The Founding Fathers, unzipped

[Evo]

I thought this was a good reminder of the people involved in the formation of our government and the fallibility of the constitution.

The Constitution’s framers were flawed like today’s politicians, so it’s high time we stop embalming them in infallibility.

He may have written the Declaration of Independence, but were he around today Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t have a prayer of winning the Republican nomination, much less the presidency. It wouldn’t be his liaison with the teenage daughter of one of his slaves nor the love children she bore him that would be the stumbling block. Nor would it be Jefferson’s suspicious possession of an English translation of the Quran that might doom him to fail the Newt Gingrich loyalty test. No, it would be the Jesus problem that would do him in. For Thomas Jefferson denied that Jesus was the son of God. Worse, he refused to believe that Jesus ever made any claim that he was. While he was at it, Jefferson also rejected as self-evidently absurd the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection.

continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/the-founding-fathers--unzipped.html

 

[drankin]

What is the fallibility of the Constitution exactly? And what does the un PC lives of the "fathers" have to do with it?

Interesting discussion, BTW.

 

[Evo]

What is the fallibility of the Constitution exactly? And what does the un PC lives of the "fathers" have to do with it?

Interesting discussion, BTW.

The article is mostly about politicians (and the general populace) holding completely wrong information about our country.

Our founding fathers didn't agree on the constitution, and when it's ammended, it's also not entirely agreed upon, and then it's changed, and changed again. It's not the ten commandments like some people seem to believe, IMO.

I mostly thought it might be an eye opener with the current politicians tossing nonsense around like it was irrefutable truth.

 

[Ryumast3r]

What is the fallibility of the Constitution exactly? And what does the un PC lives of the "fathers" have to do with it?

Interesting discussion, BTW.

The Fallibility of the Constitution was that it was made by imperfect men, and is therefore not an entirely perfect document. At least, that would be my assumption. The un-PC lives of the "fathers" shows that they were imperfect, which makes it pretty much impossible for them to come up with something perfect.

Good yes, Great even, but not perfect - as shown by the many amendments, and the arguments over what they meant when they said "this" or "that".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It isn't so much about the Constitution as the men who framed it. But the notion that the Constitution is written in stone is fallacious. The Constitution can be amended, which has happened many times, or even rewritten. But that is a different argument than suggesting that it shouldn't be followed to the letter of the law. At any time it represents the best efforts of a free people to govern themselves. If it needs to be changed, then that must happen according to a procedure that protects everyone's interests and rights. The entire point of having a Constitution is to protect us from the fallibility and potential corruption of those given power. It is the failings and sins of our leaders, nevermind the ever-present threat of mob rule, that create the need for a Constitution in the first place.

 

[drankin]

The Fallibility of the Constitution was that it was made by imperfect men, and is therefore not an entirely perfect document. At least, that would be my assumption. The un-PC lives of the "fathers" shows that they were imperfect, which makes it pretty much impossible for them to come up with something perfect.

Good yes, Great even, but not perfect - as shown by the many amendments, and the arguments over what they meant when they said "this" or "that".

That doesn't answer my question. And I never said it wasn't perfect. I simply asked for a specific example. The fact that amendments were made is not an argument to it's fallibily, but a testament to how well it was designed.

 

[Proton Soup]

well i had no idea jefferson was a closet muslim. things have changed very little indeed.

 

[BobG]

That doesn't answer my question. And I never said it wasn't perfect. I simply asked for a specific example. The fact that amendments were made is not an argument to it's fallibily, but a testament to how well it was designed.

Separation of church and state, for example. Both sides try to find some type of high principle for the way that amendment was worded and should be interpreted, but the real motivation was just plain old pragmatism. Various states had different religions as their state religion (and a few even required separation of church and state). If you actually had to pick one religion to be the national religion, you wouldn't have had a United States, at all. The states never would have agreed on which religion to pick. The pragmatic solution was to avoid the issue completely; decide religious issues were one thing the federal government just wouldn't deal with.

It is true Thomas Jefferson was ardent about separation of church and state for other reasons - the statements about his religious beliefs were true, but he still had to belong to the Anglican church or be ineligible to hold office in the state of Virginia.

But there were other 'founding fathers' that were equally adamant that the government should reflect religious values and that laws requiring a person to be a certain religion in order to hold office were perfectly valid.

The individual leanings, ideals, etc were just irrelevant, since there was no possible way the federal government could deal with religion without breaking up the states.

 

[mege]

I totally disagree with the author that the transgressions he noted are unreconsilable. He focuses so much on the Constitutional Framer's religious beliefs, but then forgets to come back to the point: they were still Christian, even if they don't believe the fundamentalist-type beliefs verbatium.

The author does have a point near the end of his article - education is key. Too bad the discussions about the Constitutional Framer's are being pushed aside in favor of 'diversity' et al, so students just get the Cliff's Notes version.

I really had a hard time reading the article. The author comes off very spiteful and inflamatory. He writing reminds me of an individual that stays quiet when a question is asked, but then is the first person to interrupt and correct when the person to first respond answers. He's not willing to stick his neck out, except to push someone else down.

 

[Al68]

The article is mostly about politicians (and the general populace) holding completely wrong information about our country.

Our founding fathers didn't agree on the constitution, and when it's ammended, it's also not entirely agreed upon, and then it's changed, and changed again. It's not the ten commandments like some people seem to believe.

I mostly thought it might be an eye opener with the current politicians tossing nonsense around like it was irrefutable truth.

What wrong information are you referring to? You have a link? Who's saying the constitution is like the ten commandments, that it was entirely agreed upon, that it hasn't been changed, that our founders were infallible?

I've never heard anyone make such claims. Do you have a source for someone holding the views you refer to?

 

[BobG]

What wrong information are you referring to? You have a link? Who's saying the constitution is like the ten commandments, that it was entirely agreed upon, that it hasn't been changed, that our founders were infallible?

I've never heard anyone make such claims. Do you have a source for someone holding the views you refer to?

The comparison between some people's comments about the Bible and some people's comments about the Constitution are unavoidable, even if those comments almost never say the Constitution is a sacred text.

This article, Tea Party Rooted in Religious Fervor for Constitution mentions the Tea Party, specifically, but it also shows how this isn't a new phenomena. Right from the very beginning, some of the founding fathers were treating the Constitution as a sacred text:

Washington, in his farewell address, called for the Constitution to be “sacredly maintained.” James Madison wrote that the nation’s “political scriptures” must be defended with “holy zeal.” George Sutherland, a Supreme Court nominee in the 1920s, described the Constitution as “divinely inspired.” The constitutional lawyer Louis Marshall, drawing an analogy from his Jewish heritage, referred to the document as “our holy of holies.”

Even atheists using the Constitution to justify separation of church and state tend to resemble the religious quoting from the Bible in style, if not content.

 

[Proton Soup]

i don't see any problem with treating the constitution in a quasi-religious fashion. if you don't, it will be amended willy-nilly, and the next thing you know you've lost the ability to speak freely or gain that freedom back without a bloody revolution.

 

[drankin]

The Constitution is a revered document. Not unlike religious documents to it's followers. The followers of the Constitution just happen to be an entire nation. I'm not getting why that is an issue. ??

 

[WhoWee]

i don't see any problem with treating the constitution in a quasi-religious fashion. if you don't, it will be amended willy-nilly, and the next thing you know you've lost the ability to speak freely or gain that freedom back without a bloody revolution.

I agree - changes should never be an emotional response or made without exhaustive debate and majority agreement.

 

[Evo]

What wrong information are you referring to? You have a link? Who's saying the constitution is like the ten commandments, that it was entirely agreed upon, that it hasn't been changed, that our founders were infallible?

I've never heard anyone make such claims. Do you have a source for someone holding the views you refer to?

The Constitution is a revered document. Not unlike religious documents to it's followers. The followers of the Constitution just happen to be an entire nation. I'm not getting why that is an issue. ??

This discussion puts a lot of the answers into a nutshell, just the first few minutes covers your questions, IMO.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/TheConstit

 

[BobG]

i don't see any problem with treating the constitution in a quasi-religious fashion. if you don't, it will be amended willy-nilly, and the next thing you know you've lost the ability to speak freely or gain that freedom back without a bloody revolution.

The Constitution is a revered document. Not unlike religious documents to it's followers. The followers of the Constitution just happen to be an entire nation. I'm not getting why that is an issue. ??

I agree - changes should never be an emotional response or made without exhaustive debate and majority agreement.

This the more relevant point. Is there a problem with the way people treat the Constitution?

And if the Contstitution should be a revered document that should never be drastically changed, is there a problem extending that reverence to the guys that wrote it?

For every Jefferson quote that can seemingly irrefutably prove the correctness of some point, you could probably find a Hamilton quote that irrefutably proved the opposite (seeing as those two often had differing viewpoints about government). You run into problems when you start treating the guys that wrote it as a god, since you're going to have a hard time worshiping one god without offending the other.

And, on the topic of constitutions, in general - not just the US Constitution, but state constitutions as well - isn't getting a constitutional amendment passed just a way for the dead to maintain rule over the living?

Interesting take by William Saletan. I'm not sure I agree with him - I think he chooses his words to oversensationalize the issue - but an interesting view of constitutional amendments, none the less.

But most states can't do what New York did. Their legislatures can't legalize gay marriage, because their voters have passed ballot measures that prohibit it under their state constitutions. The ballot measures were enacted years ago, when gay marriage was unpopular. Now many of the old voters who opposed same-sex marriage are being replaced by young voters who support it. But the old electorate, through its constitutional amendments, has handcuffed the new electorate. The living are being ruled by the dead.

 

[mheslep]

... The author comes off very spiteful and inflamatory...

Unsurprisingly, the author is a "True Believer", to use his phrase from the article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/presidents/simon-schama-the-great-hope--barack-obama-1482927.html"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/30/barackobama.democrats20081"

After writing those lines he no doubt got back to the serious work of condemning Tea Party hats as overly dramatic.

 

[daveb]

And, on the topic of constitutions, in general - not just the US Constitution, but state constitutions as well - isn't getting a constitutional amendment passed just a way for the dead to maintain rule over the living?

Very good point, especially when said amendment prohibits the people rather than the government. Can you imagine of prohibition was still enacted?

 

[Proton Soup]

This the more relevant point. Is there a problem with the way people treat the Constitution?

apparently, from evo's link, people treat the constitution in a lot of different ways, and this is very much like it has always been.

And if the Contstitution should be a revered document that should never be drastically changed, is there a problem extending that reverence to the guys that wrote it?

For every Jefferson quote that can seemingly irrefutably prove the correctness of some point, you could probably find a Hamilton quote that irrefutably proved the opposite (seeing as those two often had differing viewpoints about government). You run into problems when you start treating the guys that wrote it as a god, since you're going to have a hard time worshiping one god without offending the other.

yeah, so? they disagreed, but compromised and hammered out their differences into something they could all live with. the result has been pretty successful.

and even if you want to get into idolatry here, our constitution was wise enough not to be a respecter of any particular god.

And, on the topic of constitutions, in general - not just the US Constitution, but state constitutions as well - isn't getting a constitutional amendment passed just a way for the dead to maintain rule over the living?

Interesting take by William Saletan. I'm not sure I agree with him - I think he chooses his words to oversensationalize the issue - but an interesting view of constitutional amendments, none the less.

same ol', same ol', as far as I'm concerned.

personally, I'm not really sure what this thread is supposed to be about unless it's some intellectual hubris and looking down our noses at those rubes over there? well, things still change, just as they always have: slowly.

 

[Evo]

apparently, from evo's link, people treat the constitution in a lot of different ways, and this is very much like it has always been.



yeah, so? they disagreed, but compromised and hammered out their differences into something they could all live with. the result has been pretty successful.

and even if you want to get into idolatry here, our constitution was wise enough not to be a respecter of any particular god.



same ol', same ol', as far as I'm concerned.

personally, I'm not really sure what this thread is supposed to be about unless it's some intellectual hubris and looking down our noses at those rubes over there? well, things still change, just as they always have: slowly.

The OP was about the lack of knowledge being tossed about as fact by potential presidential hopefuls. It was about setting history straight.

 

[mheslep]

And, on the topic of constitutions, in general - not just the US Constitution, but state constitutions as well - isn't getting a constitutional amendment passed just a way for the dead to maintain rule over the living?

It might be if the US Constitution was not overwhelmingly an enumeration of what the federal government shall not do, and not about what US citizens may or may not do, e.g. Congress shall pass no law ..., no Appropriation of money ... longer than two years; No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto; No Title of Nobility, No Preference shall be given ... Ports of one State over ... another; nor shall private property be taken ....

The US constitution cliff notes might roughly state: elect some guys in thus and so manner, and then the government shall not, no, no, no, not, not, not, nor, nor, nor, no, no, no, don't event think about it, no.

 

[Al68]

This discussion puts a lot of the answers into a nutshell, just the first few minutes covers your questions, IMO.

One of my questions was sort of answered, assuming the comparison you made between the constitution and the the bible was just that each is "revered" by many.

But I still haven't seen any substantiation of anyone claiming that the constitution was entirely agreed on, has never been amended, or that our founders were infallible.

 

[Evo]

But I still haven't seen any substantiation of anyone claiming that the constitution was entirely agreed on, has never been amended, or that our founders were infallible.

Since I said the opposite, I have no clue why you're asking me.

 

[turbo]

Michelle Bachmann has claimed recently that John Quincy Adams was a "founding father", and that the founding fathers eliminated slavery. Neither statement is even close to accurate. Of course, when she gave a speech in NH recently and claimed that NH was home to the opening shots of the Revolutionary War (actually fired in Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts) the "liberal media" didn't adequately highlight her ignorance on the evening news, IMO. If someone is running for President, it might be a good idea for our "liberal" media to point out some of this stuff and make it stick. Smart JHS students could have edited her speeches for accuracy. I don't want a poorly-educated ideologue in the White House again.

 

[Al68]

The article is mostly about politicians (and the general populace) holding completely wrong information about our country.

Our founding fathers didn't agree on the constitution, and when it's ammended, it's also not entirely agreed upon, and then it's changed, and changed again. It's not the ten commandments like some people seem to believe, IMO.

But I still haven't seen any substantiation of anyone claiming that the constitution was entirely agreed on, has never been amended, or that our founders were infallible.

Since I said the opposite, I have no clue why you're asking me.

You at least implied that some politicians were claiming such "wrong information". I was asking who was claiming such things, not for evidence that such things were true.

 

[Al68]

Michelle Bachmann has claimed recently that John Quincy Adams was a "founding father", and that the founding fathers eliminated slavery.

Bachmann has made enough legitimate flubs that there is no reason to invent a fictional one. She said our founders "worked tirelessly" to eliminate slavery, not that they were (entirely) successful.

If she ever claimed that they actually eliminated it, let's see a link.

As far as her legitimate flubs, they pale in comparison to many of Obama's, so they hardly mean she is "poorly educated". It's not like she thought we had 57 states or didn't know how to say "corpsman" or thought asthma sufferers should be given "breathalyzers" or "inhalators".

 

[Evo]

You at least implied that some politicians were claiming such "wrong information". I was asking who was claiming such things, not for evidence that such things were true.

Nope, I wasn't tying the two together. Although I'm sure if you dig, you'll find some, IMO.

 

[turbo]

Bachmann has made enough legitimate flubs that there is no reason to invent a fictional one. She said our founders "worked tirelessly" to eliminate slavery, not that they were (entirely) successful.

If she ever claimed that they actually eliminated it, let's see a link.

As far as her legitimate flubs, they pale in comparison to many of Obama's, so they hardly mean she is "poorly educated". It's not like she thought we had 57 states or didn't know how to say "corpsman" or thought asthma sufferers should be given "breathalyzers" or "inhalators".

http://www.thenation.com/blog/16179...her-teapot-patriots-do-not-know-about-america

The unsettling thing about Michele Bachmann’s failed discussion of the founders and slavery is not that the Tea Party “Patriot” knew so little about the birth of the American experiment that she made John Quincy Adams—the son of a somewhat disappointing founder (John) and the cousin of one of the true revolutionaries (Sam)—into something he was not.

Bachmann has for some time peddled the notion that the nation’s founding fathers worked “tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” She is simply wrong about this. The last of the revolutionaries generally recognized by historians as the founders—signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and their chief political and military comrades—passed in 1836, with the death of James Madison. That was twenty-seven years before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, and twenty-nine years before the finish of the Civil War.

 

[Evo]

Bachmann has made enough legitimate flubs that there is no reason to invent a fictional one. She said our founders "worked tirelessly" to eliminate slavery, not that they were (entirely) successful.

Enough with the trolling, (all of your posts, not this one in particular).


This is a video interview with her.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/06/john-quincy-adams-a-founding-father-michele-bachmann-says-yes.html

Bachmann spoke at an Iowans for Tax Relief event over the weekend and she blipped my radar with this musing on the early settlers, who "had different cultures, different backgrounds, different traditions":

How unique in all of the world, that one nation that was the resting point from people groups all across the world. It didn't matter the color of their skin, it didn't matter their language, it didn't matter their economic status... Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn't that remarkable? It's absolutely remarkable.


Bachmann also earned my raised eyebrow with her musings on slavery -- a "scourge" -- and the founding fathers, who she said "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."

I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly -- men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.


Talking Points Memo corrected Bachmann's history lesson by pointing out that Adams wasn't one of the founders and that he died 15 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. Perhaps she was thinking of John Adams, the second president of the United States, who is different from John Quincy Adams, the new nation's sixth president.

continued...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/michele_bachmanns_absolutely_a.html

 

[Al68]

And, on the topic of constitutions, in general - not just the US Constitution, but state constitutions as well - isn't getting a constitutional amendment passed just a way for the dead to maintain rule over the living?

The 18th amendment (prohibition) is an example of the constitution being misused to codify law instead of serve as government's charter. Even if you favor prohibition, a legitimate amendment would merely have delegated power to the federal government to prohibit alcohol, not actually prohibited alcohol directly.

It was an attempt by "the dead to maintain rule over the living", which is why prohibitions on actions by citizens should never be contained in constitutions. That's what legislation is for.

But that example is an exception. A constitution is generally a charter for government, not a collection of laws for people to obey. The amendment process was intended as a means to make changes to government's charter, not to codify laws.

 

[Al68]

Enough with the trolling, (all of your posts, not this one in particular).

Isn't there a forum rule against editing the post you're replying to in a way that misrepresents it? In particular, you edited out the following:

If she ever claimed that they actually eliminated it, let's see a link.

As far as the second link you provided, it does substantiate turbo1's claim, and I was unaware of it and I stand corrected. My source was your first link which says exactly what I said ("worked tirelessly to end slavery").

But you know full well that's not what the word "trolling" means.

And characterize "all my posts" as trolling all you want. I'm happy to let other forum members come to whatever conclusions they want.

 

[Al68]

If she ever claimed that they actually eliminated it, let's see a link.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/16179...her-teapot-patriots-do-not-know-about-america

Ah, yes, I stand corrected. I thought you were referring to a different report that I had seen (the http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/06/john-quincy-adams-a-founding-father-michele-bachmann-says-yes.html. My bad.

 

[klimatos]

I totally disagree with the author that the transgressions he noted are unreconsilable. He focuses so much on the Constitutional Framer's religious beliefs, but then forgets to come back to the point: they were still Christian, even if they don't believe the fundamentalist-type beliefs verbatium.

Two-thirds of the framers of the Constitution were either Deists or Unitarians. Neither group accepts the divinity of Jesus, original sin, or the redemptive power of his death. I am stumped how you can call anybody who does not accept these three tenets a Christian. They are the core beliefs of all Christian creeds.

Church membership does not make one a Christian. Today's Anglican archbishops are not even required to believe in God. In the pre-revolution colonies, you could not hold public office unless you were a member of the Church of England.

During the framing of the Constitution, a motion was made to include some mention of either God or Jesus. The motion failed to pass. There is no mention of either in the Constitution and this omission is deliberate.

 

[mege]

Two-thirds of the framers of the Constitution were either Deists or Unitarians. Neither group accepts the divinity of Jesus, original sin, or the redemptive power of his death. I am stumped how you can call anybody who does not accept these three tenets a Christian. They are the core beliefs of all Christian creeds.

Church membership does not make one a Christian. Today's Anglican archbishops are not even required to believe in God. In the pre-revolution colonies, you could not hold public office unless you were a member of the Church of England.

During the framing of the Constitution, a motion was made to include some mention of either God or Jesus. The motion failed to pass. There is no mention of either in the Constitution and this omission is deliberate.

They self-identified Christian even if they didn't accept all the dogma associated with it. The overarching point is - they probably had morals that were derived from their Christian beliefs.

 

[klimatos]

They self-identified Christian even if they didn't accept all the dogma associated with it. The overarching point is - they probably had morals that were derived from their Christian beliefs.

I have read a lot by and about the founding fathers. I can not recall any of those who were either Deists or Unitarians "self-identifying" as Christians. Please provide substantiation for your assertion.

As to their "probably" having morals "derived from their Christian beliefs." This is circular reasoning. If they weren't Christians, then they "probably" did not have many Christian beliefs.

Let's take George Washington as an example. His wife, Martha, insisted he was a Deist. Both his Anglican ministers (Philadelphia and Mount Vernon) insisted he was a Deist. His voluminous correspondence often refers to a Creator (a common Deist term), but never mentions Jesus. Their were no Christian ministers at his deathbed, and he was buried in a Masonic ritual, not a Christian one. His tomb displays no Christian symbols or references. His public monument is a pagan phallic symbol--an obelisk. And you think he was a Christian?

Sir, I give you credit for your faith, but I have grave reservations about your reasoning ability.