"Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams.

The founders simply made sure not to establish by force of law one organized religious sect over another on this matter.

So, Jim, are you saying that only religious people can be moral? Or are you saying that atheists shouldn't be covered by "freedom of religion"? Just wondering where you think I stand in this country.

Jim,
morality doesn't necessarily come from religion. I'm not a religious man, but I have higher morals than most all Christians I know.
What exactly do you consider good morals?

Statesman that he was, I think John Adams was being considerate by including not just the word "religious" but also the word "moral" in his statement.

Judging from the comments, I think we are looking at Eric's phrase "where religion has no influence on citizenship" two different ways.

I did not mean to suggest that you have to be "religious" to be a citizen of the US. (Though cross the nation's divine chief executive today and, "poof" it goes.)

My point (and Adams) was that a legal document like the Constitution only works if you have an upright people backing it.

I do think it takes a recognition of certain moral absolutes to do this. Such recognition is well within the range of even the most virulent atheists. The moral absolutes I am thinking of are not difficult to identify. They are ennumerated in most any handful of country songs.

Since you are chatting with a Libertarian though, I'm obliged to offer a comparative example of morality as well:

I freely give some of my wages to help my fellow man = Good morality.

Someone confiscates my wages (under the guise of social policy) to help my fellow man = Bad morality.

This example demonstrates why, from my perspective, our Constitution is in trouble.

(Editor's note to Brian: Comparing ourselves to Christians we know can sometimes be the surest way to set the bar too low.)

Jim,
Thanks for your clarification. That sort of thing (clarity) always helps.

Sometimes it IS difficult for me to imagine morality without religion. How can you have absolutes? Whose absolutes are they? If not God's, then they are human absolutes. And why should I follow some man's idea of what is absolute. And humans change their minds all the time so what is immoral at one point (homosexuality, oral sex, sex before marriage, abortion, cloning) becomes moral at a later point. Sometimes the change happens within a generation. But God is consistent, absolute, and his truth never changes. Now that seems like something to believe in. Not just some 'moral' standard that shifts every time you turn around.

I don't quite know what to think about the editor's note above. If the editor is saying that Christians are human and therefore not a suitable role model, I agree wholeheartedly. If the editor is implying that Christians are somehow less than a humanistic moral standard, then I'd have to agree.

I guess labels get us in a lot of trouble. A lot of people consider themselves to be 'Christians'. A lot of so-called 'Christians' have no relationship with God or Jesus Christ. Without that relationship, the term 'Christian' doesn't mean much.

Mr T, it's understandable to desire a set of unwavering rules to live by. Unfortunately, no one has ever really lived like that, not even little children. There are always gray areas. Look at the Bible. You say that God never changes. The Bible says not one word against slavery, yet there are few Christians or Jews today who would dream of saying it's "Godly."

Eric, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Morality (at least partially) is a code of conduct between people. Morality is something to be strugled with and almost all people consider themselves to be moral no matter what their beliefs of morality are. Mother Teresa, often put up as a paragon of morality, had huge struggles with her faith on which her morality was based.

Jim, I'm not one to defend taxes but I disagree that using taxes to help people is immoral. I noticed you didn't take issue on using taxes to kill people. Taxes are a cost of belonging to a nation which brings us innumerable benefits (and some headaches). In a democracy we have some collective say on how they are gathered and spent. The American government decided to use our resources (taxes gathered through confiscaton) to help Tsunami victims. Was that immoral? Is it moral to value material rights more than human rights? Some would say yes. That's why questions of morality should be struggled with.

I am more troubled with a person that has no doubts about his morality than one who struggles with it.