The Founding Fathers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Thantophobia wrote:
…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…

It’s always relevant. To otherwise dismiss it, original intent, would be foolish.[/quote]

Correction. It is the only thing that is relavent. Just to clairfy, not what the authors of the constitution meant, but what they sold to those that ratified it.

If it was know then what the federal gov’t has become today, the United States of America would never have existed. This should say all that needs to be said.

123

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
<<< 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.[/quote]

I also agree. Push is on my page here above as well. I will say though that our founding documents are not divinely inspired and neither were the founders infallible or the penultimate resource on every possible issue for all eternity. There also were some stiff disagreements among them on some principles at times.

However, they laid for us a foundation and path that was brilliant, efficient, moral and SUCCESSFUL. We rose to the most powerful, prosperous and envied nation in human history in the course of several generations.

They disagreed about some things, but the defining principles were ratified in our founding documents and the writings of those who were there decisively settle the question of original intent in most major issues we wrestle with today. Even by omission in some cases. Those founding principles make the United States what it is (was). Not a chunk of land, not whatever nifty trends are in ascendancy this week, but those principles.

You are correct, I submit that those who dislike those founding principles by definition dislike the country because they are what made it what it was. The consent of the governed to those principles is what made it what it was. I don’t even know how to intelligently address someone who would attempt to posit nearly any substantive similarity between those major defining principles and what we are seeing today.

Hence, those who support what are we seeing today, by logical necessity and unavoidable implication, reject those principles and by extension the United States, longing instead for a reinvented nation that happens to occupy the same geographical space the United States once did.

I praised you for simply saying that, but here you are now disparaging our founding principles, but capriciously defining the nation in terms of trends and geography, tempting me to recant my praise about which I suspect you couldn’t possibly care less.

You believe being born on US soil and down with pop culture makes somebody an American. It may make them a legal citizen, but, again, America is a set of principles, not a location or current in thing.

124

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m sick of “republican conservative christians” for seemingly different reasons than you.

First, as I just noted many tend to be hypocrites of the first order.

Second, for some reason they don’t believe separation of church and state applies to Christianity. Why doesn?t my state allow liquor to be sold on Sunday? (essentially when you try to legislate your morals on everyone)

Third, many ?Christian? ideologies are very left wing, and they refuse to see it. I?m sorry, it is not a conservative idea to want to ban gay marriage, it is not a conservative idea to support military conquest, it is not a conservative idea to try to dictate what is taught in the science classroom, it?s not a conservative idea to support the patriot act, it?s not a conservative idea to support drug laws. As an actual conservative, it makes me mad to be associated with these politically non-conservative ideas.

They seem to think you can?t be a good Christian and believe in separation of church and state.
[/quote]

DD - i found you . . .(insert evil laughter - no make that an evil giggle - much creepier . . .)

That’s the way to prove a point - say that those who fail to live up to the standard prove that the standard is meaningless while ignoring those who do and who hoist the standard even higher by their virtue and conduct - yes, that’s a great line of reasoning - personal experience must trump rational understanding!!

Ahh - we don’t believe that separation of church and state applies to Christianity - wow, worked that out all for yourself eh? We absolutely believe in the separation of church and state - there is no national religion in the US - that is the high wall erected via jurisprudence to avoid the establishment of the American National Church like The Church of England . . .

OOOHH - you meant, we can’t vote based on our principles, try to pass legislation in keeping with our values, or elect officials who live up to our standards of character - right . . . when you don’t vote based on your beliefs - I’ll stop voting based on mine - Deal?

Conservative - to conserve what has been established. OK, so we want to conserve the definition of marriage as it is - no problem with that - want to have a civil union with your gay lover - great, go for it. Want to have a civil union with your cat - great, go for it. Think that little hamster is your mate for life - fan-freaking-tastic, enjoy. Just don’t alter a foundational institution in the process.

Support military conquest? oh you mean we shouldn’t win wars . .no that can’t be it - wait, I know - you want us to give up our colonial territories of France, Belgium, Italy, Morocco, Tunisia, Crete, Germany, Luxemburg, Norway, Japan, Grenada, Panama, . . . . no . . .I still don’t get your point . . perhaps I need more prozak . . .

You mean you don’t support teaching all competing theories and opening all classrooms to full and unrestrained thought and freedom of exploration so that students can make up their own minds? - well, you little dictator you . . . .

Bring on the anarchy - I’m ready for the DD revolution . . .

125

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree. Many are no better than the Muslim extremists they rail so hard against.

Real conservatism appears to be making a comeback. I would hope so… I don’t like it, but it’s certainly better then the religious brand of GOP zealotry that had gotten George II elected.[/quote]

ahh, and just when I was starting to like you FightinIrish . . .

I hate to be discriminated against for my beliefs, but then again us Doaist/Buddhist/Pagan/Baptists are so misunderstood. . . maybe I can get in on this new hate crimes legislation . . . .

126

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Most people I know share your line of questioning. The Founding Fathers were resolutely secular and did all the could to keep religion out of government.

In everything I have read, I have not found this to be true. Separation of church and state is a product of activist judges. The founders were very far from secular by today’s standards.

Their primary concern was a state (federal) sponsored religion. They were concerned with Sabbath laws, religious taxes, religious requirements for office, the church holding direct political power, etc. They were quite ok with individual states sponsored religion as was being practiced as the constitution took shape and after it was ratified.

Many of them wrote how individual rights would be non-existent without faith in god. That if rights were not from god they could just as well be handed out by the state.

I will admit that I have not read as much on Thomas Paine, but Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and others were certainly not secular in way you may think.

By the way…I am an athiest. I have no religious skin in game so to speak.[/quote]

I love dhickey . . . .that came out wrong . . . sorry!

A deist in those days was a much stronger belief in a Christian God than modern deist want to admit. You can tell this from their writings very plainly. Now, did some reject some of the tenets or the organized religions of their day - no doubt, just as we do today . . .but that by no means moves them into a “hostile to Christianity” category.

127

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:

Perhaps, but they do have reason to fall back on so if they want to take the journey they can. Others, believe what they believe and they don’t give a rat’s ass if it’s right, wrong, or indifferent. They don’t want to be bothered with the task of thinking about it.

Maybe the problem is with the people over the religion.[/quote]

Yep - I like you . . . you think good . . .

128

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
The Founding Fathers were resolutely secular and did all the could to keep religion out of government.

The founders were not secular. Their belief systems were as varied as yours and mine. It is folly to group them together, yet almost all of us do it.

But anyway. To an outsider, there seems to be this proudness of ignorance and averageness in the states. People liked the fact that they could identify with W. Bush and Sarah Palin. People are proud of believing in something despite what science says.

Agreed. Conservatism used to be an intellectual movement. Now it’s a front for being anti-gay

mike[/quote]

Mikey - you make a great point and then screw it up with a gross oversimplification - I’m hurt - gonna go back to the vodka now . . .

129

Hopefully we can evolve right past conservatism end up at libertarianism.

130

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Now, here’s the deal. This famous expression, “separation of church and state” has got to be the most twisted (from its original intent) expression in American history.

The Danbury Baptists of Connecticut were very concerned with the government intruding into THEIR affairs. Jefferson was assuring them of his view that they need not worry.

The twisting has occurred over the last 200 years. First of all, make note, there is NO such language, “separation of church and state”, in ANY founding document - Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, federal Constitution. Not even the Federalist papers.

Nowhere.

Just in Tom’s one letter to some Baptists that were fearful of a too powerful government messing with their freedoms.

BUT NOW, it, the phrase, has taken on a whole new interpretation. Now, if you did a poll on a street corner in Peoria, Illinois or Orlando, FL or Sacramento, CA you’d probably find that 75% of the folks would think that term is some sacrosanct principle ingrained in a founding legal document and forms one of the vertebrate of our national legal spine.

It doesn’t.

Activist jurists had an agenda and have used this phrase to promote it. Those of you who care about their intellectual integrity would do well to examine this issue and these letters and form an objective opinion that is grounded in the facts and not in what somebody has been telling you all your lives.[/quote]

I bow in the presence of great insight and a well-written post - i may have to retire my keyboard now . . . .

131

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Jefferson wrote:
<<< I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. >>>

As I read through this thread I became more convinced than ever that these kinds of conversations cannot be had, at least by me, on an internet forum.

The sum of my comments regarding the founding fathers can be largely understood by the fact that in 1802 Jefferson saw no need to elaborate on the above quoted statement because there was a predominant social consensus and the vast majority living at that time knew what he meant. Today, natural rights and social duties are the subject of unceasing debate and division.

As long as that is the case no number or manner of laws can bring productive order and the division and discord will continue to escalate. It was that social consensus which while not religiously Christian, was undeniably built upon a Judeo Christian ethic that made limited government and individual liberty function.
[/quote]

I’m joining Tribulus’s tribe!

132

[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]

Sweet - an honest intellect! Someone who understands logical fallacies!! I could not be happier! well, maybe if jchenky . .never mind - whole different thread there . . .

133

[quote]dhickey wrote:

FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree. Many are no better than the Muslim extremists they rail so hard against.

Real conservatism appears to be making a comeback. I would hope so… I don’t like it, but it’s certainly better then the religious brand of GOP zealotry that had gotten George II elected.

Hopefully we can evolve right past conservatism end up at libertarianism.
[/quote]

Now your talking my language! Hope about we establish the Free Irish Republic and set it out as a fully libertarian nation from the beginning? Sounds good to me! I say we take all of the states except CA, and the New England ones (think there might be a connection between the socialism of the UK and the socialism of the New England states? - dang rabbits)

134

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
dhickey wrote:

FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I agree. Many are no better than the Muslim extremists they rail so hard against.

Real conservatism appears to be making a comeback. I would hope so… I don’t like it, but it’s certainly better then the religious brand of GOP zealotry that had gotten George II elected.

Hopefully we can evolve right past conservatism end up at libertarianism.

Now your talking my language! Hope about we establish the Free Irish Republic and set it out as a fully libertarian nation from the beginning? Sounds good to me! I say we take all of the states except CA, and the New England ones (think there might be a connection between the socialism of the UK and the socialism of the New England states? - dang rabbits)[/quote]

The Hickey family is on board.

135

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Jefferson wrote:
<<< I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. >>>

As I read through this thread I became more convinced than ever that these kinds of conversations cannot be had, at least by me, on an internet forum.

The sum of my comments regarding the founding fathers can be largely understood by the fact that in 1802 Jefferson saw no need to elaborate on the above quoted statement because there was a predominant social consensus and the vast majority living at that time knew what he meant. Today, natural rights and social duties are the subject of unceasing debate and division.

As long as that is the case no number or manner of laws can bring productive order and the division and discord will continue to escalate. It was that social consensus which while not religiously Christian, was undeniably built upon a Judeo Christian ethic that made limited government and individual liberty function.

I’m joining Tribulus’s tribe![/quote]

You may wanna resign when you read my view on torture, but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless.

136

[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
Remember that the hordes of barely educated people that a purely private education system will inevitably create will have just as much voting power as you. Any democratic system of government requires there to be at least some equity in the education process.
[/quote]

  1. government educated voters are not “more educated” voters.

  2. democracy always produces mediocre results because the masses are mediocre…at best.

137

IrishSteel,

love your writing style…

Seriously, the PWI forum just got more fun for me.

I hope this does not mean I have teh ghey…

-lift

138

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Nothing “ironic” about it. Bloodshed and tyranny are pretty much the inevitable result of utopian movements the world over. Which is why the American Revolution was a completely different creature from the French one, regardless of what unhinged people like Paine thought. I’d like to think he learned his lesson in Paris, but I don’t think that was the case

I hate to tell you, but in 1789, there hadn’t been a shitload of utopian movements. There was not really any way to tell what was coming down the pike.
[/quote]

Funny, Edmund Burke (the father of conservatism) saw it pretty clearly. And he was not the only one. It’s not that remarkable an insight that when you tear down a society overnight and destroy the traditions that gave it shape and order, violence and then dictatorship ensue.

So at the cost of between three and six million dead, some awful utopian conception of liberty maybe seeped into enough minds to help enable some abortive rebellions thirty years later? You’re right, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars were a great deal for Europe!

Ironically, you have the same silly, overweening belief in elections as the Wilsonian Bush crowd you’re so fond of bashing. The institutions of a free society are much, much more important than the act of electing representatives every few years. Rule of law, transparency, a free press, and protection of enumerated rights are FAR more important than extending the franchise to every man on the street. Absent these things, all elections give you is a populist demagogue, like those mentioned above. Even in our country, as free as it is by comparison to most places on earth, we have a quadrennial vote, largely financed by big business, in which remarkably uninformed citizens choose from between two establishment options that differ on very little of real substance, one of whom then goes on to exercise powers that are drastically beyond those granted by the purported law of the land. And yet you rail against monarchs whose real power was often far less than that of our increasingly imperial presidents.

[quote]
Biblical literalism/fundamentalism is actually a very modern addition, circa 19th century, and kind of a result of religion trying to ape science. Allegorical reading of the Bible goes back to the beginning of the Church.

there you go. Backwards again.[/quote]

?

139

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Ironically, you have the same silly, overweening belief in elections as the Wilsonian Bush crowd you’re so fond of bashing. The institutions of a free society are much, much more important than the act of electing representatives every few years. Rule of law, transparency, a free press, and protection of enumerated rights are FAR more important than extending the franchise to every man on the street. Absent these things, all elections give you is a populist demagogue, like those mentioned above. Even in our country, as free as it is by comparison to most places on earth, we have a quadrennial vote, largely financed by big business, in which remarkably uninformed citizens choose from between two establishment options that differ on very little of real substance, one of whom then goes on to exercise powers that are drastically beyond those granted by the purported law of the land. And yet you rail against monarchs whose real power was often far less than that of our increasingly imperial presidents.

[/quote]

So, I’m really confused here - are you saying that we have those things and they don’t work, or that we do have them and they do work but still can’t prevent a Wilsonian Bush from becoming president and so you now want to elect a monarch?

Hmmm, let’s stop and think about this for a minute.

Rule of Law - check

transparency - well, everyone is trying to air everyone else’s dirty laundry - so we’ll go with check

A Free Press - well, we still have to pay for, but you can find a news source that agrees with you so that you don’t have to tink too much - check

Protection of enumerated rights - what the hell is that? I hope you understand that our constitution is a limitation of government - not a limitation of the actions of its free citizens. That phrasing smacks of government derived freedoms and then would be anathema to our republican ideals.

But I agree with you completely on the poor choices for president and think we need to institute a “none of the above” ballot initiative!

And yeah that Big O is really going way out there on those powers - nationalizing businesses, wanting to institute national healthcare like the poor Brits have to survive, firing ceo’s, ignoring our allies, breaking every campaign promise - wait - you weren’t talking about Big O were you?

Sorry - should have know you were an anti-Clintonite.

140

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IrishSteel,

love your writing style…

Seriously, the PWI forum just got more fun for me.

I hope this does not mean I have teh ghey…

-lift[/quote]

Thanks Lift!

If it helps - I don’t think you get teh ghey from reading . . .could be wrong though . … might explain a few people on here . . .