Sadly we are seeing more and more cases of mob rule in America. The latest example comes from the chamber of the Texas Senate. Although it only

affects Texas citizens, this story quickly became a national story.

As a special session of the Texas Senate was winding down, pro-life politicians were trying to get a vote on Senate Bill 5 that would limit late-term

abortions. Senator Wendy Davis engaged in a filibuster (which is her right) in order to prevent a vote. But when a vote was about to be taken, 400 of the pro-

abortion crowd that came to support Senator Davis began shouting from their seats in the Senate chamber. Their angry shouts and noise prevented a vote from

taking place in place before time ran out. Lt. Governor David Dewhurst said, “I didn’t lose control—we have an unruly mob.”

We have seen this before in other legislative chambers. Remember the angry protestors who decended on the Wisconsin legislature two years ago?

Demostrators poured into the streets of Madison and into the Capitol building to protest Governor Scott and the legislation being considered. Similar protests

also surfaced in Ohio and Michigan.

We might also mention that in Wisconsin, Democratic state senators fled the state in order to prevent a vote on the legislation. Perhaps they learned from

Democrats in Texas who fled the legislature a decade ago to prevent a quorum (first in the Texas House and then in the Texas Senate).

Outside the legislature mob action is even worse. Protestors occupy Wall Street in an effort to get their way. Anti-globalism protestors show up at every

WTO meeting smashing windows and fighting the police. And there would be even more protests if it weren’t for the fact that the liberal’s favorite president is in

office. Can you imagine the scene on the streets right now if all the scandals in the news happened under a Republican administration?

Civilized debate and even dissent are part of our American political process. Mob rule is not. We are seeing more examples of mob rule each year. I’m

Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Why do certain civilizations succeed and others fail? This isn’t just an idle intellectual question. How the United States answers that question will determine its

future. A few months ago, Fareed Zakaria took on the question in his article “Are America’s Best Days Behind Us?”

He began by listing many of the statistics that concern all of us. American students rank 17th in the world in science and 25th in math. We rank 12th among

developed nations in college graduation. To this we can add statistics about health and the obvious fact that we have the largest amount of debt in the world.

But in the midst of his article he began quoting from Harvard historian Niall Ferguson. His book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, put so much in historical

context: “For 500 years the West patented six killer applications that set it apart. The first to download them was Japan. Over the last century, one Asian

country after another has downloaded these killer apps—competition, modern science, the rule of law and private property rights, modern medicine, the

consumer society and the work ethic. Those six things are the secret sauce of Western civilization.”

Most of these ideas that Ferguson mentions arose in the West because of Christianity. In previous commentaries I have talked about how a Judeo-Christian

view gave rise to modern science, legal principles, and even the Protestant work ethic. If these are killer apps, then certainly a Christian foundation for society

would nourish and develop these even more effectively than any other cultural or religious foundation.

Fareed Zakaria believes that the United States faces new challenges because other countries know the ingredients to this secret sauce. I do agree we face

great challenges, but I think we also need to add that Christianity gave rise to this success, which means that a return to biblical values is an important

ingredient some trend watchers have been missing.

Today is the 4th of July, and I thought I would take a moment to talk about the origin of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson said

that many of the ideas in the Declaration came from John Locke. Jefferson also gave credit to the writer Algernon Sidney, who in turn cites most prominently

Aristotle, Plato, Roman republican writers, and the Old Testament.

Legal scholar Gary Amos argues that Locke’s Two Treatises on Government is simply Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex in a popularized form. Amos says in his

book Defending the Declaration: “that the ‘law of nature’ is God’s general revelation of law in creation, which God also supernaturally writes on the hearts of

men.”

This foundation helps explain the tempered nature of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was a bold document, but not a radical one.

The colonists did not break with England for “light and transient causes.” They were mindful that Romans 13 says they should be “in subjection to the

governing authorities” which “are established by God.” Yet when they suffered from a “long train of abuses and usurpations,” they argued that “it is the right of

the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.”

Jefferson also drew from George Mason’s Declaration of Rights (published on June 6, 1776). The first paragraph states that “all men are born equally free and

independent and have certain inherent natural Rights; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of Acquiring and possessing

property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.”

The Declaration of Independence is more than 200 years old. It was a monumental work at the time, and even today its words ring with truth and inspire new

generations.

For the last few months, the news cycle has been full of stories documenting the intrusive audits by the Internal Revenue Service and the revelation of

monitoring by the National Security Agency. If the phone calls to my radio program are any indication, more and more Americans are losing trust in government

and actually beginning to fear what the government might do to them.

Back in January, pollsters at the Pew Research Center reported that for the first time a majority (53%) of Americans now agree that: “the federal government

threatens your own personal rights and freedoms.” Six months later the percentage will certainly be higher. Not only has government grown larger; it has also

become more intrusive.

Daniel Henninger writing last month in the Wall Street Journal described what people are asked to absorb in the latest news flow. “Beyond the IRS audits

and NSA surveillance we have a Department of Justice penetrating press activity protected by the First Amendment, stories about Iran’s hackers accessing the

control-room software of U.S. energy firms, China hacking into everything, reports last month of cyberthieves siphoning millions of dollars from ATMs, rivers of

email spam that fill inboxes alongside constant warnings to protect yourself against phishing and malware by storing industrial-strength passwords on

encrypted flash drives, stories in this newspaper about social-media apps that exist mainly to collect your personal data for sale to advertisers.”

Not all of these news stories involve the government, but they all have the cumulative effect of making us feel like we have lost our privacy and freedom. We

may believe that it is necessary to fight terrorism. We may even like the fact that businesses know so much about us so they can offer us products and

services we might want. But we will continue to feel that we are losing control and ceding our rights and freedoms to big government and big business.

We all know people who make promises but don’t follow through and keep those promises. Over time we learn not to put our trust in promises they make.

That principle we apply in our personal life is a principle we need to apply in our political life.

Victor Davis Hanson speculates about what will happen if the current immigration bill passes. He believes there are “lots of reasons to believe that most of

what is promised” in the comprehensive immigration bill “won’t be honored.”

First, this administration has not had a very good record of living up to its policy promises and predictions. Perhaps the best example has been the

Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Lots of promises were made about cost and efficiency that have not come true. Another example would be the

predictions of how the various stimulus packages would reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy.

Second, this administration has not always been willing to enforce existing law. It is reasonable to assume it will do no better enforcing this new law. Two

examples illustrate this point. The President disagreed with the Defense of Marriage Act and instructed his Attorney General not to enforce it. Never mind that

this bill was passed with substantial majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Clinton.

In the same manner, the President instructed his administration to no longer follow the statutory requirements of the No Child Left Behind law. This bill was

co-authored by Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative John Boehner and signed by President Bush.

Third, the history of immigration legislation is not one of the rule of law, but more influenced by politics and pressure groups. Previous presidents often caved

to the whims of the public and the pressure of various constituencies.

It’s no wonder many Americans have become cynical about the political process. Past history makes them skeptical that the current immigration legislation

will make a difference.

The Supreme Court decision concerning same-sex marriage has once again rekindled the debate about how to define marriage. That is why I would recommend that you read the book, What is Marriage? One of the co-authors, Ryan Anderson, was on my radio program to talk about the importance of traditional marriage.

The authors begin with a simple declaration: “What we have come to call the gay marriage debate is not directly about homosexuality, but about marriage.” Unfortunately, various state and federal court decisions have often been about anything but marriage. These judges, and proponents of counterfeit marriage, want to make the discussion and debate about equality, civil rights, or even homosexuality. The authors of What is Marriage? don’t address the issue of homosexuality or homosexual acts. Their focus is on what marriage is, and why a proper definition of marriage is important.

Proponents of redefining marriage appeal to equality and link their rhetoric to the civil-rights movement. Ryan Anderson says that such appeals beg the question of what is essential to marriage. Supporters of same-sex marriage assume gender is as irrelevant as race when it comes to making policy about marriage. But, the relevance of gender is actually the question that needs to be discussed. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind.

The book also explains the negative impact redefining marriage will have on the needs of children. Put simply, every child needs a father and a mother. That is the ideal, though sometimes children must be reared in situations far from the ideal. Ryan Anderson says redefining marriage “would legislate a new principle: that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.” We will lose important concepts like monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency.

We also forget that marriage predates government. Diverse cultures and religious faiths all uphold marriage as an ideal. History shows that traditional marriage is the foundation of human civilization.