Morals

[Jeremiah Ames]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I want to have a discussion of this statement made by John Adams.


But before the discussion, I want to elaborate on a particular word used: “religious”


It is quite obvious from what I have read that the United States was NOT (ABSOLUTELY NOT) formed as a Christian nation. It was NOT formed as a religious nation. It was formed as a nation with morals, as well as flaws. The writers of the Constitution were aware of their flaws which is why the 9th amendment was added.

Therefore, the word religious, in this statement, could possibly be synonymous with moral, to specifically speak to church going Christians who may not understand the word moral. We DON’T know what he meant by that word, but we can be reasonably assured that it had nothing to do with religion, since the founders clearly stood for the separation of government and religion.

I want to post here, also, what Andy Stanley wrote on his chalkboard:
You should:
Do what’s just
Not what you can justify

Do what’s responsible
Not what’s permissible

Do what’s moral
Not what’s modeled

Finally, I think the events of January 6, and the people who participated in the insurrection, instigated it, supported it, and continue to abet it by not condemning it, speak to what President Adams was saying. All of those people mentioned in the previous sentence are outside the moral sphere.


With that opinion of mine out of the way, what do you make of President Adams statement?

 

[JustGeorge]

This reminds me of a story my uncle tells me sometimes.

He turned 80 last year. In his working days, he had a Sikh coworker(and friend). My uncle is an agnostic of the 'don't know, don't care' variety. His Sikh friend was traditionally religious.

My uncle is one of the most upstanding, moral people you will meet. He has a well put together code of ethics and honor that isn't typical of just anyone. Sure, he can be wrong sometimes, and he's certainly outspoken, but there is something he honors, something greater than just himself and his whims. In his case, its not God, but a greater good, as he understands it.

One day, he was going on to his friend about how he just doesn't understand religion, and why it matters, and his friend laughed at him and said "Buddy, you're more pious than you think." And that confounded him, enough to remember to tell me multiple times decades later! And the look on his face when my husband and I laughed at him and told him his friend was right! Religious? Him! But he thinks its all a bunch of whooey!

I think what John Adams is referring to is a 'religious attitude' like this. Not necessarily a nation focused on God, but a nation focused on a greater good.

 

[JustGeorge]

Also, an article that was in the most recent issue of Hinduism Today on John Adams, that reflects some of the diversity of beliefs he held.

John Adams’ View of Hinduism - Hinduism Today

 

[Nakosis]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

With that opinion of mine out of the way, what do you make of President Adams statement?

I think what he is saying is that the Constitution only has the power given to it by the people who support it and assumes only people who have the morals provided by religious belief possess the character to do so.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I think what he is saying is that the Constitution only has the power given to it by the people who support it and assumes only people who have the morals provided by religious belief possess the character to do so.

correct, imo

I think the statement is quite incredible and beautiful

but I’m a bit cloudy regarding the meaning of the word religious

i never considered myself religious, although I have gone to quite a few churches in the past

i think I see the word religious differently than most

 

[JustGeorge]

i think I see the word religious differently than most

What is your personal definition of religious?

 

[sun rise]

To understand this, we have to understand his attitude toward religion. John Adams

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

What is your personal definition of religious?

it’s higher than moral or civil goodness

it’s the understanding of true goodness

not just what we might consider good because it aligns with our desires


Edit:
so, no connection to religion, unless one is religious about their religion, then it’s similar to:

i am “religious about my chocolate”

but I would say “ I’m religious about goodness”

 

[Nakosis]

correct, imo

I think the statement is quite incredible and beautiful

but I’m a bit cloudy regarding the meaning of the word religious

i never considered myself religious, although I have gone to quite a few churches in the past

i think I see the word religious differently than most

Adams seems to see religion as a vehicle that provides man with moral guidance.

Where do you feel your morals come from?

Maybe it is folks who have a code of conduct they are strictly observant of vs those who maybe aware of such codes but aren't necessarily observant of that code.
IOW perhaps they are observant when it is convenient but not so much when it is not.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Adams seems to see religion as a vehicle that provides man with moral guidance.

Where do you feel your morals come from?

Maybe it is folks who have a code of conduct they are strictly observant of vs those who maybe aware of such codes but aren't necessarily observant of that code.
IOW perhaps they are observant when it is convenient but not so much when it is not.

the code of conduct one has would be considered their morals (your 3rd sentence?)

but some may not be truly moral (your 4th sentence?)

so where do we find the truth of what is moral?

my kindergarten teacher said treat others as you would want to be treated.
I still remember that. Can that statement be misused for personal gain?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

This reminds me of a story my uncle tells me sometimes.

He turned 80 last year. In his working days, he had a Sikh coworker(and friend). My uncle is an agnostic of the 'don't know, don't care' variety. His Sikh friend was traditionally religious.

My uncle is one of the most upstanding, moral people you will meet. He has a well put together code of ethics and honor that isn't typical of just anyone. Sure, he can be wrong sometimes, and he's certainly outspoken, but there is something he honors, something greater than just himself and his whims. In his case, its not God, but a greater good, as he understands it.

One day, he was going on to his friend about how he just doesn't understand religion, and why it matters, and his friend laughed at him and said "Buddy, you're more pious than you think." And that confounded him, enough to remember to tell me multiple times decades later! And the look on his face when my husband and I laughed at him and told him his friend was right! Religious? Him! But he thinks its all a bunch of whooey!

I think what John Adams is referring to is a 'religious attitude' like this. Not necessarily a nation focused on God, but a nation focused on a greater good.

wow, incredible story

thanks so much for sharing that one

 

[Nakosis]

the code of conduct one has would be considered their morals (your 3rd sentence?)

but some may not be truly moral (your 4th sentence?)

so where do we find the truth of what is moral?

my kindergarten teacher said treat others as you would want to be treated.
I still remember that. Can that statement be misused for personal gain?

I'm not "religious" either.
I assume my morals come from an eclectic set of circumstances. For example like your kindergarten teacher. Successful past choices. Public figures one looks up to. Religious, spiritual idealism.
Some of it maybe unconscious and undefined. If it "feels" right right to us. Some folks codify it. Use religious idealism to support it.

My moral "code" is cause no unnecessary harm.
Personally I think that "treat others as you would want to be treated" often gets translated to "treat others how you feel you have been treated". Then one can justify responding to hate with hate and violence with violence.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I'm not "religious" either.
I assume my morals come from an eclectic set of circumstances. For example like your kindergarten teacher. Successful past choices. Public figures one looks up to. Religious, spiritual idealism.
Some of it maybe unconscious and undefined. If it "feels" right right to us. Some folks codify it. Use religious idealism to support it.

My moral "code" is cause no unnecessary harm.
Personally I think that "treat others as you would want to be treated" often gets translated to "treat others how you feel you have been treated". Then one can justify responding to hate with hate and violence with violence.

oh my
I never would have seen that mistranslation of treating others, but I can see how it could come about

 

[Deeje]

I think the statement is quite incredible and beautiful

but I’m a bit cloudy regarding the meaning of the word religious

i never considered myself religious, although I have gone to quite a few churches in the past

i think I see the word religious differently than most

Some of the world’s greatest humanitarians have been atheists.
You don’t need to be “religious” to care about humanity and the future of the planet. Religion and humanitarianism have different motivators IMO.
They may strive for the same outcome, but for different reasons.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I want to have a discussion of this statement made by John Adams.

I agree with his statement because as a Christian, God’s laws only really matter to us.....they hardly rate a mention to unbelievers. They guide and direct those who care what God thinks.....but for those who do not believe in any gods, there is no basis or motivation to follow them, unless some greater good is accomplished in the underlying principle.

Therefore, the word religious, in this statement, could possibly be synonymous with moral, to specifically speak to church going Christians who may not understand the word moral. We DON’T know what he meant by that word, but we can be reasonably assured that it had nothing to do with religion, since the founders clearly stood for the separation of government and religion.

To be “religious” (to me) means to be committed to something for reasons that you agree with.....sometimes going against popular trends to observe it. So religion can mean moral, but morality is relative to a person’s belief system. Many laws were based on Bible principles and those principles themselves were beneficial without their religious connection.....don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t murder, do to others what you would like them to do for you.... etc...

I want to post here, also, what Andy Stanley wrote on his chalkboard:
You should:
Do what’s just
Not what you can justify

Do what’s responsible
Not what’s permissible

Do what’s moral
Not what’s modeled

I agree with these sentiments entirely, because they agree strongly with the Bible’s teachings as I understand them.
We are not to be modelled after the world, much of which is alienated from the God of the Bible. There is way too much justification for its permissive behavior. People are harmed by those who have justified their misguided actions.

Finally, I think the events of January 6, and the people who participated in the insurrection, instigated it, supported it, and continue to abet it by not condemning it, speak to what President Adams was saying. All of those people mentioned in the previous sentence are outside the moral sphere.

I think that was a classic example of what you are discussing. There are no moral grounds for any violence.....political or otherwise IMO. There are always peaceful ways to solve problems.....as long as you have willing participants.....cultivating the willingness seems to be the problem......mob rule doesn’t solve anything and emotions are easily whipped up.

 

[Brickjectivity]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

'Law abiding' probably would work: moral + law-abiding

 

[Friend of Mara]

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I want to have a discussion of this statement made by John Adams.


But before the discussion, I want to elaborate on a particular word used: “religious”


It is quite obvious from what I have read that the United States was NOT (ABSOLUTELY NOT) formed as a Christian nation. It was NOT formed as a religious nation. It was formed as a nation with morals, as well as flaws. The writers of the Constitution were aware of their flaws which is why the 9th amendment was added.

Therefore, the word religious, in this statement, could possibly be synonymous with moral, to specifically speak to church going Christians who may not understand the word moral. We DON’T know what he meant by that word, but we can be reasonably assured that it had nothing to do with religion, since the founders clearly stood for the separation of government and religion.

I want to post here, also, what Andy Stanley wrote on his chalkboard:
You should:
Do what’s just
Not what you can justify

Do what’s responsible
Not what’s permissible

Do what’s moral
Not what’s modeled

Finally, I think the events of January 6, and the people who participated in the insurrection, instigated it, supported it, and continue to abet it by not condemning it, speak to what President Adams was saying. All of those people mentioned in the previous sentence are outside the moral sphere.


With that opinion of mine out of the way, what do you make of President Adams statement?

Alright. So I am not an expert in John Adams. I like history a lot but he was a bit of a gap in my mind. So before responding to this I went and asked someone who knows a lot more than me.

The gist of what they said is that John Adams was something called a "Theistic Rationalist". He wasn't a deist like many of his contemporaries and held a belief that routine religious activity begat moral people. Though he and most other founding fathers rejected the idea of biblical miracles and Jesus's divinity, John Adams apparently thought highly of pious people. He even went so far as to say Christianity was the greatest religion. Though again his thoughts on religion were utilitarian rather than dogmatic. He believed that in god and that religion made people good. In fact that it was through religion people were good.

To take it even a step further it didn't matter to him that religion or god was real. What mattered was the perceived benefit of a religious society. John Adams also seemed to be more hung up on personal virtue of the common man than most other political leaders of the time. There was a sense that in order to have a righteous nation one had to have a righteous people. But inversely the church and many churches were corrupt. That religious teaching needed to be done so with common sense. Seemingly he was an advocate for secular living with a religiously guided moral code.

He died a Unitarian and never believed in the divinity of Jesus. So most of what he stated is in line with just the way he talked. Lets also not forget that this quote was a letter to the men of a Militia. So there is also the political implications of this being a public document rather than a personal one.

Edit: TLDR He didn't necessarily think that Christianity or religion was "truth" but rather "good". That the moral framework of Christianity was one that should be adopted by people to make them moral.

PS. Also to touch on his belief that "Christianity was the greatest religion" didn't mean it was the "true religion" or the "most correct" but that he felt the values of Christianity were "better" than the values of Judaism, Islam and whatever pagan beliefs he may have known about. Though his contrast was probably of Ancient Greco-Roman religion/philosophy. He was a staunch supporter of the enlightenment cause. And fun fact he made public schools in Massachusetts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My uncle is one of the most upstanding, moral people you will meet. He has a well put together code of ethics and honor that isn't typical of just anyone.

Yeah, your uncle was following his 'dharma', and that is religious. Does a religion require Gods and pretense? No.

That was the answer given by the pious butcher to a learned Brahmin who was sent to learn Dharma from the Butcher 2000 years ago in Bhagawat Purana. The Butcher said he did not know any God, and nothing of religion. He just honestly performed his duties.

Story of the Pious Butcher: "Dharma Vyadha" (Check on Google).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You Should remember the context of the times in which Adams wrote.
People in America at that time, like all the countries they originated from, were virtually 100% church goers or at least had a healthy fear of God. It was also a time when larger numbers of the intelligencia were moving to one form of Deism or Unitarianism of one kind or another, away from main stream Christian denominations. It was fashionable to question authoritarian religions in the face of the new scientific thought.

Christianity was overwhelmingly the religion of the people. Numbers following other religions were vanishingly small. and were not included in anyone's world view nor considered relevant to American life. they were largely thought to be heathen.

When American people talked about religion or God they had in mind only the Christian God. Even Deists could be included firmly in that mind set.

When they were talking about the separation of Church and state. The model that they were trying to avoid, was the link between the Church of England and the crown, and the way that that disenfranchised all other Christian denominations, and the way it was totally enmeshed in the laws of the land.

Those that promoted the concept of separation of church and state never foresaw that America would become a land of many religions and beliefs, other than the Christian ones. After all they considered the native Americans as heathens and disposable.

In particular the various states were very concerned that the national Government might favor one Christian church over another.
At that time many states were safe havens for particular denominations who had come to America for their protection. they did not want the new constitution to put that protection in jeopardy. They never foresaw a time when that same constitution would prevent their state protecting. promoting or following the dictates of that religion.

It was never thought that religion could not be part and parcel of American life at every level. Only that the government would never be able to be partisan and legislate, or otherwise control religion. And by that, they meant all those Christian denominations established at that time in America. they had little or no concern about foreign religions.