Just and Holy Principles

The Founders:

Benjamin Franklin: That wise Men have in all Ages thought Government necessary for the Good of Mankind; and, that wise Governments have always thought Religion necessary for the well ordering and well-being of Society, and accordingly have been ever careful to encourage and protect the Ministers of it, paying them the highest publick Honours, that their Doctrines might thereby meet with the greater Respect among the common People. (Franklin, Benjamin On that Odd Letter of the Drum, April, 1730)

Thomas Paine: The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety. (Paine, Thomas Common Sense, 1776)

State of Virginia: [R]eligion, or the duty which we owe to our creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and this is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. (Virginia Bill of Rights, Article 16 June 12, 1776)

Thomas Jefferson: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. (Jefferson, Thomas Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17 1782)

James Madison: The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed. (Madison, James proposed amendment to the Constitution, given in a speech in the House of Representatives, 1789)

George Washington: We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States. (Washington, George letter to the Members of the New Church in Baltimore January 27, 1793)

Thomas Jefferson: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. (Founders: Jefferson, Thomas letter to a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut, January 1, 1802)

The Brethren:

Dallin H. Oaks: If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God's servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law on this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?

Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes. ("Weightier Matters", BYU, Feb. 9, 1999)

Neal A. Maxwell: John Adams so cautioned saying, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Unexciting as a prescription, nevertheless, the best single way to improve the quality of life in America is to improve the quality of our own individual lives and our own neighborhoods. Otherwise, citizen failures to respect property, or to practice chastity and fidelity, with all of those consequences, and with all of those failures, cannot be corrected by mere legislation. Similarly, our neglect of the poor or of our civic duties cannot be corrected by executive orders. Our inspired constitution is wisely designed to protect us from excesses of political power, but it can do little to protect us from the excesses of appetite or from individual indifference to great principles or institutions. Any significant unraveling of the moral fiber of the American people, therefore, finally imperils the Constitution. The moral fabric of this society can become dangerously and relentlessly frayed as too few strands strain to hold us together. Hence, having a shared patriotic, spiritual, and moral commitment, within this nation's borders, is as vital as defending those borders." (Neal A. Maxwell, Provo's 1993 Freedom Festival Patriotic Service)

Rex E. Lee: Like the speech, press, and assembly guarantees, the free exercise of religion clause deals directly with the protection of individual liberties, whereas the Establishment Clause is a structural provision regulating institutional relationships between church and state. Moreover, speech and assembly are central to most religious activity. (Quoted in: Neal A. Maxwell, Provo's 1993 Freedom Festival Patriotic Service)

Dallin H. Oaks: I believe that questions of right and wrong, whether based on religious principles or any other source of values, are legitimate in any debate over laws or public policy. Is there anything more important to debate than what is right or wrong? And those arguments should be open across the entire political spectrum. (Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Values and Public Policy,” Ensign, Oct. 1992)

M. Russell Ballard: What would Washington have thought if he could have foreseen our day?...I believe he would have been troubled to see a time when citizens are forbidden to pray in public meetings; when people claim that “you can’t legislate morality,” as if any law ever passed did not have at its heart some notion of right and wrong; when churches are called intruders when they speak out against public policy that is contrary to the commandments of God; when many people reject the correcting influence of churches if it infringes on daily living; when religion is accepted as a social organization but not as an integral part of national culture; when people bristle if representatives of churches speak in any forum except from the pulpit.

Indeed, some people now claim that the Founding Fathers’ worst fear in connection with religion has been realized; that we have, in fact, a state-sponsored religion in America today. This new religion, adopted by many, does not have an identifiable name, but it operates just like a church. It exists in the form of doctrines and beliefs, where morality is whatever a person wants it to be, and where freedom is derived from the ideas of man and not the laws of God. Many people adhere to this concept of morality with religious zeal and fervor, and courts and legislatures tend to support it. (M. Russell Ballard, “Religion in a Free Society,” Ensign, Oct. 1992, 64–65)

Dallin H. Oaks: “Don’t legislate morality.” I suppose persons who mouth that familiar slogan think they are saying something profound. In fact, if that is an argument at all, it is so superficial that an educated person should be ashamed to use it. As should be evident to every thinking person, a high proportion of all legislation has a moral base. That is true of all of the criminal law, most of the laws regulating family relations, businesses, and commercial transactions, many of the laws governing property, and a host of others.

So what does it mean when a person says, “Don’t try to legislate morality?” There is ample room for debate on the wisdom of most legislation, whether it has a moral base or not. Some legislation is unwise or undesirable because it is an excessive interference with liberty or because it will be impossible or expensive to enforce. But the mere statement that we should not legislate morality contributes nothing to reasoned public discourse. (Dallin H. Oaks, “Gambling — Morally Wrong and Politically Unwise,” Ensign, June 1987, 69 )

The First Presidency in 1979: Those who oppose all references to God in our public life have set themselves the task of rooting out historical facts and ceremonial tributes and symbols so ingrained in our national consciousness that their elimination could only be interpreted as an official act of hostility toward religion. Our constitutional law forbids that. As the ruling principle of conduct in the lives of many millions of our citizens, religion should have an honorable place in the public life of our nation, and the name of Almighty God should have sacred use in its public expressions.

Henry D. Moyle: I want to say to you today that just as sure as we live the only reason that we have become circumspect in what we say about politics in our religious gatherings is because of the influence and effort that our enemies have made to close our mouths…and don’t let anybody fool you on that…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles. Tie national morality and religious principles up just as tight as you can and the tighter you bind them together by our loyalty to the Constitution of the United States the greater will be our government and the greater will be our freedom of action and the greater will be our opportunity in life. (Henry D. Moyle, BYU Devotional, 1950)

References:

→   Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Freedom,” Oct. 13, 2009

→   James E. Faust, “A New Civil Religion,” Ensign, Oct. 1992, 69

→   Dallin H. Oaks, “Religious Values & Public Policy,” Ensign, 1992

→   M. Russell Ballard, “Religion in a Free Society,” Ensign, 1992

→   Dallin H. Oaks, “Religion in Public Life,” Ensign, July 1990, 7 

→   The Williamsburg Charter, 1998

→  Neal A. Maxwell, "Meeting the Challenges of Today," 1978

→  “President Nixon on the Latter-day Saints,” Ensign, Jan. 1971, 85