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 man and citizens.
The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions 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. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
Amazingly prophetic, but then absolute truth has a way of withstanding the test of time and of accurately predicting the outcome of certain choices and behaviors.
@Jeff – it’s not religion it’s morality – our Founding Fathers firmly believed that ‘freedom of religion’ gave us freedom of speech – that they were intimately entwined, one with the other. Our country is the only one in the history of mankind to have been based on such truths, and to demean one truth is to demean all. Just look at society today – it’s because ‘religion in.. every home’ is absent. Just imagine where we would be if we reinstilled these truths into every home.
REAGAN AND WASHINGTON HAD TO HAVE BEEN RELATED
Wish there was an unlike button for comments.
Julie–good rebuttal to Jeff. Well said. Bravo!
Morality is a system of moral principles and a conformity to such a system. Faith in a diety or adherance to an established religious sect are not requirements for a moral person. They are not mutually exclusive either. Moral people of religion and moral people without religion can peacefully co-exist in a free society.
If you do not beleive that you were endowed by your creator of certain rights…then you must believe that these rigfhts were given by man…therefore man can take them away..I’ll trust a creator with my rights before I will entrust a man with them
Once a person is convinced that the Bible is a fairy tale,and that there are no lessons to be learned from reading it,that person has lost faith that the difference between right and wrong is a matter of facts,not of opinion,and that makes him/her a sociopath.A thief knows that he is doing wrong,but disrespects others by taking their stuff.He is not nesseccarily godless,because he know their is a punishment if he gets caught.Karma has a way of punishing the thief,and and anyone else doing anyone wrong.The fact remains,that the Bible teaches RIGHT from WRONG,and our country has done quite well with the influence of “The Good Book”.
@Sparky: Why does the origin of my rights matter? Do I have to submit to an organized religion or publicly acknowledge faith in a creator to guarantee my right to live in peace?
Blessings on the memories of our Founding Fathers. They contemplated long and for the benefit of the New Country and its People.
@Charles: Who is saying that the Bible does not contain sound moral lessons?
@Ben…you can live any way you want to….and beleive what you want to..and if that gives you peace..then so be it..BUT the fact remains that if you dont beleive in a creator…then you must beleive that your rights come from man..and can be taken away by man.I prefer the creator approach which brings me peace…Dont I have that right? Yes I do
My comment was in respomse to Jeff’s apparent belief that the Bible is full of ‘fairy tales’.
@Sparky: You certainly have the right. I appreciate your discussion and your respect for my rights as well. This is the country I want to live in.
@Sparky: I cannot and find no reason to argue your logic that without faith in a creator, my rights come from man. If I lived alone on this planet, I would not need rights because my absolute freedom would have no challengers. If two or more of us live on this planet, then we can agree upon certain rights (that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper) and form a contract to respect those rights for each other.
as the old saying goes..”There is no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole.I’ve been in the foxhole
@Charles: There are lots of moral lessons in farie tales. Even the Catholic Church agrees. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0134.html
@Sparky: Okay, I appreciate your perspective. Still, there is such a thing as a law-abiding agnostic in America.
“…Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed…so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.”
–Patrick Henry
Ben, the problem with that position is that a government that believes as you do will have no problem setting aside your rights for convenience sake. After all, the “contract” is among all of *us* and since your rights interfere with *us* you obviously have set aside that “contract”.
People of faith, most often religious faith, take the position that your rights are derived from an authority above that of all mankind. Because they take that position, they believe that your natural rights must not and, indeed, cannpt be set aside for arbitrary reasons. The body of laws starting with the Constitution and ending with the least of local ordinances are, within broad definition, the framework we use to determine when you have exceeded the boundries of your own rights and trampled upon those of another. Such trampling requires redress from you to the injured party.
@William: A government that believes “as I do” would CERTAINLY have a problem setting aside a person or group’s right for convenience. I take high offense to you declaring such insight into my morals. You describing a dictatorship, not a Republic.
If the person taking the oath on the bible believes it is merely a book written by men, the oath loses all meaning, and the person is free to lie.
@Mari: The penalty for perjury is probably sufficient to deter a person from lying under oath (whomever or whatever was sworn upon).
“What a piece of work is man, how noble in reason, in form and moving, how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension, how like a god.” ~ William Shakespeare.
Whether, ultimately human rights came from God or gods or men aspiring to their highest godly qualities, or men just doing the right thing, THE TOOTHPASTE IS OUT OF THE TUBE.. Man has learned too much about man to ever go back to the cave [if that's where he came from]. There are now 7 BILLION men, women and children on this planet, a huge plurality of them with internet access.. Things will never be the same again for the slavemaster, as recent events in the Middle East have shown..
Though the slavemaster may gain a temporary victory – ultimately he will lose. He MUST lose, if man is to survive as man and not a self-domesticated animal..The optimistic point here is that FREE men ARE actually smarter and more courageous and responsible and industrious than slaves OR slavemasters, though fewer in number than them.
But history shows us that even ONE inspired and free person can vanquish an entire slave empire – witness Joan of Arc or Winston Churchill.. Where are the next ones? I have some ideas about who they are..
Tried and true but looks like we want to take another crack at try.