The Bible is why we have morals.
Our morals are why we have a constitution.
Our constitution is why we have a democracy.
Our democracy is why we’re still free.

But if we turn our backs on the Bible,
if we abandon our morals,
if we corrupt the constitution,
we will denounce our democracy
and forfeit our freedom.

Our republic was founded by
Bible-believing men and women.
But if we forget our Christian upbringing,
we will be reminded by its upending.

By: ElRoyPoet © 2021

The Power of Freewill and the Peril of Complacency: How Societal Divisions and Inaction Allow Evil Rulers to Take Charge of Your Life

Throughout history, societies have often been misled by the illusion that moral and spiritual paths are simple and straightforward, despite the reality that they are riddled with complexity and risk. The metaphor of the devil as two-faced highlights this deception: he presents himself to different groups in ways that manipulate their beliefs and aims—namely, control and chaos. For historical Pharisees and contemporary evangelicals, he embodies an authoritarian figure, asserting power through religious dogma and a sense of moral superiority. For the historical hippies and modern free spirits, he represents an enabler, promising pleasure and escape from reality. Both paths ultimately converge on the same destructive outcomes, illustrating how choices rooted in extremes or neglect lead to peril.

Psychological Dynamics of Moral Lanes

From a psychological standpoint, humans inherently seek validation and certainty. They often gravitate to familiar paths—whether authoritarian or hedonistic—because these choices provide comfort or a sense of control. The desire for social conformity and belonging can reinforce the participation in divisive ideologies, creating a sense of entrenchment that makes change challenging. The metaphor of a “multi-lane highway” symbolizes how easily people can slide into destructive behaviors or beliefs, justified by societal narratives. This phenomenon mirrors the concept of moral disengagement, where individuals rationalize harmful actions or inactions to maintain their self-image.

Psychological studies support this notion, revealing that people are often swayed by groupthink, making it easy for harmful ideologies to take root within a community, as individuals prioritize belonging over personal moral judgment.

Historical Lessons on Societal Complacency

Looking at history, we can see that entire nations have fallen when their citizens become passive or indifferent to the encroachments of tyranny. The rise of fascism in Nazi Germany illustrates a grim reality, as a significant portion of the populace turned a blind eye to the horrific atrocities committed by the regime, believing these inhumane actions were either far removed from their lives or somehow justified. Similarly, the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire was partly driven by the complacency of its citizens, particularly the elites, who failed to act against the decline of civic virtue. These historical events emphasize that, as Edmund Burke famously stated, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

This highlights how passivity among citizens—be they voters or religious followers—allows authoritarian figures to exploit existing divisions, often cloaked in rhetoric that stirs fear, identity, or moral superiority. The rise of authoritarian regimes repeatedly demonstrates that when people abdicate responsibility, they empower those who aim to diminish freedom.

The Bystander Effect

The concept of the bystander effect vividly illustrates this phenomenon. Individuals often hesitate to act, believing someone else will intervene, which allows authoritarian figures and manipulative leaders to seize control. Historical examples, such as the rise of totalitarian regimes, showcase that collective inaction can precipitate societal decline and oppression.

C. S. Lewis poignantly warned, “The safest road to hell is the gradual one—a gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” This statement captures how moral decline often occurs subtly, making it easy to overlook the dangers until it is too late. Societal complacency, masked by the comfort of routine, becomes a pathway leading to destruction.

The Light and Shadow of Spiritual Authenticity

An essential insight into moral and spiritual peril is the saying, “the brighter the light, the darker the shadow.” This means that when one is in the light, the contrast between good and evil becomes more apparent. However, those who occupy a “gray” area—lukewarm, neither entirely light nor dark—are more susceptible to deception. Often described as lukewarm Christians, these individuals find it easier to slip into darkness, as the leap from complacency to wickedness isn’t as far or as noticeable. They are neither fully committed to the light nor entrenched in darkness, making them more vulnerable to manipulation and cruelty.

Thus, the key to salvation is striving for the brightest light possible. Living in the light makes the shadow, representing evil, increasingly repulsive. Light exposes deception and moral compromise, making it more challenging for wickedness to thrive. Conversely, self-righteousness can become a trap; some individuals deceive themselves into believing they are worthy, which fosters hypocrisy. The adage “faking it until you make it” does not translate well in spiritual context—superficial righteousness can ultimately lead to a spiritual downfall.

This warning is echoed in Revelation 3:15-16, where Jesus addresses lukewarm believers: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” Here, lukewarmness symbolizes complacency and moral indifference—a state that does not fully embrace light or darkness. This mediocrity is what Jesus finds most troubling, as it reflects a lack of genuine devotion and moral clarity, making believers susceptible to wickedness with little resistance.

The Biblical Call to Choose the Narrow Gate

Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:13-14 underline the importance of the choices we make: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” This metaphor of the narrow path to heaven versus the multi-lane highway to hell illustrates the psychological and moral hurdles individuals must navigate. The narrow path requires discipline, self-awareness, and often sacrifices—qualities that are less attractive in a culture driven by instant gratification and social validation.

History demonstrates that societies prioritizing such virtues—like the civil rights movement or the abolition of slavery—accomplish significant moral advancements by resisting the lure of easier paths. These movements showcase how collective action, rooted in strong moral conviction, can lead to lasting change.

The Choice at the Crossroads

Ultimately, this ongoing struggle is a battle of moral willpower and societal vigilance. Societies must recognize the dangers of moral complacency—choosing comfort over conviction—and understand that their collective inaction paves the way for tyranny. Only through active engagement, moral courage, and a refusal to allow illiberal leaders to deepen societal divides can freedom be preserved and evil kept at bay.

The stark contrast between the narrow pathway and the wide highway serves as a powerful reminder that the journey toward moral and spiritual integrity is challenging but ultimately rewarding. It is only by choosing the narrow, difficult path—resisting complacency and confronting authoritarians—that individuals and nations can avert a descent into chaos and bondage. We must act decisively and courageously to safeguard our freedom and humanity.

---

Democracy Under Siege: Lessons from History and the Perils of Polarization

When a country throws up its arms in disgust because Congress refuses to compromise and everyone is constantly digging in their heels—because they don’t want to relinquish the ideologies of their polarized parties and cultural groups—it becomes easier for affluent society to become cynical about its democratic institutions and the civil rights they guarantee. This polarization and stubbornness undermine the very foundations of representative democracy, leading to political paralysis and societal disillusionment.

Physical and emotional fatigue make cowards out of all of us, and when patriots believe they can’t win, they often succumb to the temptation—perceived as the easy way out—to forfeit liberal democracy and let a power-hungry strongman govern for them. History offers numerous examples of this pattern. For instance, in the early 20th century, countries like Germany and Italy faced similar crises of political instability, which facilitated the rise of authoritarian regimes under Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini respectively. These leaders promised order and national revival but ultimately led to destruction and chaos, illustrating the danger of abandoning democratic principles when faced with internal strife.

In the Bible, the Jews had the opportunity to govern themselves with judges, but they often chose to relinquish their freedom to a king. This pattern recurs throughout history: societies seeking stability sometimes gravitate toward strong, centralized authority. In ancient Israel, the shift from the period of the judges to monarchy under Saul, David, and Solomon was initially driven by the desire for security and national identity, but it also paved the way for tyranny and internal conflict. Similarly, during the Roman Republic, the rise of Julius Caesar and subsequent emperors demonstrated how the promise of order could erode republican values, leading to autocratic rule.

The tendency to opt for strong leadership in times of crisis is not new; it is a recurring theme that highlights the fragile nature of democracy. The initial appeal of monarchy or dictatorship often masks the long-term costs of sacrificing civil liberties and democratic processes. The Roman Republic, for example, experienced instability and civil wars before Augustus established the imperial system, which, while bringing stability, also marked the decline of republican ideals.

In modern times, we see this pattern repeated in countries where democratic institutions have been weakened or abandoned altogether. The rise of populist leaders across the globe—such as Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, or Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil—often capitalizes on societal fatigue and disillusionment, promising to restore order but eroding democratic norms in the process.

Ultimately, history teaches us that temporary peace achieved through authoritarianism is often an illusion, and the true cost is the erosion of civil rights, individual freedoms, and the rule of law. Democratic societies must remain vigilant, fostering compromise and understanding, even amid polarization. Otherwise, they risk sliding into cycles of authoritarianism, where the promise of stability masks the suppression of dissent and the consolidation of power by a few.

“I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.
The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”
Quote by: C.S. Lewis, “Equality,” in Present Concerns (reprint: Mariner Books, 2002), p. 17.

The First Amendment is the chief corner-stone to the Constitution, which upholds our democracy. Don’t be deceived into believing, you don’t need the First Amendment. If you willingly surrender your rights, what makes you think, the government can be trusted—to not trick you—into giving up your Second Amendment, also. Even if you resist, it will be too late, because you’ve already forfeited your First Amendment—Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government protections. The forfeiture of our First Amendment, whether by coercion, deceit or choice is the greatest threat to our democracy! “When you take care of your first priority, everything else will be okay” or “When you do first things—first, everything else will fall in place. However, if you do second things—first, everything else will fall apart”. Our Founders were cognizant of how subtle, government tyranny can be. We owe them a debt of gratitude, for amending the Constitution with the Bill of Rights!

In conclusion, the Second Amendment only serves as a guarantee that our First Amendment protections are defended. But don’t be deceived, when the Second Amendment was enacted, it was to serve as a deterrent against government tyranny. Back in December 1791, it was probably feasible for a militia of colonists with muskets to subvert the standing army. However in our current state, a militia of armed citizens would never be able to overthrow the government, because the armed forces possess weapons of mass destruction and control the military logistics network. So basically, if our First Amendment falls, our Second Amendment advocates won’t be able to defend themselves and as a consequence whomever orchestrates a military coup will eventually rule over the survivors.

“The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern. Where there is no vision, the people perish […] Many seek the ruler’s favor; but every man’s judgment comes from The Lord. There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps. The wise fear The Lord and shun evil, but a fool is hotheaded and yet feels secure.”  Bible, Proverbs 29:7,18,26; 14:12,15,16

Analysis of the Poem:

The poem presents a compelling reflection on the foundational principles that underpin the United States’ system of government and individual freedoms. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of morality, constitutionalism, democracy, and faith, portraying them as vital components that sustain liberty and warns of the consequences that follow neglect or rejection of these core values.

The opening lines establish a cause-and-effect chain: “The Bible is why we have morals. / Our morals are why we have a constitution. / Our constitution is why we have a democracy. / Our democracy is why we’re still free.” This progression underscores the poem’s central thesis—that faith and morals serve as the bedrock of the nation’s political and social structure. The Bible is presented not merely as a religious text but as the moral foundation upon which the entire system rests. The subsequent links—morals, constitution, democracy—highlight the interconnectedness of spiritual beliefs and civic institutions.

The poem then shifts to a warning tone, cautioning against complacency and moral decline: “But if we turn our backs on the Bible, / if we abandon our morals, / if we corrupt the constitution,”. These lines serve as a stark reminder that neglecting these foundational elements can jeopardize freedom itself. The use of conditional language (“if”) emphasizes the fragility of this delicate balance, suggesting that the liberty enjoyed today is not guaranteed but dependent on ongoing respect and adherence to these principles.

The subsequent lines, “we will denounce our democracy / and forfeit our freedom,” drive home the gravity of moral and constitutional deterioration. The poet suggests that such actions would lead to the loss of the very freedoms that define the nation—an urgent call to preserve core values.

The final stanza highlights the historical origins of the republic: “Our republic was founded by / Bible-believing men and women.” This acknowledgment of the founders’ faith underscores the importance of Christian principles in shaping the nation. However, the closing lines serve as a cautionary note: “But if we forget our Christian upbringing, / we will be reminded by its upending.” This implies that neglecting or abandoning these roots could lead to upheaval and instability, reinforcing the idea that moral and spiritual foundations are essential for societal stability.

Overall, the poem functions both as a tribute to the nation’s founding principles and as a warning to future generations. It advocates for a recognition of the role that faith and morals have played in shaping the United States and urges continued reverence for these values to safeguard freedom. The poem’s tone is both reverent and cautionary, emphasizing that the preservation of liberty depends on a collective commitment to moral integrity rooted in faith.