View Poll Results: Is founding fatherism a religion?

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    34 61.82%
  • Yes

    13 23.64%
  • What you say?!

    8 14.55%
Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 168

Thread: Is founding fatherism a religion?

  1. #51
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,888
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I actually agree with you, but I don't know how many supported or didn't support state churches, I am just going off the arguments that I get all the time when I argue the separation of church and state issue.

    As for the interpretation of Amendment rights, I believe that they should only be interpreted to ensure rights (that presumably should already be included, just not actually stated). For any restriction on rights, I am completely for an Amendment to do so.

    For example, a lot of people argue that same sex marriage is not a right because it is not guaranteed in the Amendments. I don't agree because the 9th Amendment clearly states that there are more rights guaranteed to the people than just those that are enumerated in the Constitution. I also believe that the Constitution was meant to protect all citizens from all governments, including state and local, not just federal.
    Ah, I see where you are coming from now. That's not reinterpretation per se. Its more along the lines of "confirming".

    I would have to agree with you on your interpretation of the 9th amendment as applied to marriage. I know lots of folks would be sorely PO'd if the government decided to suddenly not recognize thier marriage because they believe that it is a right due to the people.

    Also originally the FF's did want those rights to not be messed with by the federal government and wanted to let the states decide on it for themselves. However later on this was changed due to (I think it was) the 14th amendment. Which honestly I agree that it should also apply to local and state governments also since it is the federal governments job to make sure that those states do not take other peoples rights away.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  2. #52
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Of course ya'll disagree with the spirit of what the Founders laid out; it's in direct contradiction with your Liberal agenda.
    I don't know what is funnier, the fact that you're proving his point or the fact that you did it by using the same kind of example he used to make his case.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #53
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    By reinterpreting the Constitution beyond that of what the founding fathers prescribed you are rewriting history. So in essence, you did.
    No, I really didn't. That isn't rewriting history. I fully acknowledge that the founding fathers interpreted the constitution a certain way when it was written, I just don't see a pressing reason why we need to continue to interpret it that way forever, if interpreting it differently is more beneficial to us.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  4. #54
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    If we allowed the reinterpretation of the Constitution, ignoring what the founding fathers said, then we would not have the right to bear arms and there would not be a seperation of church and state.
    That's just stupid. There's a difference between ignoring whole passages in the constitution, and interpreting those passages differently than they might originally have been intended.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  5. #55
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,078

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    I would agree with the idea that the founding fathers' opinions trump anyone else's when it comes to questions on the original intent of the constitution. After all, they wrote it, and they would know better than anyone what their original intent was. I'm not arguing that.

    What I'm saying, is that when the question is how should we interpret and apply the constitution to the world we live in today, the opinions of the founding fathers count for less. Their opinions on it are not without merit even in such a discussion, since they were intelligent men, and the original intent of the document gives us a jumping off point, but this is mitigated by the fact that when they wrote those opinions, the country was a VERY different place. Societal values were different, the physical makeup of our country was different, and the difficulty of communication made for a very different political and social landscape in America.

    Change just for the sake of change is bad, but so is tradition just for the sake of tradition. Just because the founding fathers interpreted the constitution in a certain way is not a good reason for us to do the same. If we are to follow their interpretation, it should be because that manner of interpretation is what is best for us in the world we live in today.
    Until the constitution has been amended then the only interpretation and how it is applied that matters is the founding forefathers. It doesn't matter if it is the 1700s or the 2000s. The Constitution is a living documents is nothing more than anti-constitutional liberal hogwash that libs use to justify ignoring the constitution or to create rights that do not exist. If you want a right to abortion, want health care to be a right, want to enact hate speech laws, want to ban firearms or certian types of arms, allow invasive pat downs or strip searches, allow electronic surveillance or your vehicle to x-rayed with out a warrant then petition your elected officials to make amendments to create new rights and to repeal or alter old amendments.
    officials to make an amendment
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #56
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,804

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Why are neoconservatives somehow picked on for this? To a significant degree, it is universally accepted political discourse to bring in the Founding Fathers. A particular minority of the United States disregard their ideas entirely, while others hold them up here or there, while dismiss their usefulness there. For the most part, we are apart of a nation that accepts the founding era as philosophically nearing perfection. Also, a great deal of the political discussion places the Founding Fathers in modernity, not in some gone past-time.
    Because they tend to worship the founding fathers as near deities, whatever the founding fathers thought or intended must have been unbelievably amazing and absolutely true and inerrant, we ought to all aspire to follow every thought of the founding fathers in their most minute detail and clearly the founding fathers had absolute knowledge of everything tha was coming in the future and took all of it into account.

    Except none of that is true. They were just men with a good idea. Thinking that just because they thought it, we ought to embrace it, and only it, for all of eternity is absolutely absurd.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #57
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:44 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,092

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    from jamesrage

    The Constitution is a living documents is nothing more than anti-constitutional liberal hogwash that libs use to justify ignoring the constitution or to create rights that do not exist.
    The allegation that the Constitution is not a living document is nothing more than right wing hogwash that conservatives use to justify that their views of government are no longer relevant.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #58
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    In a debate today, someone tried to settle a point by referencing what one of the founding fathers thought about it instead of arguing the point on its own merits.

    Is there some sort of religion out there that I am not aware of that considers these guys the end all and be all of argumentation as opposed to a person using their own reasoning?
    Founding Fatherism isn't a religion. Often times, citing the founders is useful in a debate because people are unaware of the context which led to certain aspects of the constitution. The cotnext helps describe intent. Many times it is impossible to progress in a debate without first laying the foundation from which a person is debating. With constitutional issues, one must often come at the issue using "straight from the horse's mouth" quotes.

    For example, if one wants to argue that the intent of a certain clause in the constitution was to limit congress from a certain action and that interpretations have gone farther than what was intended, it is beneficial to use sources like the Federalist papers or writings from certain founders. It doesn't hurt to point out some things from the Atni-federalist papers either, because th edebate over certain clauses can provide excellent clues regarding the original intent.

    Now, unless the debate is specifically about the intentions of a certain constitutional clause (Which can usually be taken care of with a combination of quotes from the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, but not always), these things would not be magical trump cards in a debate. One must use these as a foundation for an argument about the merits of their position and demerits of their opponent's position.

    in essence, it is laying the groundwork for the ideological basis of a person's argument.

    On a personal not, I typically won't use these types of arguments when debating with a Democrat liberal about the constitution because Democrat-style liberals tend to reject the "strict constructionist" philosophy.

    In fact, many (if not most) of them openly embrace a more Hamiltonian (or Federalist party-style) loose interpretation of the constitution and a strong federal authority over the states.

    Because of that, I will typically use this approach more often with Republicans, because they tend to claim that they support a "strict constructionist" philosophy.

    Unfortunately, most of them also embrace (often unknowingly) a Hamiltonian-style loose interpretation of the constitution when they argee with the authority such a loose interpretation will grant to the federal government. this often happens because the person in question rarely quetions the constitutionality (in a strict constructionist sense) of positions they actually agree with. Thus, when you are debating this kind of person, presenting evidence which proves their positions are using a "living document" type of interpretation will generally present a strong case for your position form their perspective. Granted, as with any political persuasion, there are people who are isues-oriented (people who hold a position on an issue and support those who agree with them on that issue) instead of principles-oriented (people who use an underlying philosophy to guide their positions on particular issues), and they will usually ignore the fact that they aren't adhering to their claimed philosophy (insted of admitting that they charry pick from multiple philosophies depending on how they feel about the particular issue).

    As I said, though, such an approach is essentially pointless with a democrat. An arugment presented to a democrat (or democrat-type) must address the underlying principles that democrats profess to embrace, such as social justice, instead of the underlying principles that republicans profess to embrace.

    But when someone is using the founding fathers in their argument, it usually lets you know about the underlying political philosophy they lean toward, at least for that particular issue. (In rarer cases, it might let you know the underlying philosophy of their opponent in the debate, but this is uncommon).

    Essentially, when one is faced with these kinds of arguments in a debate, I think the best approach is to utilize that philosophy in your rebuttal. Trying to rebutt while using a philosophy that the opther person rejects, though, is pointless. You won't convince them of your position, nor will you defeat their arguments, if you approach the argument form an entirely different argument than they are.

    And vice versa.

    They won't defeat your argument nor will they convince you of their position by utilizing a philosophy that you reject.

    In these cases where neither is pparoching teh argumetn form teh otehr's philosophy, continuing the debate is pointless.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #59
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,888
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    That's just stupid. There's a difference between ignoring whole passages in the constitution, and interpreting those passages differently than they might originally have been intended.
    I'm sorry...where did I say anything about ignoring whole passages in the constitution? You might want to re-read what I said.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  10. #60
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,888
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is founding fatherism a religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    No, I really didn't. That isn't rewriting history. I fully acknowledge that the founding fathers interpreted the constitution a certain way when it was written, I just don't see a pressing reason why we need to continue to interpret it that way forever, if interpreting it differently is more beneficial to us.
    It is far more beneficial to us to leave it as it is. As I already gave an example of, if you start reinterpreting what the Constitution says today then there is a very real possibility that we, as citizens, would no longer have the right to bear arms. There have been those that have interpreted the 2nd Amendment as that of only the militia (state army) being allowed to bear arms. Sorry, reinterpretation is NOT viable.

    If you wish to add something to the Constitution then there is a proper way to do this. The Constitution even provides that way.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •