The Founding Fathers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]George Washington said September 26, 1796 :
<<< 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. >>>[/quote]

This is the sum and defining difference between then and now. Even Stalin said, in essence, that America would be not be defeated until she could be substantively pried from her traditional spirituality. To say that religious bodies should not be informing public policy isn’t the same as religious men representing religious people.

In other words, a state where the Southern Baptist Convention is a legislative body is not the same as one where Southern Baptists elect other Southern Baptists. If religious men are not permitted the conviction of their beliefs in the dispensation of their duty as public servants this nation would never have gotten past square one.

The establishment clause was a codified guarantee that Lutherans (for example) would never receive preferential treatment over Catholics (for example) or vice versa. That there would never be an American equivalent to the Church of England. That citizens would not be prosecuted, harassed or discriminated against in any way by virtue of one conviction over another.

102

[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
It seems absurd to me that people are arguing over the nuances of a phrase used in a letter more than 200 years ago. I know this seems sacrilegious, but it really doesn’t matter what the Founding Fathers thought. This argument is the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of kindergartners arguing over whether or not mommy meant that they couldn’t have any cookies or just the chocolate chip ones. It’s well past time we weened ourselves off of Ben Franklin’s sagging teats and actually starting using facts and research to achieve our goals. [/quote]

AT LONG LAST!!! An honest clear thinking liberal!!!. I salute you sir. I disagree in the most vehement terms possible, but I salute you sincerely. See guys, that wasn’t so hard. Why can’t people just say they don’t like this country and would prefer if we turned it into something else? Then we could talk like grown ups. It’s all this “I love my country” crap that is getting in the way of honest discourse.

It is nonsensical in the extreme to claim love for the United States and disdain for it’s foundation. Geeez, I’ve been waiting for somebody to finally just come out and say it.

103

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
George Washington said September 26, 1796 :
<<< 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. >>>

This is the sum and defining difference between then and now. Even Stalin said, in essence, that America would be not be defeated until she could be substantively pried from her traditional spirituality. To say that religious bodies should not be informing public policy isn’t the same as religious men representing religious people.

In other words, a state where the Southern Baptist Convention is a legislative body is not the same as one where Southern Baptists elect other Southern Baptists. If religious men are not permitted the conviction of their beliefs in the dispensation of their duty as public servants this nation would never have gotten past square one.

The establishment clause was a codified guarantee that Lutherans (for example) would never receive preferential treatment over Catholics (for example) or vice versa. That there would never be an American equivalent to the Church of England. That citizens would not be prosecuted, harassed or discriminated against in any way by virtue of one conviction over another.

[/quote]

Well, Washington isn’t my favorite person, so conveying you beliefs through him doesn’t provoke me to empathy.

I also disagree with you on one of the more basic points of the constitution.

The constitution as a contract regulates not only the place and role of government, but the place and role of the public opinion and public authority on the individual. It doesn’t okay courses of action as long as they have majority popular support (even ensuring equal representation and equal chance to push your own beliefs). In quite the opposite direction It guarantees and individualized right and wrong against popular belief.

If it only ensured equal opportunity to a voice, terrible things are okay, as long as there is equal representation and the majority says it’s permissible.

Lets have a public vote on a law that takes all the money from the wealthiest 49% of the population and gives it to the bottom 52%. I bet that in an equal opportunity environment where no person is intimidated or shamed for the way they vote, that horrible, immoral, unjust law would be passed.

But the same can be said even if it’s one person verses everyone else.

Southern baptists don’t have to literally be a legislative body to violate the individual. Granting them authority, even through equal representation, can absolutely violate the constitution and the founding principals.

106

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Glad you quoted the 1st. Read it. Take it for what it says. First of all, it says “Congress”. Period. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that sneaky little incorporation clause in the 14th…righto.

But here’s where I think people get all sidetracked. See, DD, you took “Congress shall make no law…” and transformed it into, “To me this 100% means that a religion cannot legislate the individual beliefs that would contradict the beliefs of other religions or even the non-belief in a wrong.” WHY can’t we just leave it at, “Congress shall make no law…?”

Why does it have to be a lump of clay where everyone is a potter and gets to make a different looking ash tray or flower vase for a Mother’s Day present?

It just says Congress can’t legislate a national religion or denomination, aka the Anglican Church, designated as the national denomination of the mother country, England, the country the U.S. had just defeated in a war of independence.

[/quote]
You cannot tell me to take it for what it says then offer up and extrapolation like this. Come on man, you are smarter than that.

Does it say anything about the Anglican church? Does it say anything about a national religion? does it say anything about a national denomination? talk about reading into things. Nice, unique ashtray.

[quote]

And the second clause says, “nor prohibiting free exercise thereof.” Present day, there are gigantic mountains of prohibitions of the free exercise thereof. Everywhere.

Apparently some folks just didn’t care for the fairly simple straightforward language of the First and went hunting for an excuse to modify it. Lo and behold, by golly, there was TJ’s letter to some Baptists who were very concerned about the government barging into their business.

“Aha! Now we have something to work with here” they exclaimed!

“Let’s work and work and work this “separation of church and state” phrase until folks actually think it’s part of the Constitution. After all, it’s Thomas Jefferson himself who said it and everybody agrees he is a big shot! A big enough big shot where we can fool all the folks into thinking Madison actually hid the phrase in the Constitution.”

And if that doesn’t work we just need some federal judge to cite it and it becomes “precedent,” a term that works better than any magical wand anywhere. Because we all know, once we have a precedent in place, even a flawed one, it gets strapped in purty darn securely.

Bottom line is I appreciate your post because you helped make my point.[/quote]

You also didn’t address the argument of a 2 way protection. It doesn’t say it, but elementary logic dictates it as a conclusion. Are you not going to dispute this? I don’t think it involves my interpretation, and you haven’t offered any ligical alternatives.

Last on a technicality, since we are going there, Specifically CONGRESS, funds everything done by the fed. And everything they fund requires legislation to appropriate the funds. Therefore everything done by the federal government is perpetrated through legislation by congress and is therefore subject to the clauses instituted specifically to “congress”. Sneaky little technicality there. So technically congress making no law applies to the actions of the federal government as a whole.

PS I don’t always argue what I believe, sometimes I’m just bored and looking to make people question themselves. Thought that make me an ass at times, that too is protected by the 1st amendment, though freedom of speech is never defined so you have to interpret it.

107

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

…The constitution as a contract regulates not only the place and role of government, but the place and role of the public opinion…

Oh boy. More ammo for me.

The Constitution does one thing. It enables the federal government with certain powers. That’s it, friend. I mean that’s all there is to it.

The Bill of Rights sets straight some things that the federal government, and in some cases state governments, clearly are not allowed to do. The 11th - 27th tweak a few things.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments place huge restrictions on the powers of the federal government. Restrictions that nowadays are laughed and scorned by many.

You along with many others are really reaching when you say, “The constitution as a contract regulates…the place and role of the public opinion…” I’ll say it again, c’mon man, don’t do this. I’ve read the darn thing. It doesn’t say any such thing.[/quote]

It does if you realize that at least at times the federal government and public opinion are the same thing. When public opinion becomes a dictative force it is government and is subject to the restrictions under the constitution. Please also address the examples to show how they are flawed.

110

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thantophobia wrote:
It seems absurd to me that people are arguing over the nuances of a phrase used in a letter more than 200 years ago. I know this seems sacrilegious, but it really doesn’t matter what the Founding Fathers thought. This argument is the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of kindergartners arguing over whether or not mommy meant that they couldn’t have any cookies or just the chocolate chip ones. It’s well past time we weened ourselves off of Ben Franklin’s sagging teats and actually starting using facts and research to achieve our goals.

AT LONG LAST!!! An honest clear thinking liberal!!!. I salute you sir. I disagree in the most vehement terms possible, but I salute you sincerely. See guys, that wasn’t so hard. Why can’t people just say they don’t like this country and would prefer if we turned it into something else? Then we could talk like grown ups. It’s all this “I love my country” crap that is getting in the way of honest discourse.

It is nonsensical in the extreme to claim love for the United States and disdain for it’s foundation. Geeez, I’ve been waiting for somebody to finally just come out and say it.[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about? Who doesn’t like the damn country?

It’s the GOP that’s all over the literal version of the damn constitution anyway, so I don’t know why you’d be against this.

You always seem like you kind of teeter on the brink of losing your mind. Like HH.

111

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I don’t want governments corrupting my religious institutions.

And I don’t want religious institutions corrupting government, so we’re on the same page.[/quote]

I am actually already happy if they are not one and the same

112

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

You’re god fuckin damn right I have a hangup about monarchies, I’m American. Any cocksucker that seizes power, then claims the power of god in order to instate a hereditary line into ruling the country… yea, that pisses me off just a little bit.
[/quote]

Today people claim that because of a magic ritual called “voting” they have the right to redistribute wealth and you bought that hook, line and sinker.

So how do their superstitions differ from yours?

113

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
AT LONG LAST!!! An honest clear thinking liberal!!!. I salute you sir. I disagree in the most vehement terms possible, but I salute you sincerely. See guys, that wasn’t so hard. Why can’t people just say they don’t like this country and would prefer if we turned it into something else? Then we could talk like grown ups. It’s all this “I love my country” crap that is getting in the way of honest discourse.

It is nonsensical in the extreme to claim love for the United States and disdain for it’s foundation. Geeez, I’ve been waiting for somebody to finally just come out and say it.[/quote]

False equivocation. You are defining the United States as whatever collective vision the Founding Fathers had for a nation. I am defining it as the current collection of people, laws, and governmental/economic processes that exist in this country. Whether or not I love either of these is irrelevant, as is whether or not I hold disdain for either. Your argument here seems to be

-The United States was perfectly designed by the Founding Fathers
-You think it wasn’t
-Ergo, you are wrong. And you hate America.

I’m not arguing here over whether or not America should change, nor whether or not my love for America is valid. The concept that I am trying to convey here is the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. If I posit that artificial price ceilings and floors create a discrepancy between supply and demand, and you reply “Alexander Hamilton didn’t think so”, we have gotten nowhere. Neither Hamilton nor anyone else can lay claim to being the arbiter of truth. Hamilton may have validly refuted my claim, but the refutation stands by itself, independent of the source.

To sum up - any valid argument must stand independent of the participants. Is it worthwhile to examine the arguments of the Founding Fathers? Very much so. But in order to engage in rational discourse, they must be presented as arguments and not as dogma.

115

In my first post I think I made the mistake of assuming that everybody understood the fallacy of appealing to authority. However, I should have been more clear that I wasn’t referring to the legally binding systems that the Founding Fathers wrote down - rather their opinions, personal beliefs, and letters. While in principle the Constitution falls under the same category, I agree with your metaphor. If we lived in a world of perfect rationality and research, I would support a system based on case by case analysis rather than absolute rules.

However, we don’t, and consequently the Constitution must be, if not encased by glass, at least hard enough to access that it does not shatter. My argument is not with the Constitution, but rather our attempts to pigeonhole new issues into it. Rather than trying to figure out how the Founding Fathers would have handled modern problems, or problems that have been changed by an increase in our knowledge, like abortion or the death penalty, and stretching and squeezing these issues until they fit in the “pot”, we should debate these issues on their own merit. Recognizing the limits of the Constitutional pot will do far more to protect it than attempting to squeeze every debate we ever have into it.

117

[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
In my first post I think I made the mistake of assuming that everybody understood the fallacy of appealing to authority. However, I should have been more clear that I wasn’t referring to the legally binding systems that the Founding Fathers wrote down - rather their opinions, personal beliefs, and letters. While in principle the Constitution falls under the same category, I agree with your metaphor. If we lived in a world of perfect rationality and research, I would support a system based on case by case analysis rather than absolute rules.

However, we don’t, and consequently the Constitution must be, if not encased by glass, at least hard enough to access that it does not shatter. My argument is not with the Constitution, but rather our attempts to pigeonhole new issues into it. Rather than trying to figure out how the Founding Fathers would have handled modern problems, or problems that have been changed by an increase in our knowledge, like abortion or the death penalty, and stretching and squeezing these issues until they fit in the “pot”, we should debate these issues on their own merit. Recognizing the limits of the Constitutional pot will do far more to protect it than attempting to squeeze every debate we ever have into it. [/quote]

Actually, as a constitutional republic, that document is the ultimate authority of our state. Not public belief, or who we are now, or what current law or custom is.

This is what I was noting earlier. The document codifies the unchanging basic truths of this country. Everyone has the right to life, regardless of popular opinion.

Even if every single person in this country demands nationalization of property or an official religion, it would theoretically forbid this.

Current context only goes so far, the constitution is designed to be situationally timeless cementing only those ultimate concepts. And as mentioned is the ultimate law of the land through which everything else branches off.

Further the opinions and thoughts of the guys that wrote it are a telling window on it’s meaning. Those letters and such are then equally valid, even today.

119

I do nothing with it. I thought I addressed this in my last post, but I’ll rephrase it. I agree that when we face a problem that is clearly addressed by the wording of the Constitution, we should follow the wording of the Constitution. This isn’t ideal, but like you, I believe that we need very firm guidelines to ensure a consistent and well-run government. We will, however, face cases that fall into three categories -

  1. Not addressed in the constitution
  2. Addressed in the Constitution, but with subjective wording, (i.e. “cruel and unusual punishment”, “unreasonable searches and seizures”, etc.)
  3. Addressed in the Constitution with clear wording, but obviously irreconcilable with an orderly state (i.e. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, libel, or exercise of religion that clearly conflicts with other laws)

In these cases it is our responsibility to hold rational discourse over how to handle the case. In rational discourse we should examine past arguments and situations relevant to the case, but the intent of the Founding Fathers isn’t really relevant. They were certainly intelligent and admirable figures, but once we are outside the necessary dogmatism surrounding the wording of the Constitution, the arguments put forth must stand on their own merit.