Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom


Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom book. Happy reading Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom Pocket Guide.
Navigation menu

One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication. Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake — social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns. The pervasiveness and power of our high-tech popular culture fuels apostasy in another way.


  1. La petite (Italian Edition)!
  2. Download PDF Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom!
  3. Reward Yourself!
  4. Ronald Reagan - Wikiquote?
  5. The Moral Basis of a Free Society!

It provides an unprecedented degree of distraction. Part of the human condition is that there are big questions that should stare us in the face. Are we created or are we purely material accidents? Does our life have any meaning or purpose? Indeed, we now live in the age of distraction where we can envelop ourselves in a world of digital stimulation and universal connectivity. And we have almost limitless ways of indulging all our physical appetites.

In the past, when societies are threatened by moral chaos, the overall social costs of licentiousness and irresponsible personal conduct becomes so high that society ultimately recoils and reevaluates the path that it is on.

About This Item

But today — in the face of all the increasing pathologies — instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have the State in the role of alleviator of bad consequences. We call on the State to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility. The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the State to set itself up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their children.

The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them. We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a coercive state on which we depend. Interestingly, this idea of the State as the alleviator of bad consequences has given rise to a new moral system that goes hand-in-hand with the secularization of society.

Christianity teaches a micro-morality. We transform the world by focusing on our own personal morality and transformation. The new secular religion teaches macro-morality. This system allows us to not worry so much about the strictures on our private lives, while we find salvation on the picket-line. We can signal our finely-tuned moral sensibilities by demonstrating for this cause or that. Something happened recently that crystalized the difference between these moral systems. At the end of Mass, the Chairman of the Social Justice Committee got up to give his report to the parish.

He pointed to the growing homeless problem in D. This being a Catholic church, I expected him to call for volunteers to go out and provide this need. Instead, he recounted all the visits that the Committee had made to the D. A third phenomenon which makes it difficult for the pendulum to swing back is the way law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy. First, either through legislation but more frequently through judicial interpretation, secularists have been continually seeking to eliminate laws that reflect traditional moral norms.

At first, this involved rolling back laws that prohibited certain kinds of conduct. Thus, the watershed decision legalizing abortion. And since then, the legalization of euthanasia. The list goes on. More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith. The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith. This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit - they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience. For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our laws should accommodate religious belief. The purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious practice. At the time, RFRA was not controversial. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer with cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate.

It passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of in the Senate. Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of favor. Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their religion.

Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty. For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith.

There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love. Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are attacking on three fronts. The first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families. Thus, for example, New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching.

Freedom in the World 12222: Democracy in Retreat

Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and relationships.

This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they fundamentally reject. A second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally-available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options. Montana, for example, created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend private school.

The point of the program was to provide greater parental and student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth. But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from the program. And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian school, the Montana Supreme Court required the state to eliminate the program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools. A third kind of assault on religious freedom in education have been recent efforts to use state laws to force religious schools to adhere to secular orthodoxy.

This lawsuit clearly infringes the First Amendment rights of the Archdiocese by interfering both with its expressive association and with its church autonomy. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the state court making these points, and we hope that the state court will soon dismiss the case. Taken together, these cases paint a disturbing picture. We see the State requiring local public schools to insert themselves into contentious social debates, without regard for the religious views of their students or parents.

Customer reviews

In effect, these states are requiring local communities to make their public schools inhospitable to families with traditional religious values; those families are implicitly told that they should conform or leave. At the same time, pressure is placed on religious schools to abandon their religious convictions. Simply because of their religious character, they are starved of funds — students who would otherwise choose to attend them are told they may only receive scholarships if they turn their sights elsewhere. Simultaneously, they are threatened in tort and, eventually, will undoubtedly be threatened with denial of accreditation if they adhere to their religious character.

If these measures are successful, those with religious convictions will become still more marginalized. And we know that the first thing we have to do to promote renewal is to ensure that we are putting our principles into practice in our own personal private lives. This is tough work. It is hard to resist the constant seductions of our contemporary society. This is where we need grace, prayer, and the help of our church. Education is not vocational training. It is leading our children to the recognition that there is truth and helping them develop the faculties to discern and love the truth and the discipline to live by it.

We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor. The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism. If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education — and more generally religiously-affiliated schools — it is today.

I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic education at all levels. Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that is being waged against religion on the legal plane. We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith. I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.

South Bend , IN. Friday, October 11, Trump himself seems to recognize this.

The Moral Basis of a Free Society | Hoover Institution

Saturday morning, he went on a Twitter tirade about the need to get rid of the filibuster. Getting rid of the filibuster would improve American democracy if it were combined with other reforms. America is a presidential republic that functions best when the political parties are ideologically broad. That is increasingly untrue as the Republicans and Democrats have, in different ways, begun acting in a parliamentary fashion, with a high degree of political cohesion within their ranks.

Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom
Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom
Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom
Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom
Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom
Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom

Related Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom



Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved