DIVINE WORSHIP AS A SAFEGUARD OF DEMOCRACY: A THEORETICAL VIEW A Quick Review of the Theory of Government Greek and Roman philosophers taught that governments could be categorized in six major divisions: Monarchy -- rule by a single able ruler, and its opposite, Autocrac y -- rule by a single, power-seeking potentate; Aristocracy -- rule by an elite of the virtuous few, and its opposite Plutocracy -- rule by a self-seeking, self-perpetuating class of wealth; Democracy -- rule by the virtuous many, and its opposite, Ochlocracy -- rule according to the shifting wills and unconstrained preferences of the mob. Both ancient and post-Renaissance philosophers agreed that democratic republican government could exist only with an educated and "virtuous" majority. What they meant by virtuous is a bit hard to define. The word is derived from the Latin term, for "man". Hence virtuous is associated with the word "manly". But in a special Latin sense: i.e. "manly" as the ancient Romans of the Republic were to be manly -- patriotic, courageous, self-denying, putting the family, the clan, and the public interest (the Res Publica) above self interest. It was generally agreed that when virtue departed a Republic it would deteriorate into Ochlocracy, bringing the interest of self-seekers to the fore, which could end only in the destruction of all the original attributes which had made the original republic strong. The deterioration of the Greek City States into non-cooperating, autocratic fiefdoms, permitting conquest by Rome, and the subsequent deterioration of Rome to the point where Julius Caesar saw salvation only in assuming supreme executive power himself, are cases in point. As history records, Caesar was assassinated by a group of self-designated patriots who hoped to restore the republic, But Caesar's more pessimistic (realistic) diagnosis of the deteriorated state of Rome proved correct. Romans were no longer capable enough of self government. Virtue was gone. Octavian , Caesar's nephew and successor (later known as Augustus), instituted a system of rule by Emperors (always acting in the name of the Republic and during the first years under the guise of Consul , a thoroughly Republican office, though he prostituted the title by demanding constant reappointment by the Senate). The Roman "Republic" thus lasted at least in name for another three hundred years. The Founding Fathers of the United States, who were exceptionally well read in history and law, were careful in defining the nature of their democratic republic to avoid the possibility of its falling to ochlocratic ways at any early date. Simple minded extremists, not understanding what they're speaking about, often try to confound the distinctions between forms of government, as the Greeks defined these, insisting that the United States is not a democracy, but a republic. But in political theory and informed political debate, both the theoretical and historical difference between the two forms of republican government are significant. And the Founders strove mightily to preserve and extend the virtues which had characterized the founding generation, through extending free public education and expecting and requiring personal and financial sacrifices on the part of those serving in elected office -- in the interest of the public good. The Historic Role of Religion in Public Life Virtually every ruler and ruling class has strongly supported religion among the people. Karl Marx, and some others, writing when anti-clericalism was rampant in Europe by reason of the Great Church's abuses over the centuries, have seen such alliance as an attempt to subordinate the dissatisfactions of the ruled-over many by invoking the powers of the Church and the Hereafter to keep down insurrection against "the divine right" of kings and secular rulers under the "two swords" theory of government. As both Church and State invented convoluted theories to defend each other's interests, there is much which might be said in favor of this anti-clerical view. But there are also positive aspects regarding the importance of non-sectarian public worship which must be balanced against such religious obscurantism, as will be discussed below. The Founding Fathers, cognizant of the religious troubles which had plagued the homelands of Europe, at least some of which had been transported to the new colonies -- resulting in the persecution of the Quakers and the driving out of Roger Williams from Connecticut -- made it a point in the new American Constitution to prohibit the establishment of a national religion. What is not understood by most contemporary Americans, however, is that this prohibition was neither designed nor intended to affect the rights of the constituent states in this regard. For a considerable number of years after adoption of the Constitution of 1789, certain states quite legally continued to support one or another established church. Only later, for the most part during the years immediately preceding the Civil War, did individual states gradually change their state constitutions in order to accord more closely with what was clearly becoming culturally "the American way", i.e. no establishment of religion at either Federal of State level. Nevertheless, there was during this early period a continuing widespread understanding and acceptance that belief in the basic principles of Natural Law and its Giver was essential to public order and morality; and no substantial body of opinion believed that the prohibition on establishing a state church extended to banning religious observances in public bodies or on public occasions. Indeed, even today Congress hires a Chaplain to open every session, and the Military commissions, assigns, and promotes career Chaplains. While some who have little sympathy with the school prayer issue, having been reared to believe, as the Founder of Christianity taught his followers, that prayer to be efficacious should be performed "in one's closet secretly", and who grew up praying with their family before departing to work or school, can yet find it difficult to reconcile why the courts have found it constitutional to permit paid Congressional and military chaplains, yet prohibit voluntary school prayer in communities of one predominant religion -- from which non-believers are permitted to absent themselves. Why well-paid public servants can enjoy public prayer while low-paid school teachers cannot; and why big brothers serving compulsorily in the armed forces are entitled to paid chaplains of their own faith, while little brothers and sisters compulsorily attending school cannot even pray in their locker rooms before a football game or at their commencement exercises, appears as contradictory to some as why Americans are willing to submit themselves to carrying an identifying driver's license while preceding down the street in a car, but are unwilling to carry a national citizenship identification care while walking down the same street (as do virtually all of our Free World colleagues) to assure that only those entitled to the rights of legal residence, i.e. jobs, social security, and access to the courts, receive them. Be this as it may, there are elements of religious belief which remain vitally central to the successful functioning of the state today, of whatever variety they may be. But before getting into this, let us review the nature of the state in somewhat greater detail. The Fragility of the Civilized State While it is clear that there was never an ideal Rousseauian State of Nature in which all men were kind, virtuous, and true, living in harmonious freedom unconstrained by the laws of man over man, from which we fell into an ugly, disharmonious state of civilization, neither was there a contrary Hobbesian state of every man against every man in which life was inevitably "nasty, brutish, and short", compulsively leading to a Social Compact in which everyone agreed to yield individual sovereign.power to a ruling Leviathan (whether monarch, aristocracy, or republic). On the contrary, it appears that through a protracted series of trial and error attempts -- and with a good deal of backsliding towards more primitive forms of government -- man has learned to create forms of government more or less responsive to majority preference. Some such governments, at a surprisingly early date (Rome during the early Republic, the Greek City States until fairly late in their history, with some Latin, Oriental, and East European peoples still searching), found ways to be governed by clearly expressed compacts in written or strong traditional form, Constitutions of State, for the conduct of their society. The purpose of governments, of whatever form, is to wield a monopoly of civil power a) to impose the agreed set of rules for society, b) to protect its members from their more domineering, compulsive, and avaricious neighbors, and c) to sanction those who act against the agreed public order with fines, jail, banishment, or death, d) to institute public programs and undertake public works agreed upon by the people or their representatives, and e) to see to the defense of the state from outside aggression. The human record in achieving these objectives is spotty. The British form of government has evolved slowly over nearly eleven hundred years, initially operating in favor of a conquering class and against the interests of the dispossessed earlier people who for the better part of a thousand years did not have either a vote or voice in the decisions of those who ruled over them. Within the past hundred and thirty years, through a series of major social reforms, Britain has achieved virtually all the freedoms and benefits of modern government, while still embodying, like prehistoric flies in amber, many remnants of its archaic and less democratic past. France, through bloody revolution, cast off its monarchy and, after a couple of reversions, apparently necessary to enable its society to catch up with its political prophets, has attained equivalent freedoms -- though with fewer archaisms than the British. The United States, while requiring a war to achieve independence, avoided French reversions to its monarchical past and British inclusions of archaic institutions, e.g. a non-elected Upper House, Royal Family, and titled aristocracy -- presumably because it benefitted from almost 150 years of virtual self-rule between colonization and independence. Weimar Germany, having little experience in democracy because of its long tradition of petty monarchies, reverted to autocratic government under Adolph Hitler. Similarly, Spain, its monarchy overthrown in a premature attempt at republicanism, fell into civil war because of the lack of consensus between social groups. What some saw as rescue by Generalissimo Franco, others saw as reversion to the worst kind of dictatorship. The least that can be said, however, is that Spain under Franco enjoyed its longest period of peace since Roman times, and that the Caudillo appears to have done a commendable job in achieving relative internal harmony and in preparing his successor Juan Carlos to preside over what appears to have emerged as a relatively stable constitutional monarchy. The Philippines, tutored briefly in democracy during U.S. colonial rule, seemed not fully to have grasped the essentiality of a multi-party system to reflect the points of view of naturally disparate egos, and periodic, if not regular, changes of government to ensure that no party gets too entrenched in power. As Lord Acton so wisely said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Having suffered almost thirty years under entrenched autocratic rule, the people of the Philippines courageously asserted themselves to drive out Ferdinand Marcos, and with some fits and starts appear to be progressing towards the establishment of republican freedoms. The crust of civil stability is thin. It took France over a hundred years to reestablish a reasonably stable government after the overthrow of Louis XVI. It has taken the Federal Republic of Germany nearly 75 years since the abolition of the monarchy to achieve what, after the terrible reversion of the Hitler years, to what appears a good start towards stable democracy. The breakup of the Soviet Union and the East European bloc countries is presenting the world with a new cast of nations in search of stable forms of representative government. Already some are bemoaning the lost "flesh pots of Egypt", i.e. the certainty of a job and firm rules, despite the low efficiency of Marxist economies and threat of global war. Psychologists have found that many people are afraid of freedom, preferring to be told what to do and how to do it, rather than having to rely on their own wit and resources. The point is that progress towards personal and group freedom and satisfaction has been and remains checkered. A Deeper View of Religion and the State Where does religion fit into this rather rambling and somewhat superficial discussion of political theory and history? Since the dawn of history (which was not the dawn of human experience or wisdom), the Great Religions have universally taught that man's primary allegiance should be go God, not the State or other men. St. Paul, addressing the Romans taught "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man . . . and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator". (Romans 1:23-25). Some may in simplicity believe that God commanded Man to worship Him out of jealousy, or because Man was created especially to adore and worship Him. Others do not accept this, being persuaded that Man is God's spiritual offspring: "Ye are the sons of the living God" (Hosea 1:10); "We are the offspring of God" (Acts 17:29); "Now are we the sons of God" (John 3:2); and the younger brethren of Jesus Christ, the firstborn of the Father, "The firstborn of many" (Romans 8:17); and that the more righteous among these brethren may become "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ". Romans 8:17). In short, the alternative view of the commandment to worship God, not man, has ends quite distinct from the vanity of the Creator. Indeed, the Father was evidently trying to warn his children of the pitfall lying between them and heirship should they become worshippers of fallible men instead of keeping their eyes fixed on Eternity. What then is worship? Like "virtue", "worship" is based on wor , the Germanic equivalent of the Latin root vir, both meaning "man", and the Anglo-Saxon ending scip , meaning "honor" So "worship" means to honor or adore a man. When one worships God, one honors and adores (regards with reverence, admiration, and devotion) the Man of Holiness (one of God's titles). Whether, as Orson Pratt thought, this worship is of God's sublime qualities (tending a bit towards nominalism), or as Brigham Young countered, of the physical tabernacle of Elohim who so mastered his will and emotions as to become Man of Holiness and thus merit adoration of his physical temple, is at this point irrelevant. It is also possible to worship human beings, as St. Paul warned the Romans they were doing. Nor need one search far for contemporary examples. When Klaus Barbie allowed his excessive regard for Hitler to induce him to participate in inhumane acts towards his fellow men, including small children, contrary to the teachings of God, he was "worshipping" his human superior instead of God. One need only read the book written by Albert Speer, first Hitler's Architect, and later his Armaments Minister, to recognize the symptoms of human worship. Other Contemporary Examples of Human Worship Anyone who listened to the U.S. Senate hearings with Lt. Col. Oliver North as witness, has observed a first hand example of ambition, determination, and great leadership ability falling victim to the worship of human beings. Col. North intended nothing but good, he tried to achieve good, but allowing himself, even in what he thought was a "good cause" to go beyond what he must have known were the bounds of conscience, caused him to place his worship of impressive superior officers and a charismatic President above his primary obligation to worship only God. Few who have been close to the levers of power can in good conscience fault Col. North in this. When there is a job to be done and an admired superior wants it done -- no questions asked, we have all been tempted, and many of us have fallen into the trap of getting it done by hook or crook. Ollie North was unfortunate enough to have been caught doing it. The example of the Watergate gang, a number of whom came out of jail having rediscovered their Christian roots, underlines the psychological aspects of what is being said here. Either consciously, or at a deeper level, it is believed, these individuals recognized exactly where their weakness lay: hubris and the desire to please a superior more than God. How Man Worship Can Destroy the State it Sets Out to Preserve The laws of a just society are established to prevent fallible man from destroying the good in the pursuit of the better. When men lose virtue, i.e. humility, the sense of human fallibility, self-discipline, and self-denial, they lose power positively to control the state -- for the state is, after all, the subordination of individual to group interests. And history teaches that in such circumstances the state invariably deteriorates into its more evil opposite: Lord Acton's warning rephrased. Contradictions Introduced by the Theory of Raison d'Etat This is where the theory of Raison d'Etat intrudes. Individuals have the right and perhaps the moral duty to sacrifice themselves and their interests to a "higher cause". Men might even sacrifice their own life -- and in earlier times their wives and families to death rather than compromise a principle. But do they have the right to impose their values on society at large when danger threatens? Most would answer, "No". When the Sovereign, whether this be a man or a group of men, decides to act, the theory of Raison d'Etat teaches that common morality does not apply. This is the contradiction on which good government often founders. Policy must be decided by individuals and carried out by individuals -- unlike what Rousseau thought, there is no abstract "popular will". If imminent threat or longer-term danger arises and an amoral state decision is taken to confront it, policy-makers and policy-implementers must individually decide in the first instance what to do, and in the second whether to go along, based on their own moral standards. If they chose not to go along, someone else probably will. And the "somebody else" may, and probably will, have inferior standards. This is one reason, given the thinness of the crust of civilization and the near constant threat of war, revolution, or coups d'etat , that over time, most forms of government deteriorate into less desirable forms. But the process can be hastened by having too many participants see raison d'etat in every passing emergency, and being willing to compromise principle to achieve praise, advancement, and preeminence. And, it is suggested, this willingness is closely associated with the disposition to worship powerful and influential men. Could we only take St. Paul's warning more seriously, recognizing that even the most powerful among us are, after all, only other fallible men, and while their views and desires are worthy of serious consideration, when push comes to shove and we are compelled to make a moral choice, our worship should be directed towards God for guidance, and we should evaluate the wishes and even the strongly expressed desires of superiors on the cold, dispassionate grounds of a) their congruence with morality, b) their probability of achievement, c) possible repercussions in the event of failure, d) and their long-term effects on the political system as a whole. A Dangerous Consequence of Over-Secularization of the State The foregoing observation is one of the more worrisome aspects of the contemporary over-secularization of American education and American public life. Those who do not take God as a serious element in the formation of children or in public life leave such vital decisions to be made in a moral vacuum. Without a reverence for God -- not in the sense of fearing divine retribution, but in the sense of truly worshipping His divine qualities, have little protection against worshipping man. This is one of the most beautiful, inspiring, and instructive lessons bequeathed by Sir Thomas More. He respected the King and wished to serve him well and effectively. But he loved God more. And when the King's wishes conflicted directly with More's understanding of God's commands, he chose to worship God not the King -- though it cost him his life. One should not overlook, however, that Sir Thomas tried every device, dodge, and alternative he could think of before being cornered into his decision. No one said that life was simple, or public life easy. Some are spared historically difficult decisions by fate. Some evade them, allowing deeper catastrophe to befall a successor. Some confront events and are destroyed by them. And some emerge heroes of history by reason of their wisdom and courage -- or good luck. What appears an insolvable dilemma to one, may be finessed or cleverly resolved by another. There is ample room in the world for evasion, deceit, strategic ruse, or compromise. What neither God not the well-being of society will permit in the long-run is worship of man, i.e. placing reverence, admiration, and devotion to one's superior, above devotion to Eternal Principles. While what Col. Oliver North did bears no external relationship to what was done by Nazi War Criminals, it was in its way just as destructive, if more insidiously so, to the long-term good health of public life. At base, its driving force was man-worship rather than principle.