It's credited to John Adams.I concur, but with reservations.
Sorry, you are right. This was the George Washington quote I was thinking of: "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."Adams, Washington. Eh, it's all good.
John Adams, the Founding Father and original drafter of the Declaration of Independence.
I disagree with him. The Constitution is blind to religion and sexual morality.
That is your decision to disagree.I would, however, argue that he is not attempting to implement religion into American government, but stating that it cannot fulfill it's purpose without the proper public use of religion, whatever it may be, in society.
But it can do that. Government would work juts fine without the public use of religion.
The government fulfills its function without the use of religion, but that function is incomplete without the subjugation of religious desires and activity. Shortly put, the Constitution allows men to do as their conscience sees fit, so long as a moral consciousness is present. Without that, it cannot fulfill it's whole purpose.
We don't need any kind of collective moral consciousness for the Constitution to function. Our Constitution is blind to issues of religion and subjective morality.
You've said that before.I am not saying that the Constitution does or cannot function without religion. I am claiming that its function is incomplete without the involvement of moral compass.Does the Constitution outright declare the immorality of murder?
No. That's a matter for the states. The Constitution doesn't care about murder.
@bangyourhead thank you for telling me who said that :-)
I see.So if a state legalized murder, that would be constitutional and entirely legal?
@yes. Technically, it’s not murder if the state legalizes it.
Very well. Now that we understand one another's positions.
@white shoulder- that’s a pretty definitive statement, that is out of step, with most constitutional scholars. Why should we believe you, or your Thesis? How much legal education do you have? Are you even a lawyer in the USA? I don’t see any reason to think you have the least bit of authority to make that claim. Therefore I challenge your statements, and your ethos.
So you disagree with the author of the document? That’s rich😅😂🤣
@Girther10 I’m not a lawyer. John Adams wasn’t the only guy who wrote the Constitution. And you can’t base what the Constitution means now off what a bunch of guys (and I do mean guys) thought 200 years ago.(I’m sorry. What’s ethos mean?)
@White- well if you decide to try and figure out what they REALLY thought, you’d get more opinions than you can ever sort out. You MUST realize what they meant, and you cannot change that every time the wind changes direction. You absolutely must base what the constitution means now off what those GUYS meant, all the 240+ years ago. To do otherwise means no constitution at all. Ethos - to establish your authority, to make yourself the established leader...
@Girther10 you don’t need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
We can only go by their words, that’s what they left us, their written words and their written opinions. If you try yo play armchair psychologist, or mind reader, or self labeled expert on word meaning, you are a fool. For centuries, that has been the way to interpret the Constitution. Any one with normal intelligence would agree. Not yo mention that it has withstood the test of time, it’s a no brainer.
@Girther10 but they died long before we even had electricity, let alone the Internet. They lived in a time when women and people of color had no more legal rights than gravel. What they thought is irrelevant.
As for your weatherman analogy, you need a weatherman to tell you which diirestion the wind blows bc people get disoriented all the time. Just like you are disoriented as we speak... lol😅😂🤣
@Girther10 it’s a Bob Dylan quote
I give up🤷🏻♂️you will not listen yo anyone but your own demons. Have fun with keeping your erroneous take on a document you’ll never understand.
It matters not if you know Dylan or his words, and to imply that somehow gives him ethos, is really naive.
@Girther10 did you know you couldn’t even own a dildo in ancient Athens (a society the Founding Fathers adored) without your husband’s permission? Not even kidding.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
On its surface it seems to be only part right. that part is that the constitution is in fact based on moral and ethics, the rest is confusing what do you mean “government of any other”, I’m like wtf is the question?
In direct answer to your question it doesn’t apply to our own government
This is a very convoluted mixed up question I see no rhyme or reason to it at all
John Adams was the author of that statement.I was merely wondering at how the commonly anti-religious community would respond.The results are fascinating.
Wouldn’t it have been better to just provide that info at the start? Like: “-John Adams”, following the statement.
I didn't want the philosophies present in the claim to be overshadowed by the identity of the one who stated it.
But that didn’t stop yo from quoting him, now did it?What about the long standing practice all journalists use that any quote, when used, is followed by the person who said it. It may even be a requirement for correct grammar. Not sure, but the precedent is clear.
It’s just normal that people are given the credit of their words. It’s just common decency.
I did give credit, but I was not immediately forthcoming with that information. Withholding information for a more accurate response from the public would be unethical if I had any duty to them with regards to the complete truth.Rather, I was in a position wherein I could measure the views of people on the statement standing alone, rather than their views on the person. It was a weak attempt to prevent Ad Hominem logical fallacies.
Was John Adams merely ignorant, or straight up stupid, then?
In this instance, pertaining to this idea, being ignorant and stupid
I see. Are you taking a Platonic stance, or an educational one? For why you have a superior intellectual ground from which to make such claims.
What would you consider to be the primary difference between religion and morals?
Belief in some form of higher power.It's really not that hard to be moral, just treat everybody fairly.
What defines a moral to you?
Good question, I don't really have a definition, mostly I'd tend towards "not immoral", which would include harming other people, lying, cheating, and so on.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_yJFLvmjJY
Why those things in particular? Do you have a philosophical basis?
Do I need one? What's your definition of a moral?
I believe that not having a direct definition of your beliefs is internally consistent and therefore invalid.I define morals as practices superior to the good of the self and the human race as a whole.
Is there a negative missing from your first sentence? Can you give me an example of "a direct definition of your beliefs"?"I define morals as practices superior to the good of the self and the human race as a whole."So, just behaving in such a way as to improve yourself and the human race isn't enough? (I agree, although I doubt it's what you mean; not looking after the environment is also immoral.)Let me guess: you think we should do things for the glory of God? Even if doing so harms people? (Apologies, if I'm wrong, it is just a guess.)
Here's the thing:Yes, behaving in a manner that benefits and improves yourself and others is sufficient, so long as the progress is real. Not all perceptions are correct.If our parental generation had opted to not have children, therefore dooming the success of the human race, I would consider that immoral.Harming the environment is only immoral insomuch as it costs future generations and exerts poor stewardship over our resources. I do not believe that the implicit value of even the entirety of the contents of the galaxy compare to the worth of one human life.I do believe in God. I firmly believe, however, that anything He would ask is only for the eternal benefit of myself and others. He is not the truth. But He is in absolute, perfect harmony with it.He does not cause things to be right, but he knows what is right in absolutes. I do not believe in the divine command theory.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!