Republican Party and "social issues"

[murphy_p_t]

I'm starting this thread, inspired by a suggestion elsewhere, that the GOP essentially abandon "social issues" and just focus on a pure "libertarian" platform...mainly composed of fiscal issues. Especially if you hold this view, I would like to get your thoughts, taking up the work of the "devils advocate", on this quote from a founding father:

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "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." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

What is the relevance of this quote for today?

[melveyr]

"unbridled by morality and religion" is the real meat of that quote.

Abandoning their stance on social issues wouldn't be giving up on morality. Can you objectively say that the republicans are more "moral" than the democrats?

The point is that our definition of what is right and wrong changes over time. The republicans have been much slower to change than the democrats and it is going to kill them in the long run unless they change. I like the idea of limited government, but I refuse to vote for many republican candidates because they have a moral system that strikes me as outdated and in many instances appears immoral to me.

[craigr]

What is the relevance of this quote for today?

The relevance I think is that for something like the Constitution to work, the underlying culture needs to not be corrupt. The more corrupt it is in interpersonal and business dealings, etc. the less likely that place is ever going to have a truly successful economy and country. Constitution or not.

This is why I don't see any real chance so-called "developing countries" will ever really pull themselves out of their morass in my lifetime at least. They largely have societies that are much too corrupt.

Likewise, the more corrupt the U.S. becomes, the less likely it will remain viably managed by a document like the Constitution. The Constitution was designed to work with people that largely act like honest adults. It is not suitable for corrupt people, or people who act like little children that expect government to do everything for them at the expense of everyone else.

[Pointedstick]

I agree with both melveyr and craigr. In the end, we all gt the government we deserve, at all levels. With regards to that specific quotation, I think that back in the day, morality and religion were viewed almost as synonyms, but today I think there's much more tolerance of morality without religion. And even back then, wholly religious people commonly did things we now consider completely immoral, such as enslaving, torturing, or murdering black people, institutionalizing and lobotomizing homosexuals, and prohibiting fully-qualified women from entering college or pursuing careers.

Ending these and other injustices were triumphs of morality, in my opinion, and many of them happened during a time when the country was (is) increasingly going secular.

That's not to say there aren't moral challenges; there certainly are. But I don't see them being fought through the lenses of the founding documents because many of them concern specific issues that weren't in existence at the time of the founding. Thus no specific verbiage on their subjects exist, and these days it seems like we need that specific verbiage for the constitution to be invoked. For example, what did the founders and the bill of rights have to say about the right of people to build private residences on federally-designated wetlands areas? I see this as a moral issue (right to autonomy crushed by far-off bureaucracy), but it's probably going to be a legislative one, not a constitutional one.

[melveyr]

Additionally, I would rather have a government that let me make my own moral decisions especially when there is no "victim." This goes along with what craig was saying, no government can force you into being a moral person.

I would enjoy more freedom to make my own decisions, because morality has subjective elements. I feel it is a great irony that the current republican party preaches freedom in the economy, but a hyper nanny state to push us towards their idea of morality. I think the libertarians have more intellectual purity on this issue which I respect, even though I do not consider myself libertarian.

[murphy_p_t]

Craig, why would Adams have included "human passions" in the statement rather than just saying "honesty in personal and business dealings"? It seems "morality and religion" covers a much larger range of humanity.

Basically, although I don't disagree with you statement, I think it tends to skirt the "human passions" element?

[Benko]

I can totally relate to the idea that the republicans should stick to fiscal conservationism and not push the social issues.  I have libertarian leanings and that is pretty much what I believe.  However that is not what a lot of very conservative people believe and I don't know how that would play out in votes e.g. would very conservative people stay home (again).

Having said all that I think our society is going down hill and lack of morality is part of the problem.  So yes, I very much believe Adams' quote is relevant. 

[murphy_p_t]

"unbridled by morality and religion" is the real meat of that quote.

Abandoning their stance on social issues wouldn't be giving up on morality. Can you objectively say that the republicans are more "moral" than the democrats?

Yes.

The Republican platform does not advocate planks which directly contradict Christian morality, or more appropriately, the Natural Law. On the other hand, the Democratic platform explicitly denies the humanity of unborn children by refusing to protect their right to life (prohibition of direct murder) and making it subject to the "choice" of others.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that the religion and morality Adams' referred to required protection of the most vulnerable (the unborn)...why doesn't discarding/changing/reinterpreting/downgrading this plank of morality violate what Adams warned against?

[murphy_p_t]

"...but a hyper nanny state to push us towards their idea of morality."

I expect this includes the positions on abortion and Defense of Marriage Act. What else do you refer to?

[Pointedstick]

"unbridled by morality and religion" is the real meat of that quote.

Abandoning their stance on social issues wouldn't be giving up on morality. Can you objectively say that the republicans are more "moral" than the democrats?

Yes.

The Republican platform does not advocate planks which directly contradict Christian morality, or more appropriately, the Natural Law. On the other hand, the Democratic platform explicitly denies the humanity of unborn children by refusing to protect their right to life (prohibition of direct murder) and making it subject to the "choice" of others.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that the religion and morality Adams' referred to required protection of the most vulnerable (the unborn)...why doesn't discarding/changing/reinterpreting/downgrading this plank of morality violate what Adams warned against?

If that's the only thing that morality means to you, then yes, you're right. But I think a whole lot more than opposition to abortion is encompassed by the term. Those moral founders who protected the unborn were also predominately okay with holding black people in slavery, i.e. denying their personhood. They also supported (and practiced) conscription into militia service, criminalizing infidelity, fellatio, and sodomy, and not letting women vote or hold serious jobs that they were qualified for. Are those not also encompassed by the term "morality"?

In other words, I think it's a lot more complicated than the oft-advanced simplistic narrative of the founders and early Americans having the absolute morality necessary for a free state, and then every subsequent generation losing a little more of it as they become more tolerant of sodomy and killing the unborn.

[murphy_p_t]

With regards to that specific quotation, I think that back in the day, morality and religion were viewed almost as synonyms

I'm not quick to accept this point...I think the founders were very precise in their language and intent. Most of them were the educated and wealthy class, attorneys, businessmen, etc and precise and judicious in their use of the English language.

Thus no specific verbiage on their subjects exist, and these days it seems like we need that specific verbiage for the constitution to be invoked. For example, what did the founders and the bill of rights have to say about the right of people to build private residences on federally-designated wetlands areas?

I thought that this was part of the genius of the constitution...that broad principles are laid out, with room for the document to be used to protect liberty in the future when facing unforeseen circumstances? Especially, the 10th amendment limiting the power of the central government.

[craigr]

Craig, why would Adams have included "human passions" in the statement rather than just saying "honesty in personal and business dealings"? It seems "morality and religion" covers a much larger range of humanity.

I've met immoral religious folks and immoral non-religious folks. Generally, religious folks I probably trust more based on experience. But I don't leave anything to chance.

The core idea is you need honesty between parties and acting like adults. Also again it means not expecting government to do everything for you by stealing from others. It is also nice to not have corruption from top to bottom where you need to bribe even the lowest level bureaucrat to get things done. Etc.

Conceptually, I feel strongly that if I go to a country where it is apparent that corruption is the norm at all levels, that place is going to always have big problems. I don't care how religious they say they are. I generally tend to not want to invest in such places or put much faith that they are going to pull themselves out of the problem anytime soon. Doesn't matter what Constitution they decide to use, it won't be followed. As the U.S. begins to emulate these patterns more and more, I expect the same to happen here.

[murphy_p_t]

Pointedstick...thank you for you in-depth reply

If that's the only thing that morality means to you, then yes, you're right.

Of course its not the only thing morality means to me. Rather, it is one example of a Democratic plank attacking morality.

But I think a whole lot more than opposition to abortion is encompassed by the term.

I agree fully.

They also supported (and practiced) conscription into militia service, criminalizing infidelity, fellatio, and sodomy, and not letting women vote or hold serious jobs that they were qualified for.

I'm not aware of either party having platforms relating to any of these matters in the last decade. I do acknowledge the GOP wishes to maintain the Clinton era Defense of Marriage Act, however, this is not close to outlawing sodomy.

In other words, I think it's a lot more complicated than the oft-advanced simplistic narrative of the founders and early Americans having the absolute morality necessary for a free state, and then every subsequent generation losing a little more of it as they become more tolerant of sodomy and killing the unborn.

This reply is getting at the question I most wish to explore. However, I am not familiar with anyone claiming that the founders had lived an absolute morality which is being chipped away at. Rather, I thought that the opposite is generally recognized...that ideals were outlined and the country has moved towards that goal of expanding rights...with the primary example being elimination of slavery, which you rightly point out.

[melveyr]

"unbridled by morality and religion" is the real meat of that quote.

Abandoning their stance on social issues wouldn't be giving up on morality. Can you objectively say that the republicans are more "moral" than the democrats?

Yes.

The Republican platform does not advocate planks which directly contradict Christian morality, or more appropriately, the Natural Law. On the other hand, the Democratic platform explicitly denies the humanity of unborn children by refusing to protect their right to life (prohibition of direct murder) and making it subject to the "choice" of others.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that the religion and morality Adams' referred to required protection of the most vulnerable (the unborn)...why doesn't discarding/changing/reinterpreting/downgrading this plank of morality violate what Adams warned against?

Well I am not Christian so saying that the Republicans are more Christian is pretty irrelevant to me. Would you want to live in a society where the following were enforced by the police and judicial systems?

No divorce.
No bacon.
No shellfish.
No pulling out during sex.
No braided hair.
No gold jewelry.
No polyester or synthetic blended fabrics.
No bowl cuts (okay maybe I am okay with this one).
No tattoos.
No working on Sunday.
No sex before marriage.

I don't see the bible as a credible source for moral arguments. The Republicans lean heavily on this document, which gives them less credibility on morality from my perspective.

[Storm]

Minor correction:  The defense of marriage act is a Bush era act, not Clinton.  Bill Clinton never would have signed such a prejudiced bill.  By prejudiced, I mean denying rights to an entire class of people.

[murphy_p_t]

Minor correction:  The defense of marriage act is a Bush era act, not Clinton.  Bill Clinton never would have signed such a prejudiced bill.  By prejudiced, I mean denying rights to an entire class of people.

You may wish to update wikipedia w/ the accurate details.

"The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

[murphy_p_t]

Well I am not Christian so saying that the Republicans are more Christian is pretty irrelevant to me.

This is quite alright for purposes of this conversation...the religion of any individual is not a concern of mine for this conversation. I am focused, however, with the impact on the Republic caused by the abandonment of the *particular* religion and morals which Adams referred to in the quote leading off this thread.

I fully acknowledge that the morals of the people *have* changed since the time the Republic was founded, notwithstanding the GOP platform. Also, I think it perfectly reasonable to state that, from the view of the founders, the nation has become largely irreligious and immoral.

Working from that point, Adams is saying that our Constitution is no longer suitable and relevant and implies that a new form of government would be implemented.

I don't see the bible as a credible source for moral arguments.

Thank you for sharing your point of view. This view supports the thesis that the religion and morals of the founders has largely passed.

This is why I would like to explore where the nation is headed since I think it safe to say that secularism is in the ascendency and the religion and morals of the founders is in decline.

[melveyr]

I fully acknowledge that the morals of the people *have* changed since the time the Republic was founded, notwithstanding the GOP platform. Also, I think it perfectly reasonable to state that, from the view of the founders, the nation has become largely irreligious and immoral.

I guess I am curious if you could swap societies current moral framework with the one in existence during the founding of the country, would you do it?

There is a lot of ugliness that happened in that time period. America's growth was nourished with the blood of wide cross sections of humanity. Entire populations of people were literally enslaved. The original inhabitants of our country were treated as vermin that needed to be exterminated. There is still a tremendous amount of suffering inflicted on the rest of the world today to maintain our power, but I don't think the current America's moral framework would allow for something as explicit as what happened around the founding of our country. From my perspective, I see a net improvement in our treatment of others. President Obama would have been a slave if he lived in America back then. You might not like his politics, but the fact that a man with his color of skin can hold the highest office is a tremendous improvement in the morality of our culture from my perspective.

If people from that time do not agree with me on moral issues, I wear that disagreement as a badge of honor.

[Xan]

President Obama would have been a slave if he lived in America back then.

I don't see how that follows.  People weren't automatically slaves just because they were black.  The ones who were slaves were enslaved by other blacks in Africa and then sold.  Free blacks could own slaves; in fact, some of the largest slaveholders in 1860 (especially in Louisiana) were black, and the biggest of all was a black woman.

[MediumTex]

Thomas Jefferson used one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, as his personal concubine.  Hemings was half black and half white as a result of a relationship between Sally's mother and another slave owner.

One of Jefferson's children with Hemings was a son who reportedly looked a lot like Jefferson with cocoa skin and an afro.  This son of Jefferson's lived his life as a slave until Jefferson's death (that's not a very nice way to treat your son).

To the point about the founding fathers and their morality and belief in the Bible, I would suggest that in the upper classes there was a lot of flexibility around these beliefs.  To give you a sense of just how flexible these beliefs were, Jefferson re-wrote the four Gospels from the New Testament in a way that he felt clarified the story of Jesus and portrayed him as a man who performed no miracles and did not arise from the dead after his execution.  Such an endeavor today would probably be called heresy by many Christians.

Benjamin Franklin spoke openly about how religion and belief in God are good ways to provide a sense of wholeness and meaning to the lives of simple working people (I sort of think that this is true, but it's certainly a lot more pragmatic than people like to think when they talk about our devout Founding Fathers).

When you add these anecdotes about the best known of the Founding Fathers to the backdrop of racial discrimination in the form of slavery, sexual discrimination (women were in many ways treated like property as well), and the multi-generational genocidal efforts of the U.S. government against native Americans, it sort of adds up to rich and powerful people shaping their religious beliefs to basically validate what they wanted to do in the first place.

The Founding Fathers were a great bunch of guys, but saints they were not.

[Storm]

Minor correction:  The defense of marriage act is a Bush era act, not Clinton.  Bill Clinton never would have signed such a prejudiced bill.  By prejudiced, I mean denying rights to an entire class of people.

You may wish to update wikipedia w/ the accurate details.

"The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

My mistake.  How times have changed.  My confusion came because of this that happened in 2004:

Bush Administration

In 2004, President George W. Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples because he thought DOMA vulnerable: "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."[36] In January 2005, he said he would not lobby on its behalf, since too many U.S. senators thought DOMA would survive a constitutional challenge.[37]

It's not coincidental that this happened in an election year.  The Republicans know that in order to fire up their base they have to hit the hot button social issues.  It worked - in 2004 they had a great turnout because they got everyone fired up about gay marriage.

Until they get over that rhetoric, the party is doomed.  A majority of Americans now find denying one type of citizens rights that others have (marriage) abhorrent.

[MediumTex]

"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."

i don't think this quote refers specifically to the morality of the 1800's, the religion of the time, the specific moral beliefs of the founders or even the morality of the religious right in the republican party (no matter how much they would like to claim it does),  this is a quote by a founder about he structure of foundations.
  imagine instead of building a country they were talking about the foundation of a building, they may not of had the capacity to put up a skyscraper, their building was a mere log cabin in comparison (the slavery, lack of rights, the genocide of natives everyone has mentioned)  but the understanding of the type of foundation a sky scraper would need is contained in the building design of that log cabin. and referred to in that quote

You don't think that the male aristocrats of the colonies weren't just putting a fancy rhetorical wrapper around their basic message to England of: "Screw you, we are sick of kings and anyone else who might try to tell us what to do!"

It's certainly true that any democratic government depends upon the people having enough sense to elect people who won't be tyrants and despots, but to me that part of the matter almost goes without saying.  Self-rule always presupposes a baseline of enlightenment.

The quote above suggests that morality and religion go hand in hand, but I think that this is false.  I think that you can have morality without religion and in practice you can have religion without morality (see the pedophile priest episode in the Catholic church and the wide-scale long-term coverup of the issue by the church--it's hard to say that there is any morality in turning the largest church in the world into a fondling facility for pedophiles).

The Founding Fathers were great men, but their concept of God, religion and morality was very flexible and could be used to justify almost anything that they were already predisposed to want to do, whether it was killing ethnic groups who were getting in the way of "progress", enslaving other ethnic groups to facilitate that "progress", and maybe even picking out a few of those slaves for personal sexual gratification, all the while drawing up documents talking about the equality of all men, inalienable rights, and other high rhetoric.

i am not a historian but i suspect there wasn't much around in the way of examples for secular morality for it to be included in the quote or to the forefront in the thinking of these men.
religious morality can be and often is used to justify evil, so can secular morality (the communists are a good example.) both can also be used to achieve good as well as evil, practitioners of either can have huge personal shortcomings that don t necessarily disprove their belief only their ability live up to them.

perhaps it is my own personal bias, but i tend to see value in the high rhetoric of their philosophy and writings, but attach little to their person, they are not gods or necessarily even great men, they are very human with very human shortcomings and deeply trapped in the world views of their time. but they were great thinkers, and even if throwing off the shackles of one tyrant to replace it with a kingdom of their own was their goal, the language they used to foment that revolution whether by design or not, became the language used to throw off the shackles and tyranny they would themselves accept as normal and right.

"Self-rule always presupposes a baseline of enlightenment."

yes it does and that baseline of enlightenment needs to be held in mind, it also needs constant refreshing, quotes such as the one given are such a reminder, even if the quote is incomplete in its failure to mention secular morality or imprecise in its implying a connection between religion and morality that does not always exist,

maybe in my mind i am changing the "and" to an "and/or"

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and/or religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and/or religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

edit to add --- the "and/or" doesn't entirely convey what i mean perhaps "moral and/or moral religious" better conveys it (this may be why there are no famous quotes by me, it is far from easy to wrap up ideas in a few well crafted words)

[Benko]

The quote above suggests that morality and religion go hand in hand, but I think that this is false. 

Agreed but someone once said that:

"if there is no god that all is permitted"

and I do think that if you look at what is happening in society (look at the news any day) we are suffering from people with no moral compass. 

[melveyr]

The quote above suggests that morality and religion go hand in hand, but I think that this is false. 

Agreed but someone once said that:

"if there is no god that all is permitted"

and I do think that if you look at what is happening in society (look at the news any day) we are suffering from people with no moral compass.

If one acts strictly based on fear of an almighty God than I struggle to understand how we could see that person as moral. That puts adults on par with a child, only doing what is "good" so that they don't get spanked. A moral person acts based on love for their fellow human, not fear of punishment. Also just because the implications of God not existing are messy for morality doesn't mean it can't be true. At the very least that we could use our own discourse to determine what we see as right and wrong.  Usurping this important process to millennia old superstitions seems rather lazy.

Finally, watching the news is not a great way to keep up with what is good in the world. Fear sells because our adrenaline keeps us hooked. No one wants to hear that the world isn't about to end. For whatever reason people really get off on this impending sense of doom. You can see this in the strong reactions of people who are informed that the idea of the US government defaulting is a non-starter.

"How dare you take away my doomsday story!?"

[murphy_p_t]

"A moral person acts based on love for their fellow human, not fear of punishment."

This is one view. A more expansive view is able to distinguish between perfect and imperfect contrition, when they fail to live up to that standard.

"Catholic teaching distinguishes a twofold hatred of sin; one, perfect contrition, rises from the love of God Who has been grievously offended; the other, imperfect contrition, arises principally from some other motives, such as loss of heaven, fear of hell, the heinousness of sin, etc. "
from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm