A strange paradox exists in the United States. On the one hand many segments of society reject the notion of morality or that there are any set standards for morality and moral behavior as if behavior is amoral; meaning that behavior is neither moral nor immoral. It is much like the book of 30 or more years ago that proclaimed I’m OK, You’re OK, in that morals were relative and no matter what you decided it was okay as long as the your desires were satisfied and no one was injured or killed. Whatever an individual decided for his or her personal behavior code was okay. Morals had nothing to do with it since such an idea was draconian and not to mention old fashioned.

 On the other hand, the self same people who deny that there is a moral basis for behavior resting on time proven standards, ask the government to make laws to control the behavior of those who are radicalizing the nature of society by exhibiting what was once known as immoral and offensive behavior. They claim in the first instance government has no business involving itself in the propagation of morals and that all is fine, rejecting morals because they are too religious for them, but then ask the government to create moral codes to control society’s behavior. Which will it be? Either we have a moral code or we don’t and if we do from whence will it come?

The underlying truth of the matter is that when these people insist that government do something to clean up whatever is immoral, they are making a tacit admission that the way of man isn’t able to handle all situations without a standard of some kind higher than themselves. Another paradox enters the scene in the form of government, whom they consider to be a higher form than themselves, failing to recognize that those in government, in too many instances, aren’t any more attuned to a standard of morals based on a true higher power than they are when the cry for help.  Fallible men and women can’t create infallible rules for moral behavior when they too reject the notion of a higher standard than themselves.

What we get in return is debate on government regulation that won’t work if passed.  We get endless debate about birth control, condoms, abortion, and homosexuality being taught in schools, seen on TV, in books, and promoted in the movies. All the while refusing to see that the reason for the filth in all the different media and in the schools is because the immoral crowd is producing what is consumed by the public. When laws are passed then the cry is that government is violating the right of free speech. The ones who want intervention are many of the same ones who insist that free speech can’t be violated in an attempt to reign in immorality.

When the founders set up our government they never considered that immorality of the kind we see daily, or any kind for that matter, would be considered protected under the First Amendment. I challenge anyone who thinks it is (judges included) to find any such reference or idea in any of the writings of the men who followed God’s ideals as they went about creating a new nation. They had personal morality that transcended their human desires and that came from their allegiance to the giver of all whose name is God, who gave them the foundation for their moral belief.  That personal morality of those men gave us the greatest nation on earth.

Now as God is shoved aside in favor of no standards for personal morality, we see the degradation daily in the form of abortion, murder, homosexuality, child molestation, pornography, and other acts of out of control humans. When personal morality based on the higher standards from God are ignored, it is folly to think that government can return us to sensible conduct, when in the end it is those in government that have helped bring us the immoral society we live in today.

© 04-11-2005 DEC