Perfect John Adams quote showing that Religion has a place in government (Vanity)

[AVNevis]

I was doing reasearch this evening for a debate tournament I am participating in a couple of weeks when I came upon this quote:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

It seems to me this just nails the aclu argument about separation of church and state. Here we have a founding father stating that the constitution does not work if the people are not moral and religious. It seems to me we should be using this quote much more often in debates with liberals.

[B4Ranch]

>>I can see that you haven't thought this out clearly.
Maybe you're rather young.<<

Have you thought to read my profile page? I just read yours, the blank one.

[little jeremiah]

I just checked - can't read that many words late at night.

Regarding my page, I like it blank. My comments speak for themselves.

;-)

[B4Ranch]

>>Lying in a court of law or as a public statement should be illegal.<<

It is. If it's intentional, it's called perjury.

Now, when you locate a court system in the US of A that deals in judicial control and not simply legal control, please post it for all to see.

Have you read the White Paper I mentioned in 116?

[B4Ranch]

>>My comments speak for themselves.<<

Yes, they do.

[notamused]

I believe...
There are more inherently good people than bad people.
A man is only as good as his word.
Once lost personal credibility is more difficult to restore than credit.
If my child committed a crime I would help. If my child told me a lie. I would turn away for that lie would have made my child a stranger.
Honesty is a valuable gift protect it!

[B4Ranch]

I believe you also are a candidate for reading the White Paper mentioned in 116.

I suggest doing it in the morning unless you are always a 'night person'.

[little jeremiah]

Maybe you could post a summary of the White Paper, or something. I'd read it tomorrow.

It's too late for me to go cruising around the web.

[notamused]

You can't like the A.C.L.U. they don't have morals.
Boy Scouts do.
Scouts are...
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Freindly
Courtious
Kind
Obediant
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent

[little jeremiah]

You thought I like the ACLU?

The ACLU should all die tomorrow.

[notamused]

Easy cowboy, it was a statement not an inditement.
It's also support for your moral theory

[little jeremiah]

No prob. I hadn't read enough of your comments to figure out where you were coming from.

Plus I been arguing with some people who think they're libertarians or something about pornography. Funny thing is, they wouldn't have their porn if it weren't for the ACLU. Those porn freaks always get me on a hair trigger!

[so_real]

I have seen many a family of which I was thankful that I was not a part of because of the over-indulgence in religious beliefs expressed therein.

I'm curious if these families were Bible centric or organized-religion centric? I found it odd the Founders held organized religion to the point of theocracy as one of their greatest fears and yet willfully participated (even encouraged) Bible study. Then I noted the differences between corrupt organized religion and genuine personal Christian lifestyle. They are exceedingly different things. I feel for you and concede your point. I only hope your circumstances don't present a hurdle for objective historical and Biblical study.

[risk]

What you're describing - post structuralism - is actually a kind of cult.

Actually, it's a tool for analyzing communications. It's similar to the process of diagramming sentences, only on a more abstract level that can be applied to sculpture, writing, music, or rituals. The point is to break everything down into a power struggle. You find the opposing forces and their position of equilibrium, and then you analyze the mechanisms they employ. All linguistic culture ("text" to the post-modernists) may be analyized ("deconstructed") this way.

There is nothing cultish about this in and of itself. The Koolaid is tainted when the student of culture forgets that absolute truth, such as the laws of physics, remain unchanged by his own perspective.

Most post-structuralists are like children who, when they discover the theory of relativity, think they can jump off the roof and time travel to avoid hitting the ground.

[B4Ranch]

>>I'm curious if these families were Bible centric or organized-religion centric?<<

Actually, both. In looking back these people had control freak ministers who would demand obedience from their uneducated, frightened beleievers.

I was never under one of them, probably because I was and still am an overly independent individual. I believe in self responsibility and don't ask for help if the sun isn't shining on me.

Fortunately, I have been very successful in life which has only furthered my independence.

[B4Ranch]

A summary couldn't do it justice. Enjoy it tomorrow.

[Robert_Paulson2]

people shouldn't lie even at home, generally speaking, unless they need to in order to protect themselves and those around them.

My comments speak for themselves.

---

They sure do...
... talk about moral ambiguity, that exception to the 'no lying' clause is big enough for most felons to drive a stolen armored car through with the murdered guards painting the floor with their blood...

Did Jesus LIE when he said 'lazarus is sleeping' when HE knew good and well that laz was dead, and that his disciples believed he was telling them that laz was taking a nap?

hey, we all have our own measure of what can be said truthfully or not... and that is the point, what ONE person believes is right or wrong to do in a situation, is up to them and God... ie. in the Old Testament, nathan speaking for God, claimed that GOD gave David all of his WIVES, plural. In the new testament, Jesus said one man one woman was best, but stopped far short of calling multiple spouses... adulterers. Today, Christians call multiple mariages an abomination, it is illegal and immoral.

Who changed it all? God? Jesus? the Christian majority?

No matter... but the point is "I am the Lord, I change not... " seemeth to be NOT exactly right. And yes, I understand the theological debates ad infinitum about progressive revelation, but to buy into it, "it is written" pretty much has to go to the circular file.

bottom line is, YOU don't know for everyone, what is necessarily moral or not, based on a simplied list like 'no lies' 'no adultery' 'no stealing' etc.

As principles... they are great... but the broad sweeping "we are a christian nation obey our laws based on God's revealed and objective truths," line of reasoning, is clearly dependent on whose list we are looking at in its context, culturally, socially and historically.

What was wrong yesterday, may not be wrong today, because of what we now know... What we thought was right yesterday, might be immoral today because we have the means to do it better or in a way that benefits the lives of others in a way that it might not of, yesterday or yesteryear.

The founders were wise to write specifics OUT of the constitution... I don't want the tyrrany of the 51 percent, whoever that may be, impacting the freedoms of the entire nation... in the name of THEIR consensus regarding God's will... Europe did that to exterminate non catholics... for centuries. We don't need that here. and God willing, we never will.

[Robert_Paulson2]

It's too late for me to go cruising around the web.

---

that was actually funny.
did you see what time it is?

we are all here doing just what you said we shouldn't be doing.
come to think of it though... you are right.
it's getting late.

[sneakers]

bump

[azhenfud]

I'd be more than happy for President Bush to "use" it if, when he did, he sincerely meant it....

[GarySpFc]

Ping