A moral and religious peopleSubmitted by Redgyl on Tue, 02/14/2012 - 18:04
I'm sure that this will get a bunch of thumbs down, but I have a genuine concern. I fully support Ron Paul and his message. I just want assurance that I am not the only one here who is optimistic about the moral standing of the American people as a whole.
John Adams said that a Constitutional government is only possible when the people are moral and religious. To me, this means that, as a people, we need to be personally motivated to do good. Whether it be God who motivates you to be honest and charitable or brave, or a genuine respect for those qualities for their own sakes, a free society is only suitable for those who would voluntarily control themselves. Then the law would only have to be concerned for aberrants who infringe on the God-given rights of others, nor deliberately mooch off of the goodness of others.
I believe that most Americans, if given the chance, would be able to govern themselves without the heavy hand of an all-powerful, all-knowing government watching them and punishing them. I believe that Ron Paul is very trusting of the inner goodness of regular citizens too. But when I read the news, I worry that maybe I'm just naive.
So tell me, am I naive in my trust of the moral standing of most of the people of the US? Or does the state of politics right now -- with politicians voting themselves more money -- already evidence that we are not a moral and religious people, regardless of what they proclaim, and therefore not deserving of the Constitution? Or is this a case where we can respectfully disagree with John Adams and say that a Constitutionally-bound government is possible and adequate even with a people that is not moral or religious?