• 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 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.>>

The Magna Carta, too, I'll wager...

ricksfolly
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I guess you're not familiar with the 9th Amendment, then. Or the 5th.
Click to expand...


Listed rights shall not be used to deny other rights.Is there a standard in what is considered other rights retained by the people? Since I claim that I have the right to right to make you buy me a t-bone steak dinner then it doesn't matter what the 5th says because listed(enumerated) rights can not be used to deny or disparage me my "right to make you pay for make t-bone steak dinner".
 
Confused about the fairly straightforward nature of the Constitution? Don't worry, that's what the courts are there for! :D
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Confused about the fairly straightforward nature of the Constitution? Don't worry, that's what the courts are there for! :D
Click to expand...

If it was fairly straight forward as you say then why do you people think judges should be allowed to ignore the founding forefathers intentions?
 
jamesrage said:
If it was fairly straight forward as you say then why do you people think judges should be allowed to ignore the founding forefathers intentions?
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is appropriate for you to say "you people" when speaking to me specifically?
 
jamesrage said:
If it was fairly straight forward as you say then why do you people think judges should be allowed to ignore the founding forefathers intentions?
Click to expand...


Why do people such as you assume that you know best what the intentions of the founding fathers were?
 
megaprogman said:
If a majority feels this way, then it is only right that this is the direction civilization turns.
Click to expand...


See, this is why we need to retain the original intent and strict constructionism of the Constitution as our national frame of reference and supreme law... otherwise we devolve into populism.

What if the majority felt that rape should be legal? What if 51% felt it should be legal to abuse/mistreat/discriminate against the other 49%? Unrestricted "democracy" was something the Founders were smart enough to fear... with very good reason.
 
Mickey Shane said:
The founders are not so much a religion as they are a fantasy. They were revolutionaries first, then became statesmen out of pure necessity (once the war was won, somebody had to set up a new government). As revolutionaries they were for change. Monumental change. George Washington's own Mother disowned him because he wouldn't stop going to those clandestine "overthrow the government' meetings. Conservatives today should look deep inside themselves and realize that they wouldn't have been on board with that kind of far left-wing change.

Once Independence was in the bag, they rounded up the most educated colonists that they could find. This included individuals from the full political spectrum.

These founders did not invent democracy. They had simply studied all forms of government up until their present day, using the best selections gleaned from their knowledge of present and past civilizations. They had escaped a monarchy. They were steadfast in their agreement that government would never again rise up tyrannically against the will of the people.

Their three branches of government with the system of checks and balances is still a monumental stroke of genius.

Many colonists had come to this continent to escape religious persecution. The founders simply made religion untouchable by the government.

The whole Bill of Rights is really just a laundry list that was accidentally omitted from the constitution. The fact that the constitution is amendable is proof that the founders knew that neither could they foresee all impending necessities of the new government, they were wanting their idea of a near perfect democracy (republic) to be able to be corrected until the end of time.

They knew that anything that they stated would be subject to re-approval time and time again.

Taking direct quotes from ~1781 and using them as "religion" is a fools errand that our founders would not have sanctioned.
Click to expand...

Modern Liberals need to stop embarassing themselves, by saying that they are the political decendents of the Founders.
 
Goshin said:
See, this is why we need to retain the original intent and strict constructionism of the Constitution as our national frame of reference and supreme law... otherwise we devolve into populism.

What if the majority felt that rape should be legal? What if 51% felt it should be legal to abuse/mistreat/discriminate against the other 49%? Unrestricted "democracy" was something the Founders were smart enough to fear... with very good reason.
Click to expand...

I don't know what makes this more ironic. The fact that you clearly state that you're from 'Dixie' or the fact that you're talking about 'legal discrimination' and the founders. Yes, those founders who created a document so purposely vague that it allowed for the legal discrimination of women and minorities. The best part is that you talk about populism. Wasn't it because of populism that the founders allowed the 3/5s? How else would they get the people of the South to join the Union? Yes... if it weren't for the constitution, we'd devolve into populism...
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If it was fairly straight forward as you say then why do you people think judges should be allowed to ignore the founding forefathers intentions?
Click to expand...

But just how do you know the "intentions" of each of the men who wrote the Constitution? Sure, with the Federalist Papers we have a good indicator of how a few of them felt at that time or at least what they felt they had to say to get ratification through. That leaves dozens of others. How do you know what their "intentions" were?
 
i think what most fail to grasp is that what the FF did was institute a government of for and by the people, a thing radically different from previous governments, what they all stood for was liberty of the individual, and that is the foundation of the USC, restriction of Government, not people....


Some forget this, others, like myself, still fully believe in that ideal of liberty. I find this thread sad in a way.....
 
TOJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

If there was such a groundswelling of support for slavery or human sacrifice that enough people want it badly enough for fundamentally alter our society in favor of these things, I doubt we would even be asking these sort of questions.

I personally think these things are wrong, but I also exist and was raised within the context of the modern US.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
If there was such a groundswelling of support for slavery or human sacrifice that enough people want it badly enough for fundamentally alter our society in favor of these things, I doubt we would even be asking these sort of questions.

I personally think these things are wrong, but I also exist and was raised within the context of the modern US.
Click to expand...
So are you saying you personally don't agree with them, but you think they are just fine in places where a majority of the people do? You do realize slavery, honor killing, and similarly dispicable practices are currently being practiced in some areas, don't you?

Is there anything you think should be prohibited, even if a majority approve of it?

.
 
TOJ said:
So if a majority feels slavery is right, you think that makes it only right that civilization turns in that direction?
Click to expand...

Whether you realize it or not, slavery is very much alive today. Workers have to do what demanding bosses tell them or lose their jobs. Of course they can quit and find another job but they'll still have to please the new boss. Maybe not as compelling as whips or beatings but just as effective.

One way or another everyone works for a demanding boss, and bosses have their bosses all the way up to CEOs. Only the retired and SS recipients are exempt.

ricksfolly
 
megaprogman said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think that understanding the thought-processes of the founding fathers is important. . .knowing *why* things were done is important to apply such thoughts to your actions or the future . . .and so on.

But I think people tend to take it *too* far - and examine things *too much*
 
ricksfolly said:
Whether you realize it or not, slavery is very much alive today. Workers have to do what demanding bosses tell them or lose their jobs. Of course they can quit and find another job but they'll still have to please the new boss. Maybe not as compelling as whips or beatings but just as effective.

One way or another everyone works for a demanding boss, and bosses have their bosses all the way up to CEOs. Only the retired and SS recipients are exempt.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...
IMO, comparing a person that is working for a wage that they agreed to and is free to quit any damn time they please to slavery is dispicable and a person is dispicable for doing it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would even try to say Joe Blow working for wages from a legitmate company has it as bad as the real slaves of the past and those currently kept enslaved under penalty of severe physical harm or death.

.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I think that understanding the thought-processes of the founding fathers is important. . .knowing *why* things were done is important to apply such thoughts to your actions or the future . . .and so on.
Click to expand...

Too late for that. They're all dead and gone. The only things left are their words, letters, certain documents, and after the fact historian impressions.

ricksfolly
 
TOJ said:
IMO, comparing a person that is working for a wage that they agreed to and is free to quit any damn time they please to slavery is dispicable and a person is dispicable for doing it.

.
Click to expand...

Like or not, that's the way things are and no excuses or rationalizations will make it any better. .. Not much different from the army where DIs made us all eat dirt.

I'm retired with a pension and out of the rat race, finally able to see things the way they were...

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Like or not, that's the way things are and no excuses or rationalizations will make it any better. .. Not much different from the army where DIs made us all eat dirt.

I'm retired with a pension and out of the rat race, finally able to see things the way they were...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

That explains it all!
 
TOJ said:
So are you saying you personally don't agree with them, but you think they are just fine in places where a majority of the people do? You do realize slavery, honor killing, and similarly dispicable practices are currently being practiced in some areas, don't you?

Is there anything you think should be prohibited, even if a majority approve of it?

.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of my reply, so I will restate. If our culture was suddenly so different that for some reason slavery was deemed ok, we would likely have a different perspective on the issue since we are a part of that culture and it would require a lot of people to change their views. People always go "that will never happen to me" but if that many people change, then its statistically likely that it could happen to us as well.

However, if I retained my current perspective, I would do my best to be a force for what I believed was right, which I would not advocate for slavery or honor killings. In fact I think such cultures are inferior to our current one and we can see that from a basis of looking at harm. So in essence, I think a great many things I find immoral should not be permitted (and some things I find immoral should be permitted because it has been shown that restricting them can be harmful to society and I have no wish to cause harm). However, my view on what should or should not be permitted has very little to do with the constitution or the philosophy that it was derived from.

It probably is in some sense an absolute morality (as I see my beliefs to be completely right (or else I would believe in something else)), but its different from the philosophical foundations of the constitution, but has a lot in common with it.

Also, it should be obvious to you (or maybe not since you went immediately to an extreme either out of ignorance or as a debate tactic, I am not sure which), that when I made that comment I was not thinking of slavery, but more mundane matters. Obviously, if one goes to an extreme, the calculation becomes different, but I also see it as dishonest to equate slavery or honor killings with something more mundane like a popular dislike of prostitution or a majority view on something like health care. There is a huge difference between normal stuff and the extreme stuff of course.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
I think that understanding the thought-processes of the founding fathers is important. . .knowing *why* things were done is important to apply such thoughts to your actions or the future . . .and so on.

But I think people tend to take it *too* far - and examine things *too much*
Click to expand...

This is largely how I see it. The founding fathers had many ideas I happen to agree with (which means I believe that had many good ideas ;)). However, the point of this thread, which it seems that a LARGE number of people have missed is that debating ideas is good, but fundamentalism (meaning the attitude of "if jefferson or some other ff said it, its good" without examination of the idea itself) is wrong and is what I deemed to be founding fatherism for the purpose of this thread.

A lot of people here did not bother to understand the thread and figured i was some sort of attack on the whole thing. But you can't fault them for their limited view on things I guess.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
This is largely how I see it. The founding fathers had many ideas I happen to agree with (which means I believe that had many good ideas ;)). However, the point of this thread, which it seems that a LARGE number of people have missed is that debating ideas is good, but fundamentalism (meaning the attitude of "if jefferson or some other ff said it, its good" without examination of the idea itself) is wrong and is what I deemed to be founding fatherism for the purpose of this thread.

A lot of people here did not bother to understand the thread and figured i was some sort of attack on the whole thing. But you can't fault them for their limited view on things I guess.
Click to expand...

Oh - well yes on that point, absolutely - I agree with you and I do see it happen.
 
megaprogman said:
This is largely how I see it. The founding fathers had many ideas I happen to agree with (which means I believe that had many good ideas ;)). However, the point of this thread, which it seems that a LARGE number of people have missed is that debating ideas is good, but fundamentalism (meaning the attitude of "if jefferson or some other ff said it, its good" without examination of the idea itself) is wrong and is what I deemed to be founding fatherism for the purpose of this thread.

A lot of people here did not bother to understand the thread and figured i was some sort of attack on the whole thing. But you can't fault them for their limited view on things I guess.
Click to expand...


Oh, I would certainly not say there was anything wrong with delving into the why's and wherefore's of the FF positions. Personally I've found it to be fascinating research, digging into why they viewed things they way they did, and how they ended up with what they ended up with.

My chief point is that of exercising great caution in "playing fast and loose" with the Constitution. It's purpose is to limit government, and really limited government was practically the sine qua non of this country's founding and its greatness. If govt's limits are not rather hard-set and held in high respect, things can get very loose in a hurry.... leading to unlimited government.
I have a huge problem with government that is not strictly limited. It tends to lead to authoritarianism if not totalitarianism.

My respect for the Constitution and the original intent of the Founders flows chiefly from my rational and sensible fear of unlimited government, not from a religious-like reverence of the men themselves. To me, the more we treat the Constitution as something fluid and easily changeable, the less likely we are to maintain the ideal of limited government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom