The real questions that are being dealt with in Washington, D.C., and ultimately nationwide, are not economic ones. They are moral ones, which ultimately connect to legal issues.
It involves questions such as these:
Is it moral or legal to steal the fruit of the labors of a working person and give them to a non-working person? (theft of private property through taxation to give to welfare recipients, including illegal aliens)
Is it moral to allow a private citizen and family to work hard for many years, to build a company, and then steal the fruits of that company by fining it for its freedom of religion stand? (Hobby Lobby)
Is it moral to print money out of thin air, which becomes a hidden form of theft by reducing the value of currency in general so that each dollar buys less than it used to, as well as creates inflation, which also steals wealth? (the process of the Federal Reserve)
The natural world operates by laws. Sciencists, and those using applied scientific theory, such as those creating airplanes or cars, bridges or buildings, or computers, would not be able to function if the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry varied from day to day. If 2 + 2 = 4 one day and 2 + 2 = 5 (sic) another day, then obviously there would be no sure foundation upon which to build. .
Does the same operate in the moral realm? Are there laws we should follow? Civilizations have looked to their religions and gods for guidance in this area.
Let’s look at the definition of religion.
Religion – a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary)
With that definition, all of these are religions:
Many more could be listed. All of these operate according to “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.
It should be noted that atheism and secularism are just as much religions as Christianity, as they operate according to “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.
Back to the question of morality. . .what determines the moral law to operate by within nations? Is there a moral law? How can we determine the moral law? How can we determine the moral law upon which to base laws which form governments?
Start by looking for proof. Look for something within each of the religious systems that is so compelling, that it indicates that there must be “something” to that particular system.
Of the various religious systems above we have:
Atheism…connected to Communism, elimination of private property, mass murders
Secularism…connected no absolutes (which implies that if there are no absolutes, anything goes, including your property, your family, you life, all are on the table)
Socialism…a transitional state between the overthrow of capitalism and the beginning of communism, precursor to Communism
Communism. . .connected to atheism, mass murders, elimination of private property
Sharia Law/Islam. . .connected to killing all non-believers, terrorism, a form of government that is a religious dictatorship
Nazism. . .remembered for Hitler, mass murders, concentration camps
Hinduism. . .religion in India and other nations
Buddhism. . .religion in Tibet and other Asian nations
Judaism. . .based on the Old Testament, brought forth the laws and the prophets
Christianity…grew out of Judaism, out of the laws and the prophets, developed because of Jesus who was crucified, died and raised from the dead (for more information, read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, who was an atheist legal editor of the Chicago Tribune and who investigated the historical Jesus for nearly two years, at the end of which, he became a Christian)
Of those listed above, the most compelling is Jesus, who died and rose from the dead (none of the other religions match that), and also the historical creation of Judaism and Israel, which is the root from which Jesus came, and which is quite remarkable if you read it.
Jesus said, “I came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.”
The Old Testament talks about property rights, the preservation of life, the separation of branches of government, sound money and being blessed by the Creator for following His laws. Read it for yourself.
As Washington, D.C., and the nation at large, continue to examine questions of taxation, health care, and monetary policy, it should ask itself what moral and legal basis it is following? The whole discussion in Washington, D.C., and the nation at large, will never be solved until there is a general consensus on which moral path to take.
A specific point of the importance of morality, and ultimately legality, is the question of Obama’s birth certificate. Despite the fact that it was mostly ignored in 2008, and again, in 2012 by the mainstream press, the alternative press and various individuals have researched his birth certificate, specifically Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse, and found “probable cause” that it is a fraud.
You would think that the nation at large, as much as it dislikes ObamaCare, etc., would prick up its ears and think (do people still think?) that if a person has “probable cause” that he is a color-of-law (seeming to be legal, but not) President, and that by enforcing the law and removing by legal means, a color-of-law President, then all the things he signed, (or vetoed, or put into Executive Order), would be swept off the table with this one legal case, and all those things would be null and void and many problems could be simply solved by legally removing the person who signed them (or vetoed them, or created Executive Orders, as the case may be). That would include ObamaCare, which is the sticking problem for Hobby Lobby.
Again, it is a question of morality. (Moral – of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior, expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior, capable of right and wrong action) If it is “okay” for someone in Washington, D.C., to break the law, and that is “okay” while it is not “okay” for a mere citizen to do it, we have a mixed moral and legal code, one for Washington, D.C., and one for everyone else. If it is “okay” for the Federal Reserve to print money out of thin air, while a common citizen doing that would be guilty of counterfeiting, again, we have a mixed moral and legal code, a double standard.
It comes down to a moral standard, and from that grows a legal standard. We have a legal standard, the Constitution, but that is being ignored, because we have gotten away from the foundation of the fact that there are differing moral and legal systems and we need to decide if we want the one that made this country great, the Constitution, which was based on the Judeo/Christian ethic and political thought that had grown out of that.