"Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
"Then why is the religious right so afraid of the 14th Amendment? Why do they fear letting states exercise their powers under the 10th Amendment?"
I'm not aware of these amendments being issues to Christians.
" A moral and just people do not require religion to guide them. Nor does our Constitution dependent on the RR to define its greatness. God is mentioned in it nowhere, but the people are."
The assumption of the Constitution is that NO ONE is moral or trustworthy--hence the separation of powers and even the people are represented, not directly voting for every law.
The assumption of the Constitution is the nation's people are Christians, although the freedom of others is tolerated. The assumption of equality of all people comes directly from Christianity. Check out Galatians, where Paul says in Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
"Religious right" is a rather vague term; I prefer to use Christian because our various denominations oppose abortion and homosexuality from a religious doctrinal view point. I have no problem with the states handling these issues--that's what the Constitution says anyway. It's the Supreme court that took that away in Roe v. Wade, and the Massachusetts court that found the right to homosexual marriage in their 200 year old constitution.
Though there are many examples, I'll give you just 3. First, why wasn't the State of Florida empowered to handle the Terri Schiavo fiasco? Second, why do Christians want family law issues, specifically marriage, taken out of the jurisdiction of the states which for over 200 years have been empowered by the 10th Amendment to handle? Third, Why do Christians feel that under the 14th Amendment, all Americans do not have the same rights to due process or equal protection of the laws, which means that some people can have the right to privacy, and some cannot.
The assumption of the Constitution is that NO ONE is moral or trustworthy--hence the separation of powers and even the people are represented, not directly voting for every law.
I don't get that out of the Constitution. It was given life by "We the People", therefore if it is a moral document or demands morality, it had to have gotten that from the people. That people have the capacity to be moral or just, does not mean they will act in that manner. Governments exist to ensure the rights of its citizens are protected, and to maintain the underpinnings of a social structure. The separation of powers and a representative government help ensure those goals.
The assumption of the Constitution is the nation's people are Christians, although the freedom of others is tolerated.
BS! The only mention of religion in the original Constitution is to ensure that no religious tests are permitted. Please direct me to such a conclusion as you just made.
The assumption of equality of all people comes directly from Christianity.
Then of course, you would deny that Christians owned slaves, and for a hundred years after the Civil War ended, denied large groups of citizens their basic rights to equality.
"Religious right" is a rather vague term; I prefer to use Christian because our various denominations oppose abortion and homosexuality from a religious doctrinal view point.
And that is fine, though you will find many differing views of all of those issues depending on the denomination.
I have no problem with the states handling these issues--that's what the Constitution says anyway. It's the Supreme court that took that away in Roe v. Wade, and the Massachusetts court that found the right to homosexual marriage in their 200 year old constitution.
Yes, the USSC in my opinion made an improper decision, and I've little doubt it will be re-looked at in the future. As for Massachusetts, that is an issue for the people of Massachusetts, not for those in other states. That's what the 10th Amendment is all about.