AUTHOR: Gaylen J. Byker
TITLE:
THE RELIGIOUS AND MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF CIVIL SOCIETY
AND FREE MARKET ECONOMY
SOURCE: Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 13 no1/2 1-14 2001
ABSTRACT
This essay proposes that a healthy civil society and a fair and effective free market economy
constitute the bases of a well-functioning democratic polity. For civil society and free market
economy to function well requires citizens with good moral character. Religious beliefs and
practices provide the best foundation for the development and maintenance of the moral norms,
virtues, motivations, tendencies, and habits essential for open, pluralistic, liberal societies. Yet
liberalism has effectively undermined religious claims to the public domains of freedom and the
goals of society. The separation of church and state was extended to an even deeper separation of
secular, public thought, from religious thought and influence. This has contributed to the
weakening of families, churches, schools, and communities, and their interest in and ability to
train virtuous and responsible citizens, which a free society needs to sustain itself.
THE LIBERAL PARADOX
It is proverbial that a healthy civil society and well-functioning free market economy need
citizens with good moral character. Moreover, religious beliefs and practices provide the best
bases--perhaps the only sound bases--for the development of such good moral character. Crucial
to this process are specific norms, virtues, motivations, and habits that make up such character.
But how are such norms, virtues, motivations, and habits developed and maintained? Until the
late eighteenth century, nearly all Western societies and theories--Greek, Hebrew, Roman, and
Christian--located the source of norms and virtues in the moral order inherent in the divinely
created universe and in divinely created human nature. And they recognized that religious beliefs
and practices were essential for the transmission and nurture of these norms and virtues.
Religious beliefs were seen to be particularly important for the internalization of these norms and
virtues by children and for the formation of the virtuous motivations, tendencies, and habits that
ought to guide their participation in society.
However, with the advent of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution came rationalist and
constructivist alternatives that denied the existence of God and rejected religious beliefs and
practices. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Alexis de Tocqueville (1835) and others
studied and wrote about newly open and democratic societies from a traditional perspective,
attributing primary importance to religious beliefs and practices and to the building of
autonomous civil society. But the intellectual trends of the century were set by the likes of Karl
Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Max Weber, who preached an aggressively
secular scientific naturalism and attributed all norms, habits, and motivations to human reason,
creativity, and will. These were also posited as the ultimate sources of social, political, and
economic order.
1
The past 150 years have witnessed a great struggle at both the intellectual and practical levels
between various strands of the traditional theistic perspective and modern secular rationalist
perspectives. The American version of the theistic perspective began with the Calvinist notion of
each citizen as a servant or agent of God, with a divine calling and moral responsibilities for
one's self, neighbors, local community, and country. The U.S. Declaration of Independence
states that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights." Its ideal, not always realized, was an open, pluralistic society with various freedoms,
including freedom of religion. The American version focused on a vibrant civil society (networks
of non-governmental associations and groups), limited government with constitutional and
practical checks and balances, common law, and free market mechanisms based upon and
circumscribed by religious and moral consensus.
In his Farewell Address (1796), on the occasion of his voluntary retirement after two four-year
terms as the first President of the United States, George Washington offered his sentiments as a
parting friend:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and
morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of
Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these
finest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the
pious man ought to respect & cherish them. A volume could not trace all their
connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security
for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of obligation deserts the Oaths, which
are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge
the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be
conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason
and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion
of religious principle .... 'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary
spring of popular government (in Padover 1955: 318-19).
Washington's speech summed up nearly 200 years of American religious, political, and
philosophical tradition that had its origins in the Protestant Reformation. And it was influenced
by the Scottish Enlightenment, which placed great emphasis on the need for a moral grounding
for liberal political and economic order, and introduced the modern idea of "civil society."
Washington's address also highlighted several important distinctions between the American and
French Revolutions. Unlike the utopian French Revolution, which attempted to oust God and
religion and enthrone reason, the American Revolution and the constitutional form of
government that grew out of it were based on the recognition that sin and evil are permanent
features of human society. The American Founders' response to flawed human nature was to
limit the power of government and establish an elaborate system of checks and balances. And
they urged constant moral education grounded in religious belief and practice as indispensable
for a free society, a democratic government, and a prosperous economy.
At the other end of the spectrum are non-religious theories. Marxist theory emphasized human
reason, class conflict, an essentially economic explanation of all human motivations and
2
relationships, and utopian notions regarding human progress. Marxist practice attempted to
politicize all aspects of life and eliminate any independent civil society in service of the
totalitarian party-state. Characterizing the French Revolution, the Polish writer, Adam Michnik,
equates the Jacobin and Bolshevik cults of secular reason and concludes: "The French
Revolution declared war on God in the name of freedom. But whoever wishes to destroy God in
the name of freedom elevates to power either the devil wearing the mask of a Saint-Just or the
executioner glorified by De Maistre" (1992: 622).
Between these two ends of the spectrum are several liberal, communitarian, and collectivist
alternatives with varying welfare state and socialist characteristics. All the prevailing intellectual
paradigms, however, have become increasingly secular. This has been true of the liberal tradition
as well, with dubious results for liberal societies. The liberal tradition came to understand the
goal of politics as the enhancement of human freedom instead of the pursuit of human perfection
or the good society. It urged that every individual is entitled to decide for himself or herself how
to live and what ends to pursue. In so doing it neglected, or even counteracted, the formation of
character and virtues necessary for sustaining freedom and liberal society. The liberal tradition
has fallen prey to what Socrates already identified as a tendency for regimes to undermine the
virtues required to maintain their own legitimacy and to thrive (Berkowitz 1999). Tocqueville
also warned that liberal theory and practice could lead to the individualism, materialism, and
restlessness that plague today's liberal societies.
On a related front, liberalism quietly but effectively undermined all religious claims to discuss
and influence the domains of freedom and the goals of society. The separation of church and
state was extended to an even deeper separation of secular, public thought, from religious
thought and influence. This has contributed to the weakening of families, churches, schools, and
communities, and their interest in and ability to train children--and adults for that matter--to
become the kind of virtuous and responsible citizens that a free society needs to sustain itself.
The result has been described as the "Liberal Paradox," that is, a hunger for meaning and values
in an age of freedom and plenty (D. Myers 2000).
Major nineteenth-century thinkers and practitioners like Tocqueville, Abraham Lincoln, Fyodor
Dostoevsky, Lord Acton, and the Dutch theologian-scholar-statesman, Abraham Kuyper, all
emphasized the role of virtue and moral character. Their concerns are echoed by Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn, Martin Luther King Jr., Václav Havel, Michael Novak, Tomás Halik, Peter Berger,
William Bennett, Charles Colson, Robert Wuthnow, et al. The preponderance of social science
data confirm the critical role that religious and moral factors play in the health of civil society
and free market economy. In brief, it is becoming quite clear that if the goal is an open,
pluralistic, and prosperous country with a reasonable balance of individual freedoms, social
responsibility, autonomous civil society, and political and economic order, the moral character of
its citizens is very important, and that religious beliefs and practices are crucial in this endeavor.
Conceptualizing Civil Society: But what is "civil society"? Civil society is made up of
relationships among citizens voluntarily associating themselves in a multitude of ways to
accomplish their own purposes independently of, in opoosition to, or cooperating with, the state.
3
Civil society occupies the middle ground between the individual and the state. It is non-state
groups of people that provide what are often called "mediating structures." Stated another way,
civil society is comprised of the voluntary associations in and through which people conduct
much of their own lives. These associations owe their existence to the needs and initiatives of
citizens rather than to the state. Some are deliberate and short-lived like sports clubs and
professional associations. Others are founded in history and have long lives like churches and
private universities.
Many academics today exclude economic and business entities, enterprises, and associations
from the definition of civil society. I am not convinced that this distinction is valid, since in a
well-functioning free market economy, economic and business entities, enterprises, and
associations fulfill many of the same functions that non-economic associations do. Moreover, the
free market economy can be as important as the civil society. One wonders, for example, if the
economic development of Czechoslovakia would have been smoother and more successful if the
forces opposing communist rule had been as interested in and knowledgeable about economics
and business as they were about other aspects of civil society.
The non-economic aspects of a healthy civil society consist of a wide variety of criss-crossing
networks of associations--a kind of creative chaos--that includes families, churches,
neighborhoods, clubs, private schools and universities, independent media organizations, unions,
social action groups, political parties, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Through
these associations civil society produces many things that government alone cannot. In many
instances, these associations socialize individuals in a democratic direction. A vibrant civil
society is considered by many to be a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for a successful
democracy. Over a long period of time, civil society can generate social capital. If the
relationships and associations are sufficiently horizontal and participatory, they can build trust,
tolerance, and the ability and willingness to compromise. They can teach habits of cooperation,
reciprocity, and inclusion. They can help recruit and train leaders and encourage civic
engagement. Most important, the relationships and associations of civil society are essential for
the transmission and spread of commitments, attitudes, values (S. Myers 1996).
The Essential Ingredients of Free Market Economy: A healthy civil society is needed for
democracy to flourish. The same can be said about an effective free market economy, defined as
an open economic system able to order and reorder itself spontaneously according to principles
of competition and voluntary exchange. In such an economy, private citizens and businesses
make most decisions about production, consumption, and investment. At its core, a free market
economy is a system where creativity, initiative, and industriousness are rewarded and where
there are significant incentives for private savings and investment. It is most effective in the
allocation of resources if there are large numbers of buyers and sellers, such that no one can
control prices.
In all developed countries with open market economies the openness and spontaneity of markets
are regulated to a greater or lesser extent by customs, norms, and laws that circumscribe and
4
order competitive processes, investments, and outcomes. All developed countries also have
systems of taxation and redistribution that attempt to meet needs that markets alone cannot.
Private ownership of property and productive assets is a necessary, but by no means sufficient,
condition for a free market economy. Private property in no way ensures the existence or benefits
of a free market economy. Youssef Cohen addresses this problem in certain Latin American
economies, and calls it "capitalists without capitalism" (1985: 123). My experience living in
Lebanon confirms this critical distinction. And, widespread conditions of economic oligarchy,
monopoly, and corruption in Russia further illustrate this reality.
In Power and Prosperity (2000), the insightful political economist, Mancur Olson, demonstrates
that all economies have basic market mechanisms. Drawing on careful historical analysis and
empirical studies and measures, Olson argues convincingly that a small number of cultural
features and institutional structures or policies distinguish prosperous free market economies
from all others. He describes how the complementary roles of markets and governments can
produce the three conditions essential for a prosperous, modern free market economy: (1)
individual property rights must be strongly respected, and equally and fairly enforced for all
people vis à vis the government and all other individuals, and this protection must be confidently
expected to last across generations; (2) there must be rigorous respect for and impartial
enforcement of all contract rights; and (3) economic policies and decisions need to be made for
the benefit of the broadest possible, society-wide, interests. That is, the power of narrow, special
interests to benefit specific groups, regions, industries, monopolies, professions, and the like,
must be suppressed.
Olson's analysis of historical cases, especially developments in countries defeated in World War
II and in communist and post-communist states, highlights the critical role these three factors
play in the development of the essential features of a modern free market economy. Olson's
analysis of why and how the Soviet economy collapsed is particularly helpful. These features
include the effective functioning of financial institutions providing loans to business and
mortgages to home buyers, the existence of insurance and other risk management mechanisms,
the functioning of investments and capital markets, the production of custom-made goods and
machines, and the creation and development of inventions and technologies. Researchers like the
Peruvian, Hernando de Soto (2000), have documented situations in Latin America and elsewhere
that confirm Olson's theory. While a healthy civil society and a well-functioning free market
economy nourish democracy, each also nourishes the other. Proponents of democratic capitalism
have long argued that such a beneficial reciprocal relationship exists, and there is growing
evidence from places as diverse as Italy, Central and North America, and Central Europe that
this is in fact the case. There is also substantial overlap among the norms, virtues, motivations,
and habits that underpin non-economic civil society and those which support a free market
economy.
NORMS AND VIRTUES AS SOCIO-ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS
The benefits of a vital civil society include the building of trust, the practice of decency and
5
civility, the prevalence of goodwill and idealism, respect for justice, and appreciation of the
common good. In Living in Truth, Vaclav Havel calls for the reemergence of civil society:
It is hidden, indirect, long term and hard to measure; often it exists only in the invisible realm of
social consciousness, conscience and subconsciousness and it can be almost impossible to
determine what value it assumed therein and to what extent, if any, it contributes to the shaping
of social development .... It is, however, becoming evident ... that truth and morality can provide
a new starting point .... categories like good and evil still have their unambiguous content and,
under certain circumstances, are capable of shaking the seemingly unshakeable power with all its
army of soldiers, policemen and bureaucrats (1987: 156-57).
Like Washington, Havel places honesty at the top of the list of moral norms and virtues that
provide the foundation for civil society. In an interview, "It Always Makes Sense to Tell the
Truth," Havel stresses, as Washington did in his Farewell Address, that truthfulness and integrity
are the essential building blocks of trust, goodwill, and justice (1991: 84-101). Honesty makes it
possible for people to live and work together in families, churches, and voluntary associations. It
lays bare the hypocrisy and lies of oppression and public deception, and exposes corruption as
unacceptable.
Many other moral norms and virtues support and facilitate the functioning of civil society,
especially: (1) regard for others; (2) fairness; (3) self-control; and (4) duty or responsibility
(Wilson 1993). Regard for others includes such norms and values as respect, empathy, sympathy,
the Christian injunction to love one's neighbor as oneself, and the classic Golden Rule, "do unto
others as you would have them do to you." In brief, regard for others produces civility, decency,
and the ability to identify and work together with others. It is also related to fairness. Havel
emphasizes that the ends never justify the means, given what human beings are. Already
Aristotle insisted that justice is the first virtue of social life. Fairness encompasses such ideals as
equity, impartiality, and due process. Fairness thus produces trust and reciprocity. Self-control
implies self-restraint, respect for rules, and regard for reputation. In its turn, self-control
produces civility, orderly functioning, an ability to compromise, and respect for the rule of law.
As to a sense of duty and responsibility, it addresses oughts and ought nots, invokes conscience,
and is thus the foundation for altruism and stewardship. The notion of duty anchored in
conscience engenders a wider sense of obligations than just to family or clan, extending it to the
broader society, the environment, voluntary paying of taxes, etc.
Direct benefits of a healthy free market economy, by contrast, include widespread economic
opportunities, job creation, and economic prosperity. Moral norms and virtues are equally
essential for such an economy to function well. This has been recognized from the time of the
Old Testament prophets. The moral foundations of free market economy were also the major
focus of Adam Smith's most important work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). Trade,
economic growth, capital accumulation, the requirements of justice and benevolence, all were
placed firmly within a moral framework. Michael Novak (1999) and James Q. Wilson (1993)
describe in detail the moral requirements for citizens of a free market economy as keeping
promises, industriousness, and deferral of gratification, in addition to honesty, fairness, and selfcontrol. Keeping promises, even when not in one's immediate self-interest, produces honoring of
contracts, regard for reputation, reciprocity, and a long-term perspective. It is a norm that courts
6
can implement and enforce. Industriousness recalls that work is a God-given vocation, a calling,
parallel to duty, and produces wealth, incentives, and an attitude of rewarding performance, not
power. Deferral of gratification is a hallmark of enlightened self-interest, willingness to plan
ahead, sacrifice, being patient, and taking the long-term view. As a norm, it produces a
combination of desire for economic advancement with prudence and patience to serve others as
well as self. In the long run, reputation for fairness, respect for others, and keeping promises
produces more profit, and a system that rewards savings and investment.
NURTURING GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
Tocqueville maintained that religion is even more fundamental than respect for law in the
formation of the habits of the heart and mind that underpin civil society. That view was soon to
be contested. Dostoevsky thought that if people have no sense of the divine, no transcendent
moral anchoring for the self, nothing to which the will is bound to submit, nothing inherent in the
natural order to keep it in check, no compelling reason to be burdened by guilt, then anything is
possible--because there is no source of “truth” and no transcendent moral imperative. Even
Nietzsche agreed that without God all that is left is the human will-to-power.
The developments of the past 150 years have undermined the capacity to form the convictions
upon which character must be based. Rationalist and constructivist alternatives have been based
on the Enlightenment principle described by Kuyper as, "No God, no master!" (Lugo 2000).
These alternatives have led to the decline of the moral and social capital needed to sustain social,
economic, and political prosperity. Soviet communism attempted to implement dialectical,
materialistic atheism. It undid itself by trying to cut human beings off from the transcendent
origins of knowing and loving. Solzhenitsyn summed up the causes of Russia's misfortunes in
the twentieth century with the simple statement: "Men have forgotten God."
The weakening of the moral underpinnings of liberal democracies has a similar source.
Psychologist William Damon characterizes the decline as "elevation of the self and derogation of
the spirit" (1995: 65). In Democracy on Trial (1996), Jean Bethke Elshtain attributes the decline
to loss of belief in a transcendent reality created by a Supreme Being and the resulting absence of
a unifying system of beliefs. In the economic arena, the loss of moral reference is illustrated
dramatically by John Maynard Keynes, probably the most influential twentieth-century
economist. Reflecting on his earlier days, Keynes described himself and his colleagues as
"immoralists":
We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the
right to judge every individual case on its merits, and the wisdom, experience and selfcontrol to do so successfully .... We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions,
and traditional wisdom. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term,
immoralists .... we recognized no moral obligation, no inner sanction, to conform or
obey. Before heaven we claimed to be our own judge in our own case (1972: 446).
To which he added: "So far as I am concerned, it is too late to change. I remain, and always will
remain, an immoralist" (Keynes 1972: 446). Given his "immoralist" stance and the widespread
7
impact of Keynes' views, there should be little wonder that the moral grounding of free market
economic theory has been undermined as well.
In sharp contrast are theistic religious beliefs. Belief in a Supreme Being Who created and
sustains the universe offers the alternative that provides sound answers to the most important
"Why? Questions" of life. Why ought we to act morally? Why ought we to tell the truth? Why do
people act badly at times? Why is it not possible to achieve utopia, but it is possible to build a
good society? Why are moral education and renewal constantly necessary? Belief in a
transcendent reality, objective truth, moral norms, and a purpose for life that transcends the self
and human society recognizes what Solzhenitsyn considers the essential spiritual basis of
morality (Ericson 1993: 21-29), or what German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg calls, "the
necessary connection between God and morality" (1998: 26). Authoritative answers to the
"Why? Questions" of morality are critically important for the explanation and internalization of
moral norms and virtues, and the development of convictions that motivate people to act in
accordance with them. Without commitment to a transcendent, objective source of truth and
right, all that is left is the current consensus or emotion-driven personal preferences, or sheer
power.
Modern and postmodern social psychology and political theory have sought to sustain the moral
order built on religious principles without the underlying beliefs and practices. The traditional
religious narratives and their central concepts have been demythologized and reconceived with
predictable results. I agree with Solzhenitsyn and Pannenberg that we live in a moral universe
and that, as a result, human freedom and responsibility derive from belief in and obedience to the
Creator. And that understanding human nature as flawed and self-serving and in need of reform
and direction derives from an appreciation of the existence of sin and evil. And also that the basis
for treating every person equally, with dignity and respect, derives from the fact that every
person is a unique, irreplaceable child of God. And, I agree with the Czech writer, Tomas Halik,
that religious believes, associations, and churches can and do use theistic beliefs and practices to
seek truth, love freedom, and nourish the next generation of moral citizens in vibrant living
communities (1995: 17-19).
There is now a great deal of empirical evidence that religious beliefs and practices and churches
can play a vital role in shaping good moral character and motivating their members to take up
their responsibilities to play active roles in civil society and politics. I should hasten to say that I
am not advocating, nor does the evidence support, the benefits of monopolistic or statesanctioned or supported, or rigid, hierarchical churches. De facto freedom of religion that
produces religious pluralism and freedom of conscience are essential for a free society and the
voluntary nature of civil society. To paraphrase the Polish theologian, Maciej Zieba, churches
should consciously avoid any share in concrete political solutions and political games, and
concentrate on the renewal and building of social consensus in light of the moral values and
vision of human vocation proclaimed by the Gospels. They should support and protect the
nonpolitical space within which the associations of civil society operate.
8
Many studies in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the United States, Germany, and Greece
demonstrate a significant correlation between religious belief and practice and such key
indicators as family stability, interest in and consistent effort to transmit moral character traits,
honesty, obedience to laws, civic attitudes and involvement, development of civic skills,
counteracting and reversing social breakdown, and charitable giving and volunteerism (Greeley
1997). John Coleman states that "the evidence linking religion to social capital seems
overwhelming" (in press). He cites the fact that two-thirds of those active in social movements in
America claim that they draw on religious motivation for their involvement. Two-thirds of all
small groups in America are directly connected with churches and synagogues. And churches
and synagogues remain the primary place where instruction is given about the spiritual
dimension of caring. Religiously active believers are also more likely to have stable marriages.
This is critically important for the welfare and the social and moral training of children. William
Galston (1998) amasses the evidence for how important stable, intact families are for the creation
of moral citizens who are better educated and have fewer psychological and social problems.
Moreover, the vast majority of children in America who experience the effects of low income are
in single-parent households.
This brings us to the process by which the moral motivations, tendencies, and habits that make
up good moral character are formed. It is not enough that moral norms and virtues are described
and discussed. To be effective, they must be learned, internalized and practiced, they must
become convictions (Wolterstorff 1980). A great deal of recent scholarship has focused on
human beings' innate moral sense and the development of conscience. And from a religious
perspective this distinction is critically important. The existence of a moral sense is only the raw
material from which character can be formed. Moreover, the moral sense is counteracted by
inordinate self-interest beginning at a very young age. Good character requires training, shaping,
and practice. William Damon (1995) and David Myers (2000) describe four elements in the
formation of moral character, and at each stage, the essential role of parents is highlighted.
Beginning as early as they are able to understand, children must be shown what moral practices
and rules are--that is, they must be given clear "dos and don'ts" that are enforced. Second,
children need to be given explanations--reasons--for moral practices and rules. And here one of
the critical roles of religious belief comes into focus. Religious belief provides satisfactory
reasons why children ought to share, care about others, tell the truth, control their tempers,
protect property, and honor promises. Religious beliefs also provide the moral authority for
sanctions, and the reasons beyond the self for how we treat others and the environment, and why
we do our duty even when it costs us. More thorough explanations are given in more and more
complex situations as children grow older--they are taught moral reasoning. Discussing these
matters with children helps them to begin using moral reasoning on their own.
Religious beliefs and practices also provide the motivation and discipline for the third element in
character formation--consistent, long-term role modeling. Seeing people act morally and hearing
them explain the bases for their actions are important, as are stories of virtuous behavior. The
fourth requirement for the internalization of moral norms and virtues, that is, for converting them
into inherent motivations, tendencies, and habitsis practice. Good moral character is a
performing art. Like music or sports, the development of the skills of good moral character
9
requires coaching, mastery of the fundamentals, role models, and lots and lots of practice. The
product is a unifying system of belief that is present in the young person's cognitive and
behavioral systems--a transcendent sense of purpose and meaning. Anne Colby and Damon
describe the joining of habit and reflection in individuals who demonstrated exemplary moral
commitment based on moral convictions that shaped their lives and actions:
The integration of conscious moral reflection and habitual moral reaction ... makes
possible the uniting of self and morality in two ways. First, the integration joins together
the various intellectual and active ways one can respond to a moral event. The selfreflective judgment lends support and perspective to the habit, and the habitual reaction
lends substance and shape to the reflection. This makes a powerful combination, one
that is both effective and inspiring (1994: 310).
These four elements--establishing moral practices and rules, giving coherent explanations, role
modeling, and practice--are primarily the responsibility of parents. Parents should be aided in
this by the church, and to a lesser extent by the school and the community. The role of religious
belief and practice, then, is seen most directly through the two most basic elements of civil
society--the family and the church.
In conclusion, good moral character that is essential for a vital civil society and a wellfunctioning free market economy consists of good moral motivations, tendencies, and habits,
which are the result of learning, internalizing, and practicing good moral norms and virtues. The
only sound bases for these norms and virtues are religious beliefs and practices. The process of
learning, internalizing, and practicing good moral norms and virtues must begin when children
are very young, and the family and church are the primary trainers and transmitters of good
moral character.
10
REFERENCES
Berkowitz, Peter. 1999. Virtue and the Making of Modern Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Cohen, Youssef. 1985. The Impact of Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Rule on Economic Growth.
Comparative Political Studies 18 (April): 123-36.
Colby, Anne & William Damon. 1992. Some Do Care: Contemporary Lives of Moral
Commitment. New York: Free Press.
Coleman, John A. 2001. Religious Social Capital: Its Nature, Social Location and Limits. In
Religion, Social Capital and Democratic Life, ed. Corwin E. Smidt. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Damon, William. 1995. Greater Expectations: Overcoming the Culture of Indulgence in Our
Homes and Schools. New York: Free Press.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1996. Democracy on Trial. New York: Basic Books.
Ericson, Edward E., Jr. 1993. Solzhenitsyn and the Modern World. Washington, DC: Regnery
Gateway.
Galston, William. 1998. A Liberal Democratic Case for the Two-Parent Family. In The Essential
Communitarian Reader, ed. Amitai Etzioni. New York: Rowman & Littlefield: 145-55.
Greeley, Andrew. 1997. Coleman Revisited: Religious Structures as a Source of Social Capital.
American Behavioral Scientist 40 (5): 587-94.
Halík, Tomás. 1995. Freedom and the Unknown God. First Things (March): 17-19.
Havel, Václav. 1987. Vaclav Havel: Living in Truth. Ed. Jan Vladislav. London: Faber & Faber.
Havel, Václav. 1991. Open Letters: Selected Writings, 1965-1990. New York: Knopf.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1972. Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes. Vol. X: Essays in
Biography. London: Macmillan.
Lugo, Luis E., ed. 2000. Religion, Pluralism and Public Life: Abraham Kuyper's Legacy for the
Twenty-First Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Michnik, Adam. 1992. The Literary Impact of the American and French Revolutions. Partisan
Review (April): 611-38.
Myers, David G. 2000. The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Myers, Sonya, ed. 1996. Democracy is a Discussion: Civic Engagement in Old and New
Democracies. New London, CT: Connecticut College.
Novak, Michael. 1999. On Cultivating Liberty: Reflections on Moral Ecology. Ed. Brian C.
Anderson. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Olson, Mancur. 2000. Power and Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist
Dictatorships. New York: Basic Books.
Padover, Saul K., ed. 1955. The Washington Papers. New York: Harper.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1998. When Everything is Permitted. First Things (February): 263-30.
Soto, Hernando de. 2000. The Mystery of Capital. New York: Basic Books.
Wilson, James Q. 1993. The Moral Sense. New York: Free Press.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1980. Educating for Responsible Action. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Gaylen J. Byker is President of Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI 49546.
Edited Keynote at ICSA V. World Congress, Tampere, Finland, 2000.
11