The Founding Fathers: Why the veneration?

[Fred Cape]

The greatest thing these men ever did was create a government that can grow and bend with the society it represents to avoid becoming outdated and irrelevant. Of course, you have to change the document from time to time to match the current society but that is what the it was designed to do. Our constitution never would have lasted as long as it has, had we not made the 27 amendments we've already made to the original document. If we need more, then so be it.

27 amendment have been made? why did it need so many amendments? I thought it was designed to be untouchable, the last word in how a country should be run and how people should be allowed to live.

I think everyone will agree that their 'everyone is entitled to bare arms' was the worst one handed down, the pain and suffering that has cause is immeasurable and will remain so for the foreseeable future, millions have and will continue to die and be maimed because of those few words.
What would happen if a hand gun was invented that would kill a dozen people with one bullet? would people still be allowed to own them?

I'm glad the UK doesn't have a constitution, the laws can be added to or change as circumstances dictate.

 

[Albion]

27 amendment have been made? why did it need so many amendments? I thought it was designed to be untouchable, the last word in how a country should be run and how people should be allowed to live.

I don't know why you'd say that. The Constitution itself provides for amendments. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the ones you referred to.

I think everyone will agree that their 'everyone is entitled to bare arms' was the worst one handed down, the pain and suffering that has cause is immeasurable

Not to mention the possibility of melanoma.

 

[Cute Tink]

No.

You feel free to overlook their flaws if you wish. Some people aren't willing to deify people who did things they find objectionable.

 

[Fred Cape]

I don't know why you'd say that. The Constitution itself provides for amendments. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the ones you referred to.


Not to mention the possibility of melanoma.

Or brain damage.

 

[Armoured]

Actually they meant all mankind. As 'men' back then and in their loftier language meant the human race.

Yes, indeed I believe without women there would never have been a DoI and revolution! Is there anything a more ancient man would not do for the woman he loves? Even go toe to toe with despots?

Well, not let them vote, apparently.

 

[Albion]

You feel free to overlook their flaws if you wish. Some people aren't willing to deify people who did things they find objectionable.

I answered the question you asked.

If you'd wanted my answer about deifying people who did objectionable things, you should have asked that instead.

 

[Cute Tink]

I answered the question you asked.

If you'd wanted my answer about deifying people who did objectionable things, you should have asked that instead.

I didn't ask you about that. You had said before how you feel about judging 18th century people by 20th century standards.

 

[Albion]

I didn't ask you about that. You had said before how you feel about judging 18th century people by 20th century standards.

I see. You didn't actually want to know any of this or the answer to the question you posed before it, but you did want to give me your permission to "deify people who did objectionable things."

No thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

Some would prefer to just dream their dreams and think about them as good Christian folk and not think about such things.

Evidence shows a lot of them were good Christian folk and did not own slaves. I guess their fault was they were too libertarian about what other people were doing. A kind of 'I believe slavery is wrong, but won't judge my neighbor' mentality. We still have that mentality in the Western nations to this day on many issues. Pot legalization, abortion, etc.

A little history on the beginnings of the Western Abolitionist Movement:

In the Americas and Western Europe, abolitionism was a historical movement to end the African slave trade and set slaves free. Later, in the 17th century, English Quakers and evangelical religious groups condemned slavery (by then applied mostly to Africans) as un-Christian. In the 18th century, perhaps 6 million Africans were taken to the Americas as slaves, at least a third of them in British ships. Abolition was part of the message of the First Great Awakening in the Thirteen Colonies. In the same period, rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized slavery for violating human rights. James Edward Oglethorpe was among the first to articulate the Enlightenment case against slavery. Oglethorpe banned slavery in the Province of Georgia on humanistic grounds, argued against it in Parliament, and eventually encouraged his friends Granville Sharp and Hannah More to vigorously pursue the cause. Soon after his death in 1785, Sharp and More joined with William Wilberforce and others in forming the Clapham Sect.[1] Although anti-slavery sentiments were widespread by the late 18th century, the colonies and emerging nations that used slave labor—including the south—continued to do so. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States)

More here:

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm

 

[redleghunter]

For starters, a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage.

Well they did not exactly bring that one on.

But we digress...the forum rules discourage opening that can of worms and for good reason.

 

[JustOneWay]

Well they did not exactly bring that one on.

But we digress...the forum rules discourage opening that can of worms and for good reason.

I am not sure what you are talking about. This started when you claimed the Bible was not a political document; then I demonstrated that politicians use the Bible as a political document. My comment says nothing about gay marriage or that we need to discuss it here.

Furthermore, the fact that many in this very forum use the words in the Bible to justify and condone certain laws is more proof of people using the Bible for political purposes. If what you say about the Bible not being a political document were true, then I hope you do not condone using the Bible for political purposes....

 

[Cute Tink]

I see. You didn't actually want to know any of this or the answer to the question you posed before it, but you did want to give me your permission to "deify people who did objectionable things."

No thanks.

You do draw some interesting conclusions.

 

[Albion]

A little history on the beginnings of the Western Abolitionist Movement:

In the Americas and Western Europe, abolitionism was a historical movement to end the African slave trade and set slaves free. Later, in the 17th century, English Quakers and evangelical religious groups....

You are right to point out that just about all of the reform movements in American history--the ones that the Liberals here assume were won over the objections of Christian people--were actually headed up by Christians and driven by Christian values.

 

[Nithavela]

This is all very enlightening.

 

[redleghunter]

No, only for WASP males. This did not apply to women, blacks, Native Americans or anyone else who was not a WASP male. And the WASP male certainly did take all and stepped over everyone else to get to the top - from stealing tribal lands, to forced removals and the death marches (the Trial of Tears and others), to broken treaty after broken treaty, then to murdering and slaughtering countless Indians (men, women and children) to get the land and natural resources he wanted. The invasion of the WASP male on tribal lands has been compared to a horde of locust, devouring and destroying everything in his path and it has been compared to the leech, sucking the very life's blood out of the land he attaches himself to. The undeniable truth of this country is that no matter where you live here, you are living on occupied land that either Native Americans were forcibly removed from or murdered for. And that is the history many good Christians and other Americans do not want to remember or be reminded of.

I would say, based on your assessment above, to be consistent you should be living in the woods with no power, convenience and gather your own food and make your own clothing. Either an Amish society or Native American Reservation is ideal for you. FYI the Amish have no internet. I confirmed this by seeing no posts in the Amish forum.

 

[redleghunter]

The greatest thing these men ever did was create a government that can grow and bend with the society it represents to avoid becoming outdated and irrelevant. Of course, you have to change the document from time to time to match the current society but that is what the it was designed to do. Our constitution never would have lasted as long as it has, had we not made the 27 amendments we've already made to the original document. If we need more, then so be it.

Yes, the Amendment process is rigorous and that was intentional to make sure a majority of state legislatures (elected by the people) have a voice.

 

[redleghunter]

That's right, women make awesome moral support to make men do something.

Yes and women were evident as leaders in the Abolitionist Movement to eradicate slavery in this country.

 

[redleghunter]

The Founding Fathers established some good principles, but they were not without their flaws.

Judging them by 21st century standards may not be necessarily fair, but that doesn't mean they cannot be judged as having embraced things that they should have known were just wrong.

I agree. The Abolitionist Movement was just picking up speed during the founding from the First Great Awakening and Quaker efforts in the early 18th Century. The Second Great Awakening solidified the movement in churches and state governments as we see the Northern states quickly repealed slavery.

 

[redleghunter]

Well, not let them vote, apparently.

Voting in colonial America had a lot to do with owning property. In that society women did not outright own property.

The first awakening of women's rights in the US was the Abolitionist movement.

 

[redleghunter]

I am not sure what you are talking about. This started when you claimed the Bible was not a political document; then I demonstrated that politicians use the Bible as a political document. My comment says nothing about gay marriage or that we need to discuss it here.

Furthermore, the fact that many in this very forum use the words in the Bible to justify and condone certain laws is more proof of people using the Bible for political purposes. If what you say about the Bible not being a political document were true, then I hope you do not condone using the Bible for political purposes....

Well you bring up some intersecting points with different origins.

First, the Bible is not a political document for the US Constitution. When opponents of homosexual marriage argued their case, it was not from the Bible, Quran or any other religious book. They quoted from the 10th Amendment.

Now 'people' at CF will quote the Bible on moral issues...Alas the "C" for CF is Christian. They are exercising their right to free speech. Last I checked Christians do have a right to vote in this country and shape the public discourse. Just as people who disagree with Christians have a right to do. Both have the right for redress as well.



Marriage law since our founding has always been a state matter based on the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
​