Thanks for the long and interesting reply, Ed. I think my response will require a new essay, as you suggest. Something on the subject of civic virtue, the term Washington and his contemporaries often used.
This essay is commendable for separating the First Table, to use Calvinist terminology (religion) from the Second (morality) . The first is no business of the state. The second is the basis of our laws. Remove everything moral from the law and all you have left is crony capitalism.
Until three or four centuries ago most people in the West thought political order required the support of religion. Now almost no one does. And I don't think most of our laws today rest on morality. Many laws are simply regulations: how fast we can drive on highways, what language is required in contracts. The emphasis lately is on what works to keep order and allow people to thrive. In Britain that includes the National Health Service, which America doesn't have. Neither approach is more or less moral than the other. But thanks for the reference to Calvinism, which indeed is a large part of our historical heritage.
Where, exactly, do we get the idea that murder (all murder) is wrong? Is that not a moral judgment as well? Most laws reflecting our interactions with each other are based in morality, albeit a morality most agree with. But not everyone believes murder or robbery is wrong, hence we have murders and robberies every day. We can't separate morality from law, even if we would like to. As John Adams once said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." We have largely lost the religious part of that. We cannot afford to lose the other.
As always, I find your essay's fascinating. I'll respond
to this essay first then ask a question for a possible
future H.W. Brands essay.
As BossyPantSU points out, John Adams mentions
"moral and religious people" as a necessary foundation to
sustain the American experiment. A number of studies of the era
conclude that our founders all were Deists or
Christians (it is suggested that one might have
been atheist). Most of them testified that America
without morality will fail (as in the John Adams
quote and George Washington's Farewell
Address). It has been recognized by many
(majority?) of historians that religion informed
(begat) morality for all in 1776 America.
[See the Washington's Farewell Address paragraph
starting with:
"Of all the dispositions and habits, ..." paragraph.
Here is the entire paragraph:]
Of all the dispositions and habits, which
lead to political prosperity, Religion and
Morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of
Patriotism, who should labor to subvert
these great pillars of human happiness,
these firmest props of the duties of
Men and Citizens. The mere Politician,
equally with the pious man, ought to
respect and to cherish them. A volume
could not trace all their connexions with
private and public felicity. Let it simply
be asked, Where is the security for
property, for reputation, for life, if the
sense of religious obligation desert the
oaths, which are the instruments of
investigation in Courts of Justice? And
let us with caution indulge the
supposition, that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever
may be conceded to the influence of
refined education on minds of peculiar
structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect, that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle.
George Washington was prescient.
America moving away from God, presents an
unknown future and probably (in my opinion) is the
foundation of the discord in America today.
Here is my question for a future H. W. Brands essay.
Our founders mentioned morality frequently. Most declared that without
morality, the American experiment would fail. None ever defined "morality".
Did they all have a collective and mostly synchronous understanding of "morality"?
Were not all of their "moralities" derived from Christianity? Did any of them
comprehend in any detail other religions at the time of 1787 when
the American constitution was written?
Thanks for the long and interesting reply, Ed. I think my response will require a new essay, as you suggest. Something on the subject of civic virtue, the term Washington and his contemporaries often used.
This essay is commendable for separating the First Table, to use Calvinist terminology (religion) from the Second (morality) . The first is no business of the state. The second is the basis of our laws. Remove everything moral from the law and all you have left is crony capitalism.
Until three or four centuries ago most people in the West thought political order required the support of religion. Now almost no one does. And I don't think most of our laws today rest on morality. Many laws are simply regulations: how fast we can drive on highways, what language is required in contracts. The emphasis lately is on what works to keep order and allow people to thrive. In Britain that includes the National Health Service, which America doesn't have. Neither approach is more or less moral than the other. But thanks for the reference to Calvinism, which indeed is a large part of our historical heritage.
Where, exactly, do we get the idea that murder (all murder) is wrong? Is that not a moral judgment as well? Most laws reflecting our interactions with each other are based in morality, albeit a morality most agree with. But not everyone believes murder or robbery is wrong, hence we have murders and robberies every day. We can't separate morality from law, even if we would like to. As John Adams once said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." We have largely lost the religious part of that. We cannot afford to lose the other.
I take your point, and Adams's. But it leaves us at loggerheads when we can't agree where morality lies.