Founding Fathers Debate -- Need Help

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-12 11:44pm

Ah... since you aren't American and haven't studied her history i can now see why you would be confused about the founding fathers.

Ok, the Constitutional Conventions were full of very heated debate. The document that became the US Constitution was quite honestly hammered out in debate after debate, compromise after compromise. Look at how the Conneticut Compromise was hammered out of the New Jersey plan and the Virginia plan.... America would not be the nation we were withouth all three of those ideas and proposals (the Conneticut Compromise established a bi-cameral legislature that satisfied the big States that thought representation should be proportional [Virginia Plan] and the smaller states which believed every state should have equal standing [New Jersey Plan]... That is just one example, the Constitution is full of such instances which is why anyone who has studied the Constitution will tell you that big names aren't the end all be all. Every one of the delegates added his own opinion and weight to the document. It really is amazing to think about.... if any given delegate had been present, we would have a radically different document.

Now, another point. We are already agreed that the US is a secular nation (or that it should be!, damn Xian Right)... what i disagree with was the arguement that the founders were not overwhelming Xian. The evidence clearly shows otherwise, it is just that the majority of the founders were wise enough to realize that governments and religion don't mix. (Take a look at the Taleban if you need a modern day example) I don't believe the founders religious inclinations even matter, for it is quite clear that government of the US was not ment to be based on religion. Hell a good chunk of Americans had left Europe b/c of that kind of bullshit.

I hope that explains my possition.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-12 11:48pm

opps.. forgot to address revolutionary vs. founder.

Ok, many many people were influential in the early history of the US. You brought up political influence... for example Locke and Montesquieu... but you wouldn't say they were founders would you? So what definition would you use as founders? Even some revolutionaries would spit on you if you said they were founders, Patrick Henry famiously said "I smell a rat" when asked to the Constitutional Conventions... So would he be a founder? The deffinition commonly used to define founder is someone who signed a founding document? I mean that seems pretty clear cut and simple doesn't it?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-12 11:51pm

Ancalagon wrote:Ah... since you aren't American and haven't studied her history i can now see why you would be confused about the founding fathers.

You Americans are frankly too obsessed with your own history

Ok, the Constitutional Conventions were full of very heated debate. The document that became the US Constitution was quite honestly hammered out in debate after debate, compromise after compromise. Look at how the Conneticut Compromise was hammered out of the New Jersey plan and the Virginia plan.... America would not be the nation we were withouth all three of those ideas and proposals (the Conneticut Compromise established a bi-cameral legislature that satisfied the big States that thought representation should be proportional [Virginia Plan] and the smaller states which believed every state should have equal standing [New Jersey Plan]... That is just one example, the Constitution is full of such instances which is why anyone who has studied the Constitution will tell you that big names aren't the end all be all. Every one of the delegates added his own opinion and weight to the document. It really is amazing to think about.... if any given delegate had been present, we would have a radically different document.

But anyone who has observed such fractious debates today knows that there are still certain people who are more prominent and influential than others. Usually, you will have whole "gangs" who support a particular idea and will often have an eloquent spokesman who functions as a sort of public leader for their movement. Surely human behaviour was not so different back then, and certain viewpoints had key proponents. Since the relevant part of the Constitution is the First Amendment, shouldn't we be looking at the ringleaders behind that particular portion?

Now, another point. We are already agreed that the US is a secular nation (or that it should be!, damn Xian Right)... what i disagree with was the arguement that the founders were not overwhelming Xian.

I think that really depends on how you define "founder". Most of the names being given up as evidence by the others who participated in this debate were completely unknown to me (and, I suspect, to anyone who hasn't studied American history in depth).

The evidence clearly shows otherwise, it is just that the majority of the founders were wise enough to realize that governments and religion don't mix. (Take a look at the Taleban if you need a modern day example) I don't believe the founders religious inclinations even matter, for it is quite clear that government of the US was not ment to be based on religion. Hell a good chunk of Americans had left Europe b/c of that kind of bullshit.

Very true.

I hope that explains my possition.

I think so. Our major disagreement is mostly on the question of who is actually a "founding father".

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-12 11:53pm

Ancalagon wrote:opps.. forgot to address revolutionary vs. founder.

Ok, many many people were influential in the early history of the US. You brought up political influence... for example Locke and Montesquieu... but you wouldn't say they were founders would you?

They did not participate directly. Paine did.

So what definition would you use as founders? Even some revolutionaries would spit on you if you said they were founders, Patrick Henry famiously said "I smell a rat" when asked to the Constitutional Conventions... So would he be a founder? The deffinition commonly used to define founder is someone who signed a founding document? I mean that seems pretty clear cut and simple doesn't it?

I would say that someone who was influential in the authoring of the document is a founder. If someone today authors some kind of bill and promotes it, pushes it, gets support for it, and then gets a lot of people to sign on, do they all count as the fathers of that bill? Of course not. And if he doesn't sign it himself for whatever reason (perhaps not in a position where his signature is useful to its passage), does he NOT count as a father of the bill? Of course not.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-12 11:57pm

Darth Wong wrote: But anyone who has observed such fractious debates today knows that there are still certain people who are more prominent and influential than others. Usually, you will have whole "gangs" who support a particular idea and will often have an eloquent spokesman who functions as a sort of public leader for their movement. Surely human behaviour was not so different back then, and certain viewpoints had key proponents. Since the relevant part of the Constitution is the First Amendment, shouldn't we be looking at the ringleaders behind that particular portion?

That is true, which is why before i posted i added 'weight' instead of just opinion. Just b/c they might not have been as outspoken didn't mean that the weight of their vote didn't have a huge effect.

I think so. Our major disagreement is mostly on the question of who is actually a "founding father".

See my added post...

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-12 11:59pm

Darth Wong wrote: I would say that someone who was influential in the authoring of the document is a founder. If someone today authors some kind of bill and promotes it, pushes it, gets support for it, and then gets a lot of people to sign on, do they all count as the fathers of that bill? Of course not. And if he doesn't sign it himself for whatever reason (perhaps not in a position where his signature is useful to its passage), does he NOT count as a father of the bill? Of course not.

I think you are confusing Thomas Paine's role as a revolutionary with that as a founder. Remember that the government we have now was not the one set up after the Revolutionary War.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-13 12:08am

Ancalagon wrote:I think you are confusing Thomas Paine's role as a revolutionary with that as a founder. Remember that the government we have now was not the one set up after the Revolutionary War.

Sorry to butt in here, but how can you claim a revolutionary of Paine's importance was not a founder? How does picking apart specific roles played exclude his involvement in the founding of the nation? A very influential involvement, to boot.

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-13 12:08am

Darth Wong wrote: Rather odd than an Episcopal minister would bitterly complain that "the founders of our nation were "nearly all infidels", being so much closer to the source and the primary facts than we are, two centuries later.

Any more odd than many modern Christians badmouthing politicians they don't like or eeven other religious figures?
I assure you many many Southern Baptist Pastors look skiptically on Bill Clinton's proffesion of faith that church and likewise many United Methodist have big problems with GW for different reasons.

That quote is, quite simply, meaningless.

4) That Thomas Paine was not a founding father.

Define "founding father". I have asked GC to do this more than once, with no response. Perhaps you will make the effort.[/quote]

You might want to review my post and note the great nuber of times that I have said "had nothing to do with the framing of the constitution" concerning Paine, Allen, and Jefferson. I'm sure there's at least 4-5 occasions.

As an aside, I haven't seen where you ask me that, but I'll not ask you to quote it - I'll assume I overlooked it.

the definition he gave you for FF v.s Revolutionaries is the commonly accepted one.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-13 12:16am

To be fair, GC, commonly accepted by whom? Most people with whom I've ever discussed the Founding of this country consider anyone who had an overt influence on the documents to be Founding Fathers, whether they actually signed the documents they influenced or not.

We may be dealing with a case of conflicting definitions here. If you can understand the definition I just provided you, you may come a step closer to resolving this debate.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 12:18am

except GC as we have already discussed it isnt the constitution proper that is in question here, it is the bill of rights, specifically the 1st ammendment, which Jefferson did play a role in. Darth Wong has already pointed this out, why do you ignore it? Either argue against it or accept it, but by ignoring it, you reduce the strenght of your case, as now we see that you are evading the question.

A founding father, is someone who plays a role in FOUNDING a nation. This need not be someone who signs any legal documents, to claim otherwise is taking the narrowest possible view as to who qualifies as a founding father. Fact is that I would claim anyone who played a significant role in the revolution and setting up the ground work for the future governments of the US, both under the articles and under the constitution, qualifies as someone who played a major role in FOUNDING the nation, enough of a role to be seen as a father figure by the nation. Now remember a person can be called someone's father even if they arent that person's biological father. Likewise a person can be called a nation's father, even if they didnt do anything to sign a law. Paine most certainly is a founding father of the US, without him there quite likely would be no US, if that doesnt define a founding father, then nothing does.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-13 12:19am

GC wrote:Any more odd than many modern Christians badmouthing politicians they don't like or eeven other religious figures?

I haven't seen any modern Christians claiming that a politician they don't like does not believe in God unless he has some actual source on that.

I assure you many many Southern Baptist Pastors look skiptically on Bill Clinton's proffesion of faith that church and likewise many United Methodist have big problems with GW for different reasons.

Do any of them actually say that GW does not believe at all?

That quote is, quite simply, meaningless.

No more meaningless than the SCOTUS quote which puts out an opinion but makes no actual attempt to explain how scripture can be used to derive common law.

You might want to review my post and note the great nuber of times that I have said "had nothing to do with the framing of the constitution" concerning Paine, Allen, and Jefferson. I'm sure there's at least 4-5 occasions.

Oh I'm sorry, that would be the part that I dismissed because it's simply not true. Saying that Jefferson had "nothing to do" with the composition of the constitution is silly, as he was a vocal participant in the debates raging over its content and that of the amendments. And since the First Amendment is the one most pertinent to any discussion of America's "Christian basis", his influence on that particular amendment is most salient to the debate.

the definition he gave you for FF v.s Revolutionaries is the commonly accepted one.

Who says that? I have always heard Paine referred to as a founding father. Granted, I'm not an American history expert, but I doubt that the term "founding father" has an actual formal definition, and I doubt even more that it is based on a legal signatory distinction.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-05-13 12:37am

To qualify as a Founding Father, you must possess a special Parental Founding permit, and then sign form #9601 and #9602 with at least two witnesses. Failure to do so will result in a charge of Illegal Founding, and you will have to pay 500 pounds or spend a minimum of 10 days in jail.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-13 01:17am

If you insist on getting technical with nontechnical terms, "Founding Fathers" would refer, IMHO, to the leaders of the Revolution and the republic that followed, while "Framers" would refer specifically to delegates to the Constituional Convention in Philadelphia. Jefferson was, therefore, a Founding Father but not a framer, as he was in Paris at the time, whereas Washington was both. However, the distinction is artificial, as illustrated by the fact that Washington actually participated little in the debates in Philadelphia even though he served as chairman, and Jefferson was in active corrspondance with Madison during the ratification debates in the states, and was probably the man most responsible for convincing Madison that a Bill of Rights was necessary.

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-13 01:42am

NapoleonGH wrote:except GC as we have already discussed it isnt the constitution proper that is in question here, it is the bill of rights, specifically the 1st ammendment, which Jefferson did play a role in. Darth Wong has already pointed this out, why do you ignore it? Either argue against it or accept it, but by ignoring it, you reduce the strenght of your case, as now we see that you are evading the question.

A founding father, is someone who plays a role in FOUNDING a nation. This need not be someone who signs any legal documents, to claim otherwise is taking the narrowest possible view as to who qualifies as a founding father. Fact is that I would claim anyone who played a significant role in the revolution and setting up the ground work for the future governments of the US, both under the articles and under the constitution, qualifies as someone who played a major role in FOUNDING the nation, enough of a role to be seen as a father figure by the nation. Now remember a person can be called someone's father even if they arent that person's biological father. Likewise a person can be called a nation's father, even if they didnt do anything to sign a law. Paine most certainly is a founding father of the US, without him there quite likely would be no US, if that doesnt define a founding father, then nothing does.

Lets assume for the moment that I give you Jefferson as a FF for all the purposes of this discussion, Id' give you Paine to but then I'd ask for Patrick Henry and they'd just cancel each other out.

I will be no means give you a minor playerr like Ethan Allen.

So.
there are 119 men who signed one of the founding documents.

Of those, there are about 15 names which would be recognizeable to a decent student of American History.

We are ask to believe that becuase TWO of that fifteen were avowed Diest, one of which moved for PRAYER at the Con Convention and confidently asserted that he firmly believed that God governs in the affairs of men we may extrapolate their opinions to the other 15, and by extension, that the other 100 plus were lapdogs who went along with these mens influance.

The first assumption is simply untrue as there were STRONG Christians in that 15, and the second is an unporven ASSUMPTION.

I don't think it weakens my case that much to give you Jefferson except that his writings, for various reasons, have been much more preserved than those of a man like Govornur Morris.

Again, as I've said repeatedly, the assertion I wish to refute is that the original list of quotes proves the Founders were not Christians.

Any attempt to convince me that the government is not official Christian is a waste of bandwidth since I did not make that assertion nor do I believ it.

My whole case is the defense of the fact that the vast majorit of those men, with 3 noteable exceptions, were, in fact, Christians.

I seem to have trapped myself into the whole common law bit which I believe to be true (and which, contrary to Wong's attempt to say so is not an equal statemtn to claiming it's an official Christian nation) but which I wish I had not allowed to be mixed with my original point.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-13 02:02am

GC wrote:So. there are 119 men who signed one of the founding documents ...

So you are still claiming that a "founding father" is one who signed the Constitution after the country was already founded, declared independent, and successfully freed from its colonial masters, hence you are not addressing the demand to back up this definition. Again, please explain how you know "Founding Father" to be defined thusly.

We are ask to believe that becuase TWO of that fifteen were avowed Diest, one of which moved for PRAYER at the Con Convention and confidently asserted that he firmly believed that God governs in the affairs of men we may extrapolate their opinions to the other 15, and by extension, that the other 100 plus were lapdogs who went along with these mens influance.

And from your side, we are asked to believe that because public kowtowing to Christian sentiment existed, this somehow contradicts the far more substantive fact that nothing in the Constitution can be shown to be of Biblical origin. NOT ONE THING.

Again, as I've said repeatedly, the assertion I wish to refute is that the original list of quotes proves the Founders were not Christians.

And all you have really proven is that they were not atheists either, which no one was claiming in the first place. Unfortunately for you, there are more than just atheists and Christians in the world. Look up "false dilemma".

Any attempt to convince me that the government is not official Christian is a waste of bandwidth since I did not make that assertion nor do I believ it.

No, you just believe their entire system of law is based on the Bible: an assertion which is quite frankly close enough, and which you refuse to defend with examples of Biblically inspired constitutional excerpts.

I seem to have trapped myself into the whole common law bit which I believe to be true (and which, contrary to Wong's attempt to say so is not an equal statemtn to claiming it's an official Christian nation) but which I wish I had not allowed to be mixed with my original point.

You believe many things to be true without a shred of evidence. This is just one more.

Ancalagon · Post by **Ancalagon** » 2003-05-13 10:39am

Frank Hipper wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:I think you are confusing Thomas Paine's role as a revolutionary with that as a founder. Remember that the government we have now was not the one set up after the Revolutionary War.
Sorry to butt in here, but how can you claim a revolutionary of Paine's importance was not a founder? How does picking apart specific roles played exclude his involvement in the founding of the nation? A very influential involvement, to boot.

Ok, let me ask you this.... would you say that Vladimir Lenin was the founder of the modern nation known Russia? No b/c the government has since changed. Yes he is important in her history, but he is not a founder of the government. In this way there were revolutionaries that fought the British that did not support or help found the modern nation of America. (as i pointed out earlier many people forget that there were was a totally different government in power from 1781-1789)

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-13 01:17pm

Darth Wong wrote:
GC wrote:So. there are 119 men who signed one of the founding documents ...
So you are still claiming that a "founding father" is one who signed the Constitution after the country was already founded, declared independent, and successfully freed from its colonial masters, hence you are not addressing the demand to back up this definition. Again, please explain how you know "Founding Father" to be defined thusly.

"Founding Documents" includes the Decleration, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. Obviously it was not "already founded" before the Decleration. Just how LITTLE American history DO you know?

We are ask to believe that becuase TWO of that fifteen were avowed Diest, one of which moved for PRAYER at the Con Convention and confidently asserted that he firmly believed that God governs in the affairs of men we may extrapolate their opinions to the other 15, and by extension, that the other 100 plus were lapdogs who went along with these mens influance.
And from your side, we are asked to believe that because public kowtowing to Christian sentiment existed, this somehow contradicts the far more substantive fact that nothing in the Constitution can be shown to be of Biblical origin. NOT ONE THING.

You have not sucsessfully demonstrated your double-life theory in any way. Repeating it more often don't make it so. I don't know what you expect the Constitution to say that parrots the Bible. They are different documents for different purposes. Even the legalism in the Bible which is far more Judaic/OT than Christian NT is the kind of minor stuff you don't put in the constitution of a country or even a state.

You ask for examples of Christian ideas in the common law and one example of that would be "blue laws" which prohibited comerce on Sundays...this is the kind of minor regulation only an idiot would put n a Constitution.
You are deliberatly setting an unreasonable, false standard just so you can shoot it down...sort of like a straw man.

Again, as I've said repeatedly, the assertion I wish to refute is that the original list of quotes proves the Founders were not Christians.
And all you have really proven is that they were not atheists either, which no one was claiming in the first place. Unfortunately for you, there are more than just atheists and Christians in the world. Look up "false dilemma".

I did not say they were claiming that these men were athist, so the false delima problem is yours. I said that the original poster claimed those posts proved something it did not prove.
Period
PERIOD.

Any attempt to convince me that the government is not official Christian is a waste of bandwidth since I did not make that assertion nor do I believ it.
No, you just believe their entire system of law is based on the Bible: an assertion which is quite frankly close enough,

close enough to give the parinoid like you a hook to hang your rant on.

and which you refuse to defend with examples of Biblically inspired constitutional excerpts.
I seem to have trapped myself into the whole common law bit which I believe to be true (and which, contrary to Wong's attempt to say so is not an equal statemtn to claiming it's an official Christian nation) but which I wish I had not allowed to be mixed with my original point.
You believe many things to be true without a shred of evidence. This is just one more.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
You obviously know the drill.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-13 02:42pm

Slartibartfast wrote:To qualify as a Founding Father, you must possess a special Parental Founding permit, and then sign form #9601 and #9602 with at least two witnesses. Failure to do so will result in a charge of Illegal Founding, and you will have to pay 500 pounds or spend a minimum of 10 days in jail.

Pssst! Slartibartfast -- I believe the spelling we're looking for on "jail" is "gaol". You know us historical revisionists have to be extra careful, or we could get in carloads of trouble.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-13 03:30pm

GC wrote:"Founding Documents" includes the Decleration, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. Obviously it was not "already founded" before the Decleration. Just how LITTLE American history DO you know?

I know enough to know that the Constitution was not ratified until long after the country already existed.

You have not sucsessfully demonstrated your double-life theory in any way. Repeating it more often don't make it so.

I have demonstrated it by showing two-faced quotes. Your inability to recognize this is not my problem. You act as though one of those faces can be treated as if it doesn't exist. Rather than try to deal with ALL of the evidence, you simply select that which you prefer and ignore the rest. A two-faced set of quotes obviously leads to a conclusion of two-faced behaviour; this is hardly rocket science.

I don't know what you expect the Constitution to say that parrots the Bible. They are different documents for different purposes. Even the legalism in the Bible which is far more Judaic/OT than Christian NT is the kind of minor stuff you don't put in the constitution of a country or even a state.

How does this change the fact that NO ONE THING in the Constitution can be shown to be of Biblical origin? You're just making excuses for the fact that they're totally unrelated, when that fact is the whole point. Every time you are challenged to support your claim that American law and society are based on Christianity, you just mumble that it's "as obvious as the clock on the wall" and refuse to substantiate it.

You ask for examples of Christian ideas in the common law and one example of that would be "blue laws" which prohibited comerce on Sundays...this is the kind of minor regulation only an idiot would put n a Constitution.

Actually, they are directly opposed to the constitution and have been struck down in many areas for that reason, hence the fact that a vast number of businesses remain open on Sunday throughout the USA. Thanks for proving my point.

You are deliberatly setting an unreasonable, false standard just so you can shoot it down...sort of like a straw man.

How is it "unreasonable" to say that if you claim A is related to B, you must show how A is related to B?

I did not say they were claiming that these men were athist, so the false delima problem is yours. I said that the original poster claimed those posts proved something it did not prove.
Period
PERIOD.

The original poster claimed that these quotes prove the men were not Christian. You think that you have somehow refuted him by showing that they believe in some sort of God, but you have not. What part of this do you not understand?

No, you just believe their entire system of law is based on the Bible: an assertion which is quite frankly close enough,
close enough to give the parinoid like you a hook to hang your rant on.

Oh, so now it's "paranoid" to conclude that if someone thinks a nation's entire system of law is based on the Bible, he's basically saying that it's a Christian nation? I love the way you constantly belittle your opponent while simultaneously holding your nose in the air and pretending to be above that sort of thing.

You believe many things to be true without a shred of evidence. This is just one more.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You obviously know the drill.

Ok, smart-ass, instead of dismissing points with a wave of your hand, show me HOW you have presented evidence that the common law is based on the Bible. You can attack someone for pointing out the TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION if you like, but the fact remains that you have presented no real evidence for your claim that the common law is based on the Bible; your only ATTEMPT to do so was your admittedly insignificant Sunday closing laws which are not even Constitutional and are not regionally uniform: hardly proof that the entire American common law is based on the Bible. I've gone shopping in the United States on Sunday many times, and I don't see the vendors and other businesses shutting down when they broadcast football games every Sunday.

GC · Post by GC » 2003-05-13 05:05pm

I'll throw you a bone, just to see how you react to it.

Prof. John Fiske, who has been ranked as one of the two greatest American historians, says, "It is not too much to say that in the seventeenth century the entire political future of mankind was staked upon the questions that were at issue in England. Had it not been for the Puritans, political liberty would probably have disappeared from the world. If ever there were men who laid down their lives in the cause of all mankind, it was those grim old Ironsides, whose watch-words were texts of Holy Writ, whose battle-cries were hymns of praise."3

When Protestant martyrs died in the valleys of Piedmont, and the papal autocrat sat on his throne in luxury, gathering his blood-stained garments around him, it was Cromwell, the Puritan, supported by a council and nation of the same persuasion, who wrote demanding that these persecutions cease.

On three different occasions Cromwell was offered, and was urged to accept, the Crown of England, but each time he refused. Doctrinally we find that the Puritans were the literal and lineal descendants of John Calvin; and they and they alone kept alive the precious spark of English liberty. In view of these facts no one can rashly deny the justice of Fiske's conclusion that "It would be hard to over-rate the debt which mankind owes to John Calvin."

http://www.geocities.com/y_a_r_r/history/chap3.htm

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-05-13 05:10pm

GC wrote:I'll throw you a bone, just to see how you react to it.

*big snip*

"It would be hard to over-rate the debt which mankind owes to John Calvin."
http://www.geocities.com/y_a_r_r/history/chap3.htm

Just what is this quote supposed to prove? It certainly does nothing to show that common law in the US has a Biblical base.