Blog

…Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion… (Webster, 1928)

If this is true, how then can we ensure the morality of our government when the establishment of religion is prohibited? We entrust our leaders with the authority to govern us using moral laws, created and maintained by “religious” people in all three branches of government. The basis of every State’s Constitution stems from American Constitutionalism 101. Without the primacy of moral law, we have tyranny because the governing authority is free to change the rules to accommodate what seems right at the moment. “Religion” matters because moral law matters very much! It is up to the people, without government meddling, to ensure (politically) that we have “religious” public servants. “All political power is inherent in the people…” [bold emphasis mine] (Alaska Constitution, 1-2; https://ltgov.alaska.gov/information/alaskas-constitution/).

In other words, moral authority is ultimately and utterly dependent on political results, not secular authority! Temporal government must be authorized by a higher source of morality. Our laws are meant to be based on a majority consensus utilizing the moral standards of a “religious” electorate. We have been wrongly programmed to be uncomfortable when the subjects of religion and politics are brought up – especially in the same sentence. It is very dangerous to discount another’s beliefs or to not defend our own. Additionally, those who didn’t vote, or voted ignorantly based on “religious” filters, cannot legitimately judge the morality of elected politicians. The abysmal voter turnout implies we have a huge disconnect between governing standards and the real standard.

Some try to “correct” the perceived Judeo-Christian and Western bias in Daniel Webster’s definition and study of religion. However, he defined religion to include:

… a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man’s obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; … the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion. [bold emphasis mine] (Webster, 1928; http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/religion).

Using popular/modern definitions of religion, not requiring a belief in a divine lawgiver, avoids essential discussion/s. Without a belief in moral law we are left trusting the naïve presumption that moral judgement will prevail naturally.

American Constitutionalism presumes religion as Webster defines. While this explains the passion of some a-religious believers in a “living constitution” (adaptable morals) to resist originalism, it is also the explanation of why our laws endorse our national motto: In God we Trust. It is why our US Supreme Court building honors Moses and the Ten Commandments; it is why we begin legislative sessions with prayer; it is why our rights are considered “inherent”… It is intellectually difficult to justify movements to ban monuments to the Ten Commandments in our schools and courts; the Cross; prayer in schools; and, the main point of this editorial: the need for politicians to be transparent and forthright about their religion (as defined by Webster). This does not mean, or even slightly imply, anyone is forced to believe something specific – only that public servants must be politically (not legally) required to be transparent about their “religion”. In the event the majority of voters put Godless political tyrants in control, whether on purpose by vote or indirectly by not voting, American Constitutionalism will prove to be a failed philosophy of government and history will confirm it so! Thankfully, this has not yet happened. So far, voters prefer to submit to “religious” leaders (as defined by Webster) more than they want to risk widespread injustice springing from a naïve, short term sense of right and wrong.

Our Alaska Constitution does not establish religion, but it certainly is the product of religious people and contains religious values, evidenced by: “We the people of Alaska, grateful to God…” and it goes on to guarantee inherent, God-given, rights. All cultures (not just ours) have deep “background values” (aka culture and/or traditions) about life which are so taken for granted they become invisible to us as tenets of religious faith. We think of them as “just the way things are.” To sustain them, these values must be acknowledged and be freely examined and challenged by teachers, colleagues, family members, and friends. If factions, religious or not, presume they always have the sole comprehensive answers to governing challenges, no matter how prestigious they think they are, they have become stupid and are certainly not applying Judeo-Christian doctrine! (Proverbs 12:1, 15).

In summary, I encourage readers to vote and to dispassionately explore the biographies of political candidates for “religion”. The candidate’s “right to privacy” on this topic is waived by their request for your vote! Armed with information about his or her beliefs, judge them fit or unfit to represent YOU… This research and evaluation isn’t intolerance, it is the “right” and job of EVERY citizen!

---

This was also submitted as an article to The People’s Paper.

When I was in grade school, my dad earned $50 per week as a pastor of a rural church in Northern Wisconsin. We did not consider ourselves “poor” and the fantasies we entertained about getting rich didn’t crush us. Part of growing up included the lesson: The pain of working to repay temporary debt takes all the fun out of overspending! We considered someone to be “poor” when, for whatever reason, they couldn’t seem to clothe, clean, or feed themselves. The “poor” who habitually relied on public or private charity (the welfare cases) were generally demeaned by middle class Americans because they were leaches on society. Families and communities were expected to be generous and share when someone couldn’t help themselves…the government was not considered the first line of defense against shortages. When family and local assistance were rendered, it usually was not demeaning because it happened in the context of relationships and reputations.

Then came the era of enhanced public welfare. In 1964, President Johnson (LBJ) “declared war” on poverty, in the wake of the JFK assassination. Because public money must be accounted for differently than traditional charity, the “poverty level” had to be officially defined and data collected to justify spending to taxpayers. The resulting welfare programs continue to cost us countless billons each year but poverty is still alive and well! Food stamps, the “Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)”, Medicaid, and other programs have removed the alleged “stigma” related to habitually taking handouts, and increased the number of people dependent on public welfare.

In Alaska, we seem to accept it as “normal” to have more than one in five dependent on Medicaid (welfare)! Many people now demand welfare as entitlement to his or her “fair share”. The war on poverty has deeply impacted our culture. Many government aid receivers cannot imagine life without government assistance. In Alaska, we are confronted with an economic crash if we don’t deal with our monumental spending for Health, Education, and Social Services comprising more than 2/3 of Alaska’s total budget spending! The State “war on poverty” spending is hopelessly entangled with external federal control and mission statements because we have agreed to sell our State sovereignty for receipt of matching grants (bribes). Whatever we may want education and welfare to be, we are politically, if not legally, bound to federal initiatives! All 50 states find themselves similarly “sold out”!

Alaska has one very unique element in this context we must resolve. To highlight the point of this editorial, ponder this question: Is Alaska more, or less of a “welfare state” because of our PFD? Is the PFD a state government handout (like free or reduced school lunch)? Or, is the PFD legitimate personal income (such as investment returns to fund typical retirements)? If it is the former, Alaska is truly a “welfare state”; if it is the latter, what possible justification could there be for government spending of the dividends without the need to pass tax laws? The Permanent Fund was arguably created to prevent government squandering of our natural resource assets, by using 100% in the annual political budgetary process. It is beginning to appear that too many politically influential Alaskans prosper because of “Poverty War spending”. Doctors, teachers, supporting staff, and contractors have better representation in the budget process than average Alaskans! How else can you explain our disdained legislature? The fact Permanent fund earnings are being used to backfill blatant overspending without, causing a revolution (so far) may indicate too many Alaskans are thinking of themselves as standing in a “soup line” as opposed to managers managing the executors of our “trust fund”. (Article 1, paragraph 2 of Constitution) A welfare recipient attitude of the PFD is very dangerous because government has proven it is incapable of old-fashioned charity designed to incentivize self-sufficiency.

Years ago, a bright, young man, born after LBJ politics and now a successful businessman, challenged me with this question and caused me to appreciate the PFD as a payment similar to a trust fund payout (legitimate income), not welfare. Now, I worry my fellow Alaskans have been unwittingly “brain washed” and may not understand the need to protect what should be considered personal property instead of government largesse.

---

This was also submitted as an article to The People’s Paper.

Several times I have raised my right hand and solemnly swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, so help me God” (The public oath for service in the AK Legislature or AK Air National Guard). My appreciation for the US Constitution deepened as I served as a “cog” in the realm of governing. The original constitutional values established an ingenious human government that is the envy of the world and provides unprecedented human rights and freedom. However, as my awe and understanding for our national founding values increased, my respect for the AK Constitution decreased! I now believe some of the State’s biggest challenges are caused by variance from original US Constitutional values even though we don’t typically think of overspending being caused by a constitutionally created imbalance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. We need to make some changes!

To make needed changes, we need constitutional amendments, such as SJR 3, 4, 5, and 6, which are on point and viable. These proposed amendments may seem rather “dull” compared to the media-hyped legislation such as budget legislation containing guidelines on size of the PFD, but these amendments are the real fix! They all do something to diminish the authority of an overbearing “nanny” state government able and willing to control budgetary spending to its own preservation. It should be obvious to everyone observing the State’s willingness to spend all of the natural resource income, even the restricted Permanent Fund earnings, and the attempts to add new regressive tax revenue to sustain itself. At the very least, these amendments proposing repairs should be a priority consideration!

The fact that some of our prominent judges and attorneys boast Alaska provides justice without politics illustrates the problem, (http://justicenotpoliticsalaska.org/former-judge-says-alaska-should-keep-politics-out-of-judicial-selection-process/). It is sadly ironic that Alaskans don’t seem to react too defensively even though Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska clearly states, “All political power is inherent in the people…”. The seeming arrogance in some of the judicial branch is understandable when you consider our cultural bias that “politics” is somehow bad. We are acclimated to living under a constitutional system requiring all government attorneys to be of one nominally apolitical Bar Association. The Alaska Bar Association is also given almost complete control of selection and oversight of judges. Even our appointed Attorney General is virtually insulated from political pressure from mere Alaska peons. The false presumption is the ability for anyone that matters in the judicial branch to be above any need for checks.

Consider the fact the collaboration between the judicial and administrative branch; thus, the excess governing authority of our judicial branch is from collaboration with the administration. Which is a governing authority not available to the legislature, which is the branch theoretically most accessible to the people! The Alaska Constitution provides:

1. Administrative Branch enforces the law (State employees & elected Governor).
2. Judicial Branch provides justice for the law (the Courts & Government Attorneys).
3. Legislative Branch writes the laws (elected Legislators).

Because of man’s nature, there will always be those in government seeking to personally profit from public service and those who will abuse their authority – all three branches provide occasion for both. A proper constitutional balance forces scrutiny of governing actions. Open debate and challenges may be “political”, but they are proven, key elements of good government.

Swearing (affirming) to support of the Alaska Constitution can be an honorable thing to do for many reasons, including:

• Its provision for a clear process to be amended as needed, just as the US Constitution. This is evidence of the authors and ratifiers conceding their work may not be perfect, or the last word.
• Based on the US Constitution, it endorses many other fundamental premises and values worth dying for (like the Bill of Rights)!

When making a public oath, keep in mind the Alaskan oath can legitimately be a vow with a contingency. Affirmation to support with the words “so help me God” places the promise under the ultimate authority of the “Supreme Judge” referenced in the Declaration of Independence. With this phrase, Divine Providence overrides the abilities of any given public servant to keep his or her promise. With these words, the oath becomes an appeal (prayer) as much as it is a promise. Nothing in statute prohibits this addition.

---

This was also submitted as an article to The People’s Paper.

Regardless of what you think, you have a worldview – everyone does. Worldview is defined as: The unique, particular, philosophy of life or conception of the world, developed in each person as a product of increasing knowledge and experience, to include your values and religion.

Traditional wisdom is usually valid advice! Almost always, politics seems irrational unless you can trace who benefits from the spending of public dollars! “Follow the Money…” if you want to understand the why behind what legislation passes and which doesn’t. Perverted obsession for money is right up there with sex and power! Do not, however, presume you can understand politics and judge politicians using ONLY this litmus! It is far more productive and fundamental to monitor a public figure’s worldview.

By definition, politicians expect to be transparent about their philosophies, yet it seems little attention is paid – until we later judge them using media-filtered information. In order to be elected, each politician explains his or her values, posting their biographies, intentionally inviting evaluation and support. Of course, they can lie to hide their real beliefs, but in “small town” Alaska, claims are subject to scrutiny of the statewide gossip-mill. Then, all governing decisions and debates are carefully recorded for anyone to see – so researching for confirmation of claimed values is very doable! A Politician’s worldview is proclaimed by actions, so ideally, their votes become validations of their claims (or not…). A better mantra is “follow the worldview”.

I’m convinced we tend to not do due diligence following the worldviews of public servants. For one thing, it is culturally discouraged, at least it is in the culture of those immersed in the ivory towers of so-called “secular” government. Too many self-righteously believe we should not judge anyone’s values. It is automatically presumed arrogant and intolerant to be adamant about what is right or wrong (“truth” be damned!). Right now, our Nation is choosing to pretend the meaning of “freedom of religion” is to honor any whacky value able to get highlighted by the media. Freedom of religion is actually an all-important ban on secular government establishment of religion, it most certainly is not an excuse to obscure values including moral absolutes! The current cultural aversion to moral conviction is a very real threat to America! George Washington (and other founders) make my point far better than I could; “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (recorded by Noah Webster, 1806).

Prosperity, peace, security, health, freedom and happiness are all a result of application of values; and, easily identifiable in the text of the Declaration of Independence, early State constitutions, Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution. These philosophical/religious ideals are the core of our esteemed rule of law based on “Nature’s Law”! Without a standard, governing decisions are as variable as the number of attorneys (or attorney wannabes) in the room! Governing values go adrift when we fail to endorse the standard in the minds of our children. If it only takes one generation to discredit and ignore the “rules of the game”; then we will always be one generation away from tyranny.

American laws still confirm the evil nature of killing, lying, cheating, stealing, abuse of the weak, and it is majority consensus that provides the authority for enforcing our “rule of law”. The founders also believed in a God who establishes what is right and wrong; referring to Him as “Nature’s God”, “Supreme Judge”, and refers to His control (“Divine Providence”). It is difficult to justify His expulsion from the courtroom and classroom. They understood the best possible human government can only be conducted by citizen’s with religious standards.

Our nation is designed to be run by people who embrace our national motto (In God We Trust). It is left up to voters to decide who this may be, so as goes the faith of the citizens, so goes government. If atheism (Secular Humanism) is the majority perspective, our constitution becomes meaningless and there is no virtue in judging a politician’s worldview! I have never seen a politician openly pretend to be an atheist… only the opposite. Clearly the masses prefer traditional values – or most politicians think we do.

The second reason we shrink from judging others is more personal and individual… a “catch 22” situation. It turns out none of us can rely on having an infallible internal “moral compass” to make judgements on others’ values! Any honest adult will admit to using the word “should” when judging behavior. We are prone to impose our values and experience on others “for their own good” – while at the same time not living up to our “should standard” ourselves. We tend to approve (or excuse) ourselves while feeling superior or critical of others. If we are thoughtfully humble at all, this causes us to be hesitant about declaring other worldviews as “wrong”, politicians or not.

 

---

This was also submitted as an article to The People’s Paper.