lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote:

Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

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 men and citizens.
The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not
trace all their connections 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?

From Washington's farewell.

It is apparent to me that Washington meant that
Democracy cannot survive without its citizens acting
morally. That is to say that the government cannot
legislate morality.

This does not interfere with the wall of separation
between church and state, but actually makes a case
for it. Since Washington appears to be a religious
man, he made the common error of equating
piousness with morality.

But what he said, above, isn't a mistake. It's a mistake to do what he
proscribes. That's . . the obvious mistake. The founders did not want
to chill the free exercise of religion. Justice Moore, in Alabama, was
clearly ill-treated in an unConstitutional manner. The very thing that
was done to him by the fed is precisely the tyranny the founders
wished they would never see in the new nation.


Peace.

lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote:

Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<v83ltvghfdo42d96qqddple1c4u2805hgn@4ax.com>...

Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com> wrote:

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 men and citizens.
The mere politician, equally with the pious man,
ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not
trace all their connections 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?

From Washington's farewell.

It is apparent to me that Washington meant that
Democracy cannot survive without its citizens acting
morally. That is to say that the government cannot
legislate morality.

This does not interfere with the wall of separation
between church and state, but actually makes a case
for it. Since Washington appears to be a religious
man, he made the common error of equating
piousness with morality.

But what he said, above, isn't a mistake. It's a mistake to do what he
proscribes. That's . . the obvious mistake. The founders did not want
to chill the free exercise of religion. Justice Moore, in Alabama, was
clearly ill-treated in an unConstitutional manner. The very thing that
was done to him by the fed is precisely the tyranny the founders
wished they would never see in the new nation.