Did John Adams contradict himself in regard to religious issues ?

[ROBERTENEAL]

John Adams was one of the primary contributors to the founding documents of the United States.

He made a couple of statements that seem to contradict each other.

Quotation #1:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."

Quotation #2 is from the "Treaty of Tripoli", a document that was authored by Diplomat Joel Barlow and signed by President John Adams, who proudly proclaimed the treaty to America:
Art. 11. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, 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."


Did Adams contradict himself?

[Mimiheart]

Why do people think that moral and religious automatically = Christian?

No he doesn't contradict himself. The constitution is meant for people who are moral. The government is not meant founded on the Christian religion. These aren't contradictory statements at all.

I'm religious. I'm moral. I'm not Christian. I'm also not a walking contradiction, amazingly enough.

[Marleysdaddy]

John Adams was one of the primary contributors to the founding documents of the United States.

He made a couple of statements that seem to contradict each other.

Quotation #1:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."

Quotation #2 is from the "Treaty of Tripoli", a document that was authored by Diplomat Joel Barlow and signed by President John Adams, who proudly proclaimed the treaty to America:
Art. 11. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, 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."


Did Adams contradict himself?

1) Signing the Treaty of Tripoli is quite different from authoring it, so that's the first problem with comparing these two passages.
2) I don't see any contradiction - if the first passage said "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and Christian people" then we'd have a contradiction.
As it stands, by using 'religious' in that sentence Adams could have meant 'scrupulously and conscientiously faithful'
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

[Marleysdaddy]

I'm also not a walking contradiction

With the utmost respect, I wholeheartedly disagree :razz:

[Mimiheart]

With the utmost respect, I wholeheartedly disagree :razz:Hmph.

[Marleysdaddy]

Hmph.

:))

Have you had an enjoyable Pesach thus far?

[Mimiheart]

:))

Have you had an enjoyable Pesach thus far?I haven't done anything remotely pesach-like other than not work.

[BillyBobUSA]

John Adams was one of the primary contributors to the founding documents of the United States.

He made a couple of statements that seem to contradict each other.

Quotation #1:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."

Quotation #2 is from the "Treaty of Tripoli", a document that was authored by Diplomat Joel Barlow and signed by President John Adams, who proudly proclaimed the treaty to America:
Art. 11. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, 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."


Did Adams contradict himself?

The phrase 'founded on the Christian religion' had a specific meaning for that time that has been lost to our day.

Back then, kings were crowned by bishops of the state church. They justified their rule as being the Will of God, and the whole justification for the authority of the state was based on the authority of the state religion to approve said authority.

That is what 'founded on religion' meant back then.

But John Adams was a very Christian and moral man and knew that this Republic can not ever survive if it ever abandons its Christian culture as a people.

I think we are seeing the fullfillment of his warning today as our nation becomes less Christian in many respects and our government less tru****l of its citizens and ever more power obsessed in response.

[ROBERTENEAL]

The phrase 'founded on the Christian religion' had a specific meaning for that time that has been lost to our day.

Back then, kings were crowned by bishops of the state church. They justified their rule as being the Will of God, and the whole justification for the authority of the state was based on the authority of the state religion to approve said authority.

That is what 'founded on religion' meant back then.

But John Adams was a very Christian and moral man and knew that this Republic can not ever survive if it ever abandons its Christian culture as a people.

I think we are seeing the fullfillment of his warning today as our nation becomes less Christian in many respects and our government less tru****l of its citizens and ever more power obsessed in response.

Some say that Adams was a Unitarian, others say he was a Deist, some say he was a Christian. I don't know.

It is known that Adams (as well as some of the other early presidents) used to attend Sunday Christian services that were held in the House of Representatives chambers of the Capitol Building.

We all know that the founders did not want this to be a Baptist country, or a Congregationalist country, or a Catholic country, or an Anglican country, etc. Unlike most countries at that time, the founders of the U.S., wanted to maintain a multi-denominational culture. They wanted religion to flourish.

The only thing they wanted to avoid was a situation where one denomination prospered (or was "established") at the expense of another denomination.

[BillyBobUSA]

Some say that Adams was a Unitarian, others say he was a Deist, some say he was a Christian. I don't know.

It is known that Adams (as well as some of the other early presidents) used to attend Sunday Christian services that were held in the House of Representatives chambers of the Capitol Building.

We all know that the founders did not want this to be a Baptist country, or a Congregationalist country, or a Catholic country, or an Anglican country, etc. Unlike most countries at that time, the founders of the U.S., wanted to maintain a multi-denominational culture. They wanted religion to flourish.

The only thing they wanted to avoid was a situation where one denomination prospered (or was "established") at the expense of another denomination.


At the federal level.

Since some states still had state sanctioned/supported churches, we cant say that this was the universal norm throughout the colonies, is that not right?

It was fear of the federal level adopting a sectarian focus that motivated the individual states to prevent with the 1st Amendment.

Unfortunately they could not conceive of unreligion becoming that very same threat to the faith of every state.

[ROBERTENEAL]

At the federal level.

Since some states still had state sanctioned/supported churches, we cant say that this was the universal norm throughout the colonies, is that not right?

It was fear of the federal level adopting a sectarian focus that motivated the individual states to prevent with the 1st Amendment.

Unfortunately they could not conceive of unreligion becoming that very same threat to the faith of every state.

Correct. The state sanctioned churches did not go away overnight, just because of the First Amendment. Connecticut had a "state religion" until 1818, and Massachusetts did not disestablish its state religion until 1833.

[BillyBobUSA]

Correct. The state sanctioned churches did not go away overnight, just because of the First Amendment. Connecticut had a "state religion" until 1818, and Massachusetts did not disestablish its state religion until 1833.

To further illucidate how out of step the current interpretations of the 1st Amendment Wall of Seperation is out of step with history, consider that EVERY STATE has appeals to God in their preambles with not one exception.

How can one get the current view of the Founders intent when one takes this into consideration? It is rationally impossible and depends entirely on the force of the Federal government to compel this ridiculous interpretation on the states under threat of violence.

Then the Northwest Ordinance, which demands each new state promote religion prior to being admited to the Union as a state, and it is plain that the current view of the Wall of Seperation is nothing but a secular myth foisted off on the general public.

Hello King Henry VIII.

[ROBERTENEAL]

To further illucidate how out of step the current interpretations of the 1st Amendment Wall of Seperation is out of step with history, consider that EVERY STATE has appeals to God in their preambles with not one exception.

How can one get the current view of the Founders intent when one takes this into consideration? It is rationally impossible and depends entirely on the force of the Federal government to compel this ridiculous interpretation on the states under threat of violence.

Then the Northwest Ordinance, which demands each new state promote religion prior to being admited to the Union as a state, and it is plain that the current view of the Wall of Seperation is nothing but a secular myth foisted off on the general public.

Hello King Henry VIII.

The Northwest Ordinance was written in 1787 by the same people who put the Constitution together.

One of the provisions of the NW Ordinance was education for the territory north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River, and it referred back to the Land Act of 1785 which designated one section in every 36 square mile township as school land. Education was high on the list of the priorities of the U.S. Founders.

From the text of the Northwest Ordinance :
"Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary
to good government and the happiness of mankind,
schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

In 1787, most schools were private schools that were run by Christian institutions. Public education did not become commonplace until the mid 1800s, but the founders were able to think about the future, and about the educational needs of a growing country.

They also knew the importance of religion and had a totally different perspective on the first amendment establishment of religion clause than the one that some are trying to force upon us now.

[gb2004]

No. He didn't contradict himself.

[ROBERTENEAL]

No. He didn't contradict himself.

I agree.

However, it is easy to cherry pick the quotations of Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and the other U.S. founders in our efforts to come to what ever conclusion we want. Americans of all political and religious persuasions are guilty.

It is important to put the quotations and the actions of those guys in proper historical context.