Radio Script #1276

Little Talks on Common Things
May 17, 1981

When controversial issues arise in our nation, deserved credit is usually given to the Founding Fathers, who under tremendous difficulties put together the Constitution of U.S. and the first ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

However, we need to be repeatedly reminded of what the founders of our nation actually did and said, not what too many people seem to believe they did and said. The Constitution did not establish for the 13 cooperating colonies either a predominant federal government or a democracy. It even gave to the country a plural name, the United States of America, clearly recognizing that the new nation was a federation of sovereign states. A federation – that is why we speak of our government in Washington as the federal government. The Constitution did indeed grant to the central government certain powers and denied those powers to the states. Only the federal government could declare war or coin money. No state could enact tariffs or set up trade barriers against any other state within the union.

But, after the powers of the central government were carefully defined, the Constitution declared that all authority not specifically given to that government by the Constitution itself was reserved to the states or to the people. Very definitely the founding fathers did not believe in complete democracy. They therefore set up a government based on broad democratic principles, but carefully guarded against the whim of a temporary majority. They made sure that no president, no Congress, no court could dominate American life. They devised a unique system that has lasted for more than 200 years. The system is called separation of powers, under which executive; legislative and judicial branches of government serve as checks on each other. The executive cannot make laws or even spend money without appropriation from the legislative branch, and an action of the legislative branch can be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Then if the people are solidly against a Supreme Court decision, they can eventually get an amendment to the Constitution that corrects the situation. Why didn’t the founding fathers establish a complete democracy, having all major decisions made by vote of the people? In the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton explained the rejection of complete democracy in these words: “If we give all power to the many, they will oppress the few; if we give it to the few, they will oppress the many. Both should have power in order that each may defend itself against the other.”

The value of Hamilton’s admonition became apparent in the Korean War. If President Truman had been required to act according to public opinion, he could not have dismissed General MacArthur when that general defied presidential authority. Effective use of public opinion was shown by Hitler, who used his violent and persuasive oratory to enflame the German people to support his most flagrant acts.

We need constantly to be reminded that our founding fathers foresaw with remarkable clarity the d~ngers of uncontrolled democracy. Early in the Constitutional Convention James Madison voiced that foresight: “The popular voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people will more consistently promote the public good than if that voice were pronounced by the people themselves. ”

That by no means implies that the initiative and the referendum should be abandoned. There are occasions where an issue has been so fully aired and is still so controversial that the people have not only the right, but the duty, to express their approval or disapproval of what the legislative branch has done. But we should always guard against the danger of too frequent and even frivolous use of the referendum.

Another current wave in America deserves serious attention. That is the tendency to use a particular kind of religion as a political force. It is one thing for church and religious groups to support or oppose certain legislative action as they have a clear right to do. It is something else something profoundly dangerous when any religious group seeks to control government and suppress all who do not_agree with them.

That is exactly what happened in colonial Massachusetts. Coming from England to the New World in order to escape religious oppression and be able to worship God in their own way 3 the Puritans sadly saw to it that no one in Mass. was permitted to worship God in any way but their way. All dissenters were persecuted. Quakers were hanged. Roger Williams was banished; innocent people were accused of witchcraft, and some were executed. All of it was done in the name of religion. That sort of thing must not happen again in America.

No sensible person disputes the contention that the United States originally had and must continue to preserve a strong religious basis. But it is important that the principles indicated in the Bill of Rights be also preserved; those rights that the Declaration of Independence called “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Any church, any religious group, can and should promote high moral standards by individuals and by public officials.

But any group’s particular interpretation of a moral code should not be imposed by the state. That does not mean we should have no laws concerning personal behavior. Of course we must have laws, because life and liberty of everyone must be protected against the ravages of a few. When any kind of behavior that is clearly harmful becomes a public menace, we must turn to the law. That is why the present trend toward stricter action against drunken drivers deserves popular support.

Allover our nation there is arising a deep-seated conviction that we are in need of a moral awakening, as applicable to our time as was the Great Awakening in the 18th century to its time, when George Wesley and Jonathan Edwards aroused the people from Massachusetts to Georgia. No follower of the Judeo- Christian tradition today can do otherwise than denounce the spreading immorality that afflicts our nation. How much longer can we tolerate the living together of unmarried couples, hasty divorces, unrestrained premarital sex, the spread of narcotic drugs, o£ which alcohol is one, the death toll caused by drunken drivers, flagrant crime in the streets? Certainly religious people must denounce this trend and do all they can to correct it. They should support legislators who clearly stand for high principles and condemn those who are derelict. But for any such group deliberately to rate Congressmen is tricky business. One such group rated as zero Senator John Glenn, who is not only a national space hero, but is also a highly regarded Presbyterian elder, and they rated at 100 Representative Richard Kelly, implicated in the Abscam bribery scandal.

To evaluate any legislator on a single issue and ignore what he does on all other issues is unfair. What we need are leaders who face every issue with intelligence, fairness, deep moral convictions, and ability to work with others. We must understand that much effective legislation is the result of compromise between opposing views.

What we need are leaders of integrity who are able to govern, even when one such legislator happens to disagree with us on a single issue. As long as Christian groups differ in their interpretation of biblical teaching and the application of their particular beliefs to legislation, the American people have solid reason to bless the action of the founding fathers who erected a wall of separation between church and state.

There is, of course, the opposite danger that the concept of separation shall be too broadly interpreted. Surely the founding fathers never intended to ban a period of meditation from our public schools. Otherwise they should logically have banned prayers from the halls of Congress.

For any religious group to dictate how a person should vote cannot be defended but its right to influence that vote is highly commendable. Morality is not a matter of law. It is best shown in the whole moral tone of society. It is revealed not only in how individuals act, but in the integrity or lack of it on the part of public officials, in business big or little, in the conduct of our schools and colleges, and emphatically in the powerful news media of press, radio and television. Every form of private or public service in our nation must become as active in support of high moral standards as it is in support of material advancement.

Specific issues will always confront us. Alcoholism, pornography, narcotics, homosexuality and abortion happen to be among the glaring issues today. But we should not forget other issues that persistently plague us. We should not relax in our demand for equal justice for all people, regardless of race, color or national origin. We must see that everyone who wants to work has an opportunity to work, while we treat shirkers as they deserve. We must decide whether we can continue the hypocrisy of demanding civil rights, while with money and arms we support nations that deny those rights. Those and similar issues must be faced if we hope ever to achieve what we long for a moral America.

One of the outstanding issues of our time concerns energy. If we are really wasteful and inefficient in our use of energy, as the world’s foremost user of all forms of it, we have the obligation to lead the world in seeking all varieties of energy sources for the future. Somehow the earth’s bounty must be controlled to serve the people of all the world, the emerging Third World as well as the affluent West.

President Woodrow Wilson reluctantly led our nation into World War I because he was devoted to the idea of making the world safe for democracy. Sixty-four years have passed since Wilson’s declaration, and we see the rest of the world becoming less willing to emulate American political methods. Most nations that changed from monarchies to republics have preferred the British parliamentary system to ours. Arrogance by visiting Americans, domination by American banks, disregard of local customs — these have all played a part in the downgrading of our nation in foreign eyes. Today we seldom hear what a Greek once said as he looked at the flag over the American embassy in Athens: “That is the greatest flag in the world.” We have also paid a high price for allowing foreigners to get their firm impression of our nation through cheap, spectacular American movies. Perhaps, instead of making the world safe for democracy we ought to make democracy safe for the world.

To correct these international, as well as our domestic ills, the churches must play a prominent part. If they can act together on great world issues, however much they may differ on specific matters of private behavior, the churches will have profound influence.

Most of all, we should remember what the founder of Christianity called the greatest commandment: “Love God with all your heart and mind and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” That is what every religious group and every Christian individual should earnestly strive to do.

Year: 1981