In this article I am going to deviate from studying Scripture to discuss principles of justice and moral values.

We are all familiar with the phrase "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or the pursuit of property)," which we consider the cornerstone of all rights, much in the same fashion we look at the Ten Commandments as the cornerstone of God's laws. But what does it take to achieve these rights? Well it takes what we might call "right living."

This "right living" is expressed in the ancient axiom that we are "to live honestly, to hurt no one, and to give every one his due." And we could label this axiom, the law of justice or natural law -- or the law of rights, duties and obligations. We do not teach the basic principles of natural law and justice in the classrooms of the public education system, for we learn these principles long before we are school age.

For example,

• one of the first things we teach a child is not to strike others, and over time, we qualify that by teaching them not to strike at another "without just cause."
• We also teach children to get along with other children and that one child has no right to exercise arbitrary control over other children. In other words we do not teach tyranny.
• We also teach our child not to take things that belong to baby sister, and in so doing we teach the principle "thou shalt not steal."
• We teach it is wrong to use force to obtain things that do not belong to them, teaching the same principle of not stealing.

These, among other things, are simple and fundamental principles of Justice which we learn from the cradle throughout early adolescence. We might even go so far as to describe these principles as the law of right and wrong. But again, government does not teach these basic concepts prior to entering the public school system, for they are learned in the home and the streets.

As a society of adults, what do we have to do as individuals in order to have justice? There are certain things we must do such as: each person shall do towards all others things that justice requires. In other words, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. For example, if we obtain debts, we should pay those debts; if we borrow property, we should return that property; if we damage another person or his property, we should make restitution.

Another thing we must do is to not do that which justice forbids. For example we should not steal property of others, we should not commit things like arson and murder.

It is a fact that under the early "Common Law" of this country (in contradistinction to the written laws of man) there could be no judicial action brought against another person unless there had been a damage against his life, liberty, or property. Thus the sole purpose of the common law was to dispense justice.

In addition, under the common law there could be no "specific performance." Ah, but you ask what is specific performance? Specific performance is simply requiring that something be done. However, under the common law, the law could not require a person to perform, with the exception of making restitution for actual damages. Thus requirements such as purchasing a driver's license, registration of property, licenses, and purchasing insurance could not be enforced under the common law, because under the common law, no damage -- no action.

Then you might ask, what about helping our fellow man? To that we must answer, helping our fellow man is a moral duty -- not a legal duty. Moral duties include feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, providing shelter for the homeless, caring for the sick and invalid, and educating the ignorant. But again these are moral duties and moral duties should not be forced upon people, for each person must decide for himself if, and how, he will discharge those duties.

To give you an example of this, many years ago I used to attend a particular church and this church professed helping the needy among the congregation. However, their actions were more aligned to lip-service rather than action. I decided that I wanted my donations to help people, and thus I quit putting money in the plate when passed. I chose instead to find individuals within the congregation who were in need of monetary assistance and saw to it they received some money. I fully realized that the church needed money to pay for the pastor and other obligations, but they had sufficient money and were neglecting the needs of the congregation, and therefore I felt an individual moral obligation to help my fellow man, and I did not see that help being given by the church. So I elected to withdraw my monetary support and put it where I thought it would do the most good.

The point I am trying to make is that each of us has an individual moral responsibility to our fellowman, and how we discharge that duty must also be an individual responsibility. It cannot be forced upon us, otherwise it is not a moral duty, but a legal duty required by law.

Many, many years ago churches and organizations such as the Elks, Lions, and Kiwanis, were benevolent organizations which tried to meet the moral needs of their community. They were always raising money to feed the poor, pay medical expenses of those who could not otherwise pay for them, etc. Back when polio was an epidemic in this country these organizations banded together and built facilities to treat the polio victims.

But now along comes government who decides that it is going to have a conscience and moral values. It decides it is going to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, provide shelter for the homeless, care for the sick and invalid, and educate the ignorant. But the difference between government and benevolent organizations is fund raising and execution of those activities.

The benevolent organizations sponsor fund raisers, seek donations, and use voluntary labor to organize and distribute all that it is able to raise. Government, on the other hand, does not hold fund raisers, but taxes the individual to obtain funds. Likewise the government does not exercise these activities through a voluntary organization where all labor is voluntary. No, government creates organizations and hires people to perform these activities, and in doing this, most of the money received from taxation goes to supporting the organization and little trickles down to the persons in need. We are extremely lucky if 25% reaches the people in need. The same is true for many structured organizations with salaried employees such as the United Way, although not to so great a degree.

Another major difference is that no man can be forced to join a church, or become a member of the Elks or Lions, and therefore no man is forced to give of his time or money to support the needy. Not true with government, for government collects money through legalized coercion, that is, if you do not pay the tax they will put you in jail. If anybody else but government did this, it would be called extortion and robbery.

I don't think any of us object to any of the benevolent organizations I have mentioned and I know there are many others out there that I have not mentioned. But the important thing about these organizations is that society does not demand by law that we join them and give of our time and money to support them. No, we are free to join and participate at our pleasure. But when government enters the scene and assumes to have a conscience and morals, and exercises those morals at the point of a gun, then individual morality breaks down.

You see, when moral activities were outside the scope of government duties, then all, or perhaps I should say most, people felt a sense of compassion for the sick, the poor, and the homeless and desired to either join a benevolent organization or support their causes. But once government became involved, their sense of morality changes, because their conscience has a scape goat in the government and they say, "I am not going to give to this or that charity because I pay enough money in taxes to support these kind of activities. Now I realize that all do not think this way, but many people do. And they are quite correct. If all the taxes that are allocated to these socialistic government agencies went directly to the sick, the poor and the homeless, there would be no sick, poor, or homeless.

Why have I been telling you all of these things? For one thing, when government assumes a sense of morality and decides to perform benevolent functions, then it becomes the determiner of what is and what is not a benevolent cause and therefore, government determines what is and is not proper moral conduct. For example, when government decided to financially support abortions, at the same time it determined that it is morally correct for women to have abortions. Thus morality becomes the law of the state -- not the people. If this issue was to be decided by financial support from individuals and benevolent organizations, I believe the rate of abortions would dramatically decrease.

We have to ask ourselves, as Christians, who is the creator of moral values? Hopefully, most of us would answer that God created moral values with the establishment of His law. Having stated that, then we must conclude that the giver of the law is the creator of moral values, thus when government creates moral laws it becomes a god.