For the past thirty-odd years, the culture wars have divided citizens of the United States on issues such as prayer in schools, gay marriage, and abortion. As divisive as these issues are, reasoned public debate and arrival at an eventual consensus might still be possible if not for the excessive interventions of the courts. Activist judges reading new "rights" into the Constitution have further enflamed the public discussion by handing down rulings by fiat and bypassing attempts at legislative solutions. In some circumstances, courts have even reached outside American case law, grafting concepts of international law onto the body of the American legal framework.

The problems caused by overenthusiastic jurists run deeper, however. Not only does judicial activism have a disruptive effect on political discourse; it also undermines the rule of law and the separation of powers. In order to repair the damage that has been done to these most basic principles of the American political structure, concerned citizens must take a closer look at the reasoning behind such jurisprudence.

The question of constitutional interpretation can be summarily described as a clash of competing philosophies. Postmodern interpretation, often referred to as belief in a "living, breathing Constitution" is a paradigm which approaches the Constitution as one might approach a ball of clay. Just as the clay is molded to suit the needs or wishes of the sculptor, so too is the Constitution considered malleable enough to accommodate whatever ends are deemed appropriate by the jurist.

As one can imagine, such an approach raises serious questions, chief among them being: what on earth is the point of having a Constitution if its meaning changes with each new circumstance?

For an example of the problems that are created (or magnified) by such a muddled approach to constitutional law, look to the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade, written by Justice Harry Blackmun. Blackmun cites a "right to privacy" as the Court's justification for ruling in Roe's favor, yet no such right can be found in the Constitution. The "right to privacy," had in fact, come about piecemeal through earlier decisions such as Griswold v.
Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, in which the Court ruled that states had no right to impede an individual's access to contraceptives; it was ruled to be a "private matter."

After invoking the heretofore unknown "right to privacy" and attempting to split the difference between the opposing sides of the abortiondebate, the Supreme Court handed down one of the most divisive and controversial decisions in American history. Prior to Roe, abortion had been controversial, but the Court's ruling fanned a small flame into a wildfire.

One of the chief advantages to having a government with the legislature as the primary mover of lawmaking is that the legislative process allows all voices to be heard, whether supporting or dissenting. The drawn-out process of crafting law necessarily involves give and take, compromise, and a great deal of reasoned dialogue. By summarily handing down an all-encompassing decision, the Supreme Court bypassed the forum of public discussion in favor of crafting hard and fast law.

In this, the Supreme Court made two serious mistakes: first, the justices extrapolated meaning from the Constitution which did not exist prior to their interpretation. Second, they created a new federal law and superseded existing state laws. In essence, nine justices behaved as if they had been endowed with the legislative authority to create, rather than merely interpret law.

This is not to cast aspersions on the intentions of Harry Blackmun and his colleagues; their intentions were to resolve a potentially divisive issue, and therein lies the problem. At the heart of the postmodern paradigm is a focus on the ends--its approach is primarily focused on outcome.

Outcome-based rulings, however, undermine the rule of law, as rule of law stems from continuity and uniformity. While the legislature and the executive branches are able make changes to policy on a daily basis, the judicial branch's primary duty is to preserve the existing foundation of law. 2 Chronicles 34 tells of the revival of the nation of Judah under the young King Josiah; this national renewal began with the discovery of Deuteronomy, ancient Israel's code of law. The restoration of the lawbook to its proper place led to the reinstatement of the rule of law in the kingdom Judah.

Unlike postmodern interpretation, originalism focuses on the process of jurisprudence, rather than on a desired result. According to Thomas Jefferson, the goal of Supreme Court justices should be to "carry [oneselves] back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

The goal of originalism is to divine the original intent of the Framers and apply it consistently to the various issues raised in Court briefs. If the Constitution requires expansion or amending, there is a legislative process for doing so. However, until such time as changes are made via the legislature, the Supreme Court's duty is to interpret and uphold existing law--not act as the arbiters of social change.

The reason for this can be found in the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and others, to explain the relationship between the three branches of the federal government. In Federalist Paper #78, the Founders explained in detail that the judiciary's role was to measure existing law against the Constitution, to ensure that the body of federal law remained consistent with the founding document.

Hamilton and Madison further specified that judges were to hold their offices on the condition of "good behavior," which is what led to the tradition of appointing Supreme Court justices for life. Their reasons for this were twofold; first, it would insulate justices from any pressure exerted by the legislative or executive branches, and second, the Founders deemed law to be a sufficiently complicated field that it required interpreters who had years of expertise to draw upon.

Clearly, the Founders had intended that the branch of the judiciary act as a check upon the potentially zealous lawmaking activities of the other two branches--a near impossibility if the judiciary itself were to begin dabbling in the art of crafting law.

This was indeed prescient of the Founding Fathers; our political landscape has been rent by the controversies which an activist Court has exacerbated. Coming to political consensus on issues such as gay marriage and abortion are difficult under the best of circumstances; when decisions are handed down from on high with no opportunity for legislative (and subsequently, public) debate, citizens are robbed of their chance to offer their input. However, this is not cause for conservatives to despair; damage that has been done to our system by years of judicial activism can be repaired. The first step is to replace the "new" understanding of judicial interpretation, and restore originalism to its proper role.