• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is founding fatherism a religion?

Is founding fatherism a religion?


  • Total voters
    35

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,887
Reaction score
58,398
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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?
 
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?

Some people (mostly conservatives) feel that the founding fathers' opinions on government should trump those of people alive today. I'm inclined to disagree. While I think their opinions should be respected, I believe that they should be given less weight than the people alive today who actually have to live under our government.
 
Some people (mostly conservatives) feel that the founding fathers' opinions on government should trump those of people alive today. I'm inclined to disagree. While I think their opinions should be respected, I believe that they should be given less weight than the people alive today who actually have to live under our government.

That's pretty much how I feel. Also, they made a good social advancement away from monarchy, but we have progressed since then.
 
Last edited:
People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. That is true for the Constitution wavers who think the Founders had auras of light around their noggins.

A perfect example is the tariff. The Founders put it in the original Constitution but modern conservatives HATE THE TARIFF with a passion reserved for little else. They think we should take other parts of the Constitution word for word as they think they mean (amendments 2 and 10 are among their favorites) but the language in the original Constitution about tariffs - not so much.

Its all a means to an end and the end is their own political agenda.
 
That's pretty much how I feel. They made a good social advancement away from monarchy, but we have progressed since then.

Of course ya'll disagree with the spirit of what the Founders laid out; it's in direct contradiction with your Liberal agenda.
 
People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. That is true for the Constitution wavers who think the Founders had auras of light around their noggins.

A perfect example is the tariff. The Founders put it in the original Constitution but modern conservatives HATE THE TARIFF with a passion reserved for little else. They think we should take other parts of the Constitution word for word as they think they mean (amendments 2 and 10 are among their favorites) but the language in the original Constitution about tariffs - not so much.

Its all a means to an end and the end is their own political agenda.

Well, take the constitution word for word, except for that whole separation of church and state of course :shrug:
 
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?

I guess it is like a religion, because people often cherry pick what is important to follow and what should be obeyed when discussing the founders... All of them didn't agree about everything. Jefferson especially didn't think this country was founded on religion, but proponents of that specific idea will ignore him, his quotes, and the bible he (re)wrote.
 
It's not a religion, just a feeling that political philosophy had more or less been perfected, though with room for improvements here or there in the flesh.
 
There is no better reference point to understand the writings of the founders than the founders themselves.
 
Well, take the constitution word for word, except for that whole separation of church and state of course :shrug:

Whose promoting the Fairness Doctrine?
 
Of course ya'll disagree with the spirit of what the Founders laid out; it's in direct contradiction with your Liberal agenda.

The founders weren't fortune tellers and couldn't see foresee things like stem cell research, modern infrastructure, cyber laws, or the civil rights movements... it's really just a matter of personal inference on a lot of things now.
 
Heck if I know. The only people who seem to ever talk about it are conservative pundits.

Amen. Its the big bad liberal boogy man that is supposed to take them off the air.
 
The way I see it the Founders laid the basic groundwork for the Constitution, but since times have changed and society as a whole has changed. What the Founders said and believed are not as relevant as their were back then.
 
Heck if I know. The only people who seem to ever talk about it are conservative pundits.

Denial is such a wonderful thing.

I haven't ever heard anyone suggesting a state sponsored religion, as you're suggesting.
 
The founders weren't fortune tellers and couldn't see foresee things like stem cell research, modern infrastructure, cyber laws, or the civil rights movements... it's really just a matter of personal inference on a lot of things now.

The Constitution blocks any of that? Not really, huh?
 
The way I see it the Founders laid the basic groundwork for the Constitution, but since times have changed and society as a whole has changed. What the Founders said and believed are not as relevant as their were back then.

The Bill of Rights is just as relevant now as it was 230 years ago, perhaps moreso, since it's come under such heavy assault over the past few years.
 
Denial is such a wonderful thing.

Lack of evidence and denial are not the same thing.

I haven't ever heard anyone suggesting a state sponsored religion, as you're suggesting.

That is not what I am suggesting. The first amendment prohibits the intermingling of religion and state. While a state sponsored religion is a subset of that, there is also more to it.
 
I just did a quick google search and this guy thinks the founders were socialists. It turns out Jefferson was kind of a socialist president in his time.

The Founding Fathers demanded socialism. Section 8 of Article I, for example, empowers Congress “To establish Post Offices and post Roads.” That same Section also authorizes Congress “To raise and support Armies,” and even “To provide and maintain a Navy.” Although the text does not preclude privatization of these public institutions — indeed, they continue to include entrepreneurial elements to this day — the Framers understood that they would certainly have public, social elements as well. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams — among others — all signed this document. They agreed that the new national government would facilitate communication and defense through taxation. They agreed that these essential services would not have to be purchased on the open market. They agreed that these services would not be limited to those who could pay fair market value.

The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (who skipped the Constitutional Convention in favor of traipsing off to Paris during that hot summer in 1787), also supported the fledgling Nation’s foray into socialism. Perhaps the greatest of all of America’s socialized institutions, the Nation’s modern highway system, was begun in 1806 by then-President Jefferson’s authorization of the Cumberland (National) Road. Transportation, too, was deemed to be one of the Nation’s essential services that could not be relegated to private industry.

The Congress did President Jefferson one better. It socialized the great bulk of America’s navigable waterways in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The founding generation recognized early on that the national government needed the power regulate interstate commerce—this was written into Article I of the 1787 Constitution—and waterways provided the most important channel of commerce. The national government, using this authority, opened America’s internal waterways to commerce. These immense “social” highways proved a boon to entrepreneurial activities (and perhaps saved the Nation).

Communication, transportation and mutual defense provide only the most obvious examples of the Founding Father’s interests in socialized institutions. Contrary to some popular reports, many in the founding generation had “republican,” communitarian leanings. Our forefathers were not devout disciples of Adam Smith, let alone Herbert Spencer (who in the mid-nineteenth century infamously coined the phrase, “survival of the fittest”). They were pragmatists, capitalists and socialists, willing to try whatever was necessary to insure that the American experiment did not fail.

JURIST - Forum: Our Socialist Founding Fathers

Thank god the disgusting socialist Thomas Jefferson gave us a highway system.

:ind:
 
Lack of evidence and denial are not the same thing.

Your evidence, sir.

Democrats to push reinstatement of Fairness Doctrine



That is not what I am suggesting. The first amendment prohibits the intermingling of religion and state. While a state sponsored religion is a subset of that, there is also more to it.

Actually the Constitution only says that there is to be no state sponsored religion and that's purdy much it. It says nothing about intermingling of religion and state.
 
Some people (mostly conservatives) feel that the founding fathers' opinions on government should trump those of people alive today. I'm inclined to disagree. While I think their opinions should be respected, I believe that they should be given less weight than the people alive today who actually have to live under our government.

Perhaps this has to do with the fact that our founding forefathers wrote our constitution and many of our laws and many people on both sides of the political isle like to argue what is the intent or what is the meaning of a right. So unless the constitution has been amended the opinion of those who wrote it do trump the opinions of people today.
 
Perhaps this has to do with the fact that our founding forefathers wrote our constitution and many of our laws and many people on both sides of the political isle like to argue what is the intent or what is the meaning of a right. So unless the constitution has been amended the opinion of those who wrote it do trump the opinions of people today.

Does the constitution get amended with the opinions of the people yesterday?
 
Does the constitution get amended with the opinions of the people yesterday?

Maybe it does maybe it doesn't. I do not know. However this is not the same as blatantly ignoring an amendment or blatantly misinterpreting the constitution to create rights that do not exist or to take away rights without first amending the constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom