As part of my misspent youth, I studied Latin in high school. I'd seen my mother's Latin textbooks from her youthful studies, and had always admired the strong, ambitious, practical Roman people who rose from diligent farmers to rulers the known world. Their proud Roman generals astride their spirited steeds, the noble Roman statesmen and later brilliant emperors brought culture and order to an ever expanding empire. The territories which were annexed to the empire were peopled by savage barbarians far better off under Roman law than under their own rule by perpetual warfare with their neighbors and among themselves.

This fit in beautifully with the atmosphere of feminism, socialism, and secular humanism then rising in the 1960's and 1970's. The smart and strong deserved the fruits of their labors, the right to prosper and rise to the top of their society to lead the way for the rest of the people. It was better for everyone, of course, perfectly reasonable in every respect.

There was one little flaw in the analysis, which is quite easy to overlook when one feels that one is a member of that elite on the way to the top. What happens to the lower classes when the ruling elite is not particularly concerned with the civil rights and welfare of anyone other than themselves?

The answer to that is in those same Latin textbooks, and many other history textbooks as well. Look at that picture of a Roman triumph again, the victory parade for the conquering Roman general. He's enjoying himself thoroughly, as are the Roman citizens in the street who will benefit from the chests of gold and other plunder taken from the vanquished enemy. The beaming emperor and senators are waiting with honors and awards for their victorious troops. It's a day of pomp and pageantry, of feasting and gift-giving among the victorious Romans.

Now look back at the warriors in chains, free men who were reduced to slaves, the highest leaders sometimes to be killed as part of the ceremony to confirm the victory after being publicly humiliated. Look farther back at the women and children, widows and orphans, reduced to little more than animal laborers and sexual chattel. There's no joy in that part of the parade.

And why did all of this come about? Because the Romans became a greedy, unscrupulous people who weren't satisfied with the work of their own hands in their own homes. They chose to rule the world by plunder and warfare. The strong, simple faith in their gods and the work ethic that led to their original rise to power among their neighbors had turned into an ungodly pride in their superiority in simply being Romans. They felt they were entitled to look down on their neighbors, seize them and their goods by war, and rule everyone around them that they could subjugate.

It was for the poor barbarians' good, of course, that they would henceforth live stripped of valuable property, working as slaves to pay taxes to a Caesar who lived in wealth while they struggled in poverty to support him as well as themselves. The Roman peace, enforced by troops loyal to the Caesar or at least to the gold he gave them for their services, was a far better way of life for these barbarians than the one they had enjoyed before.

Rome brought all the advantages of government sponsored building and cultural programs to their new provinces. All the barbarians had to do was pay for it all, plus a comfortable margin to maintain the Roman government, and be grateful for all that Rome "gave" them. A few of them wise enough to cooperate with their new Roman masters would prosper as local officials as well.

If this sounds familiar, it is because it happens over and over and over again no matter what country and culture you consider. The problem is one of the sinful human heart, that innate desire to be "Number One" and rule over others to your benefit no matter what harm you cause to them. That is the reason that America's Founding Fathers were so careful to limit government powers, and to insist that our elected and appointed officials were accountable to the people as their servants and not their masters.

Believe it or not, they also felt that it was the duty of American citizens to elect Christians to serve in public offices, since they believed that civil rights were actually God-given rights that the government should safeguard, not politically based rights granted at the government's whim. Our government is designed to be run by humble people who are self-controlled by a Christian ethic, not proud people who control others by force of law or arms. The farther we stray from this central principle, the farther we stray into the danger of being reduced to slavery by the ungodly elite who will act in their own best interests, while saying that it is actually for our own good.

The Democratic choice of Vice Presidential candidate led to an interesting discussion of religion and politics in the last election. The gentleman in question was touted as the first Jew picked for the presidential ticket, yet his public professions of his faith were decried as a violation of church and state, as were other professions of faith by other candidates. The reason? They were talking too much about God Himself and not sticking to the politically correct, publicly neutral "religion."

It seems that you can be as devout in meaningless rituals in public as you wish as a personal eccentricity, just as long as they don't indicate any real connection to the one true God. You can pray ad nauseam as long as you aren't praying to any god who really exists, particularly to the One Who does listen to prayers. You can go to a church as long as the services don't noticeably affect your life outside of that building except for Biblical quotations in your political speeches.

We have gone from separating God from our government to separating God from our public life to now separating God from Judaism and Christianity as well. Politically correct religion is now merely a system of good manners that promotes the social good without having any real significance beyond that. It has no relation to any god at all. It just means that you are a good person who does his public and private duty to keep the country running smoothly. You are such a good person, in fact, that you don't need a god to approve or disapprove of your actions at all.

There is a big problem with that. There is a God who created us and everything around us, and He is going to hold us accountable for our actions, especially whether or not we acknowledged the existence of Him, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as our God. If you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior while you still have time, you are going to be in big trouble when you have to stand before Him and explain why. To ignore this inevitability is suicidal, to say the least, especially in a country like America where there are millions of Christians testifying every day that He exists and wants you to come to Him for forgiveness of your sins and adoption into His family.

The furor put the issue of the foundations of religion right in the public limelight. Both political parties announced the reality of God loud and clear this past campaign season. The question is, does God really mean anything to us anymore, including the candidates, or will we tip our hats to a God we don't believe in but still think it admirable that our Presidential candidates do believe in Him?

I watched events surrounding the transition from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration with increasing dismay. If I had any questions that we are in a post-Christian era in this country, or at least in desperate need for a revival to Christian values again, they were answered with each newscast.

My first shock came when President and Mrs. Bush backed down from a staunch pro-life stand to a weaker statement of their personal beliefs against abortion but not a commitment to try to end this scourge. I had thought that the Republican party still largely opposed abortion and had based my vote in part on this position, but this certainly isn't what is being said now. The President himself actually had to soften his public position in deference to the strong pro-abortion element in this country.

My second shock came with the cries of outrage that President Bush had actually had public prayers mentioning Jesus Christ made on his behalf. Oh, how the objections to his insensitivity to individuals of different religions rang out in the media. It seems to have escaped the notice of those who protested that they were being just as insensitive as they were denouncing him for being. President Bush had said during the campaign that he is a Christian, and to try to deny him his constitutional rights to practice his own religion is reverse discrimination, plain and simple.

Then I heard reports of how President Clinton's staff stripped and vandalized their offices before turning them over to the new administration. Just what kind of people did we have in there? What kind of barbarous behavior is considered justifiable just because their candidate lost and the opposing candidate assumed the office? Did these people learn any ethics when they were growing up, or was that thrown out along with prayers and the Ten Commandments?

Where are the secular humanists trying to lead us? If the actions of the outgoing Clinton administration were any indication, they are racing in the wrong direction strewing social litter in their wakes. Dare we allow ourselves to be dragged along with them or will we take a stand on our God's principles and halt this slide into chaos?

I found out just how far we have gone when I recently served on jury duty. I didn't get picked to sit on a jury, but I got an eyeful of what happens when a jury is picked. I am still shaken by what happened in the second case, a DUI and reckless driving case in a criminal court.

The judge carefully explained that the lawyers for both sides would ask us questions to see if we were suitable jurors to hear this case. He assured us that it was not an insult to us if we were disqualified for that case, since we might well be suitable to hear the next case. We were to answer the questions truthfully to the best of our ability, and not to take it personally if we were asked questions that appeared to intrude on our private lives. He then asked the people first called to the jury box about their employment, marital status, and spouse's employment, as well as asking if anyone knew the lawyers, defendant, or witnesses.

Then it was the prosecutor's turn. He asked a number of questions about the prospective jurors' beliefs on drinking, driving drunk, and their willingness to convict. He seemed to me to be checking on everyone's experience and possible qualifications to decide the issue at hand. Everyone seemed to be giving reasonable answers.

Then the defense lawyer started his questions. What startled me was that he specifically asked if anyone had any religious beliefs against drinking. Several jurors stated that they were Christians and that they did adhere to the Biblical standard against drinking. They also stated that they thought they could be fair in passing judgment on the case. Again, everyone appeared to be stable, responsible people who were going to do their best to decide the matter fairly.

When the lawyers were finished and the judge told them to make their challenges to remove prospective jurors from the box, every one of the Christians was eliminated. By the time the jury was finally picked with more people from the pool interrogated to fill the open positions, I don't think there were any Christians on the jury.

It appeared that the defense attorney wanted a jury that was going to be soft about drinking and driving while drinking, rather than holding the defendant to a higher standard about his conduct if the prosecution proved its case. That makes sense from the viewpoint of the defense, but it was sad that there weren't enough Christians in the jury pool to keep even one on that jury after the maximum number of challenges to prospective jurors were over.

It used to be that a lawyer would hope for a jury which would administer justice fairly but mercifully, but now he can try to get one which commiserates with the defendant on the basis of shared failings and standards. Regardless of whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, how can he get a fair trial that definitively settles the matter? If innocent, would there still be a question that he got off unfairly? If guilty, would he receive so light a penalty if any that he wouldn't stop the unlawful behavior and might endanger society again?

We argue about whether or not this nation was founded on Christian principles (it was!) while our children grow up to murder their own children, trash public property in the highest government offices in the land, and spit defiance in the face of anyone who dares to mention the God and His Son who disapprove of this and considerably more. May God have mercy on our government and court system.