Did the Founding Fathers get anything Wrong?

[Bradskii]

Too subjective and vague. Not to mention we voters are hard pressed to spot the scattered candidates of good character. They seem overshadowed by a loud and deceitful bunch of attention seekers.

Well, it was more tongue in cheek than anything. Just a nod in the direction of a certain runner for the position.

 

[Pommer]

Well, it was more tongue in cheek than anything. Just a nod in the direction of a certain runner for the position.

He’s an excellent character and one I wish was more fictional.

 

[Hammster]

As long as we're quoting, here's one from James Madison. Who largely wrote the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights:

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

I’m not sure why you think this is relevant to what I said. I’ve never mentioned church rule.

 

[BCP1928]

I’m not sure why you think this is relevant to what I said. I’ve never mentioned church rule.

But you believe that Jesus should be king, do you not? Jesus is not here amongst us to tell us what to do. Who will speak to us for Him then?

 

[Hammster]

But you believe that Jesus should be king, do you not? Jesus is not here amongst us to tell us what to do. Who will speak to us for Him then?

I believe Jesus is King. I think the best place to start is where scripture is very clear on what we should do or not do.

 

[BCP1928]

I believe Jesus is King. I think the best place to start is where scripture is very clear on what we should do or not do.

That's all very well, but who is to interpret scripture to us? There seems to be disagreement even among Christians about it.

 

[Hammster]

That's all very well, but who is to interpret scripture to us? There seems to be disagreement even among Christians about it.

But we still have the same source document. We can certainly have discussions. What do pagans have that they agree with 100%?

 

[BCP1928]

But we still have the same source document. We can certainly have discussions. What do pagans have that they agree with 100%?

But we don't. The source documents are long gone and now we have various versions, There are even different Canons.

As for discussions, how is that going for you? Have the liberal Christians and the fundamentalist Christians come to any agreements lately about what the Bible tells them to do?

 

[Hammster]

But we don't. The source documents are long gone and now we have various versions, There are even different Canons.

As for discussions, how is that going for you? Have the liberal Christians and the fundamentalist Christians come to any agreements lately about what the Bible tells them to do?

It’s a long game. I won’t see it in my lifetime, most likely. But it will happen.

 

[Pommer]

What do pagans have that they agree with 100%?

Probably that Jesus isn’t “King”

 

[Hammster]

Probably that Jesus isn’t “King”

And that helps how?

 

[Pommer]

And that helps how?

You asked a question and I answered it.
I apologize for not giving you an answer that curried your favor.

 

[rturner76]

Just looking at the title of the OP, I would say they made a mistake when they said "All men are created equal" and then proceeded to ship in "men" with dark skin and make them slaves. I don't know if it was just a typo in the Constitution or if they really considered black Africans to be littoral animals (that's most likely as they were referred to as "beasts of the field")but it was a pretty evil system. Once they made it illegal to enslave Christians, they had to alter that law not to include black Christians. How Christian is that?

 

[JSRG]

Just looking at the title of the OP, I would say they made a mistake when they said "All men are created equal" and then proceeded to ship in "men" with dark skin and make them slaves. I don't know if it was just a typo in the Constitution or if they really considered black Africans to be littoral animals (that's most likely as they were referred to as "beasts of the field")but it was a pretty evil system. Once they made it illegal to enslave Christians, they had to alter that law not to include black Christians. How Christian is that?

"All men are created equal" is not in the Constitution. It was in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Hammster]

You asked a question and I answered it.
I apologize for not giving you an answer that curried your favor.

It was a follow up. But no, you aren’t obligated to answer.

 

[durangodawood]

"All men are created equal" is not in the Constitution. It was in the Declaration of Independence.

True, and he did err. But the clause is still fair game as the general question is : "Did the Founding Fathers get anything Wrong?"

 

[Tuur]

ust looking at the title of the OP, I would say they made a mistake when they said "All men are created equal" and then proceeded to ship in "men" with dark skin and make them slaves. I don't know if it was just a typo in the Constitution or if they really considered black Africans to be littoral animals (that's most likely as they were referred to as "beasts of the field")but it was a pretty evil system. Once they made it illegal to enslave Christians, they had to alter that law not to include black Christians. How Christian is that?

Sidebar: The Declaration of Independence contains "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The US Constitution does not. Already, in 1787, slavery was a divisive issue. Something you pick up with various comments is that by 1787 the Articles of Confederation were so unworkable that there was talk of the US splitting into two or three separate counties, and pressing the slavery issue then likely would have ended the entire convention. You only have to see what happened in 1861.

Now, you state "proceeded to ship in" as though slavery hadn't existed in the US prior to that point. Uh-uh. Importing slaves was already an ongoing concern, one not looked favorably upon even by slave supporters of the time due to the horrors. The US banned the importation of slaves in 1807, As it happened, the ship Antelope came up today in some notes. That was a ship bound for Spanish Florida was seized by the US on suspicion it was violating the importation ban. That was in 1820.

How were slaves viewed? As humans. The modern mind, in trying to understand slavery, thinks that those who practiced it must have seen slaves as less than human. All they have to do to bolster their argument is to point out that slaves were often sold at livestock markets. Yet the view of slavery, circa mid 19th Century, was that it was all right to own other humans as property. Which is more horrifying I leave to the reader.

 

[jayem]

I’m not sure why you think this is relevant to what I said. I’ve never mentioned church rule.

But you said that the founders should have stated that our country is under the authority of Jesus. Which is endorsing Christianity over other religions. That’s very problematic. We are a multi-religious society and government must not show favoritism to any one paricular religious belief.

But I’m OK with one exception. That’s the signature section where the Constitution was signed on “the Seventeenth day of September in the Year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.”

 

[Hammster]

But you said that the founders should have stated that our country is under the authority of Jesus. Which is endorsing Christianity over other religions.

Yes.

That’s very problematic.

No.

We are a multi-religious society and government must not show favoritism to any one paricular religious belief.

Wrong. There is one God. That’s who we need to follow.

But I’m OK with one exception. That’s the signature section where the Constitution was signed on “the Seventeenth day of September in the Year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.”

That “Lord” is Jesus Christ.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Yes.

No.

Wrong. There is one God. That’s who we need to follow.

That “Lord” is Jesus Christ.

Maybe Christians should spend less time trying to use the government’s jackboot to get people to follow their deity’s will and more time bringing them to faith on their deity. That way people would follow their deity and those same people would go to paradise rather than eternal torture.

What I suggested really isn’t that important, it’s only one of the last things their messiah ordered them to do before he left the planet. And it’s only people’s eternal destination on the line. Not really important stuff at all.