Can This Country Be Saved?

by Paul Hein

Get a gun! Get it soon, and learn how to use it. Crime is rampant; it is getting worse, and you will need to protect yourself. The organization intended to provide for the protection of your rights cannot, and will not, do the job.

Government, in other words, is not going to protect you or your property. The reason why it cannot is because it is lawless. The Founders believed, perhaps naively, that you could, with little help from government, protect yourself.  But they instituted government, empowered by the delegation of power from the people, to be the ultimate guardian of your rights. That was and is the ultimate law: The government exists to protect the rights of the people, primarily by punishing wrongdoers. The government no longer gives a damn about that; it is a wrongdoer itself. So get the gun.

This is virtually self-evident in federal matters. Consider that our president has announced that he is going to remove the legitimate government of Iraq and replace it with one satisfactory to us. However villainous Saddam may be--as bad as the rulers of, say, China--he hasn’t raised a hand against us. He invaded Kuwait with our tacit permission; we have responded to that entrapment by killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and seem determined to kill thousands more to depose him. Can our leaders possibly be sincere when they express horror at the thought of more terrorist attacks? If they wanted such attacks, they could hardly be more effective at bringing them about.

But a contempt for the law thrives at lower levels of government as well: for instance, Arizona. The governor of that State, Jane Dee Hull, a Republican, has signed into law a bill that would take away the right of faith-based organizations “to follow their religious tenets about contraceptive coverage.” Orthodox Catholics (both of them) consider contraception sinful. So Catholic groups, like the St. Vincent de Paul Society, a charitable organization, do not provide “contraceptive benefits” as part of the health package for their employees. At least, they didn’t in the past. Now, in Arizona, as well as in California, they will be “legally” required to do so. Governor Hull, a “Catholic” herself, did not sign the bill with the least reluctance. She wrote, “In this era of government encouraging faith-based organizations to provide services to the community, we require that the assistance be provided to people who do  not share the organization’s religious beliefs.” (Emphasis in original) It is hard to see how artificially rendering women sterile is a “service to the community,” but not, I guess, if you’re a politician. Evidently, Hull finds it outlandish—indeed, totally improper--for an organization to decide for itself what “benefits” it will provide for its employees. Equally ridiculous, it seems, is the idea that anyone seeking employment at such an organization can look elsewhere if not satisfied with the benefits package.

The Constitution of Arizona declares that “toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured to every inhabitant of this state, and no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship, or lack of the same.” In addition, there is an Arizona statute that presumes invalid any law that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise. Oh, so what! Our rulers know how we should live, and they have, long enough, tolerated our own quirky preferences as to how we lead our lives. Enough of that!

But if a Catholic religious organization can be compelled to provide services that it believes to be morally wrong, can Catholic hospitals continue to refuse to provide abortions for women who show up at the door demanding that their unborn children be killed? Why should such women be expected to go elsewhere, when women seeking work at Catholic organizations don’t have to go elsewhere to get oral abortifacient/sterilizing pills as part of the “health” plan? Is it an exaggeration to say that the ultimate goal of such as Hull is the destruction of the Catholic Church?

Well, even if that seems to you like a good idea, is it part of government’s job? After all, you would expect the government to protect your church from attack; how can it have the power and authority to destroy mine, without having a similar power towards yours? I won’t embarrass you by asking you where in the Constitution the government is authorized to attack religion, or at least a certain religion; after all, we both realize that the Constitution is a dead letter. But in that case, to whom do you look for protection, should you find yourself on government’s hit list?

So get the gun! When the government itself is lawless—indeed, even expressing contempt for the law--it’s every man for himself. I’m tempted to say, “God help us!” but I might be arrested.

June 11, 2002