The Purpose of the US Constitution is to Legislate Morality

I will clarify some points and then close. Clarifications1) I'm right on "right"I applaud CON's efforts at clarifying the resolution. However, I will demonstrate how he has equivocated on how he utilized the word "morality". Let's lay out the relevant definitions:Morality - differentiation. .. between. .. "good" (or right) and. .. "bad" (or wrong). Right - 1: righteous, upright 2: just, good, or proper 3: correct 4: suitable CON claims that I have not distinguished between two sets of meanings for "right", i. e. a "moral/righteous" meaning and a "practical" meaning. This is simply false. I have stuck to the practical meaning for this entire debate. CON on the other hand has repeatedly vacillated between "righteous" and "practical", especially in his phrasing of "morally right". Allow me to demonstrate by defining "righteous" (from CON's source, . http://www.merriam-webster.com...):Righteous - 1: acting in accord with divine or moral law 2: morally right or justifiable When CON states that "right" has a moral meaning, what results is a circular chain of definitions - "moral" means "right", which means "righteous", which is again "moral", etc. .. There are ways to break this circular chain of idiocy - 1) Right means "correct", i. e. what CON calls "practical", and 2) Righteous means DIVINE, i. e. religious, what CON calls "moral". Here we again get to the crux of the problem. "Morally right" thus can only mean "religiously correct. " However, CON also states that he "is not at all accustomed to [placing morality in a religious context]". This is a clear case of unintended equivocation from CON. I have been consistent throughout this debate that I am using a non-religious form of the word "morality". I continually point to the secular nature of my arguments. CON however is not clear on exactly what he is advocating. Again, religion does not have a monopoly on morality. An individual can have a sense of morality independent of any and all of the world's religions. CON himself talks about "communist concepts of morality". Think of a zoologist's morality, and then a butcher's morality. Their subjective forms of morality would conflict quite a bit, yet we would acknowledge both of them having a form of morality separate from religion, whatever their religious preference may be.2) Therefore, I agree that "What is righteous cannot be determined by legislation" - the Constitution is clear on separation of church and state. I have been clearly advocating a secular morality, i. e a practical morality, and that this practical morality is what the Founders agreed upon.3) I agree that "any differentiation between right and wrong constitutes morality", and that 2+2=5 is immoral. This is a secular morality, specific to mathematicians. If they taught that 2+2=5, bridges would fall apart, bombs would explode in your face, and people would die. This is clearly immoral.4) I agree that the "purpose in the Preamble is to. .. achiev[e] practical goals. " This is a moral purpose.5) I do NOT agree that I must "prove the purpose [of the Constitution] was to establish righteousness". This is CON equivocating on the meaning of morality. I've been clearly advocating a secular morality, not a religious morality.6) CON is imposing a framework upon me (prohibited in round #1) by stating that I need to "provide a long list of actions that the Constitution establishes as being right and wrong. " I have shown examples (checks and balances), which CON did not refute. ClosingCON's arguments highlights the preponderance of religious influence in the meaning of morality. It is so pervasive that CON himself is unaware of its impact on how he thinks of morality. ALL of my arguments have focused on what CON calls a "practical" morality, i. e. a secular form of morality. I have not equivocated one bit, whereas CON has equivocated quite a bit. From this practical morality, as with all laws, the purpose of the Constitution is to legislate morality.