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.

[Dalite]

"Adams essentially said the Constitution wouldn't work in an immoral, irreligious country"

This is the central concept that essential to a country of laws centered on morality.

Morality is the rudder that steers the ship. Belief of a higher power and natural law were the foundations of the nation.

The ongoing conflict between the word deist and the concept of deism containing all religious beliefs is a great exercise in semantics.

As conservatives, we should be pragmatic enough to understand that we don't hold a patent on religion, or Christianity.

The concept of Religious Freedom is just that; freedom to practice/pursue/advocate/defend/teach the religion of your choice.

[Netizen]

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith,
but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America,
and Islam the only accepted religion on earth"
--Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations), San Ramon Valley Herald, July 1998

---

That is not good.

[Dalite]

"If we reject the moral absolutes as taught by the religions of the world, where do we find standards of right and wrong? What guide do we use to determine where the line bewteen moral and immoral? "

Probably from the same place that gives us an inherit fear of snakes and labels others as "psychics".

There is a divide among civilizations between the primary reliance on reason, or will.

Non-western civilizations may lean more toward Will, and tend to be less organized in their explanations for everything. As a benefit of that, they also are able to tap a larger portion of their inherit power to perform actions considered by a reasoning society to be occult, supernatural or black magic.

Western civilizations are more likely to reason away anything they don't understand or accept. It has been said that of all mammals, man is the only one who has the ability to think and "reason". Also, man is far more likely to do something to endanger himself than any of the other mammals. Is this the effect of reasoning?

An inherit instinct is present in all life forms. Some rely on it entirely. Some "evolve" away from it to the point of constantly endangering themselves by doing things they should know better will harm them.

This "instinct" is the same internal itch that instills a moral guidance in all. From the point of birth onward, it becomes a matter or indoctrination and guilt through association. That is the downside of reason; it allows us to adopt the failed logic of others; even when our gut tells us it is wrong.

Reason or Will? Tonal or Nagual? Ask Carlos Constenada

[montag813]

Did that CAIR guy really say that?

Oh yes, and Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR has said that they will achieve Muslim dominance by stealth.

[Modernman]

Which "civil" states are those?

Japan.

[TheCrusader]

"The concept of Religious Freedom is just that; freedom to practice/pursue/advocate/defend/teach the religion of your choice."

I agree with most of what you said, but I have a problem with the above. Should we allow Muslims into our country to 'practice' their religion of hate and intolerance? I am reminded of Christ's own words: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.". (Matthew 12:30)

[TheCrusader]

"Help me understand. Your simply stated but complex views."

Please tell me which of my posts you are responding to and I'll be happy to elucidate for you.

[Sam Cree]

I think it fair to say that Adams was making the opposite point from yours. I love the quote, though.

[Dalite]

"Should we allow Muslims into our country to 'practice' their religion of hate and intolerance? I am reminded of Christ's own words: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.". (Matthew 12:30)"

Good point, and duly noted.

I am willing to give the benefit of doubt to most things that aren't originally palatable. However, after a trend of activities indicate that a belief that I was once tolerant of is now no longer valid; then I have to reevaluate.

I tend to shy away from endorsing folks advocating Islam, Devil Worship, Human Sacrifice, etc. Some may say that Islam is getting an unfair rap, but I believe their track record is going from dismal to untenable..

However, I have to accept my beliefs as representative of way I believe; and strive not tp impose them on the rest of the nation. As long as they are based on a moral understanding of knowing right from wrong I am comfortable..

[jla]

The problem with moral absolutes is that there are so many to choose from!

I've always thought they were pretty well defined.
- stealing is wrong...murder is wrong...infidelity is wrong...etc

On the other hand, you can explain in plain, rational English (without resorting to religion) why you think abortion is immoral and destructive to society

No you can't because religion, in this case the Law of God, is the prevalent factor in determining just why abortion is wrong.

[Melas]

Too many quotes in debates as it is. Actually, in formal debate, eventually, such quotes and such will become off limits to you as a debater (by the time you get to college for sure), as you're relying on a logically fallacious tactic, that is name arguement ad vericundium.

In a nutshell, given your example, perhaps Adams was correct in his assessment, and perhaps he wasn't. In either event, it's your job in the debate to demonstrate via exposition and example that the idea he put forth is correct. Simply relying on some famous names who happen to share your point of view is essentially meaningless.

[so_real]

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.

Finally ... something you've said in this thread that I can agree with completely and whole-heartedly.

If you leave it at that, it sounds fine. But if, because the Founders kept religious specifics out of the Constitution, you follow that they were not Christian or that this is not a Christian-founded nation, you insult them and re-write factual history. And, if you contend the Founders left a wide berth for religion so that it may be inclusive and protective of such nonsense (my word) as Satanism, Wiccan, Islam, etc, you also mis-represent them. Point in fact, were they here to be accused of this today, I suspect a challenge to a duel would shortly ensue.

[Robert_Paulson2]

actually, you are wrong.
the founders were, as far as I know to a MAN...
all members of the lodge.
the masons, that is.

and they are open to ANY religious belief that acknowledged a higher power, and have always been...

that would include some of the religions you reject in your list.
and it has ever been that with the masons.

HOW do I know that?
I do.
You are not a mason I can only guess.

They would NOT agree to the exclusion of what you consider cultists.

Jefferson, did READ the bible... and rewrote it to his image and likeness.
Fundies don't agree or like it. but it is a fact, the founders WOULD have accepted, and DID in their masonic 'religion' ANY higher power and even those you might seek to exclude.

The symbols for that fact, are on every dollar you spend.
There would be no duel with me.... you however?

I think you would be surprized at their attitude towards religionists of any particular stripe. YOU and I clearly have a different world view and you facts are largely different from historical masonic records and doctrines, and covenants.

They were all masons, all pretty much deists and were VERY intolerant of fundamenatlism of any stripe, relative to the culture in which they were born. There WERE what you would today call fundamentalists, Roger Williams STARTED out as one, an evangelical Baptist, who in his later years repented for his conversion of indians...

We are a tolerant, NON religious-sectarian nation... though you are free to worship or not as you choose. THERE are those who want to proclaim this nation a christian one and socially conform our laws to the Christian faith in particular areas.

It will never happen unless Jesus Christ HIMSELF sets it up... the chalcedonians and wall builders do their own twisting of the founder's quotes and writings, particularly patrick henry's speeches that were part of his soundly defeated effort to feather bed, financially, a group of religious supporters.

the "Our nation is not fit to be governed by any but a christian people" type of quotes, are usually the ones related to his attempt to get government to fund his buddies.

the nation, however, REJECTED his attempt to fund religion via the aegis of the state.

push religion in state all you want.
MOST american will fight you and defeat you in your efforts.

NO religion in state or STATE religion.. not ever.

as for the biblical quotes in the supreme court and other federal buildings... so what... quotes from other religions are also there... that does not mean that our government follows the dictums of hammurabi.

the purpose of such quotes is testimony to the efforts of mankind, to be governed by laws instead of the passions of the animal kingdom... and not an endorsement of religion of ANY particular kind.

Glad we can agree on some things...
and firmly disagree on others.
your points are well taken... but I remain unpersuaded...

intransigently I must add.
..robert

[sport]

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith,
but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America,
and Islam the only accepted religion on earth"
--Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations), San Ramon Valley Herald, July 1998


3 posted on 11/22/2004 8:42:52 PM PST by Diogenesis

Aided by the mainstream media and the alcu it is making progress becomming the dominant religion.

Hopefully the decent people will fight before that happens.

[risk]

No you can't because religion, in this case the Law of God, is the prevalent factor in determining just why abortion is wrong.

For you it certainly is. For others, it may be different. It is possible, and not even difficult, to make a strong case against abortion without religion.

[so_real]

I know little of Freemasonry and, as such, you may have placed yourself (assuming you are a Mason) where I have no personal foothold for debate. In my digital research, however, I have bookmarked this site for further reading. In this article Allen E. Roberts, FPS, exposes myths regarding the Masons that have been advanced by Masons and non-Masons alike. Some of the very statements you've made here as fact are exposed as deception by this highly respected member of the Masonic Research Society.

I do not post this to attack you or the Masonic organization, but only to point out that truth and deception are everywhere. Only through careful study and setting aside preconceptions can we hope to set them apart. Statements like: "HOW do I know that? I do." are road-blocks to discerning the truth.

The Jefferson Bible you speak of was titled by Jefferson as "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English." As I understand, it is akin to a set of Cliff Notes focusing not on the divinity of Jesus but on the moral lessons He taught. As a Christian I believe it was an error for Jefferson to abridge the Gospel in this fashion. However, a blanket statement like he "rewrote [the Bible] to his image and likeness" is misleading and quite untrue. You may investigate further here.

I also agree with you that only a theocracy established, headed, and blessed by God Himself has a chance at succeeding in this world. I have no desire to see mankind attempt a theocracy in the United States and would oppose it myself. It is, in my opinion, doomed to corruption and failure. I also oppose, however, this politically-correct sense of anti-Christian tolerance groomed into the United States over these last fifty years.

The historic evidence is that this nation was Founded by God-fearing men, predominantly Christians, who absolutely desired to protect the religious practices of all other God-fearing men despite the differences thereof (which Washington considered "slight") without instituting a theocracy which they feared above all.

Put aside for a moment what you know or think you know of Masonry; forget the allegations as to who subscribed and did not subscribe to it. Re-read historic literature written by the Founders themselves with a clear eye. I think a whole new picture will emerge for you as to the intents the Founders had with regard to religion. You might even like, or at least respect, what you see.

P.S. Don't be intransingent unless you are guaranteed 100% accurate the first time around :-)