Did the Founding Fathers get anything Wrong?

[Hammster]

Why should we trust you to tell it to us?

You don’t have to.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That whole owning people while founding a country on the idea that all men are created equal was pretty bad and we’re still dealing with the effects of that hypocrisy today.

Obviously they had a measure of hypocrisy, but I think someone has to "turn the ship" at some point, and when all ships were moving in that wrong direction, whoever made the move first is obviously going to be a hypocrite on paper.

If there were a group of 10 of us all engaging in various forms of stealing as "the norm", whoever puts pen to paper first and drafts a rulebook that says "no more stealing" is going to be hypocritical to a degree as we were all doing it and unfairly benefiting from it in some fashion. Even if they continued to engage in a certain level of the behavior after the fact.

And if that new legal framework happens to be the thing that allows future generations get it right (or at least curtail the worst excesses of it), I still see that as a net positive.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Their initial voting issues and then the electoral college "fix" come to mind as something they could of done better.

At the time they did it, I think there was more of a necessity for it, and they were trying to create a "compromise" between selection of the president by congress, and selection of the president by popular vote.

The electoral college isn't a necessary system anymore, but logistically speaking, trying to do a "popular vote" method of any variety at a national level back then would've been tricky to say the least.

So I think it is fair to point out the distinction between "bad idea", and "good idea for the time that would be a bad idea if pitched today"

For instance, if someone pitched "The Pony Express" as shipping and mail delivery solution circa 2024, they'd get laughed out of the room, it'd obviously be a terrible idea compared to the options at our disposal now that we have better technology. But pre-telegraph, it wasn't necessarily a terrible idea for the time period given the limitations of the time.

 

[Bradskii]

You just want me to shut up about them.

This is a Christian forum. You can expound on your beliefs all day. What I want is for you to stop imposing your beliefs on me.

 

[Hammster]

This is a Christian forum. You can expound on your beliefs all day. What I want is for you to stop imposing your beliefs on me.

Right. Like I says, you want me to shut up. Not gonna happen.

 

[wing2000]

For example (and I am NOT a historian so please feel free to eviscerate and enlighten me)....I don't understand how a judge appointed by a president would be permitted to try that same president in their court room. How is it that this did not have some kind of stop gap measure?

IMO, the founders presumed the American people would never elect a person who would be criminally indicted.

We have a major political party today that has all but forsaken virture in the public office.


Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” [8]

James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.”[9]

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”[10]

Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.”[11]

Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”[12]

 

[NxNW]

Why is that not reality?

There is no evidence for the supernatural.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes.

This is what Jesus Christ's authority looks like?

 

[NxNW]

Yes, we are.

Link?

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
— Matthew 28:18

The fact that it's in print doesn't make it true.

 

[rambot]

Right. Like I says, you want me to shut up. Not gonna happen.

He didn't tell you to shut up. Don't act like you are being persecuted because he disagrees with Christian doctrine because that's aaaall he's doing.

 

[Hammster]

This is what Jesus Christ's authority looks like?

Yes.

 

[Hammster]

Link?

The fact that it's in print doesn't make it true.

I know. The fact that it’s true is why it’s in print, though.

 

[Hammster]

He didn't tell you to shut up. Don't act like you are being persecuted because he disagrees with Christian doctrine because that's aaaall he's doing.

I never said anything about being persecuted. Never even crossed my mind.

 

[durangodawood]

The fact that the Constitution allows for Amendments means they covered their bases in my opinion.

Except for the grip that political parties have - since the process for amendment now has to go through the parties, essentially. They will never tolerate any amendments that diminish their duopoly.

 

[Bradskii]

Right. Like I says, you want me to shut up. Not gonna happen.

You appear to have difficulty in understanding the basic sentence structure I'm using. You can post what you like. But don't for one second think that any of it applies to me.

 

[rambot]

I never said anything about being persecuted. Never even crossed my mind.

I suggested you were "acting" like it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are suppressing the truth.

How are they "suppressing" the truth, specifically? To say that they deny Christ isn't a specific description or analysis about what and how they are doing this, so the statement you've made remains vague. Maybe if you were less vague they'd more likely be able to see the light?

 

[Hammster]

You appear to have difficulty in understanding the basic sentence structure I'm using. You can post what you like. But don't for one second think that any of it applies to me.

It does apply to you, though.

 

[Hammster]

I suggested you were "acting" like it.

Your gnostic abilities are left wanting.

 

[Bradskii]

It does apply to you, though.

In just the way that Shiva applies to you.