The battle for America’s morality has seemingly lost another round this week as NY Gov. David Paterson has directed state agencies to recognize gay marriages performed outside of New York.  This comes just after the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the legality of gay marriage.  Both cases come in states whose citizens voted down the legalization of gay marriage.  And here I thought that the will of the people actually mattered.

            Not only should my fellow citizens be outraged that certain persons of power are forcing a ruling upon the people of California and New York after they voted against it, but they should be outraged about the nature of the laws these judges and the good governor have decided are best. 

After the California ruling, commentary and blog sites lit up with articles arguing exactly the same points this commentator has been arguing for years.  By redefining marriage for the sake of “tolerance” based on people’s feelings, you open up a huge can of worms which only further degrades our society.  What about tolerance for the polygamists?  What about tolerance for those that want to marry animals?  Shouldn’t their feelings be accounted for in destroying our culture as well?

Marriage is not only an institution of love, but it’s the institution which is corner stone of society.  Without a cohesive family unit, a society cannot last.  Mothers and Fathers create and nurture children who contribute to and grow the society.  When the institution of marriage is dissolved, and coupling for sexual pleasure becomes the norm, what incentive is there for the younger generations to have traditional families?  Perhaps liberal views towards sex in Europe are partly to blame for the looming disappearance of its native populations.

The truth is that the agenda for many homosexual lobbyist groups is not equality, but dominance.  They want to force people to accept them as normal and grant them special rights despite the nature of their lifestyles conflicting with the beliefs and traditions of our society.

One method of achieving this goal has been to attack America’s children.  Some school districts in Montgomery County, Maryland and California are indoctrinating children on the positive aspects and inherent nature of alternative lifestyles, and advocating the exploration of their “gender identities.”  Not only are such actions morally reprehensible, but they even defy all known scientific research by proclaiming and teaching that people are born gay. Such rulings have prompted the California Exodus and Save Our Kids campaigns in California.  Such curriculums follow the trend of failure of our youth by public schools, and definitely pale in comparison to the moral education historically received in America’s schools.

The foothold that gay lobbyists have gained in shaping our government policies is astounding.  Not only are marriage and schools not safe, but now locker rooms are unsafe as well.  Again in Montgomery County, MD, a law was passed to protect against the discrimination of “gender identity” in public accommodations including restrooms and locker rooms.  A similar law is pending in Colorado.  This means men can dress like women and hang out in women’s locker rooms all day, and vice versa.  A petition by Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government has put the law on hold pending a referendum in the fall.

Another attack method has been propelling the myth that people are born gay.  Groups like Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays and Exodus International have led the way in showing that homosexuality is a choice.  These groups, and those “ex-gays” they’ve helped that speak out in their behalf, have been attacked by the homosexual community for their efforts.  The existence of “ex-gays” threatens the entire homosexual movement and their claim to “civil rights” because they show that their lifestyles are ones of choice, not nature.  A recent clinical study by the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality supports the claim that homosexual behavior can be changed.

America was established as a republic, where the people rule the government, not a tyrannical oligarchy.  If we allow judges and legislators on power trips to force immoral and destructive policies upon the people, we might as well change our name to the Communist States of America.

            Most debates concerning immigration typically involve issues of employment, toleration, or criminality, but what about preserving American culture?  In an age of multiculturalism and relativism, this important issue often finds itself on the back burner.  While America may be a “land of immigrants,” the United States has always had immigration restrictions, as the Founding Fathers intended, to preserve the American identity.

            Did the rich white slave owners of old want to ensure that only the WASPs prospered in America?  No.  They were more concerned about developing a citizenry in America that would support the republican government they fought to establish.  A republic, ruled by free men for the benefit of its citizens, requires a cohesive society to peaceably operate.  America today has greater resemblance to an empire with large groups of segregated people, lacking a common culture, ruled by a powerful government.

            George Washington wrote in 1794, “the policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”

            With the complete breakdown of American culture in recent decades, one might think that immigrants have had no problems assimilating because there’s no strong sense of identity even among the natives.  Supporters of illegal immigration hope to further erode the American identity, and transplant all of Mexico into our south and southwest states.  The Aztlan movement further hopes to defeat “White America,” eliminate the border between the U.S. and Mexico, and “reclaim” all the southwest states for the Latino people.

            Thomas Jefferson warned about such a problem in 1787: “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.” 

Such foreign factions, like the millions of illegals in America today, hinder the operation of government and the stability of society because they are not familiar with its culture and history.  I seriously doubt that the large population of illegal Hispanics, many of whom don’t speak English, have studied John Locke, Aristotle, Cicero, American history, and the Declaration of Independence.  But then again, most American’s haven’t either.   

            The Founders knew the dangers of factions.  Alexander Hamilton wrote about factions in Federalist 10, and George Washington spoke about them as President.  Throughout his presidency, Washington extolled unity among the American people as a pillar of citizenship.  One can only read that sentence today and chuckle, or cry, with such sharp divisions among the American people.

            Now there’s no problem with having different opinions on how to tackle problems, or in differing from others in personal habits or preferences, but divisions about the purpose and role of the government, and what constitutes the ethos of its people, can be very dangerous.

            Samuel Huntington writes that the American creed made of the principles of liberty, equality, individualism, representative government, and private property developed in early America out of common cultural elements including the Christian religion, Protestant values and moralism, a work ethic, the English language, British traditions of law, justice and the limits of government power, and a legacy of European art, literature, philosophy, and music.

            The new American creed seems to be made up of socialism, forced equality, and oligarchy based on the “culture” of tolerance, relativism, multiculturalism, and disseverance from religion.

            Though it is very difficult to protect our long borders, and would be extremely difficult to expel the millions of illegal immigrants from our country, the main purpose of our government is to protect its people.  First and foremost, our sovereign borders must be protected, and the integrity of our society must be protected to secure the prosperity of the American people and their government.

            The Presidential Election will soon be upon us, and the American people must decide whom they will cast their ballots for when they go to the polls.  The news media has picked three main candidates left to choose from: Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John McCain.  There are several other citizens running for President, including Bob Barr and Ron Paul (who has yet to concede the Republican nomination), but the news media wrote them off as not having a chance before the race even started.  So since American’s are left with Clinton, Obama, and McCain, which of these is worthy and qualified to lead our great nation and the Free World?  Sadly, the answer is none of the above.

            The President of the United States should not only be a capable leader, knowledgeable about republican government and international affairs, but should also be the first among citizens in virtue, prudence, and moral character, as well as understanding the history and principles that should guide the American people.  While the Founding Fathers realized that the position of the National Executive would not always be filled by a virtuous statesman, how long must America endure this deficiency in its leadership? 

            The freshman senator Barrack Obama has come under fire throughout his campaign not only for his inappropriate relationships, but for racists, demeaning, and contradictory remarks from his own mouth.  A man who surrounds himself with racist and/or anti-American supporters, including his own wife, does not have the integrity or judgment to lead the United States. 

One can hardly believe that Sen. Obama has no belief in the Black Liberation Theology preached to him for twenty years by his spiritual mentor Rev. Wright.  Such a theology “must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism,” according to Wright’s mentor James Cone.  Besides the many disgraceful comments Wright has made publicly, he has also shown support for the terrorist group Hamas in the “Pastor’s Page” of his church’s newsletter.  Obama’s relationship with terrorist William Ayers has also been widely publicized.  And let’s not forget his wife’s comments about the “meanness” of America, or how she had never been proud of her country until it seemed her husband would become President.

Obama’s own remarks about his grandmother, a “typical white person” who was afraid of black people, and those made about Americans who cling to guns and religion, clearly show Obama’s lack of character.  In a letter to the “LGBT community” published in a campaign blog, Obama says he's "running for president to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters."  Obama’s lack of understanding of Founding Principles by this statement is uncanny.  The “founding promise of equality for all” certainly did not envision the creation of so called “gay rights.”  The equality of the Founders was also not one forced upon the people by the government, but an equality before God.  And while he told Advocate magazine that he wants to pass the “strongest possible bill” in support of gays, Obama was unresponsive at first to recent questions about the morality of homosexuality, but later did issue a statement saying he did not find homosexuality immoral.

The “Gaffe Machine,” as Michelle Malkin calls him, time and again has shown a severe lack of prudence and judgment when speaking to the American people.

Sen. Clinton was also questioned about the morality of homosexuality replying, "I am going to leave that to others to conclude," before later issuing a statement saying homosexuality is not immoral.  Her statement shows clear signs of relativist thinking, letting individuals decide their own right and wrong rather than adhering to our Natural Law tradition.  A President should elevate the morality of the people through his or her words and actions based on God’s law, not allow national morality to falter and decay.  

Hillary Clinton’s own moral character is questionable at best.  Her chief ally in the campaign, her husband Bill, is known for his greatly publicized iniquitous behavior and untrue remarks.  She herself has recently been attacked for lying to the American people about her trip to Bosnia as First Lady and landing under sniper fire, claiming she simply misspoke.

While John McCain is an American war hero, he does not fit the character of a President.  While the main issue of his campaign has been the national security of America against our terrorist enemies, he has repeatedly voted against securing our nation and our sovereign borders from illegal immigrants.  The Founding Fathers did not view immigration as a right, nor did they view the rights and liberties provided by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as applying to the entire world.  Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from those who invade our sovereign country and break our laws. 

McCain’s shaky past with the Christian Right over such issues as gay marriage further show his disconnect with traditional American values.  While he hides behind saying that the states should decide if gay marriage is legal, McCain has personally said, “I don't have any problem with that.” 

McCain’s reported problems with controlling his temper may also be cause for concern.  The virtuous statesman should be prudent both in making decisions, and in speech.  

Imagine a world where the media actually promoted traditional American values.  What if television, radio, newspapers, magazines and all forms of advertising encouraged morality, justice, truth, personal responsibility, hard work, and a cohesive family unit?  What kind of society would we have? 

Obviously major media organizations think their businesses would fall apart and the world would come to an end if they supported these virtues.  “Sex sells,” as they say, and this golden rule of advertising has done a tremendous job in destroying our national character.  The media’s focus on sex, whether explicitly or implicitly, has undermined all of the virtuous traits that I’ve listed by promoting a lifestyle of hedonism and irresponsibility.

Young people nowadays are taught the ways of the world from their experiences at school and immersion in the media culture.  The average working parents see their kids maybe a couple of hours everyday, which isn’t enough time to counter all of the immoral social influences faced by our youth, and engrain proper values in their children. 

Schools have all but given up on telling kids to wait until they are married, or at least until they are adults, to have sex.  The focus has now turned to instruction in “safe sex.”  The word “safe” here only implies physical safety, as in the prevention of spreading disease, not emotional or social safety, as in the impact their actions will have on themselves and society as a whole.  School districts in California, Florida, and Maryland have even forced students to embrace homosexuality and bisexuality, and have given guidance for children to explore their “gender identities.”

The various media outlets have gone above and beyond the schools in promoting not only an active sexual lifestyle, but the alternative lifestyles of homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgender/transsexuality.  Such “lifestyles” once considered immoral, are now pushed onto the public as normal and beneficial for society.  One can hardly look anywhere in the media without facing these issues.

The bombardment of young people with such ideas does no good service to the integrity of our nation.  Most of the justification for “sexual freedom” comes from purely relativistic rationale.  Apparently as long as an individual doesn’t feel like they are doing anything wrong, or hurting anyone, they can have sex with whomever they wish.  Personal feelings, however, do not determine right from wrong.  

Without a clear right and wrong, there can be no moral choices.  This makes sex with any partners one chooses not a problem. 

There can be no justice when LGBT groups claim their “rights” should force the government to create special laws for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals.  Anyone who opposes them is automatically labeled an intolerant and hateful human being. 

When everything is relative, how can there be truth?  Again, this means we can’t judge such actions as wrong.

When personal freedom means freedom to have sex whenever and with whomever one chooses, how can there be personal responsibility?  It now seems normal in many communities for teenagers to have children.  At one time, the teenager, and the parents, would have been chastised by the whole community.  Many teenage and young adult women today have more than one child out of wedlock, sometimes with multiple partners, and no fathers to help care for the children.  The lack of personal responsibility falls on women and men alike.  Irresponsible pregnancies also lead young women to have abortions since they cannot take care of their babies.

Many television programs, songs, advertisements, etc., specifically geared toward young people make sex out to be the ultimate goal in life.  “Drink our beer, wear our fragrance, buy these jeans, live life like we portray it and you too can find yourself having sex with someone extremely attractive and physically fit!”  What happened to working toward the benefit of your family, or your country?

The traditional family has also fallen by the wayside.  Today’s society is fixated on acquiring as much money, and having as much sex as possible.  A traditional marriage only gets in the way of these goals, especially if you are only interested in members of the same sex, or want to have sex with men and women.  Why should a young person inhibit themselves with getting married and having a family when a variety of sexual pleasures are to be had?

While promoting honest moral values may not make magazines fly off the shelves like pictures of a half naked fifteen year old Miley Cyrus do, those involved in the media industry should care more about their country and fellow citizens than to let them fall into moral decay.  Since the media does play a big role in shaping societal norms, they should use their influence to strengthen, and not destroy, the moral character of our nation.

Throughout the course of human history, collaboration between the government and religious institutions of a state has been the norm.  A common religious identity binds a people together and often provides a legal and moral framework.  As Americans have become more “tolerant” and the roles of religious and cultural unity are no longer emphasized by the political leaders and the media, questions have increasingly been raised about the role of Islam in the United States.

            America’s leaders at its birth shared in a Christian heritage, but practiced under differing denominations of Christianity.  The Founder’s realized that to institute a state religion, which no doubt would have been some form of Christianity, would have caused strife among different denominations jockeying for political power.  With this foresight, and the understanding of personal freedom free from government control, the United States was created with the freedom to worship (or not worship) God as one sees fit without the government meddling in the operations of religious institutions.

            This “separation” was not created with a concrete wall.  Writings and speeches at the time of the Founding made clear the role of religion in providing a moral framework, and national unity.  President Washington tells the American people in his Farewell Address, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and political Principles…The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts; of common dangers, sufferings and successes.”  Citizens should protect and promote American principles in order to protect the integrity of their country, and their individual liberties.

            President Bush tells us that, “Islam is peace,” but does Islam threaten American unity and values?  While the moderate Muslims living in the U.S. do indeed only wish to live peaceful lives sharing in the bounty of American freedom, these Muslims have seemingly lost their way on the true path of Islam.

            The Islam practiced by the Prophet Muhammad and his successors was not a religion of peace, but of domination.  Muhammad conquered the Arabian Peninsula by the sword within ten years of Islam’s founding, and his successors conquered an empire within a hundred years that eventually stretched from Spain to India. 

            While the Qur’an does contain peaceful versus, these mostly come from before Muhammad was driven out of Mecca and became a military leader in Medina.  Two problems with reading the Qur’an are that the books, or Suras, are not in chronological order of revelation, and the principle of abrogation in Islam directs that verses revealed at a later time in Muhammad’s career cancel out earlier verses whose instructions they contradict (Sura 2:106).

As the sole role model of proper Islam, Muhammad does not reveal a religion of peaceful coexistence with others.  “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book {Christians and Jews}, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” (Sura 9:29).  Non-Muslims must either convert to Islam, or live as second class citizens, called dhimmis, and are required to pay a tax, called the jizya, to their Muslim rulers for protection.  Besides paying the jizya, dhimmis are forced to abide by a number of humiliating and destructive rules, or their lives are forfeit.  “Jihad is ordained for you though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you.  Allah knows but you do not know.” (Sura 2:216).

Such is the true nature of Islam that our terrorist enemies are fighting for.  Death or subjugation are the only options.  Islamic scholars have recognized this as true Islam.  For those Western Muslims who wish only to have lives of peace, and not of jihad, perhaps a public “Reformation” is in order to ease public fears and completely separate from the “radical” Muslims.

While the adherence to Christianity is not a requirement of American citizenship, certain fundamental values should be accepted and promoted to protect the American culture and the state as a whole.  Freedom from death and subjugation are certainly among them.  While freedom of religion should never be denied by the government, American unity must be maintained for a prosperous future.

Americans have seemingly lost their sense of duty and responsibility as citizens of the United States.  People cry out for the government to do this or that for them without batting an eye, yet fail to take simple steps to take care of themselves.  The Republicans invade our lives for security, while the Democrats do so for conveniences.  Every year we get more socialist programs, and less freedom.

The duties of the people to be educated, moral, and to understand and control their government imbue a personal responsibility in governing their personal lives, and the state.  Modern notions of rights dictate that the government should actually provide the methods and means of happiness instead of simply protecting the people to pursue happiness.  Some of the “rights” of today completely conflict with the morality of national character George Washington hoped to instill into citizens such as many “gay rights” and “abortion rights.”  But as Abraham Lincoln said, one “cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”  

Washington believed that adherence to religious principles and the belief in God’s Natural Law provided strong foundations for moral character.  “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports,” Washington writes in his Farewell Address.  “In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour [sic] to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens.”  Clearly Washington would not see those citizens and politicians involved in the secular-progressive movement as American patriots. 

Just as Aristotle wrote, a good man and good citizen requires moral character.  The early American experience was indebted to religion for its existence and subsistence.  Early settlers fled England for religious freedom.  The Colonial education system was based around Biblical instruction and the New England Primer, a book also laced with religious and moral lessons.  Early American colleges and universities also had religious missions in administering education. 

While the Constitution did provide a separation of church and state in the First Amendment, the understanding and application of that separation was far different than in today’s America.  Where Washington believed in the instruction of religious and moral principles by schools and politicians, the modern government would find such instruction unconstitutional.  

Freedom of religion has come to be understood as freedom from religion.  For any government agent to stress the importance of the duty of religious morality would be to show an intolerance and insensitivity to non-religious Americans.  Such a system where the American people would punish teachers who strive to teach religious morality is uncharacteristic of Washington’s virtuous citizenry.

Washington viewed education as a necessity for the responsible citizen.  Article three of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 embodies Washington’s views on education as a means toward proper government reading, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Not only should the people have instruction in morality, but receive instruction in the principles and methods of a just republican government in order to be good citizens.  The Declaration of Independence established that the American system of government and justice would be based on Natural Law principles with the power to govern relying solely on a free people.  As Thomas Jefferson would write in a letter to Henry Lee, the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Sidney influenced public sentiment at the time when writing the document.  Studying these writers, and other works on republican government, would be essential for the good citizen to fully understand the American model.

As a republican government, the people are in charge in facilitating their governance.  Without personal sacrifice and duty of the citizenry, they would leave themselves to be ruled by oligarchs.  They would be ruled instead of ruling themselves and their government.  Such has become the case today.  

People ask for their government’s permission instead of telling their government what to do.  The people invite the government to run and regulate their lives instead of running their government, and taking personal responsibility for themselves.  Politicians subscribe to socialist ideologies and reject traditional American values.  Hedonism and irresponsibility have replaced virtue and duty as “values” of the American people.  The Natural Law principles which gave birth to America have given way to secularism and relativism in a perversion of “freedom and equality.”

Instead of a people defined by a particular culture and values, our national identity now only revolves around a set of political principles, and misunderstood ones at that.  Another powerful modern nation that relied solely on political principles in the unity of the people was the Soviet Union.  As American ideology becomes more in tune with its former Soviet enemy’s, the good citizen and the good man can never be one in the same.  America must then contend with the moral decay which caused the collapse of the great and powerful Roman Empire which began the traditions of Western Civilization that America inherited. 

            Washington’s embodiment of the dutiful citizen and his lessons for virtue and the obligation of all citizens to protect and defend the American way of life has fallen on deaf ears in the present age.  The American government has not had to change to keep up with modern times and temperaments, it has changed due to lack of understanding the foundational principles of America by the people themselves.  A just republican government cannot survive without a just people presiding over its governance.