[RJS1950]

John Adams, as great a man and patriot as he was, was wrong about that statement of his personal opinion. The framers of the Constitution put together a document that would accomodate and allow all religious beliefs or none at all. The Constitution contains some religious references but IS NOT a religious document nor should it be. It was written to govern a collection of peoples who had a wide variety of religious, social, and political views. Their efforts resulted in a unique and timeless document that was not meant to be “interpreted” on any religious or political basis, which is where things have gone astray over the last century. Interpretation by courts is SUPPOSED to be on the basis of whether or not an issue or law is strictly covered by the Constitution and legal under the Constitutional Articles or is given to the states for action. John Adams had no part in the framing of the Constitution and it was not made only for somebody’s definition of a “moral and religious people”; it was made for all of the people. That is why bringing the Republic back to its Constitutional roots is the first and formost consideration.

[itsahoot]

John Adams, as great a man and patriot as he was, was wrong about that statement of his personal opinion.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

[little jeremiah]

“Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests
of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in
which all religions agree.” —Thomas Jefferson

[rollo tomasi]

LOL.

From some President's Farewell Address, which the decay of our society ignoring moral standards along with the corruption in government and awkward foreign policies, has demonstrated the effect of these words and answered those question which were posed:



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 men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections 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.

Continued:

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?