Jefferson coined the phrase, 'seperation of church and state', does not appear in any official document. It was a letter to a Baptist minister that was concerned that the Congregationalists would become the national church. Jefferson was reassureing him that this is impossible because of the 'wall of seperation' built into our Constitution. Jefferson considered religious liberty to be essential to a Republic, he would never suggest, much less affirm, ceretainly not argue that religion and morality had nothing to do with one another.

It is astonishing how little Americans know about the people who founded this country. It is impossible to prove that they were trying to protect the country (synonymous with the people) from religion. It is exactly the opposite! George Washington in his farwell had this to say about religion and morality:

" 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 labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & 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."

I'm not changing the subject here. The questions that follow relate to the original intent of my post. Its all the same question. Please note that the Father of our country spoke of religion and morality in the same breath. I'm asking you to consider the implications of his statements, I'm not trying to debate them...my question is, can you be patriotic without religion? Washington didn't seem to think so. Here are some of the questions that I think he answered:
Is religion and morality nessacary for happiness?
Can morality be maintained without religion?
Can a politician be trusted to keep his word without religious conviction?
Can a person be considered patriotic who subverts religion?

These questions are not calling for an answer. They are statements. These are rethorical questions, phrased like questions but they refer to the original point. George and I believe that religious conviction and morality are 'pillars' of our republic. To contrdict that is to contradict the original intent of our Constitution. Prove me wrong and I'll eat the Declaration of Independance on the steps of Capitol Hill and I'll give you 5 minutes to draw a crowd.

I am not religious, and I am patriotic.

At what time and on what date will you be eating the Declaration of Independence then?

Mike

is it a requirement for happiness, well, sure why not, for me, no. i like to think of myself as, well, happy anyways.


how about can it be maintained with, soem people who follow a religion to a tee do very well, others dont. in being that both people the success and the failure, are devoted to thier religion. this is evident in todays world, not just mine.


can a politican be trusted period , well anyways, like above, on both counts, i dont think that religion itself, in my native opinion, is the moment of truth for alot of people, and to debate may even cause those same people to lie, for the advancement of their own religious stance.

and on your last question, well, i serve my contry part time, but i have a more international orientated mindset, i like the u.n, but to the religion again, those terrorists were rather religious and in a sense being patriotic to, the 9-11 terrorists that is, maybe thats a little bit to patriotic, but no, again in my opinion, i dont think that being religious conects with being patriotic.


my overall opinion is that you can be "patriotic" without being of a religion.

So the logic here is that because George Washington didn't personally feel people could be both patriotic and without religion, people can't be? While ol' George was a fine man and an excellent leader for an infant nation, the instability of "authority arguments" still apply even to him. Just because he or anybody else said it doesn't make it so.

They sure seem like questions to me... as statements they would fall flat on their face because they don't tell us anything.

Religion and morality are not necessary for happiness, morality can be maintained without religion, a politician is no more trustworthy with religion than without (as we've come to see), and patriotism can flourish without any ties at all to religion.

Those are statements.

Also, there seems to be nothing presented from the Constitution itself to support the claim that religious conviction is a necessary "pillar" of our republic. Statements from George Washington are completely separate from that document and from what I recall, Washington didn't have half the influence on that document as other men. Perhaps you could provide something from the Constitution supporting this supposed reliance on religious conviction?

Sorry, Anarchy, but I'm going to treat your rhetorical questions as real questions - especially as I believe your are somewhat misinterpreting Washington - and are unequivocally misinterpreting the majority of our founders and the Cosntitution...

Are religion and morality necessary for happiness? Absolutely not. Indeed, religion is often the enemy of personal happiness. In terms of the greater happiness of a society, an ethical program is required, but there is no reason to suppose that it need be based on any existing religion or religious moral code.
Can morality be maintained without religion? Absolutely, yes - though in common parlance, the two are often confused. This is why, in terms of politics, I prefer discussing "ethics" to discussing "morality".
Can a politician be trusted to keep his word without religious conviction? Absolutely, yes. In fact, in 21st century America, I would much sooner trust a politician without "religious conviction" which, as far as I can tell, can generally be read as "extreme amoral hypocrisy".
Can a person be considered patriotic who subverts religion? Absolutely, yes. Mike is not religious and he's patriotic. In fact, I would often see religion as subverting patriotism.

You may believe that "religious conviction and morality are 'pillars' of our republic" - Washington did not. He believed, as you quoted, that religion and morality are a "support" to "the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity". I don't see the words "our" or "republic" in that quote, do you? Even Washington - who was far from representative of the opinions of our founders, btw - is willing to entertain the "supposition" that "morality can be maintained without religion". He just advises caution in doing so. And he was hardly speaking in a void. Washington was no doubt raising this issue at all because so many of his peers (rightly, to my mind) did believe that religion was unnecessary as a foundation for morality.

Even so, the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted by Washington's administration, reads in part "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion... it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

To assume that Washington's minority opinion regarding "political prosperity" was somehow the basis of our Constitution is going way out on an unsubstantiated limb. Jefferson, as you mention, did coin the separation phrase - and, like most of our founders, argued vehemently against state support for any religious denomination. And, Jefferson, unlike the relatively dull Washington, was instrumental in the composition of that godless Constitution.

That's right, our Constitution makes no mention of the word "God" and certainly no mention of "Christ" or "Christian" or "Christianity". The only references to religion at all are exclusionary: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Article VI), for example, or "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (First Amendment). The only oath detailed in the Constitution (the Presidential oath of office, Article II) does not contain the phrase "so help me God" and makes no mention of swearing that oath on a Bible - or anything else.

You argue that Jefferson would never suggest, much less affirm, that religion and morality had nothing to do with one another. Yet this same Jefferson wrote to his nephew, Peter Carr, "The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." It doesn't sound as though he feels religion, be it Christian or "ancient", is central to morality, now does it?

And Jefferson was hardly alone in his disdain for religion. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and James Madison all argued against religion playing any part in the government of the United States. And you'd have a tough time, Anarchy, convincing me that these men were not patriots.


Would you like that Declaration with salt?

I'm not ready to eat the Decaration of Independance just yet. The idea that Jefferson was an opponent of religion is absured. How anyone could think the author of the "VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" was opposed to religion is a mystery to me:

"Jefferson drafted the following measure, but it was Madison who skillfully secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both men considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives, and Jefferson directed that on his tombstone he should not be remembered as president of the United States or for any of the other high offices he held, but as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and as the founder of the University of Virginia."

I'm beginning to think that I may have started this thread in the wrong forum. It might have been better suited for the Constitutional debate because I'm focusing primarily on the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. As I said I still maintain that the intention was never to protect us from religion, they instead protected religion from the government. The proof of this is in their work and the laws they inacted. Jefferson and Madison were opposed to religious persucution as a civil rights issue, the purpose was to preserve and incourage religion. This is the opening statement from the statute that was the forerunner to the First Amendment:

"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do."

The author of the Declaration of Independace and the Father of the Constitution (Madison being the leading influece in framing it) were concerned that the government would cause men to depart from, " the plan of the Holy author of our religion".

I appreciate the thoughtfull and forcefull resposes I'm getting on here. I am not convinced that the concept of our sacred religious liberty in the hearts and minds of the framers of the Constitution are fully appreciated. They were and are 'pillars' of our republic. I think it would also be appopriate to remark that my question was poorly formed and a little misleading. I wasnt talking about institutionalized religion (sects, creeds, doctrines et al) I was talking about God's divine providance in the affairs of men. I am firmly convinced that this was the concensus that went into the Constitution. I fail to see how Ive misinterpreted this, I see no contradiction in the writtings and certainly not the works of Washington, Jefferson, Madison or any of the others that I am aquainted with.

There are other quotes I'm perfectly willing to offer and cite. I'm very apperciative of the excellent arguments offered in response. Just hold off on the salt for now I not finished yet. I'd also like to add that I'm still having problems with the hypertext. Anyone wanting the source should feel free to PM me and I'll do my best to direct you to it

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

Did you mean their intention was not to protect the government from religion but instead to protect religion from the government?

If so, I totally agree with you. I don’t think it can be explained any better than this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." had always meant that Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religious denomination, that Congress could not require that all Americans become Catholics, Anglicans, or members of any other denomination.

This understanding of "separation of church and state" was applied not only during the time of the Founders, but for 170 years afterwards. James Madison (1751-1836) clearly articulated this concept of separation when explaining the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty. He said that the First Amendment to the Constitution was prompted because "The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."

Jefferson’s use of the word church wasn’t as broad as some would believe. He was responding to a letter from a Pastor of the Danbury Baptists. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury association that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights.

More info:

In a letter dated April 17, 1787, Benjamin Franklin stated: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

On Thursday, June 28, 1787, Benjamin Franklin delivered a speech to the Constitutional Convention, which was at the time embroiled in raucous debate and endless squabbles. He asked: "Do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? ... if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." (Ibid.)

Franklin requested that "henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." (Ibid.)
The entire assembly quickly agreed, and that is the way it happened as our Constitution was being developed. One may argue whether God inspired our Founders, but there is no question He was prayerfully invited to participate. He was not walled out.

In his farewell address, George Washington said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." He maintained that " ... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." (Ibid.)

No one explained it better than President John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (Ibid.)[/color]

http://gospelthemes.com/separation.htm

A few more quotes from T. Jefferson:



In 1947, with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black construed the First Amendment in a more restrictive fashion, giving an absolute definition of the First Amendment Establishment Clause which went well beyond the original intent of the framers of the United States Constitution and paved the way for future cases that would further restrict religious expression in American public life. This ruling declares that any aid or benefit to religion from governmental actions is unconstitutional. As Justice Black said: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

170 years of our framers and their predecessors living under and interpreting the first amendment the way it was intended, completely changed by one man's interpretation of a letter.

In the Everson case they had this to say:

"New Jersey cannot consistently with the 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment contribute tax-raised funds to the support of an institution which teaches the tenets and faith of any church. On the other hand, other language of the amendment commands that New Jersey cannot hamper its citizens in the free exercise of their own religion. Consequently, it cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation"

No religious group can be supported by tax dollars, for the simple fact that it would show a preferance of one over the other. Its religion in general that is protected and I firmly believe that this is a profoundly good thing. By law it is wrong to make children pray or to even suggest that they should pray. To post the Ten Commandments in a courthouse (the Supreme Court is exempt from this one). To display a nativity on public grounds. I dont know what a 'Mohommedan' is but I almost certain I would not like being compeled by law to conform to their doctrines. Nevertheless religion has had a profound influence on democracy from the beginning. The spirit of sacrifice and the influence of divine retribution or reward cannot be overestimated. Plato said that justice is 'minding ones own buisness and not meddling in the affairs of others' thats what I think the First Amendment is designed to do. To leave religion alone.

It seems like this is starting to drift further away from the question...... and focusing more now on whether or not the founders of our nation were supporters or opponents of religion. Whether they were or not, just because one is a supporter of religion doesn't mean that they would support the ability of religion to be pressed upon others. Just because there may have been those who were opponents similarly does not mean they would want to restrict the rights of others to practice in their faith.

Indeed, regardless of whether people are religious or not, it would seem that they can still remain patriotic.
I'm not sure it's been shown at all here that you can't be patriotic without religion.

Well, the First Amendment gives me the right to practice my faith and darn way I want, within certain legal restrictions like murdering someone, stealing something, and so on. It does not tell me that I have to have any particular faith, and indeed, I am free to make up my own, if I so desire. Many new churches have sprung up since our Constitution was ratified, all having variations on what to believe and how to worship.

If my desire is to have no faith recognized as religious, I am free to do that as well.

So, I can both support the First Amendment and not be religious, ergo, patriotic without religion.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, religion as a pillar of our republic is highly questionable. Freedom of religion, however, is unarguably a major pillar. Government can neither establish a religion, nor stop expressions of faith (within reasonable legal limits--no human sacrifice, for example), nor force anyone to express faith.

That last part is sometimes referred to as "freedom from religion." Some religious people claim that we don't have that freedom. I maintain if I have the freedom to do something, the freedom to not do so is tightly coupled. That is the nature of freedom.

For example, I am free to vote (and I always do), but I am equally free to not vote. Another: I am free to own firearms, and free not to. Free to assemble; free not to.

On the question of religion being a priori to morality, I believe that history contradicts this notion. An opposite can be argued effectively: Religion is a priori to evil.

A current example is the Catholic Church's problems with pedophilia. Older examples are the periods of mass murders of both people and cats (which brought the plague).

But, you can also argue that both morality and evil exist outside religion.

Exactly.

How about morality being a priori to religion? Yep, I think that holds up. Religions start first with the idea of morality. It seems to me that humans have this concept of right and wrong hard wired in our psyches. Religion is a formal manifestation of what already exists.

We can examine other cultures that have or have had very loose notions of religion, yet these cultures do and have flourished. This cannot happen without strong, inherent morality. At the same time, these cultures usually have some notion of spirit, too. That seems to be a hard wired thing in our psyches, too.

Having a good day? Thank the big spirit. A heckuva day? Must have ticked that guy off. Better offer up some gift.

And from there, the gifts became tithes, the churches rich and powerful, some factions broke off, and here we are today. However, none of this could have happened had not morality been a priori to religion.

I think of it as the idea of the book preceding the actual book.

i will agree with that.

Ok we have established that a person can be moral without religion. But why did we never bother to ask why religion and morality were so closley associated in the mind of George Washington or Jefferson or Madison. There has to be a reason.

Maybe America has outgrown its need for Gods help. Maybe we just needed divine providance to get things started. There is no question about whether or not the founding fathers thought God was vital to morality and patriotism. Washington said without hesitation that the person without religion cannot be considered patriotic. That the person without religion cannot be happy.Jefferson and Madison worked to preserve religious liberty. Now you are allowed to disagree with them if you like but dont try to tell me that it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution to protect us from religion. That is simply impossible to defend.

On my philosophy discussion forum I would have been challenged to define religion by now. I would have had to define the distinction between church and religion. I have answers to those questions but no one asks. Thats ok. The fact that no one has suggested a better source for morals then God himself is not. Maybe they were not perfect but at least the founding fathers knew the source of morality or maybe you think they were mistaken.

some reasons i think that they were so into religion is this.

one, everyone then and still today is religious, just even more so back then, on a political side, it would have been suicide in a new born goverment to try and destroy a new nations fragmented peoples faith, but yet needed to pass certin laws into effect.

another is, most people dont want to spend thier lives trying to figure out some moral or ethical system for millions to accept, not even would that have been alot of constitution but how would you get someone to accept it, it was just easier to combine america into thier already existing religion, or to put it better, get them to accept america, as a friend to them and thier faith, not an enemy.

those are just my opinions on it, i have not read any histroy books on why and how, if any exist.

and on a final note, maybe it was also for some tax breaks

Is religion and morality necessary for happiness?

Not at all. There are a lot of happy atheists running around this planet.

Can morality be maintained without religion?

Yes. Religion doesn’t breed morality, as was evidenced by Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker.

Can a politician be trusted to keep his word without religious conviction?

Of course. Religion doesn’t breed honesty. See examples in previous answer. The better question is; can a politician be trusted to keep his word.

Can a person be considered patriotic who subverts religion?

Of course. One does not need religion to feel proud of their country.

Anarchy Praxis,



I did attempt to define my terms in my last argument. That is a courtesy in civilized debate.

Within the context of government and the Constitution, it is a fair assumption that "religion" and "church" are synonymous. A religion, as being a set of beliefs, has no political power until organized into a church.

The founding fathers, through the process of gaining consensus, did protect our freedom to believe any way we want. They also protected us from some church gaining power and demanding affiliation to that church.

It would be fruitless, politically, to demand that everyone believe one way. How could this possibly be enforced? Brainwashing is the only method, short of implanted brain controllers, and all attempts at doing this in the past have failed--for every political system. Controlling the thoughts of the population is a hazy science at best.

This is not to say that the attempt isn't made. It is, and it never works.

Here's one that always gets a chuckle out of me: Some people bemoan the fact that we've taken God out of public institutions. But God, by definition, is omnipresent. Nobody can take God out of anyplace.

By the same token, we cannot bring God into anyplace. So consecration of church buildings is a meaningless ritual. We can, however, push God out of our hearts. That's the point, is it not? And all this hoopla about God this and that, here and there--that's all about our own insecurities.

God knows, for each individual soul, whether the presence is welcomed or not. This situation is controlled by each individual soul as well. That's our free will. Whether politics acknowledges God does not matter. This is a quest and a question for each person to seek and to answer.

The founding fathers gave us all the freedom to do the quest and ask the question. They protected us from those who would want to do the seeking and answering for us, against our free will--and by gosh, that's working against God's intentions--if you accept the idea of free will in this matter.

OF COURSE an American can be patriotic without religion, just as a non-religious person can be highly principled.

As a follow-up to what AuthorMusician said, Carl Jung had this inscription carved above his doorway:

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit, meaning

"Bidden or unbidden, God is present"

could somebody kindly tell me why the American people look for a good christian to be prez? What if it's a fiscal genius, a compassionate and natural born leader, but he is an atheist, the american people would than in turn vote for someone who's so dumb that he falls off of a self balancing machine, just because the unnamed dumb person believes in God. Keep all church seperated from all forms of government, including debates.

-O

Good questions, Orion. The chance of any admitted atheist being elected to any major political office in the United States (and probably the vast majority of minor offices) is exactly zero. The main reason is, I think, that most Americans think that atheists are not just wrong, but evil. I suspect that most Americans think that an atheist is more likely to be dishonest that a theist. Most would prefer, I think, a theist of modest skill to an atheist of great skill.

I also favor absolute separation of church and state.

I think it is nearly impossible for a good Christian to become President of the U.S. and remain good. The path to the White House is full of compromises, broken promises, bribes in the form of political support and whatnot.

And really, I would not want a Billy Graham for President. I don't think he would be capable of the statesmanship that the job calls for.

That's why I do not use the abortion issue as a litmus test in selecting my candidates.

To answer your questions, in order:

1. Nope. I was perfectly happy back when I was an atheist, when I followed an organized religion, and now that I'm following a disorganized system of beliefs. Depending on the person, religion may or may not be connected to their happiness. In my case, not.

2. Yeah... how obvious is that? True, religion usually comes with a moral code, but morality stands alone. You don't have to be religious, let alone of any specified religion (hint hint) to be moral.

3. Can a politician be trusted at all? Religion has nothing to do with it.

4. It's perfectly possible for an atheist or agnostic to be supportive of the country.

There's no reason that someone religious is automatically more honest, moral, happy, patriotic, or [insert positive quality here] than an atheist.

To answer the topic question, of whether an American can be patriotic without religion, I'd just like to put forth this definition of patriotism, from my handy dandy Random House Unabridged Electronic Dictionary:


I see absolutely nothing in there referring to religion, religious conviction, or belief at all. I also see absolutely no reason why American patriotism in particular should necessarily be religious in nature. Sure, it can be. These days when I hear talk about America, it's like a reverse sneeze, with the 'God Bless' in front.. But does it have to be? Simple answer: no.

Quite frankly, all of the appeals to what this founding father or that founding father believed are really irrelevant. We have the country which we have today, and I'm quite certain that it's different from anything that any of the founding father were capable of envisioning. That's no slight to them, just a fact of changed and changing times.

Ok, so Webster's dictionary does not include religion as an element of patriotism. So what replaces it as a pillar of human happiness and patrotism? I think one of the Founding Fathers of the American republic knows where the foundations are laid. He would be have been shocked and offended that religion is shunned in the modern world. You wonder why polititians are so quick to lie to us, to swear to tell the truth and then to lie. They dont have any fear of divine retribution, so help me God means nothing, they have come to believe that God does not hold them accountable.

" Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports... And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."

Washington did not say that you could not be a patriot or that you could not maintain morality without religion. He warns that if you 'indulge the supposition' you should use caution. Its not allways reckless to jump off a cliff when everyone else is, its only reckless if you dont know what is at the bottom. Ive noticed that reckless presumption is actually quite popular these days with regards to religion, I like George Washington, would advise caution in this regard.

Um... not really. Politicians lie to us because they have something to gain by doing so.



Hold on here... so religion is necessary in politics / patriotism because politicians aren't afraid enough? We can solve that problem through greater accountability within the system, nevermind divine retribution. I've always found it rather sad that people seem to believe in the need for not only the carrot but the stick to do the right thing. It's not just "you'll go to heaven", but also "you'll go to hell". Quite frankly, I don't think this is necessary. If people are only following a moral code because they're afraid of the consequences of not following it, they certainly can't be called "good" in any way, shape or form. It's hypocricy, and that is certainly a problem with many people, politicians, alleged patriots, or anyone else.

Why it is of no interest to anyone that religion and morality, were said to be the pillars of happiness and patriotism, is a mystery to me. I dont consider the fear of God to be a carrot on a stick, God is the source of virtue and the final judge of evil. " When I hear a Man say, that he never felt any fear of an invisible Cause, that was not owing to Education, I believe him as much as I do a young married Woman in Health and Vigour, who tells me, that she never felt any Love to a Man, that did not proceed from a Sense of her Duty."(The Origin of Honor, by Bernard Mandeville)

When someone finds an origin for virtue other the the nature and providance of God Himself, then I'll admit that George Washington was mistaken. Should we promise based on the whim of human desire, or the pragmatic ends justifies the means mentality that is growing like a cancer in our society. In short, do you have a substitute for the pillars of happiness and patriotism. I would be very interested and utterly shocked if someone did.

you know what, everyday the human condition, the one that lives in ignorance you know, all it does is destroy itself over things like this, pillars of what, it does not work, the only thing that works is truth. I am getting tired of living in the stoneage and being pointed out by interest groups for my freethought, i bet you jhon ashcroft would make that a crime to think for yourself. Society and the world will only improve when the darkness of ignorance is taken away, there is no other idea or thing that will fix that. I am glad i live in a country that allows freethought, the sad part is people are working very hard to take that away,to build some illusion of a utopia, one that is built on ignorance and will fail in the end. The need for a moral/ethical code for a society is nothing new, and we should embrace that and move forward, not backwards.

Impossible to defend? Not at all. That was exactly their position. That no citizen of this country would ever be subject to a religion not of his choosing to remain a citizen.

It also therefore stands to reason, that if a state sponsored religion cannot be fostered upon the people, that the right to be free of any religion (not just any specific religion) is also a given.

Now, you and I may well consider these people misguided, but they are entitled to be misguided under our constitution, as long as said mis-guidedness does not infringe on your right to believe as you choose. And it does not. Keeping religious symbols off of public lands does not keep us from worshiping God as we see fit in our own churches, and with like minded people.

And it does not prevent either side from feeling patriotism towards our country. I know lots of people in the armed forces, for instance, that are athiests or agnostics, who are there because they love where they live, and fight for the rights listed above.

NiteGuy,

You wrote. "Impossible to defend? Not at all. That was exactly their position. That no citizen of this country would ever be subject to a religion not of his choosing to remain a citizen."

Thats not what George Washington said in his farwell address he said that religion and morality were indispensable pillars. Are you suggesting that George Washington was mistaken about how our Democracy is supported?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I do not recall George Washington being a "framer of the Constitution," so much as merely a signer.

I honestly dont know if Washington even signed the Constitution to tell you the truth. I do know that he was far more concerned with the dangers to religion then he was the dangers from religion. He would never have approved of the way religion is ridiculed in this day and age.

Neither the opinions of Washington or anybody else can prohibit the ability of another to be both patriotic and without religion. Their faith may have played a central role for them in their patriotism, but as has been discussed in this topic, religion is not necessary for a citizen to remain patriotic.

I dont think religion is hated on anymore then people like myself dont want to worry about getting hired due to religious party affiliation, i also dont see where religion has anything to do with loving your country, i dont see any religious text that makes a person love any country more then another. I also dont see how being a good religious person would make you like any country more then any other, i dont see how the two got mixed unless this is supposed to be a religious country. This is my opinion.

nileriver,

You wrote, "i also dont see where religion has anything to do with loving your country"

So where do you think George Washington went wrong in his thinking. For him to say, not in passing, but in a farwell address he knew would help to define the office of the president, that religion is indispensable. He obviously believed it had a lot to do with loving ones country. Heres my point, he didnt say you had to be religious to be patriotic but that to disparage religion and morality was unpatriotic. I cant believe that this point was never raised, it would have put me in my place immediatly. Its attacks on religious freedom that he was talking about. Jefferson felt that his most important work was a little known, seldom quoted, piece of law that insured religious liberty in Virginia.Why was this so important then and why is it important now. Because it goes back to morality and the connection of religion to morality is undeniable.

How this transposed into forbidding religion in the public arena is a mystery to me. Just look at the level of emotion surronding the evolution/creation debate. Its got nothing to do with science or religion, its power plain and simple.There is a war being waged and its for the cultural centers of our democracy and religion and morality is on the ropes. Washington didnt want the Federal government undermining religious conviction because he knew that this would lead to anarchy. He was right.

It is still only an opinion of Washington. Would you accept it as unabashed truth if George Washington had declared in a speech that it was patriotic to forbid all religion in order to pay unwavering allegiance to the state? This is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority.

ABS,

You wrote"Would you accept it as unabashed truth if George Washington had declared in a speech that it was patriotic to forbid all religion in order to pay unwavering allegiance to the state?"

I never claimed that what Washington declared was unabashed truth, I said he was right. People who disparage religion and morality are not to be considered patriotic. He said nothing about forbidding religion so what relationship that might have had to some kind of absolute nationalism is pure supposition.

Do you have anything to support that he was right? As I recall, the question is not about people disparaging either religion or morality, but those people who are merely without religion. There is nothing to prevent a person without religion, who refrains from disparaging either religion or morality, from being patriotic.

Even for those who do disparage either religion or morality, it has nothing to do with the state of the nation. They can still love, defend and die for their country without having to abide by any particular religious convictions.

I think someone like me could be even more patriotic without religion. If there's nothing after life and your country is the only country you'll ever have that encourages patriotism. If you have more allegiance to your country instead of God you're more patriotic.

The idea of patriotism it's self has been distorted. These days i feel that patriotism is mistaken for a set good christian values and a conservative point of view. People like Rick Santorum, and G. W. Bush. They look at the true patriots of the revolutionary era i.e. Paul Revere, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, just as any other person would along with other more contemporary ones. Some conservative christians see that these people are patriots for their christian values, and hope that the public does too. however, these people are great not because of their values, but because of the action they took to further benefit their country.