There are at least two reasons why people who are attempting to make the transition from monarchy to self-government fall into the gap of lawlessness.

The first reason is, their motive for making the transition proceeds from a goal that is not God's highest goal. Therefore the constitution and laws of the new government may reject God and His laws rather than embrace them. Whenever human happiness and God's laws come into conflict the issue will be resolved in favor of human happiness.

The second reason is, self-government is based on the assumption that man is basically good and if he is educated and dealt with fairly he will employ self-control, making self-government possible. However, self-control is a fruit of the Spirit of God, not of the fleshly nature of man.

The conduct of people in the United States of America and England is evidence enough that reliance on people to govern themselves wisely apart from strict—even harsh—external controls is folly. The result always will be moral, financial, intellectual, artistic, judicial, and physical impoverishment.

Even today the moral-social behavior of people in the democratic countries is leading to their national destruction. Yet the leaders and intellectuals of the countries involved choose to ignore the danger signals, hoping some new humanly conceived plan will save their nation from destruction, from eventual takeover by a more disciplined culture.

It is a continual amazement that scientists who are so effective in studying cause and effect relationships in other areas are blind concerning the effect on people of godly or ungodly behavior, to the obvious relationship of obedience to God to the welfare of the nations.

There is abundant historical evidence that nations that have walked in the biblical principles of righteousness have prospered in every area of human activity, while nations that have given themselves over to immorality have perished. The abundant evidence is ignored as though it doesn't exist, while the scanty, disjointed, highly questionable evidence employed to support the hypothesis of evolution, for example, is treated as though the evidence agrees with the hypothesis in a clear, consistent manner.

The response of the democratic governments to AIDS reveals a willful bias when moral behavior is involved. AIDS should be regarded as a contagious, deadly disease. However, because of the association of AIDS with homosexuality, the national leaderships are unwilling to take even reasonable precautions to protect healthy people, such as barring AIDS victims from working in food or health services, but instead are making them a protected minority against whom there is to be no discrimination. Also—and this is a glaring evidence of biased behavior—there is little or no attempt to persuade people to avoid homosexual behavior.

There are efforts to eliminate the use of drugs because of the danger to health. There are national campaigns against smoking cigarettes because smoking cigarettes is associated with sickness and death. But there is no national campaign against homosexual behavior, although homosexual behavior is directly associated with AIDS. It appears that it is more desirable to endanger the national health than to imply that the practice of homosexuality is anything other than an acceptable—even desirable—behavior. There is no scientific, rational basis for such preferential treatment.

To be continued.