Sole Morality

The Necessity of Religion

I was not a Mitt Romney supporter in this last primary process. Some of the things he said rubbed me the wrong way. That aside, I do agree with him on some matters. One of them was a sentiment he expressed in his notable speech on religion. In that speech he said, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Religion isn't necessarily the word I would have used, but I agree with the sentiment. Romney's quote hearkens back to one of my all time favorite John Adams quotes that says, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

There was an article posted back in January of this year at American Thinker that talks about Mitt's speech and whether religion really is necessary. It is a quick read and I found it to be very thought provoking. Here's a great excerpt:

Self governance cannot function without morality. As morals decline, laws expand and freedoms necessarily contract. This is because no law is perfect. The perfect application of law is only possible if the lawmaker and judge are omniscient, knowing every reason a law exists and every detail, even the thoughts, of the alleged law-breaker.

Since this is impossible, the best situation is to have the fewest laws possible, to avoid illegalizing proper behavior under legislation's inevitably wide swath. The more self-regulating (or moral) a nation is collectively, the fewer laws needed to maintain order.

As national morality declines, inducing governments and citizens to favor more laws, the less plausible our Constitutional system becomes.

I encourage you to go read the article in full. It made me really consider how we have gotten to the point in our society that we have to defend our rights when those who originally pushed for our constitution's ratification felt that the enumeration of such rights was wholly unnecessary, as expressed in the Federalist Paper No. 84, written by Alexander Hamilton:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.