The Imperfection of the American "Founding Fathers"

[The Monkey]

I'm reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion" at the moment, and one chapter in particular grabbed my attention. He writes for many pages about how the Founding Fathers of the US were, if not atheists, then at least secularists, and that the state they intended would be separated from the church. This is something I see appearing constantly in the debates, and while I don't contest the statement itself (I lack enough knowledge to do so), it makes me wonder.

Say, just for the sake of argument, that the founding fathers indeed had thought religious institutions should be exactly like they were in contemporary Europe, with religion very highly influencing the public life. Would that mean that the US for all future would be doomed to follow the same trail? This, after all, follows the same logic as Dawkins and many others use, namely justifying American secularism only by saying that the Founding Fathers were of the same opinion.

People speak as though the founding fathers are some perfect, divine beings, capable of nothing but good. Why can't anyone say (in any matter): "The Founding Fathers and the Constitution is wrong in this matter, and we will do the right thing regardless". Let's not forget that all the Founding Fathers were slave-owners.

I think a major problem for the US is that the constitution is far too strong. Take the electorate system as an example. Because of a 230 year old document, the world's second-largest democracy is forced to stick to a system that's ****ed up by anyone's standards. A constitution exists to protect basic values, rights and freedoms, not to halter the development and modernization of the nation. It would be a blessing to hear an American politician say that the constitution is flawed and the the founding fathers were plain wrong in a great deal of things. I think it would greatly accelerate the pace of improvements over there.

Just some thoughts.

 

[jverne]

I'm reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion" at the moment, and one chapter in particular grabbed my attention. He writes for many pages about how the Founding Fathers of the US were, if not atheists, then at least secularists, and that the state they intended would be separated from the church. This is something I see appearing constantly in the debates, and while I don't contest the statement itself (I lack enough knowledge to do so), it makes me wonder.

Say, just for the sake of argument, that the founding fathers indeed had thought religious institutions should be exactly like they were in contemporary Europe, with religion very highly influencing the public life. Would that mean that the US for all future would be doomed to follow the same trail? This, after all, follows the same logic as Dawkins and many others use, namely justifying American secularism only by saying that the Founding Fathers were of the same opinion.

People speak as though the founding fathers are some perfect, divine beings, capable of nothing but good. Why can't anyone say (in any matter): "The Founding Fathers and the Constitution is wrong in this matter, and we will do the right thing regardless". Let's not forget that all the Founding Fathers were slave-owners.

I think a major problem for the US is that the constitution is far too strong. Take the electorate system as an example. Because of a 230 year old document, the world's second-largest democracy is forced to stick to a system that's ****ed up by anyone's standards. A constitution exists to protect basic values, rights and freedoms, not to halter the development and modernization of the nation. It would be a blessing to hear an American politician say that the constitution is flawed and the the founding fathers were plain wrong in a great deal of things. I think it would greatly accelerate the pace of improvements over there.

Just some thoughts.

my quick thought...the founding fathers were idealists and they wrote their ideas down in the hope of doing good. since freedom seems an everlasting value they couldn't stray very far and they probably knew that.
i'm not that sure there is so much ambition left in today's politicians, thus allowing them to change the constitution.

 

[Adabiviak]

I think, given the available political history available for study at the time (which I believe some of them were well versed in), that they took a pretty good stab at making a nation (read: socio/politico/economic structure) up from scratch. Their notes mention the need for occasional overhauls as needed, so I don't think they meant for it to be the monolithic entity that it's become. America has become a religion for I think a great many people: untouchable and unquestionable in it's divine integrity. I've never known anything else.

 

[Operational]

I think a major problem for the US is that the constitution is far too strong. Take the electorate system as an example. Because of a 230 year old document, the world's second-largest democracy is forced to stick to a system that's ****ed up by anyone's standards. A constitution exists to protect basic values, rights and freedoms, not to halter the development and modernization of the nation. It would be a blessing to hear an American politician say that the constitution is flawed and the the founding fathers were plain wrong in a great deal of things. I think it would greatly accelerate the pace of improvements over there.

Problem being in America, at least from what I hear, it's hard to criticize something especially something as core as the Founding Fathers without seeming unpatriotic.
Which, of course, is instant death for any politician.

 

[unozero]

I'm reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion" at the moment, and one chapter in particular grabbed my attention. He writes for many pages about how the Founding Fathers of the US were, if not atheists, then at least secularists, and that the state they intended would be separated from the church. This is something I see appearing constantly in the debates, and while I don't contest the statement itself (I lack enough knowledge to do so), it makes me wonder.

Say, just for the sake of argument, that the founding fathers indeed had thought religious institutions should be exactly like they were in contemporary Europe, with religion very highly influencing the public life. Would that mean that the US for all future would be doomed to follow the same trail? This, after all, follows the same logic as Dawkins and many others use, namely justifying American secularism only by saying that the Founding Fathers were of the same opinion.

People speak as though the founding fathers are some perfect, divine beings, capable of nothing but good. Why can't anyone say (in any matter): "The Founding Fathers and the Constitution is wrong in this matter, and we will do the right thing regardless". Let's not forget that all the Founding Fathers were slave-owners.

I think a major problem for the US is that the constitution is far too strong. Take the electorate system as an example. Because of a 230 year old document, the world's second-largest democracy is forced to stick to a system that's ****ed up by anyone's standards. A constitution exists to protect basic values, rights and freedoms, not to halter the development and modernization of the nation. It would be a blessing to hear an American politician say that the constitution is flawed and the the founding fathers were plain wrong in a great deal of things. I think it would greatly accelerate the pace of improvements over there.

Just some thoughts.

The Constitution has nothing to do with the current state of the U.S
I feel like saying a few things to you but I don't feel like getting in trouble so I'm going to leave it at "arrogant foreigner" for now.

by "anyone's standards" heh, ****
and implying that the nation where many very smart people come from,also the most powerful is somehow backwards because of the Constitution makes me lough I hope Sweden drowns in Muslims lol.
Can you point how muhc "wrong" stuff in the constitution?

 

[Kamikazie]

How does the Constitution have nothing to do with how the US is today? It basically shaped what the country is. And to label him as an "arrogant foreigner" would be like labeling you as an "arrogant American" for not knowing what the Constitution has done for the US. And IMO, I feel that the Constitution could use a little make over to freshen things up. Every thing else has modernized and why shouldn't the way we run the country.

 

[unozero]

The country is so ****ed up right now thanks to 9/11 the fear people have. and the power the government has now over it's people.
Would we be talking about this if the U.S wasn't in the Middle east right now and how that affected the whole world?



doubt it,anyway I'm going to bed peace out.

 

[Kamikazie]

9/11 had nothing to do with the way that the Constitution didn't help with the current status of the US. That was an event that I don't think the Founding Fathers foresaw. And of course we'd be talking about this because Darwin's book wasn't wrote in spite of the war.

 

[The Monkey]

The Constitution has nothing to do with the current state of the U.S
I feel like saying a few things to you but I don't feel like getting in trouble so I'm going to leave it at "arrogant foreigner" for now.

by "anyone's standards" heh, ****
and implying that the nation where many very smart people come from,also the most powerful is somehow backwards because of the Constitution makes me lough I hope Sweden drowns in Muslims lol.
Can you point how muhc "wrong" stuff in the constitution?

Well, you seem to fit into the average stereotype of a douchebag, but I'm gonna respond anyway.

The Constitution has nothing to do with the current state of the U.S

The Constitution is the foundation of the political system, how can it have nothing to do with the current state of the US?

and implying that the nation where many very smart people come from,also the most powerful is somehow backwards because of the Constitution makes me lough I hope Sweden drowns in Muslims lol.

The smartness of the people is completely irrelevant, and I doubt more smart people per capita comes out of the US compared to any other country.

Can you point how muhc "wrong" stuff in the constitution?

I did, the electorate system.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The reason that America had separation of church and state, wasn't due to separation of Christianity and state, it's that due to America having Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics, Puritans, Quakers, Presbyterians etc. there could never be a state brand of Christianity, that everyone could agree on.

 

[Escaep]

Take an American History class and you will understand.

 

[Tagaziel]

I'm reading Dawkins' "The God Delusion" at the moment, and one chapter in particular grabbed my attention. He writes for many pages about how the Founding Fathers of the US were, if not atheists, then at least secularists, and that the state they intended would be separated from the church. This is something I see appearing constantly in the debates, and while I don't contest the statement itself (I lack enough knowledge to do so), it makes me wonder.

Say, just for the sake of argument, that the founding fathers indeed had thought religious institutions should be exactly like they were in contemporary Europe, with religion very highly influencing the public life. Would that mean that the US for all future would be doomed to follow the same trail? This, after all, follows the same logic as Dawkins and many others use, namely justifying American secularism only by saying that the Founding Fathers were of the same opinion.

People speak as though the founding fathers are some perfect, divine beings, capable of nothing but good. Why can't anyone say (in any matter): "The Founding Fathers and the Constitution is wrong in this matter, and we will do the right thing regardless". Let's not forget that all the Founding Fathers were slave-owners.

I think a major problem for the US is that the constitution is far too strong. Take the electorate system as an example. Because of a 230 year old document, the world's second-largest democracy is forced to stick to a system that's ****ed up by anyone's standards. A constitution exists to protect basic values, rights and freedoms, not to halter the development and modernization of the nation. It would be a blessing to hear an American politician say that the constitution is flawed and the the founding fathers were plain wrong in a great deal of things. I think it would greatly accelerate the pace of improvements over there.

Just some thoughts.

Dawkins is a douchebag.

On topic, I agree with the points you raise about the US Constitution. Yes, it is outdated, especially with the "GUNZGUNZGUNZ" amendment in force, and needs to be changed substantially. Of course, that'll take a wholle lot of balls, seeing how it might invalidate a lot of precedents.

You can resume arguing now.

 

[nurizeko]

Secular government is the most divine form. :imu:

 

[unozero]

you aint taking my guns you smelly furry

 

[nurizeko]

*fondles Unozero's guns*

You like that, don't you.....

 

[Blackthorn]

Would we be talking about this if the U.S wasn't in the Middle east right now and how that affected the whole world?

Yes, yes we would. I don't see how that at all changes the flaws in the constitution, and not once did the OP mention the Middle-East, the Bush regime or Muslims. Stop playing devil's advocate, and stop being an immature, jingoistic prick.

 

[15357]

I think a major problem for the US is that the constitution is far too strong. Take the electorate system as an example. Because of a 230 year old document, the world's second-largest democracy is forced to stick to a system that's ****ed up by anyone's standards.

What? Am I not even human?

A constitution exists to protect basic values, rights and freedoms, not to halter the development and modernization of the nation.

No, laws exist to protect rights. The constitution is a guideline and basis.

It would be a blessing to hear an American politician say that the constitution is flawed and the the founding fathers were plain wrong in a great deal of things. I think it would greatly accelerate the pace of improvements over there.

What "improvements"? I don't mean to sound rude, but you do need to elaborate.

 

[Ennui]

Uhh, the second amendment is a good thing. The government should NOT have all the guns.

 

[15357]

Uhh, the second amendment is a good thing. The government should NOT have all the guns.

Besides, it gives people the opportunity to shoot things.

 

[VirusType2]

They will never be able to get rid of guns in America even if they tried. There are probably hundreds of millions of them.

A president with a goal to remove guns from citizens would never be voted in, trust me when I tell you.

 

[Kadayi]

Dawkins is a douchebag.

Careful what you say about The Dawkins, Mikael lest the villagers storm the castle. You know how sensitive they get when their idol is bismirched

 

[kineaesth]

He's terrible in bed.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Problem being in America, at least from what I hear, it's hard to criticize something especially something as core as the Founding Fathers without seeming unpatriotic.
Which, of course, is instant death for any politician.

Not so. People who stand up for the constitution and the rights it promises are treated and as terrorists and arrested. That 230 + years old document is responsible for helping this country move forward as a once robust Republic. But now the Constitution doesn't mean anything, and the govt. does anything they. For you people to be foolish enough to think it limits the US, it doesn't. It's supposed to limit what the government does to it's citizens.

Constitution is cited as something meaningless and irrelevant, as you and others seem to see it. Thanks to that kind of ideology, America has become the world's most hated police state.

The Constitution promises freedoms to all, regards the govt. as an organization that serves the people, regulates war and demands that war is only used in defense of america and the freedoms promised to them.

Wow! That sounds like one nut-job document to me.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I think the constitution is a pretty cool dude. But there's an argument to be made about whether, in having a constitution, you take away the focus from doing what is actually moral, and move it towards the constitution. Instead of "because it is right" or "because it works", "because it's constitutional" can become the new standard of morality.

Not that, as Ghost points out, the Constitution has often been followed to the letter or to the spirit in American history.

He's terrible in bed.

That was Emma Watson you slept with.

 

[Escaep]

In my opinion, the founding fathers were some of the greatest Americans to ever live. They managed to persuade a bunch of rag tag colonists to stand up and defeat one of the most powerful nations at that time. If you have ever taken an American history class, which, i doubt many non-Americans have ever done you will have a better understanding of what truly happened.

 

[Mr Stabby]

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were great, the rest don't really deserve much praise, many were slave owning landed gentry. One of the major reasons George Washington supported the revolution was that the British government banned European settlers going any further westward and Washington wanted to buy and sell land in the west.

 

[kineaesth]

That was Emma Watson you slept with.

What? Now I'll have to edit my post in the virginity thread... D:

 

[The Monkey]

What? Now I'll have to edit my post in the virginity thread... D:

there's a virginity thread, link, please+

 

[The Monkey]

Edit, ****ungnowgeigeans , I Wish They's All ****ing Die

edit: the above statment was made under deep intoxicatrion of alcohole

 

[kineaesth]

It's okay. It's in the lounge. Go find it!

 

[Vigilante]

That was Emma Watson you slept with.

I wouldn't object to her being in my bed at all....... :smoking:

 

[kineaesth]

No, she was really bad.

 

[The Monkey]

there's a virginity thread, link, please+

Edit, ****ungnowgeigeans , I Wish They's All ****ing Die

edit: the above statment was made under deep intoxicatrion of alcohole

I don't remember writing that. D: