P S Q

Accueil
Qui sommes-nous
Notre mission
Notre plateforme

Réunions des membres

Les dix principes de la Sagesse (Énoncé)
(Texte complet)

Abonnez-vous
Ecrivez-nous

Comment devenir membre

Parti de la Sagesse
583 Guizot Est
Montréal, Qc
Canada  H2P 1N4

Montréal
514-389-8889

Québec
418-527-2583
418-624-8497

___________________

Home

The Ten Principles of Wisdom (Statement)
(Full text)

Wisdom Party
583 Guizot Est
Montréal, Qc
Canada  H2P 1N4

Montreal
514-389-8889

Quebec City
418-527-2583
418-624-8497

The ideology of the Wisdom Party is stated in the following ten principles of wisdom

History teaches us that the closer the laws of a nation are to God's universal laws the greater this nation will be

There are universal laws that govern the universe in which we live. These laws are inescapable. Take for example Newton's law of gravity. This law existed before Newton. Newton did not create the law of gravity; he discovered it through observation and translated it into a mathematical form. The Universe doesn't care about Newton's laws. If Newton had made a mistake in translating them, apples would have continued to fall on his head anyway, in exactly the same way.

This can be said of every science. There are rules in the universe, laws that make the universe work and react the way it does and they cannot be broken. The first step in wisdom is to recognize that these laws exist and to decide to work with them instead of against them. The purpose of every science is to discover what these laws are and the purpose of technology is to apply them.

In every area of our lives we recognize this truth. In business, we observe how a successful business operates and then we try to reproduce these practices in order to achieve success. This is why there are business schools. They exist because there are laws that can be discovered, learned and applied. We can learn and teach these universal laws, but we cannot change them; they are inscribed in the creation of the universe.

Likewise, there are laws in psychological, social and political fields. When the members of a city council hear about a new regulation voted in by some other city, if they wait to see how it works and what are the results before deciding if they are going to vote a similar regulation, they are recognizing that there are objective laws governing the universe which make regulations work or not.

No matter what you call those laws, Universal laws, God's laws or Mother Nature's laws, they are there and cannot be overturned.

There are laws that say that an airplane wing can be bent to a certain extent; if you try to bend it over that point it will break. We saw the application of a similar law in Quebec some years ago. Legislators found that every time they increased tobacco taxes, the result was to decrease the number of smokers. So they decided to increase tobacco taxes even more. The result was disastrous. People started buying cigarettes on the black market. Gangsters started making holdups on tobacco trucks instead of on armored bank vehicles. A new organized crime network was set up and within a few months the government had to repeal its prohibitive legislation.

Each airplane has a maximum load it can legally carry. Those regulations are man-made, but their purpose is to protect the citizens against the consequences of breaking God's laws. I have a few friends who thought they could break both manufacturers' recommendations and air traffic regulations and escape. But they forgot that we cannot escape God's universal laws… and they are dead now.

What made a nation great are the high moral standards of its population. Every nation that became a world power was founded by men of high moral standards. The Roman Empire, the British Empire and the American Empire are good examples of this historical fact. As these nations became affluent and their moral standards eroded, they entered into a decaying process that eventually led them to their ultimate ruin.

This process has been repeated over and over all through history. Let's not fool ourselves thinking we are going to escape it. What fooled so many nations before us is their shortsightedness. If the consequences of certain behaviors can be seen within a life-time (as in the way a child is brought up versus what kind of adult he will turn out to be), it is not always the case for nations. Sometimes the time lapse between the action (being moral or immoral) and the reaction (being strong or wrecked) could be numbered in hundreds of years. For example, when the Roman Empire was at its peak, everyone would say, "Look at this magnificent nation so powerful and so "modern" (read "perverse")". And every nation wanted to imitate the perversion of the Romans, not realizing that it was because their past high moral standards, a few hundred years before, that they were now powerful, not because of their present perversion which was leading them to self-destruction.

In exactly the same way today, nations all over the world look at the American Empire, its corruption and perversion, and believe this is the right way to be since they are becoming more and more powerful, without realizing that this civilization has already started its decaying process. It's like everybody copying the behavior a beautiful actor who is still becoming more and more popular while infected with AIDS and dying without anybody knowing his real state.

In Nero's time the Romans were already as corrupt as we are today. Abortion was a usual form of birth control. Men were not the heads of their homes anymore. Divorce was epidemic. Men would have sex with other men as well as with woman. Romans didn't believe in their gods anymore. They would spend their evening watching obscene theatre plays or going to the circus watching the same kind of massacres many of us are watching today on TV. Politicians were serving themselves instead of serving the nation.

What a contrast with the first years of Rome, when the Romans had an exemplary set of moral ethics that made them a great nation. Their judicial system was exemplary and is still inspiring modern democracies. Marriage was sacred. Family bonds were solid. The father was the lord ("dominus") of his family. Romans weren't loosing their time in theatres or the circus. And even later when the circus appeared, it was only a show of exotic animals, with no human fights. The Romans believed in an afterlife and were ready to die for their country. Homosexuality and abortion was almost non existent. Even much later, in Cicero's time, moral behavior was required of political officials and a senator was impeached for having been seen kissing his wife in public.

The present immoralities, gay rights movement, women's rights, fear of dying for a just cause, permissiveness and promiscuity is not a sign of progress, but the decaying signs of an aging society walking toward its own death. There is nothing "modern" or "evolved" here. We are regressing towards the decadent Rome of two thousand years ago. God's universal laws can't be escaped. If we continue to follow the recipes of the previous civilizations which led them to their own destruction, we are going to reap the same results.

Almost everybody heard about Moses' Ten Commandments. You shall not commit murder. You shall not steal. You shall not take your neighbor's wife. You shall not bear a false witness. You shall not covet what belongs to your neighbor. Take care of your father and your mother. Etc...

Those commandments given by Moses are universally recognized and praised as words of wisdom. But very few know about the civil code of laws that accompanied these Ten Commandments. Even among Christians and Jews, the  civil code of Moses is mostly forgotten.

Just like the Ten Commandments, the civil code of laws of Moses is in perfect harmony with God's universal laws. Its wisdom is ageless. When God gave these laws to Moses, He said that every nations of the world will look at Israel and see how good their laws are and will praise them saying: "What a great and wise nation! And what a great God they have!"

For no man could ever imagine a set of laws so close to God's universal laws. This we can easily see when we look at man-made laws. How often our present laws, while trying to solve a problem, create new problems worse than the problems they originally tried to solve. This is what makes us often say that the solution is worse than the problem.

Every nation that applied the civil laws of Moses has experienced their wisdom. Every time we turn away from these laws, we create trouble for ourselves. In the sixties, murder was relatively rare in America. Good humans, thinking themselves wiser than God, decided to abolish the death penalty. They claimed that there was no relationship between the death penalty and the crime rate, and that abolishing the death penalty would create a better non-violent society and result in less crime and murder. Some twenty-five years later, the crime rate had increased so much that many states decided to restore the death penalty. Since then, the crime rate has started to decrease again. Still, many continue to argue that there is no link between the death penalty and the crime rate.

It is unfortunate, however, that innocent people are being sentenced to death because God's civil laws are applied only in part. With the Commandment: "He that killed shall be killed", God added: "You shall not sentence any one to death without at least two or three witnesses" and "He that bears a false witness shall receive the punishment that would have befallen on the one he falsely accused". A government that applies God's prescribed death penalty must also apply God's accompanying laws to protect the innocent people falsely accused.

The laws of God as stated by Moses form a perfectly balanced system of laws. You cannot take just what you like and discard what you don't without damaging its perfect balance.

Unfortunately, so few know Moses civil code today. When they hear about it, many Christians ask, "Isn't it in the Bible that they say that if someone steals he must have his hand cut." No. It is not in the Bible. The Bible states that if someone steals, he must pay five times what he has stolen. And if he cannot pay, everything he owns must be sold and he must be forced to work without pay until he paid everything, but never for more than six years. The punishment must be in proportion to the crime. This is the meaning of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Moses never intended his words to be used as a pretext for vengeance, but as a guiding rule of justice for court sentences. To make this clear he wrote, "You shall not take vengeance. You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

There is a great need today to rediscover God's civil code as given to Moses and its perfectly balanced wisdom.

For thousands of years, until recently, the family was considered the basic nucleus of the society. The family was indivisible and the father was its representative in all state affairs. The basic political principle was: One family, one vote.

In England, at the end of the First World War, in January 1918, women were for the first time given the right to vote. Most countries followed suit after World War II.

Aren't women intelligent and able? Of course they are. Their contribution during the two World Wars proved invaluable. They were the ones working in the factories, making arms and munitions. To grant women the right to vote after all the sacrifices they made to save the nation during the wars seemed only natural. But this was the beginning of the end. For the first time the basic principle of the political unity of the family was broken.

Until then, the family was considered the smallest political unit of the society. It was sacred. No one had the right to break it or tell its manager how to manage it. The family members were to agree on what side they wanted to vote. Women had a say. Sometimes they knew more about politics than their husband did. They would be the ones telling their husbands how to vote. If the family members couldn't agree, there was a simple rule to avoid conflicts, the father was to decide. The most important issue was that the unity of the family be preserved without any interference from the state.

When men granted women the right to vote, they told the whole nation that the family was not an indivisible unit anymore, that the role of women was not to be a helper to their husband anymore and that a family could be divided in two different political poles. They were legalizing arguments and division in the family. They were legitimizing the political separation of husbands and wives. What God had united didn't need to stay united anymore. This historical mistake opened a Pandora's box to divorces, broken homes, abortions, single parent families and how many other disastrous consequences.

When I studied the history of human societies and saw the explosion of madness occurring since World War II, I used to joke saying that something terrible happened with the explosion of the atomic bombs that altered the fabric of the universe and made all men crazy on the planet. How else can you explain that man became so crazy suddenly as to pretend that he doesn't even know that there is a difference between a girl and a boy, that women are different from men, that children should receive a spanking when they deserve it and that homosexuality is abnormal?

The coincidence in timing between the rejection of so many obvious truths and the explosion of the atomic bomb made this joke easy to make. But, as I found later, there is more than a joke here. There is a real relationship between the breaking of the family nucleus and the breaking of the atom.

For centuries the atom was considered the smallest unit of matter. The word atom comes from the Greek word atomos which means "that which cannot be divided". But men became so wise in their own eyes. They said to themselves, "No, no, no. We are much brighter than our fathers. We know that the atom is not the basic unit of the matter. There are protons, and electrons, and neutrons. Let's break the atom and see all the destructive energy we can produce." Just like they said, "We are much brighter than our fathers. We don't believe anymore that the family is the basic unit of the society. There is a father and a mother and children around them. Let's break the family and see all the destructive energy we can produce."

So men started breaking the families. They started giving political and then social rights to the individual members instead of to the family units. They voted a number of laws making divorce easier, protecting the wives against their husbands and the children against their parents, instead of honoring the authority of the fathers to protect their families.

In order to make a nuclear explosion you break an atom. Each piece of the broken atom hits and breaks another atom. The new broken pieces hit new atoms in a chain reaction that makes a terrible explosion. Likewise, in order to make a divorce explosion you break a family. Each piece of the broken family hits another family with adultery and breaks it into a painful divorce. The new broken families hit other families in a chain reaction that makes a terrible divorce explosion.

We must stop this madness of self-destruction. And the only way to stop it is to go back where it all started and restore the natural and universal principle of the family being the smallest unit in the state.

One important principle that we must know if we want to understand God's code of laws is that the laws are addressed to men, not to women or children. If we don't understand this very important basic principle, God's perfect code of laws doesn't make sense anymore.

In our legal papers today we often add a clause stating that the feminine can be replaced by the masculine and vice versa. There is no such clause in God's law. When the masculine is used it means masculine and when the feminine is used it means feminine. When the law says, "A man should..." it means a man, not a woman.

The reason for this is that the laws are written to men who are the sovereigns of their families and have the responsibility to apply those laws to themselves and to their families.

Take prostitution for example. There is no law saying to women, "You shall not do prostitution". The law says instead to the fathers, "You shall not deliver your daughter to prostitution". The law is addressed to the fathers, not to the daughters. They are the ones responsible of its application. To make laws that would command daughters what to do when they are under the authority of their fathers wouldn't make sense. They don't have the power to apply them. That's why the laws are written to the fathers and not to their daughters.

Likewise the laws are written to the husbands, not to their wives. There is no law that says to a married woman not to cheat her husband, but there is a law that forbids a man to sleep with a married woman. If a man sleeps with a woman married to another man, they will be sentence to death, both of them. If he sleeps with a single girl without the authorization of her father, he must marry her and will never be able to divorce from her. If he marries a single girl while he is already married, he is not allowed to divorce from his first wife. He must keep her, continue to take care of her and provide her with the same comfort he was giving her before his second marriage.

What is the superior wisdom behind those laws?

First of all, it is much more humane for women and children than our present system of polygamy where men marry young women, drop them when they are getting old and marry or live in common law with another one twenty years younger, leaving a trail of single parent families and orphans behind them.

It also takes into account several important principles for the stability and happiness of the family.

Because he is the source of life, God has complete authority over his creation. Likewise, because he is the source of life, the father has complete authority over his family. He is an image of God, the owner of his wife and the maker of his children, like God is our owner and maker. Because he is an image of God, the Father of all, the father is the final authority in the family. No one has a legitimate authority to restrict him from managing his family the way he thinks is right.

The father is the founder of the family. He is the author of his children lives. They are his seed. They come from him and are an extension of him. They owe him their lives and consequently everything. Since he is their maker, they belong to him and he has all authority over them. Children owe to their fathers all respect but their fathers don't owe them anything. They proceed from him, not him from them. If a child hits or curses his father or mother he deserves the death penalty. There is no penalty for a father hitting his child.

A father can keep his daughter a virgin in his house all her life or give her to the man he chooses. Once he gives her to another man, she doesn't belong to him anymore; she belongs to her husband who has now the authority her father had over her. Since the beginning of times, in every culture, every country, every religion, this action of a father giving his daughter to another man is the universal principle of marriage.

A boy however belongs to his father only until he leaves home and acquires a wife for himself. He then becomes the founder of a new family unit. His children will bear his name. The wife who has been given to him becomes one flesh with him. She belongs to him, whether he paid for her or not, and she cannot leave him.

The family is the atomic unit of the society under the authority of the father. To divide it is a crime. It is a place where children can grow under the care of their mothers and the loving protection of their fathers. Children should not live in the constant fear that their universe can collapse anytime under their feet. The death penalty is the sentence for those who steal a wife and thus break a family. The role of a government is to help fathers to protect the unity of their families, not to facilitate its division.

No government, no state, no judge, no lawyer, no family laws can protect a wife and a child as much as a loving husband and father. No matter what, nobody will ever find a better way to protect a family than a good, loving, responsible father.

Not long ago children belonged to their parents. When a father decided to send his children to a public school he was putting them under the temporary custody of the government. If he were displeased with the school, he would remove the custody from the government and put his children under the custody of another school. Today, after so many evil laws, things are reversed. The children now belong to the state which allows them to stay under the custody of their original parents. If the state is not pleased with the original parents, it can remove the custody from them and put the children under the custody of some other parents, all this for the good of the children, of course. One day Hitler said, "You can make people accept any law as long as you tell them that it is for the good of the children." State laws protecting the children seemed good when they were voted in, but they are profoundly evil because by giving to the state the right to legislate about our children we introduced the evil principle that the children now belong to the state and that it is the state who has the final authority over them. We are abdicating our God given right and responsibility in the upbringing of our children to the state. 

Take away every responsibility from a child and he will become an irresponsible citizen. Likewise, by eroding fathers' and husbands' responsibilities year after year and law after law, we are building a fatherless society, filled with careless husbands.

One of the great mysteries of our time is how easily we forgot how human beings and society were, just a few decades ago. Through a well-designed and persistent propaganda, feminists have been able to make us believe that women in general were severely mistreated by men before their feminist women's lib movement. What an outrageous lie!

I remember a time not so long ago when men were gentlemen. They would walk on the side of the road to protect their wives from the mud thrown by the passing cars. They would do the same, as human shields, if there were bullets shot towards them. They would open heavy doors for their wives. When a ship like the Titanic would sank, men would save the lives of the women and the children before their own lives. If there were not enough room for everybody on the lifeboats, they would remain on the ship, sinking bravely to their death, proud to save their women's lives. There were no arguments, no questions; this was the natural thing to do. I also remember when fathers were teaching their sons that you never hit a woman, not even with a handkerchief. How come nobody remember these times, when women were treated like ladies, anymore?

Now since women are considered equal, men don't care what side of the road they walk on and they don't open doors for them anymore. In 1989, when a mad man entered a university classroom in Montreal, no man stood in front of the girls to shield the bullets. Men ran away and 14 young women were killed. Some years ago, when a fire broke out in a theatre in Europe, every man rushed to the exit, tramping tens of women to death. Every year statistics show us that there are more battered women than the year before. This is how women are better treated now. This is how the lesbian-feminist propaganda and lies succeeded in improving the fate of women.

By successfully convincing men that women are equal to them, the lesbian-feminist propaganda convinced men that they don't need to take care of them anymore. When something belongs to you, you feel responsible for it and take care of it. When the wives belonged to their husbands, men felt responsible and took care of them, up to death if necessary. Now wives belong to themselves. They are now rented commodities. They are expensive and they are yours to enjoy only for a limited time. In every man's heart there is a protector's instinct, a desire and need to lead, own and protect someone weaker. If you teach men that women are weaker, you are activating their protective instinct and they will feel urged to take care of them. If, on the contrary, you teach them that women are equal to them, it is their powerful competitiveness instinct that you are activating and they will feel urged to compete with them and beat them, like they do with other men. So, by breaking those natural laws and spreading the lie that women are equal to men, everyone is loosing.

After so much equality propaganda and so many laws protecting women and children against their husbands and fathers, men don't feel responsible anymore. It is time for men to wake up, stop believing the lesbian-feminist lies and take their responsibilities again. It was men who voted the feminist laws that gave power to women to destroy our families. It is the responsibility of men to come back to reason and restore wisdom in the laws. When the fathers will see their authority and responsibilities restored, you will see how responsible they will be. When they will have full authority over their families, you will see how good husbands and fathers they can be.

Everybody agrees that brutalizing a child is bad. I surely do. Because children have been severely abused, many nations have voted laws protecting children against their parents. This seemed wise in the eyes of these men, but in reality it is foolishness for many reasons.

The goal of avoiding excessive brutality against children may be noble, but the results are disastrous. Good loving parents that have self-control will restrain themselves from giving a good deserved spanking, while brutal parents that don't have any self-control will continue to beat their children anyway. The net result will not be a less violent society, but a more violent society.

In many countries children are now taught in school how to call 911 and have their parents arrested. It is not only the severely abused children who are taught to disrespect their parents; it is to every child that the implied message is conveyed that the parents are the enemies and the state is the protector.

The truth is that the great majority of parents love their children and want the best for them. They need their God given authority for the good of their children. The basic reality is that the great majority of husbands love their wives and want the best for them, and they need their God given authority for the good of their wives and their whole family. If you deny them this rightful authority, they will get discouraged and resign from their duties. They will just let their children and their wives do whatever they please. They won't be there anymore to be the strong leaders, protectors and guides their families need. Their sons, without an appropriate father and husband model, will eventually become irresponsible husbands and fathers as well.

There is a price to pay for freedom. In order to preserve our freedom of press and speech, we must accept that there will be abuses from unscrupulous liars. In order to preserve our freedom of religion, we must accept that there will be abuses from undesirable cults. In order to preserve our freedom of a fair trial, we must accept that there will be abuses from criminals who will escape justice. In order to preserve our freedom to raise our children and protect our families, we must accept that some evil men will abuse their wives and children.  If we are not ready to pay the price of freedom we don't deserve it.

Making laws that reduce the authority of the great majority of good loving father in order to prevent a few exceptional cases is foolishness. It is like trying to kill a fly with a machine gun. The solution is making more damages than the problem. Any law that interferes with the sovereign authority of a father over his wife and his children contributes to the destruction of the families and, eventually, of the state itself.

Skyrocketing divorce rates, suicides, student violence, crime rates, teen pregnancies, abortions, family violence, AIDS and other STDs are all consequences of our turning away from God's perfect laws. It should be obvious that AIDS is the consequence of a sinful behavior: homosexuality, extramarital sex and drug addiction. It should also be obvious that in order to fight this STD we should discourage such sinful behaviors. But we are living in a time where even intelligent persons don't see the obvious anymore. Instead of addressing the real source of the problem, we dig our heads in the sand and let homosexuals freely parade in our streets collecting money for AIDS medical research and we freely distribute condoms and syringes.

If we want to see a real renewal of our society, we must stop trying to fix the consequences of our mistakes by plaster laws and start addressing the real sources of the problems. The solution to teen pregnancy is not more abortion clinics or drop-your-baby centers. We must ask ourselves the real questions. Why do unmarried tens get pregnant in the first place? Where are the fathers? How did we end up to such an irresponsible society?

The solution to student violence is not more arms controls. Why do children act like this? Where are the parents? Where do children learn this kind of behavior? Because in order to act like this they had to learn it somewhere, isn't it? What's wrong with us?

The solution to spousal violence is not encouraging women to fight their husbands for more rights. The solution is to teach women to respect their husbands' authority. In every human organization fights usually arise between people who are at the same level of authority, not between a superior and someone under his authority. This is why in every corporation there is a chain of command. Everybody has one boss and only one. Could you imagine an army that would decide that every platoon would have two equal bosses? It is easy to understand that such an army wouldn't go far. Nevertheless this is exactly what we did with our families. We decided that husbands and wives must have the same authority in the family and after that we are surprised that our marriages don't last anymore. Then we put the blame on the husbands accusing them of not treating their wives as equal partners, instead of admitting that we are reaping the results of having changed the universal basic rules of marriage as established by the Creator.

Until we make the decision to reconsider the universal principles we turned away from, any additional law we will vote in will add to a given problem instead of contributing to its resolution. It's like trying to relieve ourselves by scratching a sore wound we originally made by scratching ourselves.

All laws in a society are based on basic principles. Once we accept a new principle, every law will eventually be changed in order to reflect this new basic principle. Once we have accepted that homosexuality is not a perversion anymore but a different sexual orientation which must be accepted in a tolerant society, we have opened the door to a series of legal changes that nothing will be able to stop until we repudiate this new basic principle we have accepted. If homosexuality is an acceptable behavior, then we must change our laws in order to adjust to this new morality. If we continue to decriminalize homosexuality, sooner or later we will see homosexual equal rights in marriage and homosexuality will be taught in our children's sexuality classes as a normal expression of love. And if we don't agree, the Supreme Court will remind us that our laws must not be in contradiction with our principles.

From the moment we accepted the principle that a wife is equal to her husband, we opened the door to a number of new laws destroying our families. Since wives have the legal right to refuse sex to their own husbands and accuse them of rape, many men turned towards their neighbor's wives, prostitutes, children and other men. Since daughters don't belong to their fathers anymore and choose their own husbands, they make bad choices with the results of more battered women, divorces and abortions.

Only a definite change towards God's universal and timeless principles will save us from the many woes that are bound to fall upon our society.

The code of civil laws of Moses is a complete set of perfectly balanced laws. When one law seems extreme, we always find another law that counterbalances it. No man has ever been able to write such a perfectly balanced set of laws. We must therefore apply all civil laws of Moses in our legal systems for many good reasons:

1. Since the civil code of laws of Moses is a perfectly balanced set of laws, any attempt to take away one of its laws will break its perfect balance.
2. When someone feels the need of taking away one of these laws, it is because he either doesn't understand the basic principle behind this law or because he doesn't agree with it. Taking away one of the laws will consequently result in denying its underlying principle and eventually damage every other law that stems from this same basic principle.
3. We need an objective set of moral principles that will act like an anchor protecting us against the flow of the current political correctness and from the winds of the ever-changing human opinions. The biblical code of civil laws is this objective anchor protecting us from our human subjectivity.
4. If we allow one individual or group to alter the prescribed laws of God, why not allowing other individuals or groups to do the same. By this liberty we are opening the door to never-ending disputes and will never be able to reach the social consensus needed to activate the major renewal of our society we long for. We wouldn't have any objective set of values anymore.
5. If we satisfy ourselves with a partial application of God's laws, we are not bringing any thing new on this planet. Every government in this world is already doing this very same thing. They all have laws saying that you cannot commit a murder or steal or bear a false witness. The core of every nation laws is already based on God's laws, every one with their own modifications. It is exactly this license to change whatever doesn't please us that brought us in the mess we are in now. The only way to get out of it is to stand for the unalterable principle of applying the complete set of God's civil laws to our present legal systems.

In order to understand the mission of the state it is useful to examine its historical origin. Everywhere on the planet, when men started to settle somewhere they felt the need of a common organization and the establishment of a form of government. In any given territory, settlers found the need of organization and government in order to fulfill the same three basic needs (though not necessary in the same order): security, basic infrastructures and social peace.

For example, in an arid place the discovery of a new well was the occasion of the gathering of several families. The first basic infrastructure was then water. Disputes soon arose around water and in order to avoid fighting and killing each other the family leaders set up some form of government. Some wise elders were also appointed to settle disputes between members of the new community. Alliances would also be made between families in order to protect themselves against any attack from hostile strangers. When the community grew into a city, a king was appointed. His role was similar to the one of the previous form of government: to judge between the members of the community in his court and to head the army in the case of an enemy attack. Roads were soon added to water as part of the basic infrastructures of the community. The kings needed to levy taxes in order to sustain themselves and their courts, the national guards and the building and maintenance of roads and water supplies.

Even though the previous example is obviously simplistic and may differ much from the historical creation of many states, it is still a good illustration of the origin of the states. There is one important lesson to remember: the state was originally created in order to serve men. As time passed and the states grew, their governments everywhere started to forget their original purpose, accumulating powers upon powers and believing that the citizens were at their service rather than them being at the service of their citizens. The kings that were chosen by the people to serve them soon became dictators and enslaved the very ones that gave them authority to serve them. They used their armies against their fellow citizens instead of protecting them against external enemies. They used their authorities and taxation power to control the lives and all kind of activities (religious, cultural, economical) of their citizens often neglecting the provision of the basic infrastructures needed for the welfare of the nation. Instead of using their military power for the protection of their citizens they built large armies to attack neighbors and increase their personal wealth and powers.

The basic infrastructures of our 21^st century are now much more complex then the mere water and roads infrastructures of the previous example, but the same principles are still relevant. Among the basic infrastructures necessary for the life of every citizen today, we could list water, electricity, highways, mass transportation in large cities, telephone and soon the Internet. These services should be provided free of charge to every citizen. It doesn't make sense that water, electricity or telephone be cut because a citizen was not able to pay his bill, or that he cannot travel freely in a large city to find himself a job or get some food from a food bank because he doesn't have the money to pay his bus fare. Instead of getting involved in all kinds of activities that are not their business, the governments should focus on what is really their raison d'être: the provision of the essential infrastructures to every citizens, justice and defense, and leave what is not their business to the religious and private sectors.

Not only are most of our governments not providing the basic services they should; they are also involved in many places where they shouldn't be. In many cases the best thing a government should do is -- nothing.

Morality. Many are surprised when they study the laws of the Torah to see how much liberty is left to the individual. If we understand that the laws which include a penalty are to be enforced by a government and that the laws which don't include a penalty are left to the responsibility of the individual citizen, we discover that there is a lot left to the individual's responsibility. When the Torah says, "Love your neighbor as yourself" this is a moral law to be applied by the individuals and not to be enforced by a government. No government should write a law like: "Whosoever doesn't love his neighbor as himself shall be sentenced to a fine of $500.00 or 3 days of imprisonment." Likewise, if we want to apply the whole civil code of Moses and believe that it is the most perfect code of laws, we must also believe that there is no "missing laws" and that any law that doesn't come with a penalty is moral and therefore should be left to the conscience of each citizen. We cannot save anybody by force. If someone is not hurting someone else we must let him free to go to hell if he chooses it. It is written, "Behold I have set life and death before you, choose life that you may live." God leaves an awful lot of liberties and responsibilities on the individual's shoulders and so should the state. The state should not take a greater authority than God takes for himself. Besides the few punitive laws of the divine civil code the state should not legislate the moral behavior of its citizens. It is the role of religion and the churches to regulate the moral conduct of men, not the government. In the state, the church and the government should work together but in two different and separate ways. The role of the church is to teach men how to serve God and to become good citizens; the role of the state is to provide them with the basic services and to punish them when they go beyond the limits set by God's law. For example, the church will teach men how to love their neighbors and be honest; the state will punish them if they kill their neighbors or steal from them. When a government tries to force its citizens into a moral behavior, it is going beyond its God given autority. This was the mistake of communism; their ideal was noble: every citizen should work for the good of everyone and not for his own selfish interest, citizens should share one with another, capitalist greed should not enslave the workers… I think most religions will agree with those ideals. The problem is that the communists tried to impose their noble ideals by force. How sad it is to see, after the fall of communism, that so many non-communist governments are still following the same path today.

Education. Neutral education doesn't and shouldn't exist. The purpose of education is the building of children into responsible citizens. The teaching of children involves the transmission of traditional, cultural and moral values. The origins of man, who he is and his purpose are taught to our children in school as well as what is expected of them and how they should interact one with another. Education is therefore essentially religious. Non-religious schools are a myth. Under the label of secular education the state is teaching our children its own religious views which may be very different than the religious views of their parents. The state should therefore withdraw itself from the educational sector and leave it to the various religious denominations. If some parents want to send their children to an atheist school, they should be able to create one. Christian and Jewish parents should also be able to send their children to a school that will teach them the way they would teach them themselves.

Families. The fathers are the heads of their families and, like the ship captains of old, the only masters on board after God. The government should not interfere in the way a man leads his family. Religious teachings and social pressures are a better way of dealing with social issues than government intervention.

Subsidies. There is a practice among some governments of granting subsidies to various sectors and products they consider essential. This practice has also been extended to private for-profit businesses. Such inappropriate handouts of taxpayer funds are socially inequitable and economically inefficient. Any measure that keeps prices for consumers below market level (or above market level, for producers) or that reduces costs for consumers and producers through direct or indirect support creates economic distortions reducing efficiency, natural competitiveness and growth. While a government may boast of creating jobs by granting subsidies to some businesses, it is often only helping its friends to gain a marked advantage over their competitors. They will proudly advertise the jobs created by their subsidized friends but will remain silent over the number of jobs lost among their unfortunate competitors. Subsidies to help businesses in financial difficulties are also an economic aberration. What is the logic of rewarding a business that is loosing money by a subsidy, while punishing its well-managed competitors by a tax fine?

Gambling. It is completely unacceptable for a government to operate casinos, lotteries or sweepstakes. The revenues derived from such operations are disguised taxes. They are unfair taxes, since they are not based on the level of income of the citizens, but on their level of weakness and greed. Making profit on the basis of someone's weakness is a theft. The role of a government is to protect its citizens, not to steal from them.

Taxes. The multiplication of taxes of all kinds - direct, indirect and hidden - has created a monstrous administrative apparatus. Small businesses are being drowned under a pile of paperwork and red tapes. This is the result of years of government policies of trying to make acceptable its tax increases by hiding them. You don't need to be very bright to create chaos. To make things simple however requires more brain. Since all taxes collected by one given government end up in the same pocket, there is no need for many kinds of taxes. Sales taxes, duty taxes and all other kinds of taxes are detrimental to the economic activities and eventually result in a lost of income taxes. The negative impact of sales and duty taxes on the economy is easily demonstrated by the fact that they are widely used by governments to discourage activities like tobacco smoking and the importation of certain products.

Those are just a few examples of sectors where the government is often missing a good opportunity of doing nothing or doing much less.

Separation between religious and political powers has never been easy to obtain. In the past, many governments were not able to resist the temptation of using the religious faith of their citizens to control them. Religion in the hand of an unscrupulous government is a nightmare. This is the kind of undue control that led Marx to proclaim that the religion was the opium of the people. No religious denomination should have a privileged status in the state. Don't be fooled. If a government gives a privileged status to a religious denomination it will use it to control the masses. This is a pattern that has been repeated over and over in history, from Constantine The Great to Hitler. No church or religious denomination should be the official church of the state. The state should not have the authority of appointing church leaders and religion should not be funded by the state. If the citizens want to give money to the church, they should give it themselves to their own church, not give it to the government who will give it to the churches with strings attached.

Likewise, no religious authority should appoint state's officials. In a democratic country, the citizens who want to see their religious beliefs prevail in the government have the opportunity and responsibility to vote for those who will better represent them.

There is a general agreement among politicians to never attack each other on a personal level. Arguments and attacks should remain on a higher plane and never get so low as to question the honesty or personal morality of a candidate. The general idea is, "Don't tell them that I am a crook and I won't tell them that you are a homosexual". This kind of agreement is the equivalent of a commercial cartel which is an agreement between competitors to fraud the consumers.

Not only the personal beliefs and morality of a candidate are important to know, they are the only things that really matter and this for many reasons. First, because if a candidate is dishonest, no matter what are his political program and promises, there is no assurance that he will enforce them, once elected, anyway. Secondly, because if he is honest and really seeking the good of his co-citizens, he may discover after he has been elected that he was wrong and decide to change his mind and vote on the side of his opponents. Thirdly, because you cannot expect immoral persons to vote moral laws.

There was a time when the moral integrity of a political leader really mattered. A personal scandal would destroy the nation's confidence in him and would force him to resign. Today, economic considerations take precedence over moral integrity. If a political leader's actions are considered beneficial to the nation's economy, his moral integrity doesn't matter anymore. This is a great mistake and a demonstration of shortsightedness that we will have to pay for in the many years to come. When asked, most fathers will declare that they don't agree for their sons to have a homosexual teacher, or hockey coach, or Boy Scout leader. The position of a political leader is however much more important than this, since he influences not only a few boys, but also the whole nation; and nevertheless, we are still voting homosexuals in our governments, sometimes not even knowing it. How could homosexuals vote laws against homosexuality or vote some other pro-family laws, when they have in their agenda the very destruction of the traditional family? Homosexuality is condemned by every major religions of the world. A member of a government who is a homosexual or believes in homosexual rights will directly or indirectly work at the destruction of traditional faiths and the removal of traditional moral teachings in our schools. Any believing Jew, Christian or Moslem should never vote for such a candidate.

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Men that don't fear God are not qualified to run for political responsibilities. Their motivations are not to serve God, but to serve their own personal interests. They don't believe that they will be punished when they do something wrong, if nobody knows it. They cannot be trusted that they will continue to stand for what they really believe even though everybody would turn against them. Don't count on them to vote for unpopular measures that they know to be for the good of the nation, if they fear to loose their seat at the next election.

In the government we need men of principles, men that will stand for what they believe and will be ready to loose an election rather than loosing their integrity.