In politics these days you won't go without hearing "what would our founding fathers do?" Or people talk about the constitution like its god himself.............. Weren't these guys a bunch of slave owners??? Isn't that the last kind of person you would want making rules for a country?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/ Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be NOVEMBER 14, 2009 | ISSUE 45•46 ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head. "Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are." According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation. "Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top." "Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves." According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ." Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments." "And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said. Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical. "Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care." Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle. "The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life." "Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."
Well, the "Founding Fathers" is a 20th c. term but I take it to mean either the signers of the Declaration and the framers of the Constitution. They are neither the demigods some conservative media portrays them or just 'a bunch of slave owners' but rather they were elite, wealthy, and educated white men who were involved in setting up the foundation for the US. The following link provides info on each of the 39 signers of the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/signers.html
Commerce clause and general welfare clause for starters. The Constitution is a great document, but it isn't sacrosanct or without flaws.
Which is the reason that it is a flexible document that has a defined process to amend it as times change. If you don't like what's in the Constitution, you are welcome to push for changes, but the changes you push better have broad, bipartisan support because the hurdles for an amendment are high, as it should be.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson said about changing the constitution http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1000.htm I like that he specifically mentions the changing in regards to civilized society and barbarous ancestors. It's ridiculous that our understanding and path to enlightenment should be held back by the norms of people who had less understanding.
They were a bunch of white men with a few intellectual heavyweights among them. Many owned slaves, and all benefited from the forced displacement and genocide of Native Americans.
i found a shirt for you. Spoiler say what you will about these men, and no one is claiming them to be saints, but jesus, you are just vile.
Was anything I said untrue? Did I advocate violence against white people? Of course not, on both questions. Yet I'm "vile" because I choose not to worship at the alter of the wealthy, white male elite?
Everything you said was true, and in line with typical White Anglo-Saxon values of Britain with the notable exception of slavery, which was comparable, but worse than British imperialism and colonialism that lasted well into the Victorian Era, after the US abolished slavery. We cannot deny our heritage.
you have to give people leeway for the times they lived in. jesus said slaves should obey their masters. if you're a christian will you not follow jesus because of this. that being said, of all the things that are irritating about the tea party movement to me, the way these guys always refer back to the founding fathers when they clearly don't understand the complexity and diversity of their politcal beliefs.
What do you mean by "leeway", though? Should we ignore the reality of the Founders' lives, which may have deeply informed their politics?
And aside from slavery, that same Evangelical ethic kept women well oppressed under the male thumb until the 20th century.
I don't understand what your issue is. sure the fact they owned slaves affected their opinions. but only certain people could vote and had certain rights. the constitution has certainly been adjusted however so it really doesn't matter now.
The oppression of women, while in some ways institutionalized in religion, has been around since the beginning of civilization. Interestingly, many women, while fighting for their own liberation, constituted a very significant constituency of the abolition movement in the 19th century. In many ways, slavery and patriarchy go hand in hand, and there is good evidence that the domestication of women in many societies provided the model for other forms of slavery. Unfortunately, both slavery and patriarchy are alive and well today. Sex slavery is perhaps the most paradigmatic example, but really most forms of prostitution reflect the old social arrangement where men are free to pursue sexual gratification as they please, while women's sexuality is confined and stigmatized. The whole situation with Dez Bryant being asked if his mother was a w**** is a good example of the negative attitudes towards women who either choose or are forced to trade sex for basic necessities (whether or not Bryant's mother actually was a prostitute).
I was just wondering what you meant when you said, "[Y]ou have to give people leeway for the times they lived in."
And a w**** being the lowest form of life dates back to outcast women who expressed their minds, sexuality, and/or disobeyed their husbands which gave the man grounds for divorce and after divorce these women were forced to sell themselves on the streets as their only means of survival. A w**** isn't scum because she ****s for money, a w**** is scum because she wouldn't conform to a man's ideal view of a woman.
