Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jwalsh07
Right and you are a prime example of that stupidity.

Correct definition of the Constitution and the limitations upon the federal government is defined as stupidity. Gotcha. Again, if you will, at no point will you be able to find arguments from the Framers for 'moral concerns' to be defined by law at the federal level. It just was not a consideration as they recognized it to be a right of the states. I realize this may destroy your world view and that of many other 'true conservatives' but it was just not intended.

Inclusion of the Bill of Rights was based on the moral concern of the founders that citizens God given rights could be abused by government

No, it is rather explicit. It was to define the role of the national government.

number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

But in no way were they 'moral concerns'. Moral concerns would involve church attendance, marriage, theft, rape, etc. None of which was defined by the federal government (please note theft, rape, murder could plausibly be legislated by the federal government but it would only be in very specific instances under original intent)

every law passed by every legislature since the founding are and were based on "moral concerns". If that causes you angst, that's a good thing but this really isn't a hard concept to grasp.

It causes me no angst at all, although I do appreciate your wish for ill will upon me. What does cause me 'angst' are those that 'feel' morality should be defined at the federal level. Again, listen closely. I have no issue with the separate and sovereign states defining morality within their borders. This is right and correct concerning the Framers. What I have issue with is defining the same morality at the federal level, where it was never intended to be determined

633 posted on 12/09/2006 10:42:24 AM PST by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies ]


To: billbears
Correct definition of the Constitution and the limitations upon the federal government is defined as stupidity. Gotcha.

Never said that Bill, what I stated was that folks who are under the mistaken impression that the Constitution in it's entirety, the DOI and every law passed by every legislature since the first in the US of A are not based on "moral concerns" are stupid. BTW, that was your word to begin with, I just went with the flow. Ignorant is perhaps a better choice of words but I'll go with your choice here.

Now I'd be happy to debate the BOR's and their applicability to indivduals if you'd like but first I want to right your ship on morality and the founding documents of the United States.

Lets hear from James Madison:

"Whenever there is an interest and power to do wrong," wrote Madison to Jefferson in 1788, "wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince."

You getting the picture here Bill? Morality is not limited to your narrow definition of it. Morality "concerns" itself with right and wrong on the macro as well as the micro scale. Wrong would be a government of unlimited power with the ability to confiscate the weapons of it's citizenry absent due process and just cause, be that government a federal, state or local one.

646 posted on 12/09/2006 11:41:33 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies ]

To: billbears
Again, if you will, at no point will you be able to find arguments from the Framers for 'moral concerns' to be defined by law at the federal level. It just was not a consideration as they recognized it to be a right of the states. I realize this may destroy your world view and that of many other 'true conservatives' but it was just not intended.

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

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 labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert 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. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. XXIX, p. 410. In a letter to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788.)

_______________________________

James McHenry

Signer of the Constitution

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)

_______________________________

Fisher Ames

Framer of the First Amendment

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.

(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

______________________________

John Adams Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

Importance of Morality and Religion in Government
723 posted on 12/10/2006 2:40:53 AM PST by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson