- We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)
- If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. Samuel Adams
- Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence
- Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master. Dwight D. Eisenhower
- Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants. Benjamin Franklin
- The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. Patrick Henry
- It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. Patrick Henry
- It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. Patrick Henry
- We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln
- It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. Thomas Paine
- Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. Theodore Roosevelt
- The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government. Noah Webster
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Interesting Quotes from Founding Fathers and Presidents
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-----------
So why did they add this:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
They certainly could have set up a theocracy if they all agreed with Mr. Adams.
There's is a difference. The constitution says that "...Congress shall make no law...", meaning that they can not create a state run church..remember they were coming from Great Britain that had the Church of England which was a state sponsored and controlled church. In fact the British monarch still has the title "Supreme Governor of the Church of England". So there you had the head of state also as the head of the church which lead to all sorts of corruption and oppression of other religious beliefs.
The first amendment was there to prevent that from happening, not to prevent the government or government officials from being religious, but from the church being the government.
So I don't see any problem between the quote from Adams and the 1st amendment. In fact I think that most agreed with Adams throughout most of the history of the country up until the 50s or 60s and no theocracy was set up. And now with the so-called "separation of church and state" we've come even closer to going against exactly what the 1st amendment was set out to prevent "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
The Adams quote seems to suggest that the non-religious will run amuck in our society, killing and stealing at every opportunity. He suggests that morality and religion are inextricably linked.
Now since Christianity is the source of all morals in Adams' opinion, there must exist a clear and unequivocal set of rules that guide all Christians.
Do you agree?
I think you may have read too much into that quote. I saw it as saying that the constitution relies on people being moral. If you have people that are amoral (or is that immoral) the constitution has a hard time working with that. Look at the preamble for example.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The purpose of the constitution was to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote general welfare and secure liberty and posterity. Those without morals make it mighty difficulty to do any of those. And if you would happen to have people in power without morals I propose it makes it even worse. (I'm making no judgment on any current or past administration as I don't think any are completely without morals)
I tend to think that religion in general is the source of morals. You have the 10 commandments in Judaism and Christianity and you have similar constructs in Islam, Hinduism and any other religion. I think that every person is born with the foundation of good morals in them (how those got there and where they come from is a whole other discussion). But regardless, any religion is the source of morals, most of them good.
I don't see where in his quote he refers to Christianity as he talks just about religion in general, but lets assume that is what he meant. Then yes there is a source of clear and unequivocal set of rules that guide all Christians. It's all laid out in the Bible. Do all Christians follow it to the letter. Nope not at all, I'm as guilty as any other. We are all human after all.
I think what Adams was getting at was not that all those without religion have no morals and will run amuck, but instead that religion (whichever you choose) does provide a set of morals or standards (and let's face it, most religions set of morals are pretty similar) which with the constitution and thus the Gov't works so much better.
We can certainly agree that any government will be limited by human nature as far as creating a harmonious society.
But to point of religion being the source of morals; any religion should at least be able to answer the most fundamental questions of right and wrong. There are some questions that remain unanswered even within the single (ignoring all the divisions for the moment) religion of Christianity.
A Partial list should include:
*Abortion
*Capital Punishment
*Homosexuality
If the bible is a clear code of conduct what is the official Christian position on each of these?
How can religion in general be foundation of good government when even within Christianity there is so much disagreement and division?
My position is that morality is innate in human nature. We simply understand that in general, our lives will be better if we adhere to certain codes of conduct. When we cannot agree we are left to hash it out as best we can. That is why we need government in the first place.
The science of game theory has a great deal to say about this.
You are correct..the effectiveness of any gov't is limited by the nature of the people being governed and by the nature of those governing.
I agree with you too that morals are innate in each and every one of us. I guess where we perhaps disagree is how they got there. I believe that when God created us in our mothers womb, He put those morals in each of us. So yes, they are innately in each and every one of us. Someone from a different religion may believe differently.
I think those questions (the short list) are answered in the Bible, though I don't pretend to know all the answers, nor do I wish to start a debate on abortion, homosexuality or whatever. But many places the Bible states that murder is wrong (if you believe that abortion is the murder of a baby, that fits). Homosexuality is stated as being wrong in so many places...though you are taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner. Capital punishment is talked about as well. So yes I believe those questions are answered in the Bible. But again because we are all human and from a Christian standpoint we are all sinners, we as humans don't always follow God's plan and either misinterpret the Bible or read too much into it or just disregard the "uncomfortable" parts. Because we fail in that sense doesn't mean that Christianity is innately wrong, just that we as Christians are not perfect.
I don't know much about the science of game theory, but would be interested to learn more...any resources that can give me a quick overview?
So then, God is clear and unambiguous about:
*Abortion
*Capital Punishment
*Homosexuality
And it is just human failings that creates the controversy. So you must have a clear idea about what god wants relating to these three hot button issues and the Christians that disagree are either disregarding, ignoring or simply mistaken.
Whatever position you take yourself on these issues you must feel that you are following god's will. The same can be said of fellow Christians who take the opposite position.
For example the Anglican church has recently split over the issue of gay marriage and gay clergy.
So now we have two sets of Christians, both certain that they are the true followers of Christ.
Are the Pro-gay Anglicans still saved or doomed unless they convert to your interpretation?
I hope I'm not being confrontational but I do enjoy the debate.
Sorry didn't reply sooner, weekend caught up with me and been real busy lately. Not confrontational at all...I enjoy the debate as well. Good to debate amongst friends.
I don't pretend to have the answers or completely know God's will...that is something I'm working towards, but no human can claim to know God's will completely. I do believe though that God is clear about everything and yes our human failings keep us from seeing that completely. That may seem like a simplistic answer, but I think it is at the heart of any religion. There is a point where faith takes part. If we waited until we found all the answers or understood everything until we made a decision we would never make a decision. Sometimes you can see the character of something and deduce the nature of things we don't see for sure. If we know the character of God in certain matters we can deduce His nature in other things.
Let's take abortion for example. Does the Bible make a statement like, "Thou shall not abort your baby?" No it doesn't, but we can see things in scripture that can lead us to believe that abortion is not in line with God's will. Let's look at Homosexuality. Does the Bible talk about it? Absolutely it does...in many places. How about capital punishment? Many places in the Bible talk about capital punishment. I can go into more detail on all of these if you wish.
Why are there differing opinions even within the church? I suppose I'll go back to the argument that we are human and fallible, we are finite not infinite and don't always see the whole picture. We are not perfect and thus make mistakes in judgement. In th book of Revelations, Jesus talks to the seven churchs in Asia Minor. One in particular he praises, "I know all the things you do--your love, your faith, your service, and your patient endurance. And I can see your constant improvement in all these things. But I have this complaint against you." And then he goes on to talk about the sexual immorality that the church is permitting and asks them to repent. He repeats this to a few other churchs as well. Praise for what they are doing good, but asking them to repent for their sinful ways. So even churches can sin and allow (perhaps even sanction) sinful activity. That doesn't make their sinful activity somehow "Christian". What if you found a church that performs human sacrifices, certain that they are true followers of Christ. Just because they believe they were Christians does that really make it so?
I can't say for sure if the pro-gay anglicans are saved or doomed. Salvation is a gift from God, not something that we can earn or lose by our deeds. Christians still sin, once we become christians we don't lose our sinful nature, we just desire to follow Christ and repent of the sin we still commit. Doesn't make that sin ok, just that we are forgiven. To a Christian, the Bible is the ultimate source. It is God's word. I don't know the pro-gay justifications that they say the see in the Bible, so I can't debate those particular arguments, but I do know that the Bible doesn't contradict itself when taken as a whole. If taken in part, the Bible can be justified to say just about anything or support just about any viewpoint you'd like, but when taken as a whole, it becomes very clear in what it says.
Great debate and I'm glad we're able to have it. Too bad I don't find the time to post more often.
You must know of the bible passages that sound very strange to modern ears. Many of these are hard to chalk up to simple misinterpretation.
For example:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
What should we make of this?
Hey Ray...hopefully you get to work from home today and not have to travel out and about. We got a lot of ice down our direction so the roads are pretty slick.
Thanks for the question, I actually enjoy these type of questions because it often forces me to learn something new that I hadn't known before. I'm no Bible scholar so often while I may have a "gut" feeling what something means and how it applies, most cases require more study on my part and I learn and grow as I do.
I'm assuming you are questioning this verse because it sounds like it endorses slavery and selling your children into slavery? If taken at face value without context, it seems to do just that. But let's look at the context, both textually and historically. Slavery in the ancient Hebrew world was different from what we think of slavery in our own country. They didn't have government welfare programs to take care of them in times of need, be it hard economic times, famine or whatever.
In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor. So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party (Exodus 21:12, 20, 26-27). Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath (Exodus 23:12), slander a slave (Proverbs 30:10), have sex with another man's slave (Leviticus 19:20), or return an escaped slave (Deuteronomy 23:15). A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in the year of jubilee (which occurred every seven years)(Leviticus 25:39-43). In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave"(Proverbs 29:21). So since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves.
My driveway kept me busy for an hour and a half but I'm working at home anyway.
As to your last post, WOW, I hope Google has a lot of disk space since this thread could go on forever.
They didn't have government welfare programs to take care of them in times of need...
Yes, I and I know how you feel about socialism, which by the way seems strange to me since Jesus spent a whole bunch of time talking about tanking care of the poor and your fellow man. I once heard him described as a nice long-haired Jewish hippie. It seems fair to me to say he was a liberal.
In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure.
So rather than providing for his chosen people in times of need, God simply advised them to sell a few kids into slavery?
Hebrews were commanded not to make have sex with another man's slave (Leviticus 19:20),
So sex with his own slave is OK though? So god not only advised men to sell daughters in to slavery it was also sexual slavery. I'm sorry the word "pimp" comes to mind.
Of course wives in those days were also property, essentially living life in a slave status.
So since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves.
First "voluntary slavery" is an oxymoron. By definition slavery is a forced state of servitude.
Here is here some more recent historical context: During the American Civil War the bible was used by both sides to justify their respective positions. Passages like those above were used by people in the south as a defense. They also would say things like:
"Negroes are as simple as children. We are doing them a favor by providing work and looking after them."
You sited several passages from the bible relating to how a man should take care of his slaves. It is clear that the bible approves of slavery. You would have made a fine plantation owner with that position.
It IS fair to put things in historical context. Life was tougher back then and it is not always fair to judge a man such as Christopher Columbus by today's moral code. But there is the problem. Taking a two thousand year old book of uncertain origin and expecting to use it as the basis of a modern government is unreasonable. It forces Christians into indefensible positions as just demonstrated.
My positions is that you and I could sit down together and write a much better moral code while leaving the bible on the shelf. Fortunately most of the founding fathers felt the same.
As I said, I'm not a Bible scholar so I'm sure there are others out there that could better debate than I...but let me try to answer some of your points. And you're right perhaps this isn't the best forum for the debate as I think our long replies are a bit difficult to read in the comments.
I personally don't like to label Jesus as anything but God. He was fully divine. Thus boxing him into a label of liberal, conservative, hippie or whatever, really diminishes what he truly was. But let's set that aside for a moment.
I've never been able to understand why people think that conservatives don't want to take care of the poor and our fellow man. I think that is ridiculus, but that is a side point and a misunderstanding of conservatism.
I think the definition of liberal socialist is important. If by “liberal socialist” one refers to a person who seeks to serve his fellow man with compassion and charity, and who spends his life voluntarily clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, liberating the captive, educating the ignorant, and caring for the sick and afflicted, then yes, Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist and we should all strive to be liberal socialists. If by “liberal socialist” one refers to a person who justifies using force to steal from one person or group of people to give to another, then Jesus Christ was the furthest thing from a liberal socialist. Never once that I know of did Jesus say to gov't, take from the rich and give to the poor. Look at the 10th commandment, in part "do not covet your neighbor's house...". In other words don't envy what you don't have. In Luke 12:15, Jesus said, "Don't be greedy for what you don't have." Modern socialism has a lot of that. And yes that applies as much to the rich man that may want more and more and more as it does to the poor man that wants what the rich man has.
The gospel of Jesus is at its core, voluntary virtue. Being forced to support others is not virtue at all, it is theft. Jesus taught charity, but he also taught, "Thou shalt not steal." The socialism as I define it and see it in the world today breaks one of Jesus' laws to follow another. Thomas Jefferson said, "…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
So was Jesus a liberal? I suppose it depends on your definition of liberal. I'm for providing for the poor and the needy by choice and the charity of the individual, not by force of the gov't.
You keep talking about slavery as it is defined today. The slavery in the verse that started this conversation clearly isn't the same. The Bible is a reliable source of historical context, but that is a completely different argument. So does the Bible approve of slavery, well I suppose that depends on the definition of slavery. And yes people can twist words to mean whatever they want if the don't look at the context and history behind those words. That doesn't make it right or make the words any less valid when taken in light of the proper context. Over and over again in the Bible the slavery as talked about in the Bible doesn't come even close to the slavery as defined by 19th century US slavery. We can go point and counterpoint on that verse or some other verse, but you are seeing it as something it isn't.
I think what your point really boils down to is "Why does God allow suffering?" Well that is a good question that this is probably not the right forum to answer it in and I'm sure I couldn't state it as well many others out there have. But in short, God sees the bigger picture, we don't. Things that seem bad to us doesn't necesarily mean they are (don't twist this to me saying that I think slavery is ok or that I would have made a great plantation owner as that is a non argument). You take your child to the doctor. The child gets a shot. The child views it as a bad thing because it hurts. They don't see the bigger picture as we and the doctor do that the shot perhaps is preventing some deadly disease.
But it comes back down to what is the true purpose of the Bible. The Bible from start to finish, Old Testament to New, lead to one thing..that is the need for salvation through Jesus. The Old Testament not only served the people living in Old Testament times, by giving them rules to live by according to life in their time, but it also shows us the need for Jesus today. He came to fulfill the law of the Old Testament and provide us the perfect sacrifice that the Law of the old testament required. There have been whole books written on the CERTAIN origin of the Bible I could point you to a few if you're interested. Again they provide a more complete argument than I could provide here. I don't think you put me into an "indefensible" position at all.
While I was raised in a Christian home, I was skeptical for many, many years. I'm not one to believe just anything completely on faith alone. I'm like most other software guys probably that like nice hard scientific evidence. I did my research, I read a lot of books and studied a lot of alternative theories and ideas. I feel that the Bible, Christianity, and the diety of Christ do have evidence to back them up. After much research I was convinced. Now don't get me wrong, there is a basis of faith underlying all of it, but the evidence is there if you look.
I'm sure we could write a pretty good moral code, but like it or not, I'm pretty sure much of what we would come up with is laid out in the Bible whether we realize it or not (or accept it for that matter). I doubt the founding fathers sat down with their Bible in hand as they were writing the constitution, but the moral codes are there nonetheless.
Your last post touches on the old philosophical topic called "The problem of evil." This can be summarized something like:
"How can an all powerful, all knowing god allow so many bad things to happen and still be all good?"
The usual responses are:
1. People have free will and misuse it and cause their suffering.
2. God is very mysterious and everything he does is for the best even if we don't understand it.
The usual retorts are:
1a. Some things (hurricanes, disease, drought, etc..etc) are not caused by people are even sometimes called "Acts of God."
1b. Psychiatry suggests we are not really all that free but to a large degree controlled and influenced by many factors outside of our control.
My own thought about this is that the ONLY truly free being in the universe is god himself since he apparently caused himself to exist and has the ability to do absolutely anything at all.
Humans on the other hand have limits placed on them at every turn. For example: are homosexuals able to decide that their desires are bad and then free to forget them completely? If yes, then what happened to Ted Haggard?
If you think something like sexuality is a choice then let me ask you exactly when did you choose to be heterosexual? Or was it more
like something that just popped into your head around age 12 or 13?
Did you look at some boys first and consider the possibilities?
If not, then where was your choice?
2. As to suffering being for the best even if we don't understand it, let me say this: I can understand that a human can not sit down here on Earth and make a bunch of demands on the deity. But if you wish to posit a loving, caring god that actually is engaged in our lives, then I don't think it is asking too much to expect that he would make his requirements and expectations clear.
Now I expect you to tell me that he has done this. If so, then perhaps you would like to meet my Jehovah's Witness friend who assured me that you (an all non-Jehovah's Christians) are being deceived by the devil otherwise you would be one of them.
Given that this sort of misunderstanding frequently leads to wars, how could a loving god let his children become so confused?
Finally let me ask you this (and it's a heavy one) question: Does god have to conform to the morality described in the bible or is he exempt from all moral standards?
Post a Comment