Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
60 comments
Which particular morality and which particular religion?
If this were true, one would expect that the document would spell it out, which it does not.
The ignorance of this comment is compounded by the fact that the framers of the Constitution hardly held the religious belief our dear poster most likely holds...
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. /eq
The Constitution was formulated upon the assumption that 'We the People' are all honest and willing to work together. /eq
It's buggered either way.
Please show me where it says that? In the meantime, I'll show you something that says otherwise.
*source* The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution
"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."
No, the whole point of the U.S. (at least, it's supposed to be the point) is that ALL persons are equal under the law, with equal rights and equal protections. Nowhere in any of the founding documents does it say anything about religious persons being the only ones covered by the constitution.
Religious persons are not the only persons with moral standards. In fact, your advocation for denying constitutional protections for others is proof that your moral standards are poor.
Now STFU and go away.
Maybe you could explain which "moral" and which "religious" people the Constitution applies to?
Afterwards, could you explain why it's so often the religious people who are seeking to deny others the rights provided to them by the US Constitution?
Please show me where it says that? In the meantime, I'll show you something that says otherwise.
*source* The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution
"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."
In the context of this poster's remarks I'd say that, by the very nature of his beliefs, he could never have originated the constitution as it is written. Why is it that every fundie seems to want everyone else to live to their miserable standards and can never seem to fathom the concept of "live and let live"?
I regret to inform you that you are required to leave the country immediately. While you might be religious, you are not moral, and therefore not protected by the Constitution.
You have twenty four hours to vacate before we launch the cruise missiles.
I do think the constitution requires a certain spirit in the people (zietgeist if you will). But that spirit is one of cooperation, acceptance of uncertainty and risk, and thoughtfulness; not religion.
You fail at the Constitution. It's supposed to grant equal rights to all people, whether they are Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Pastafarian.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"Proles and animals - *cough* I mean the criminals and the godless are free", he stated in Orwellian tones.
@Brenz: If the issue had ever reached them, the Supreme Court of Canada would probably have declared the "man and woman" definition of marriage unconstitutional. Also, they declared the restrictions on abortion unconstitutional (for technical reasons, as I recall, that had to do with the laws not being enforced uniformly across the country).
So I recommend you look at ours, at least if you follow Enochs fire's definition of moral.
"...made only for a moral and religious people."
So I can disregard it? WooHoo! I'm agonna quarter troops in your house during peacetime! And sign treaties with foreign countries. And I'll deny Congress the power to enact legislation! It's party time!
Oh, by the way, since the Constitution now only applies to the moral and religious, and y'all like to claim that Obama is neither, that means he can hold the office of President for more than two terms. And that oath thing that y'alls panties got in a wad over, the one that's defined in the Constitution; that's not of your concern anymore.
Obama no longer has to face the checks and balances of the Legislative or Judicial branches. The Second and First Amendments? You can stop clinging to your bibles and guns now. The military? He'll replace it with his own armed force.
By the way, which president was it that called the Constitution "just a piece of paper"?
jonathan's right, this is a quote from John Adams.
And note that it doesn't necessarily imply that 'moral' requires 'religious', either. John Adams was borderline Deist, and didn't believe in the divinity of Christ. (Religion can be necessary for a society to hang together, even if it's not totally true.)
@Orestes: Erm, Franklin wasn't an atheist. He wasn't a traditional Christian, maybe not a Christian at all, but he definitely believed in some sort of God. (He was Deist at one point, but his writing shows a belief in a more personal God than Deists usually accept.)
Get out of our country.
NOW!
Uh... I reckon unlike the Bill of Rights the Constitution itself (while obviously being revolutionary at the time) is actually a rather dry read:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
... and so on. Don't really see any massive moral value there.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral
If everyone were perfectly moral, we wouldn't need laws.
religious people two parts of the Constitution explicitly say otherwise. Why is that, I wonder?
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
And in the very first sentence, they say...........well, forget it. All the men, obviously means all the men that...............
I took a class on the American Founders last semester at SUNY Geneseo. I remember a quote similar to this effect from the writings of the Founding Fathers. By this, it is meant, a people with moral values and ethical standards; I don't know if that's what the poster meant originally but the quote isn't fundamentally stupid. Nor is it saying, the Constitution only applies to religious people.
If this is the case, why does The Constitution specifically state that there will be no religious test to hold public office? Have you even bothered to read the document, or do you just thump it, like you do the bible?
Oh, and let me guess, you're a proud Tea party member, right?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
