Not so sure about that electoral college system though.

How would you like it if islam took a major part in our government?

... theological groups may present a counterpoint to the strictly secular (and by design amoral) institution of civil government.

I agree with separation of church and state.
What I do not agree with is using this idea as an excuse to suppress public expression of religious faith. As this is diametrically opposed to the prime principle.

Then why didnt whites care about Black's freedom? Why did they bring us here to be slaves if they care so much about freedom?

Then why didnt whites care about Black's freedom? Why did they bring us here to be slaves if they care so much about freedom?

Sail

The explanation

In reality, the "morality" of any government, exists only through/by those with authority.
In previous times in history, governance was generally either by a spiritual leader, or military conquest (which brings up a whole different discussion about "moral", but I would simply classify such as "amoral"- meaning that "morality is not the basis, in such a case).

Unlike monarchies that were ruled by decree of a single leader (often supposedly with "divine guidance"), or theocracies ruled by a moral codex (such as Mosaic, or Sharia law), our government was designed to leave religious, and moral issues to the people.

With a nod to Mr. Locke (whom some of the founders greatly respected, and others detested), the COTUS is really nothing more, or less, than a "social contract". It was merely a tool to protect against foreign invasion, establish a system of jurisprudence, and facilitate commerce. (To replace those functions that had hitherto been the responsibility of the monarchy).

While the "bill of rights" (which, as I mentioned in another post was an addition by the representatives of the states, as a condition to joining the union) might be deemed statements of moral position, the body of the COTUS really contains no moral statements.

IMO John Adams best illuminated this reality, in a statement within his first address to congress (23 November 1797)

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Morality is left to the people. The government, as an institution, is amoral. (Neither moral, nor immoral- though some would argue that any system of government is immoral, by it's very existence).

theological groups may present a counterpoint to the strictly secular (and by design amoral) institution of civil government.

.
Governments are deeply involved in proposing, debating and enacting laws based on notions of right and wrong behaviour aka morals, so I don't know where you get the notion that secular governments are amoral.

yes, on the one hand bard suggests that morals are left to the people but on the other he seem to overlook the notion that ours is a government of the people by the people and for the people.

i wouldn't go so far as to say that, sail, but unlike judge jones he does allow his personal religious beliefs influence how he reads the constitution and law. i suppose it's possible but i cannot think of a sitting or former supreme court justice who is not/was not religious and probably christian and for certain most of the founders were. yet they created and now uphold secularism in government. good job all.

And since morals are determined by belief...
That rather makes morality the province of religion- since theology is the area, historically, that deals with beliefs.

Wrong again .....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — The Declaration of Independence.Jul 4, 2015

Our declaration of independence states that "all men are created equal" and they have "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Are you saying that the constitution should only consider the unalienable rights of the majority of people because we are a democracy?

Supreme court justices cannot place the opinions of the majority above the unalienable rights of all the populous ..... which is exactly what you are calling for.

Peace

you're wrong, sail. first, justice roberts did say that the court is to decide what the law is and not what the law should be.

secondly, the declaration of independence has no force in law. it was simply a memo to king george telling him to get the f**k out of our new country.

thirdly, it is the courts that decide what is and is not an unalienable right as they did with a woman's right to choose and gays right to marry who they want.

Of course I realize DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. Exactly my point.
The justification for both the DOMA and Winsor rulings was validating that the definition, or qualification, for the status of "marriage" is the venue of the states.
How then, is it consistent to rule that every state must include the "same sex" possibility in their definition/qualifications?

And how can the supreme court be in violation of anything?

Well, any public official(s) (individually, or as a group) can be guilty of malfeasance, misuse of authority of office, or simply violation of the public trust in any number of ways.

But, the terminology I actually used referred to violation of a principle.

IMO justice Roberts explains the situation quite well (and correctly), in the statement of dissenting position that I pulled the quote from.

Call it "whining", if you like.

I say that Justice Roberts simply illuminates the fact that the majority decision was based, not upon adherence to the COTUS, but rather upon the particular justices personal perspective on what was a "fair" decision to make.
Hence his statement.

Yep I remember this from my childhood.