• 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
The Founding Fathers weren't a uniform group. Both they and subsequent authors of law (including clauses of the U.S. Constitution) kept phrases deliberately vague and open-ended for the sake of solidarity.
 
Last edited:
If you go against the author's intent then it is wrong period. We are not free to interpret the constitution any way we damn well please. The only right interpretation is author's. Using interpretations not of the founding fathers is blatant misinterpretation. Blatantly misinterpreting the constitution in order to remove or add rights in order to avoid going through the amendment process in un-American and anti-constitutional. The only way you can remove,restrict or add a right is to amend the constitution. We have the amendment process so that we can change the constitution to add or remove rights.

Completely untrue. The supreme court exists to interpret the constitution.
 
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?


Fundamentally, there are two positions that can be taken.

1. The Constitution is the law of the land as written.

2. It isn't.

If you take position 1, then determining what the Constitution, as written, means is a matter of reading it literally. Where there is dispute, what the people who wrote it said about it trumps modern interpretation.

If you take position 2, you think modern re-interpretations are the thing, perhaps even if they turn the Original Intent upside down and inside out.

The problem with position 2 is that the Constitution no longer serves as a hard-wired check on government power, and you end up with "government that can do ANYTHING, as long as 276 of the 550 people who run the country agree on it."

I prefer to stick as closely as possible to what the Founders wrote, and where there is dispute to consider their other writings to determine what they meant. Any other course can lead to "anything goes".
 
Fundamentally, there are two positions that can be taken.

1. The Constitution is the law of the land as written.

2. It isn't.

If you take position 1, then determining what the Constitution, as written, means is a matter of reading it literally. Where there is dispute, what the people who wrote it said about it trumps modern interpretation.

If you take position 2, you think modern re-interpretations are the thing, perhaps even if they turn the Original Intent upside down and inside out.

The problem with position 2 is that the Constitution no longer serves as a hard-wired check on government power, and you end up with "government that can do ANYTHING, as long as 276 of the 550 people who run the country agree on it."

I prefer to stick as closely as possible to what the Founders wrote, and where there is dispute to consider their other writings to determine what they meant. Any other course can lead to "anything goes".

I disagree with the idea of the constitution as the law of the land requiring that it be interpreted one way. It is perfectly acceptable for it to be the law but have some discussion about the exactness given that each of the founding fathers had their own opinions, so there was never an "original intent" even from the very beginning. It is precisely this fantasy that there was an original intent, even though the constitution was largely an example of compromise, that I wonder if the notion of original intent is fantasy more than reality.
 
I disagree with the idea of the constitution as the law of the land requiring that it be interpreted one way. It is perfectly acceptable for it to be the law but have some discussion about the exactness given that each of the founding fathers had their own opinions, so there was never an "original intent" even from the very beginning. It is precisely this fantasy that there was an original intent, even though the constitution was largely an example of compromise, that I wonder if the notion of original intent is fantasy more than reality.

Yes, the Constitution was a compromise document, but in most cases Original Intent is not difficult to determine. For most issues the C addresses there was something like consensus on what they meant by what they wrote and signed.

If the C needs changed, there's a process called Amendment. Happy Amending. :mrgreen:
 
Yes, the Constitution was a compromise document, but in most cases Original Intent is not difficult to determine. For most issues the C addresses there was something like consensus on what they meant by what they wrote and signed.

If the C needs changed, there's a process called Amendment. Happy Amending. :mrgreen:

Which completely avoids the point I am bringing up, so I will restate. Even from the very beginning there was a variety of opinions on the meaning and interpretation of the constitution. Why should people selectively look at the founding fathers they agree with and go "thats the original purpose!" The whole matter is so dishonest, that it approaches a level of silliness that we may as well call it a made up religion :(

Because, at this point, all I can see is people pushing their own personal biases onto history and looking for the bits they like and ignoring the rest.

Personally, I am so disgusted with the whole business that I think its better to discount them entirely, that way, at least I am being the honest person about my intentions in the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Which completely avoids the point I am bringing up, so I will restate. Even from the very beginning there was a variety of opinions on the meaning and interpretation of the constitution. Why should people selectively look at the founding fathers they agree with and go "thats the original purpose!" The whole matter is so dishonest, that it approaches a level of silliness that we may as well call it a made up religion :(

Because, at this point, all I can see is people pushing their own personal biases onto history and looking for the bits they like and ignoring the rest.

Personally, I am so disgusted with the whole business that I think its better to discount them entirely, that way, at least I am being the honest person about my intentions in the discussion.

No, you're just trying to get the Constitution to say what you want it to say.

If you think that there are parts of the FF's that disagreed and they are being ignored then you can quite easily find out what they say about <insert subject here> and post any dissenting opinions that they had. Force the people that are using the FF's for thier cause to consider what other FF's had to say on the subject. That is after all what debate is all about.
 
Which completely avoids the point I am bringing up, so I will restate. Even from the very beginning there was a variety of opinions on the meaning and interpretation of the constitution. Why should people selectively look at the founding fathers they agree with and go "thats the original purpose!" The whole matter is so dishonest, that it approaches a level of silliness that we may as well call it a made up religion :(

Because, at this point, all I can see is people pushing their own personal biases onto history and looking for the bits they like and ignoring the rest.

Personally, I am so disgusted with the whole business that I think its better to discount them entirely, that way, at least I am being the honest person about my intentions in the discussion.

Well, obviously I disagree with you. While the Founders did, in some cases, have some differing ideas about various Constitutional matters, it wasn't as wildly diverse as you're painting it to be, according to my own studies and readings.

I often use Founder quotes when I get into arguments with people about what the Constitution means. They use this argument that "the Founders didn't agree on anything!", and then I invite them to show me some Founder quotes in opposition to my position.... and 99% of the time they can't, or won't, or don't.

So I can understand why some people wish to exclude the Founders from discussions about the Constitution's meaning.... it is because they can't find Founder quotes supporting their position.

"Present company excepted"... I'm not necessarily talking about you, Mega.
 
No, you're just trying to get the Constitution to say what you want it to say.

If you think that there are parts of the FF's that disagreed and they are being ignored then you can quite easily find out what they say about <insert subject here> and post any dissenting opinions that they had. Force the people that are using the FF's for thier cause to consider what other FF's had to say on the subject. That is after all what debate is all about.

Well I disagree. I have two main opinions about the subject.

1. Those guys aren't alive today and this in essence makes them irrelevent because they were a product of their time and nothing more.
2. People pretend that the FF's were somehow authoritative when they did not speak with one voice. Heck, the SC gained the power of interpretation very quickly after the founding of the nation because these things were never set in stone.

:lol: There is no getting the constitution to say what I want because by default it says what we read. This has to be true, because we are all individuals which makes it impossible for us to bring in the same understanding due to our own experiences and that these are not simple concepts.

As I said before, somehow pretending this is not true is a dishonest thing that many people do.
 
Last edited:
Well I disagree. I have two main opinions about the subject.

1. Those guys aren't alive today and this in essence makes them irrelevent because they were a product of their time and nothing more.
2. People pretend that the FF's were somehow authoritative when they did not speak with one voice. Heck, the SC gained the power of interpretation very quickly after the founding of the nation because these things were never set in stone.

:lol: There is no getting the constitution to say what I want because by default it says what we read. This has to be true, because we are all individuals which makes it impossible for us to bring in the same understanding due to our own experiences and that these are not simple concepts.

As I said before, somehow pretending this is not true is a dishonest thing that many people do.

Going strictly by what is written will do no good as different people will interpret things different based solely on a reading. The biggest example of such a thing is the Bible. How many differing religions are ther based off of that ONE book?

The Second Amendment alone can be read as that of only the militia (state supported military) being able to keep and bear arms. The ONLY way in which to keep the right to bear arms where it belongs, with the individual, is by reading what the FF's had to say on the subject.

Sorry but the only way to keep the rights that we have is to fully understand the history of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Otherwise you are just doomed to repeat history. Which can easily mean that you rights would be taken away. History is rife with good intentions gone bad.
 
Going strictly by what is written will do no good as different people will interpret things different based solely on a reading. The biggest example of such a thing is the Bible. How many differing religions are ther based off of that ONE book?

The Second Amendment alone can be read as that of only the militia (state supported military) being able to keep and bear arms. The ONLY way in which to keep the right to bear arms where it belongs, with the individual, is by reading what the FF's had to say on the subject.

Sorry but the only way to keep the rights that we have is to fully understand the history of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Otherwise you are just doomed to repeat history. Which can easily mean that you rights would be taken away. History is rife with good intentions gone bad.

Rights are fluid depending on a lot of stuff though, primarily a person's belief on what their rights are and what space they can create to exercise their out of the world. By default, we have no rights, because we are subject to the whims of the wild. Its not a matter of having some absolute concept of rights (which, like the constitution will be different for everybody for the same reasons) and then forcing a person's reading of the constitution to adopt to that. That way creates bias for a conclusion before the document is even read.

As for your bible question, I have always seen them all as Christian. I guess thinking about it, I consider every citizen an American too even though we all are individuals with our own views.

As for the second amendment, I can see it going at least two ways and still being objectively correct based on my own vocabulary and understanding of the english language. Both ending up with people not losing their ability to purchase and own weapons :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Rights are fluid depending on a lot of stuff though, primarily a person's belief on what their rights are and what space they can create to exercise their out of the world. By default, we have no rights, because we are subject to the whims of the wild. Its not a matter of having some absolute concept of rights (which, like the constitution will be different for everybody for the same reasons) and then forcing a person's reading of the constitution to adopt to that. That way creates bias for a conclusion before the document is even read.

You are right, rights are fluid. That is why we must have a frame of reference. Otherwise you end up with chaos.

As for your bible question, I have always seen them all as Christian. I guess thinking about it, I consider every citizen an American too even though we all are individuals with our own views.

And history has shown that there are those that do not think as you do. That there are those that would subjugate a people and kill them simply for their beliefs. A modern example of this would be extremeist muslims.

As for the second amendment, I can see it going at least two ways and still being objectively correct based on my own vocabulary and understanding of the english language. Both ending up with people not losing their ability to purchase and own weapons :shrug:

The way you see it alone doesn't matter. There are those that would use the reading that I gave of it in order to limit the population of having guns...or get rid of it permanently. All that it would take is to ignore the basis behind the second amendment.
 
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?

The Founding Fathers’ opinions trump your opinions when it comes to the constitution. End of story!
 
You are right, rights are fluid. That is why we must have a frame of reference. Otherwise you end up with chaos.

Sometimes yes, but humans are instinctive civilization builders. Societies will muddle through and in some ways be better and in some ways be worse, than our country.

And history has shown that there are those that do not think as you do. That there are those that would subjugate a people and kill them simply for their beliefs. A modern example of this would be extremeist muslims.

There will always be monsters, regardless on how we come down on the founding father question. However, this does bring up an interesting way to show my point about belief. I have seen several people here say (to paraphrase) "I believe the constitution should be interpreted a certain way because I believe that certain things are important". Basically saying that they have certain beliefs and they want the constitution to reflect those beliefs. This is something I have seen people from all labels write. Ultimately, it is about belief and the strongest belief winning. Extremist muslims are another example of this. Every set of beliefs has its use, benefits, and problems and often beliefs that work well in certain scenarios do not work well in others.
The end result of this fundamental truth is that there are going to be bad people no matter what happens or how we interpret legal documents. What we are trumps what we believe. I have yet to see someone fight for a philosophy or point of view that they think is fundamentally bad for themselves and society (but maybe only one if they are exceptionally good or evil).

The way you see it alone doesn't matter. There are those that would use the reading that I gave of it in order to limit the population of having guns...or get rid of it permanently. All that it would take is to ignore the basis behind the second amendment.

If a majority feels this way, then it is only right that this is the direction civilization turns.
 
Last edited:
If a majority feels this way, then it is only right that this is the direction civilization turns.

This is where the founding fathers opinions trump your opinion. The law is the law and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Just because you think “it is only right” doesn’t cut muster.
 
This is where the founding fathers opinions trump your opinion. The law is the law and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Just because you think “it is only right” doesn’t cut muster.

One tip for making a good argument is to support it with reason and not just state your opinion.
 
One tip for making a good argument is to support it with reason and not just state your opinion.

The reason should obvious. You would prefer to subvert the constitution rather than amend it, as provided for by our founding fathers

Didn’t you create this thread so you could bash the constitution a little more?
 
Completely untrue. The supreme court exists to interpret the constitution.
The Supreme Courts exists to make decisions based on the constitution. Again if you wish to remove a right,add a right or to severely restrict a right there is an amendment process for that. Making up what something means wit the hogwash living document is just a cop lout anti-constitutional libs like to use in order to circumvent the amendment process.
 
megaprogman;1059187066 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?[/QUOTE said:
Nope, just people locked into history and fantasy that need guidance because they can't or won't guide themselves.

If I had the time and inclination, I'd write a simplified version of the constitution so the average 14 year old could understand it and stand up in a people's court of law.

For starters, no words are "self evident." I would have said, "In terms most people understand, can relate with."

ricksfolly
 
The Supreme Courts exists to make decisions based on the constitution.

Um, actually, no. Over its long history, it has also considered English common law, natural law, and common sense. I wouldn't be surprised if they also considered international law, especially in that which comes in the form of treaties ratified by the Federal government.

Again if you wish to remove a right,add a right or to severely restrict a right there is an amendment process for that. Making up what something means wit the hogwash living document is just a cop lout anti-constitutional libs like to use in order to circumvent the amendment process.

The 9th and 10th Amendments go a long way towards acknowledging that there are rights protected by the Constitution that were not specifically enumerated -- mainly because, at the time the Constitution was being batted around, a lot of very smart people were worried that spelling out specific rights would result in the loss of rights not specifically spelled out.
 
Last edited:
The 9th and 10th Amendments go a long way towards acknowledging that there are rights protected by the Constitution that were not specifically enumerated -- mainly because, at the time the Constitution was being batted around, a lot of very smart people were worried that spelling out specific rights would result in the loss of rights not specifically spelled out.

So if I claim that I have the right to make you pay for my t-bone steak dinner then it is a right? I can claim the 9th amendment gives me that right?
 
Nope, just people locked into history and fantasy that need guidance because they can't or won't guide themselves.

If I had the time and inclination, I'd write a simplified version of the constitution so the average 14 year old could understand it and stand up in a people's court of law.

For starters, no words are "self evident." I would have said, "In terms most people understand, can relate with."

ricksfolly

Truths... We find these truths to be self evident.
 
Sometimes yes, but humans are instinctive civilization builders. Societies will muddle through and in some ways be better and in some ways be worse, than our country.



There will always be monsters, regardless on how we come down on the founding father question. However, this does bring up an interesting way to show my point about belief. I have seen several people here say (to paraphrase) "I believe the constitution should be interpreted a certain way because I believe that certain things are important". Basically saying that they have certain beliefs and they want the constitution to reflect those beliefs. This is something I have seen people from all labels write. Ultimately, it is about belief and the strongest belief winning. Extremist muslims are another example of this. Every set of beliefs has its use, benefits, and problems and often beliefs that work well in certain scenarios do not work well in others.
The end result of this fundamental truth is that there are going to be bad people no matter what happens or how we interpret legal documents. What we are trumps what we believe. I have yet to see someone fight for a philosophy or point of view that they think is fundamentally bad for themselves and society (but maybe only one if they are exceptionally good or evil).



If a majority feels this way, then it is only right that this is the direction civilization turns.
So if a majority feels slavery is right, you think that makes it only right that civilization turns in that direction?

Interesting.

How about human sacrifice? Or honor killing? Or any number of other dispicable things people have supported.
 
Back
Top Bottom