My cousin was trying to "enlighten" me that Santorum would be a great choice for president because he appeals to the original intent of our framers, "a Christian Nation". When I brought up my points she said my radical liberal sources were incorrect... Even though my sources are from 3 professors and 3 text books while working as a supplemental instructor in the History department at my school.... Anyways, I disagree with this opinion because of : Article XI of the Tripoli Barbary Treaty And weren't many of the founding fathers either Deist or Unitarians who had little connection to Christianity. Thomas Paine Ethan Allen Ben Franklin Thomas Jefferson (I've also read quite a bit of literature arguing Washington was Deist, although he was active in the Anglican church so I won't include him) Anyways just want to hear what everyone thinks.
I think that I'm really pleafed that we ftopped typing the letter 's' to look like an 'f' in our fontf. That getf really confufing to read. Oh, and of courfe the U.F. wasn't founded on Chriftianity. Many of the principlef and moralf likely had rootf in Chriftianity, but that'f not enough to fay it waf founded on the religion.
This country was founded on the need to be represented while being taxed. I thought every American history text book stated that. Not sure why you needed 3 textbooks.
I thought it was founded by individuals who wished to have their own way of life respected but saw no real moral issue with not extending that same respect to others who did not look like them or subscribe to their views.
No, technically it was not found on Christianity as none of the founding fathers intended it to be some holy christian country, but there are obvious of influences of it. We are more secular than religious
At the time there was a lot of animosity between the different denominations of the Christian faith. If fact several States were organized as safe havens for one or another of them. European history for the previous 400 years was riddled with wars fought by differing denominations, so tolerance of religion was required to organize the States into a new nation. But Judeo-Christian ethics were the basis of their philosophy. The skeptics, agnostics, and atheist did not overtly influence the laws though they may have skewed the language to accomplish their aim. They were good layers.
I tire of people arguing about the intent of our Founding Fathers. Those dudes are all dead. They don't have to put up with the whims of our government one way or the other. So I really don't care what they wanted or intended. On top of that, I think the arguments on both sides are pretty superficial, probably because they want to treat the intent of a hundred leaders and a million citizens as a monolith. Nobody really agreed back then, and even individuals probably had contradictions within their own minds. So what if one side can point at a boatful of Puritans and the other side can point to a deist intellectual? What does that really say about the legitimacy of the Constitution at the time, much less now? Which brings me back to my first point -- why should I care if dead people would approve of how we run our country now?
I've sen this treaty referenced before and similar references by Thomas Jefferson. The "Musselmen" and the "Mahometan" references were the modern day equivalent of the "Muslims" and the "Islamic" nations. Sadly we've disrupted that harmony between the Musselman (another very old name for Muslims was musselman, pronounced moos-ul-maan) and ourselves. The "Mahometan" reference was also what Islamic nations from that time were called; Mohammed and his followers were referred to as "Mahometan" from "Mohammadans" similar to how Christ's followers are Christians.
Waiting for Twy77 to tell us the U.S. WAS founded on Christianity because one of his professors told him so but he can't get in depth about it and probably won't respond to any rebuttals because he hates having conversations like this on the internet and because he has a wife, kids and is in law school.
Musselman, which looks like Muffelman, which sounds like Muffin Man. I now will call all Muslims Muffin Men.
It has Christian and non-Christian elements. Christianity was the first religion to explicitly condemn the inherent corruption of existing monarchies and the state, unfortunately even peasants respected birthright over anything else back then, so rather than suggest a democratic solution 1500 years too early, you had to create a mystical hierarchy with a ruler whose metaphysical nature made him immune to human monarchy (son of God). All of the secular philosophies the Founders used to rebel against Christian nations have their populist and idealist moral arc and even some of their rudimentry administrative elements rooted in Christianity.
Do you really believe this? Do you really think our recent and current politicians have done a good job? I care very much what our founding fathers intended as they created the backbone of our country, regardless of who agreed or disagreed with it. Its really sad that you find the Constitution irrelevant and feel the desire that mob rules is how we should be governed.
I'd say self-determination was the primary foundation of the country; self-determination in one's personal and financial affairs. Unfortunately, both are in jeopardy today. People like Rick Santorum don't belong anywhere near the affairs of state. I'm sure he'd live a perfectly honorable and honest life making his living with his hands rather than his lips.
What do our recent politicians, efficacious or not, have to do with believing that founders intent is a useful guide for constitutional interpretation? Time to unpack. So you believe that a) there is a monolithic founders intent b) that it can be ascertained in some absolute manner and c) that it should provide the end all be all answer to any and all modern decisions. Do you think that founders intent is monolithic, and how do you think it can be ascertained? Why do you believe that it should be the sole tool to modern day governance? Never did he say that he found the Constitution irrelevant, he said he believed that founders intent was irrelevant. This is a distinction that was lost of you, but is important nonetheless. IMO, I don't think it is irrelevant, but it's pretty close to irrelevant and certainly cannot be the sole tool of understanding the Constitution because it is so imperfect. I believe that founders intent is an imperfect tool because the founders intent is not monolithic, it is impossible to ascertain in an absolute manner, and I think that even if it could be ascertainable, they could not have possibly imagined the modern world and the nuanced policy responses needed to deal with modern problems. Anyone who tells you that they know the founders intent is lying to you or is at least giving an imperfect version of intent. That does not mean that an imperfect understanding of founders intent is not a persuasive argument in some contexts on constitutional interpretation, but it does mean that anyone who says they are relying on founders intent is just putting a nice sheen on a policy decision they agree with. That's why even "strict textualists" like Scalia rule in a way contravening their own doctrines when it suits their own preferred policy goals or when the application of founders intent gives an absurd result.
I think False somehow divined my meaning even though I didn't say it out loud. I think the Constitution itself is important. But, I'd take it as a stand-alone document to be interpreted within itself and in the context of judicial precedent. I'm in a contract dispute right now. And, when I pointed out to the counterparty that the contract says the opposite of what he's now saying, he's responding with arguments like "everybody does it this way" and "you misunderstood what it was getting at." But, I'm not privy to what their thought processes were when they crafted the language. I only see the words on the page and the common-sense meaning of them. I'd take the same approach with the Constitution.
Yeah and they owned slaves. Why does this matter? Societal norms shift so much from decade to decade. Regardless of whether it was or wasn't its been 300+ years. Does this make the constitution outdated and irrelevant? No. That is why we have amendments. The founding fathers however can't change their opinions; they're dead. Who cares at this stage?
July 4, 1712 11 slaves are executed in New York for starting an uprising that killed 9 Caucasians http://www.datesinhistory.com/jul04.php RedRedemp... You're terrible.
