Constitution for “good religious people” only?
To further illustrate the mindset of the people I’m dealing with, after the 4th of July, on a Christian forum, we get a topic about all the “riots” that occurred that night, with links to these news stories:
(As these were people who like to cite statistics about blacks and their “problems”; I’m sure the common pattern there also figured).
But the most striking thing was that one person then quotes John Adams:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.“
This assumes “religion” makes people “moral”, which promotes works righteousness. Again, it’s like all people are not sinners by nature; only the “nonreligious”. (It of course also ignores all the sins that occurred even back then in history). It also promotes the secular assumption that religion is just the “social glue”, and is not really about divine “truth”.
(Fitting, considering many of the American founders conservatives hold up as “our Christian forefathers” were deists and other such forms of religion!)
It’s making the same mistake they criticized Marxism for. It starts with an ideal yet ignores the sinfulness of man. It then has to blame its resultant failure on everyone else.
Also, since America seems to be heading away from “Christian morality” and not looking back, then do these people believe the Constitution should be suspended at some point? That a secular nonreligious nation needs some sort of authoritarian rulership? (And could this even extend to something that ends up drawn largely by race? Or at least justify the systems of the past?)
These people do not understand human nature at all. And it shows how their political ideology can quickly become the worst of what they opposed on the far opposite side of the political spectrum!
Then, there were generalizations about how these are “people who have never experienced discipline, who have no fear of authority, who do not believe they will be caught, and that if they are caught they can fast-talk their way out of any consequences.”
I’m currently reading Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow which shows that this generalistic assumption is not true, and thus quite ironic! The people do feel they will be caught (including even getting in the patdown position whenever police approach them), and usually cannot talk their way out of it (Like the book mentions the double-binding plea deals often given), and are so frustrated about it; it’s like “what’s the use?” It seems inevitable they will tangle with the law; so they just rebel against it. That’s another part of human nature conservatives often forget (Roman 7).
My review of that book will come when I finish it.