Political Defense of the Seventh Commandment:
A Separatist Guide to the Law of Chastity for America
Light Reading Publisher
Electronic transmission of this document is permitted as long as it
(including this page) is kept in tact and is not altered as to content.
Print reproduction in full or part only by permission of author
Questions or Comments? Write:
P.O. Box 3248
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Part I: Introduction 1
Part II: Sexual Immorality and Civil Liberties 1
1. Legislating Morality
2. The U.S. Morality
3. Sex and the U.S. Morality
4. Entering a Contract to Support Your Family--
Part III: Homosexuality and Genetics 3
1. Immorality and Genetics--A Secular View
2. Immorality and Genetics--A Religious View
Part IV: Abortion and Free-Agency: Pro-choice = Anti-
1. How to Eliminate the Freedom to Choose
2. The "Pro-choice" fallacy
Part V: Health Care Reform--The Sex Tax 5
1. Security vs. Freedom
2. The Sex Tax
Part VI: Summary, Conclusion, and Predictions 6
***Part I: Introduction***
The Political Defense of the Seventh Commandment shows why and
how the law of chastity (to not have any sexual relationships--hetero- o
homosexual--outside marriage) is a state issue and not just a personal
choice that does not affect other citizens. This paper could also be ti
"The Atheist's Guide to the Law of Chastity" because even if religion we
taken completely out of the picture, the law of chastity is vital to the
term preservation of a free society. I have instead subtitled this pape
"Separatist guide to the Law of Chastity for America." I want to make i
clear that church and state should be kept separate but the law of chast
is just as much a state issue as a church issue.
America needs the law of chastity to maintain the free society we
enjoy. However, without solid (and atheistic) arguments, citizens and
politicians will not be able to approach this issue without being ridicu
Therefore, I present the Political Defense of the Seventh Commandment.
***Part II: Sexual Immorality and Civil Liberties***
Many say, "You can't legislate morality." Yet this is exactly wh
we do every time we pass a law--any law. For example, most people
agree with a law against stealing. This law is based on the moral view
that a person can own something. Some thieves, I'm sure, hold the moral
view that everything is everybody's. Yet we have decided to legislate
ownership laws because it is the only way to maintain a free society. I
you can't legislate morality, then the Constitution is of no force becau
it is based on the moral view that people have certain rights and privil
So not only can you legislate morality, you must legislate morality.
**The U.S. Morality**
The prevailing United States' morality is: "You can swing your
fists all you want as long as you do not hit me in the nose." This is t
morality upon which we base our civil rights and liberties.
**Sex and The U.S. Morality**
Many people do not understand how sexuality fits into our "swing
your fist, just do not hit me" morality. Scientific studies show that t
family unit evolved long before humans. Scientists say that the family
unity has been essential to the survival of higher species. It is also
an accepted scientific fact that the family is the basic unit of society
fact has been well shown historically. Every society that has tried to
redefine the family structure has reaped devastating social and economic
consequences for this action. (You can start with fairly recent Chinese
history if you would like to research this fact.)
The fact that the family is the basic unit of society is also bei
demonstrated right now in America. It has recently been reported that 6
percent of inner-city black children are being born to single mothers.
one fact alone is leading or has led to social and economic disaster. Y
can look up the statistics on education, crime, and poverty to prove it.
Now look at many inner-city Asian families. Many are first generation
and do not speak the language. But they are coming to America in more
intact families. Although they start out living in the same inner-city
environment, look at the statistics on their education, crime, and pover
after just a few years exercising their American freedoms.
Since the basic unit of society is the family, anything that harm
the family unit, harms society. If a free society is to protect itself-
freedom--it must enact laws that protect and
preserve families from taking a "punch in the nose" instead of being pro
enough to think it can redefine families (i.e., artificial insemination
adoption for homosexual couples). Therefore, we must pass legislation
that will strengthen fathers and mothers helping their children. Sexual
plays a tremendous role in all of this; therefore, we must have some law
**Entering a Contract to Support your Family--Licensing Sex**
A marriage license should serve two purposes. First, it is a
contract that those who sign it will support their family and not
"punch somebody else in the nose" by dumping this responsibility
on the government. Second, it is a license to have sex within that
marriage. Sex between couples strengthens their relationship.
This strengthens their family unit--this strengthens society.
Sex--hetero- or homosexual--outside the marital contract harms
one's present or future family. This harm can be emotional or physical
(i.e., disease). What harms families will harm society.
Therefore, it is within the right of a free society to mandate that
its people not act on their desire to have sexual relationships
that may harm their present or future family. This would include
laws against sex outside the marriage contract, prostitution,
We license people who have the urge to drive to do so according
to laws that protect us all. They may have the urge to run a red light
because they feel it is a limit on their freedom to drive how they want.
But that red light they have to sit at for a couple of minutes actually
saves them time (have you ever tried to get through a busy intersection
when the traffic lights were not working) and protects them and others
from danger. Withoutgood traffic laws we would not have the freedom
to drive because somebody could trap us in our parking space.
People who have the urge to have sex must be licensed to do so
according to laws that protect us all. These are laws that strengthen
the family unit and do not allow it to be harmed. This will preserve
our society and the freedom we enjoy.
***Part III: Homosexuality and Genetics***
**Immorality and Genetics--A Secular View**
Many Americans are asking: "Can immorality or sin have a
genetic basis?" Let us take it from a secular view first. Under the U.
"swing your fists just don't hit me" morality, I think even the most lib
person would agree that violent crime such as rape and murder is
immoral. Yet scientific studies show a genetic predisposition to commit
violent crime. (You can start you research to back up this fact by look
up the XYY-male over-representation in U.S. prisons.) There is also a
well established genetic predisposition to alcoholism.
If the fact that a behavior has a genetic link means that it is n
immoral, then why do
we discourage people's violent or drunken behaviors and attempt to
"reprogram" them? Should we not be encouraging these people to be the
best rapists or drunks they can be instead of suggesting that they suppr
the urge to act on their genetically encoded instincts?
**Immorality and Genetics--A Religious View**
From a religious view, some may say that God gives people trials
(whether by way of their genes or their environment) because overcoming
trials helps people mature spiritually. Indeed, they may say that
overcoming the urge to sin is what life is all about and, that as people
grow closer to God, God will help them through their trials. Some cry
that intolerance to
immorality displays a lack of love and charity. But, can I not love my
daughter with all my heart and also condemn her for not suppressing the
urge to punch her little brother? I agree that many need to work on
following the example of Jesus when he ate with the prostitutes, althoug
he condemned their prostitution.
Refer to Part II.
***Part IV: Abortion and Free-Agency -- Pro-choice = Anti-abortion***
**How to Eliminate the Freedom to Choose**
Most people think the way to eliminate free-agency is by physical
controlling people's actions. However, this is impossible to do no matt
how many laws or enforcers of the law are employed. People, fortunately
will always be able to rebel against being forced to do something.
So then, how can free-agency be eliminated? The only way is to
take away personal responsibility for the consequences of one's choices.
This will be explained in the four step process below.
**The "Pro-choice" Fallacy:**
Pregnancy is not a random nor spontaneous occurrence. This is so
because the only way barring surgical intervention not to get pregnant t
is 100 percent guaranteed to work every time it's tried is not to have s
Therefore, except in the case of rape, women and men choose to take the
risk of becoming parents every time they choose to have sex.
The "pro-choice" movement wants to eliminate taking personal
responsibility for the
consequences of choosing to have sex--becoming a parent. The following
is a logical four step argument to show what will happen if the "pro-
choice" movement gets it way:
1. If personal responsibility for the consequences of our
choices is removed, it does not matter what choice we
2. If it does not matter what choice we make, it does not
matter if we make any choice at all.
3. If it does not matter if we choose to do anything, it doe
not matter if we can't make choices.
4. If we can't make choices, we have lost our freedom to
As we see, the "pro-choice" abortion agenda does not promote free-agency
at all. At the least, it promotes irresponsibility, and at the most, sl
And then we wonder why--with 93 percent of 1.5 million abortions a year
for the last twenty years being performed to alleviate personal
responsibility--it seems America's up and coming citizens do not care
about the consequences of their actions. Teen violent crime is up and l
has been cheapened, the teen AIDS rate is up, and school dropout rates a
skyrocketing. This is not what freedom is about.
To maintain its freedom, a society must mandate that its people b
held personally responsible for their choices. Kids, of course, are not
going to be responsible in their choices
as adults. Therefore, the punishments for breaking the law should not b
the same for minors
as it is for adults. However, if we take away the responsibility for th
choices our teens make by providing abortions or an abortion pill such a
RU486, they will never become responsible adults. If this happens, our
society--and the freedom it provides--is doomed.
The only way, then, to be pro-choice, is to be anti-abortion.
***Part V: Health Care Reform--The Sex Tax***
**Security vs. Freedom**
The health care reform bill now before Congress attempts to
provide security for America. It is usually easy for government leaders
pitch security to the American people because security, unlike freedom,
does not require tremendous responsibility. It is particularly easy to
this health bill because not only does it claim to provide security, it
eliminates personal responsibility. The bill does this not only by maki
employers be more responsible than individuals (individuals cannot
possibly be responsible enough to take money out of their own pay check
and send it to the government to provide for their social and health
security), but also by providing abortions (read Part IV if you haven't
Good parents know that to help their children become independent
adults, the children must be held responsible for their actions. But in
of encouraging personal responsibility, the health reform bill currently
before Congress regulates behavior by taxing it. Since it seems the cur
administration has no problem with legislating morality by controlling
behavior with "sin" taxes, I propose we tax sex. Indiscriminate sex is
causing far more economic, social, and health problems than is smoking.
Smokers tend to die before they reach the age group that most of our
health care dollars are spent on. AIDS is destroying far more young,
productive lives than smoking ever will. And as discussed in Chapter Tw
and Four, the problems that America will inherit through its disregard f
the law of chastity are far worse than the health crisis ever will be.
**The Sex Tax**
Since any sex (even with a condom) that is not between virgins ca
possibly spread the devastating and costly disease AIDS, I propose we
discourage this behavior by taxing it. To implement my plan, I propose
that we set up an HMO or insurance plan for people who agree not to have
sex outside marriage under any circumstance. This plan will cost less t
other insurance plans. If the people who have entered this agreement th
contract AIDS through sex or illegal drug use, or contract any STD, they
can be sued by the insurance plan or by the government for the cost of
litigation and providing the additional health care that they will need.
people will also loose their tax-exempt status and be required to purcha
another plan. My proposal will reduce the deficit far more than taxing
smoking because it will also encourage social responsibility. This in t
will reduce the number of single mothers and children on welfare,
Medicare, and Medicaid.
***Part VI: Summary, Conclusion, and Predictions***
The family is the basic unit of society. What harms the family,
harms society. Sex outside marriage hurts one's present or future famil
To maintain a free society, its people have the right to pass laws that
license sex only within a marital contract.
Even if you take God and religion completely out of the picture,
the law of chastity is crucial to the preservation of a free society. I
this is obvious from the simple and limited arguments I have just
presented. This may make you think that I am politically naive. Many
may ridicule me now. Their lies are fast in the short run, but in the l
run only truth has the endurance to keep America free.
I predict that within the next couple of generations, the United
States will recognize its inevitable destruction in its disregard for th
seventh commandment. It will clearly see its folly in thinking it was s
enough to redefine the family. Americans will then wish there were more
people around like me sooner--people who understand the need to enact
laws that protect and preserve families. The only way to promote lastin
freedom is to promote families.