The Moral Majority has emerged as the favorite bete noirenof academicians, journalists and the routine proponents ofnliberal culture. Among conservative intellectuals, the Reverendnferry Falwell’s crusade against godlessness and immoralitynhas provoked considerable debate and a variety of positions.nIn the May 1981 issue 0/The Rockford Papers Dr.nfames f. Thompson, fr. expressed his qualified approval ofnthe Moral Majority. He lauded the movement for its oftentrenchantncritique of the liberal culture, but he also faultednit for some of its methods and proposed reforms. In the followingncomment Professor Paul Gottfried responds to somenof Dr. Thompson’s criticisms and advances another viewnof the Moral Majority which can be regarded as both conservativenand intellectually responsible.nX Fames Thompson, in his commentary on the MoralnMajority, makes a critical observation that invites a response.nHe ascribes to the Moral Majority’s spokesmen, whom henpersonally respects, a general insensitivity to the right ofnfree expression. This alleged insensitivity is linked to thencombination of righteous zeal and intellectual innocencenwhich Dr. Thompson properly perceives as a defining characteristicnof his subject. Yet the unadorned, patriotic-moralnfervor which he criticizes renders that group a powerfulnpolitical force. Nor do I find anything intrinsically “lowbrow”nabout the Moral Majority’s plea for traditional familynvalues. Conservative scholars and theologians have beennmaking the same plea for years, and in recent months thenNew Oxford Review has begun to advertise its irritation thatnthe public should identify the case for social tradition morenwith Jerry Falwell than with its own confreres. But what elsenshould one expect in a world composed mostly of nonintellectuals.”nMy former mentor. Will Herberg, never tired of remindingnme: “Intellectuals, too, can be smart if they onlynstop making faces at history.” There are certainly timesnwhen intellectuals should view history with distaste, butnsuch a reaction may be inappropriate for educated conservativesnas they consider the Moral Majority’s attitude towardnFirst Amendment liberties. Are these modern Jeremiahsnattacking our constitutional rights as the Founding Fathersnunderstood them? Or are they simply reacting against onenparticular interpretation of the First Amendment that gainednwidespread judicial support for the first time during then1950’s? The question may not admit a simple response, butnit may be useful to reflect on some historical data.nA favorite liberal dogma not to the contrary, the FoundingnFathers never designed the First Amendment to provide fornsociopolitical parity between religionists and atheists. Thenreligious freedom they proclaimed was intended to keep Congressnfrom establishing a national church. Such an institution,nit was feared, would then become allied to the federalngovernment which might withhold religious liberty fromnChronicles of Culturen. M. M. & THE CONSERVATIVE ETHOS OF REFINEMENT <nC OMMENTnnnsuch minorities as Baptists and Quakers and, possibly, barnthem from holding political office. The restriction wasnplaced upon Congress and the federal government, but notnupon the clergy or the states. Contrary to John Anderson’snsurly judgment, clergymen enjoy the same constitutionalnright as other citizens to speak out on political questions,neven from the conservative side. Moreover, state governmentsnare not prohibited from establishing regional churches:nfor example, Massachusetts assigned a privileged status tonthe Congregationalist religion until as recently as 1833.nAs ;.s for the First Amendment and free speech, here toonan historical lesson may be useful. From the writings of thenFounding Fathers, one may easily infer that it was the expressionnof political opinions, not the publication of smut, whichnthe Bill of Rights was to guarantee. Copious scholarship cannbe cited as proof, most notably Walter Berns’s and GeorgenAnastaplo’s comprehensive studies of the First Amendment.nBut even Anastaplo errs when he assumes that the Constitutionnrecognizes no limits whatever on the right of politicalndissent. John Marshall, our first and perhaps most brilliantnChief Justice, found nothing unconstitutional about the oncenotoriousnSedition Act which was passed during the Presidencynof John Adams. Nor did the Jeffersonians who opposednthe act condemn it as a violation of the First Amendment.nSedition and seditious libel were both charges that a governmentnsuch as ours, under the English Common Law, wasnempowered to bring in defense of public order. The greatnEnglish jurist, William Blackstone, whom most of the Founc;ning Fathers revered, upheld the right of government tonprosecute for sedition. There were, after all, limits to politicalndiscourse which reasons of public security imposed.nOf course the Moral Majority has not drawn its constitu-n