Your comments are a perfect illustration of precisely what I am talking about. Morality was, in the minds of the framers and of the culture at the time, not a matter of debate. It was not decided by a group but was held in common respect.
The rejection of religion by political sociopaths has led to the relativism of morality. This condition is a sickness. It is not normal or healthy.
John Adams and others believed that the Constitution could not stand unless the people had a fundamental sense of morality.
Moral relitivists would have the constitution reinterpreted to fit their current sense of right and wrong, commonly referred to as politically correct, a pop culture morality.
The fictitious claim that religious conservatives want to enforce their morality on the populas is bsed on a desire by sociopaths to eradicate right and wrong from society.
When we dismiss the social contract and ignore morality we are left with a "living constitution" that must define these terms for a benighted people.
Ignore morality? Whose version/vision of morality is ignored?
Aren't you also allowing some group of people to "define these terms"? And if so, where in the constitution is their power to so 'define morality' enumerated?
'Morality' is not constitutionally defined, and no person or group is empowered by the document to define it.
We long ago decided, constitutionally, to allow groups of our peers [juries] to decide matters of guilt or innocence, using due process of law in the case at hand.
But even juries are not allowed to define moral issues. Their decisions only apply to the criminal issues of the case presented. They do not make moral law.
No one in our constitutional system is empowered to make "moral law" for the rest of us, or to decree what is to be "morally repugnant".
Your comments are a perfect illustration of precisely what I am talking about. Morality was, in the minds of the framers and of the culture at the time, not a matter of debate.
Simply not true. They debated long & hard about the powers to be allowed to governments. No where in our constitution is government empowered to make "moral law" for the rest of us, or to decree what is to be "morally repugnant".
It was not decided by a group but was held in common respect. The rejection of religion by political sociopaths has led to the relativism of morality. This condition is a sickness. It is not normal or healthy.
The founders rejected religious tests for "any Office or public Trust under the United States." Was this rejection sociopathic?
John Adams and others believed that the Constitution could not stand unless the people had a fundamental sense of morality.
I too think that most people have a fundamental moral sense. But I would restrain them in defining, in a legally sense, moral law.. Just as does our Constitution.
Moral relitivists would have the constitution reinterpreted to fit their current sense of right and wrong, commonly referred to as politically correct, a pop culture morality.
Correct. Moral relativists of both the left & right are prone to this. To quote you: -- "This condition is a sickness. It is not normal or healthy."
The fictitious claim that religious conservatives want to enforce their morality on the populas is bsed on a desire by sociopaths to eradicate right and wrong from society.
I could as well be said that: The fictitious claim that non-religious conservatives want to enforce their morality on the populace is based on a desire by sociopaths to eradicate right and wrong from society.
Thank you so much for your excellent essay-post! Very well said.