Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Buffman · 08-01-2002, 10:59 PM

Toto

(I'm slowly catching up to you "Speed Merchants."

1. It is nitpicking to say that the Mayflower Compact was signed on this continent rather than prior to embarking, but it is not nitpicking to point out that the Compact is not an official document of this country. It should be entitled to no more respect than a Buddhist prayer offered by an Asian immigrant before embarking to California to work on the railroad.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000558" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000558</a>

I have been struggling with this one. The Mayflower Compact has been made to seem as though it is a religious compact. However, based on what I read above, and at other Pilgram discussion sites, it seem to be more of an economic and social compact between two different groups in order to achieve harmony and the best chances of survival. Here is an extract from "Sources of the American Republic" Vol 1, Meyers-Cawelti-Kern, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, Illinois, 1967:

"Because they had no legal authority to settle at Plymouth---and for other reasons given by Bradford---the Pilgrim leaders drew up and signed a document stating their consent to form a civil society and obey its laws. The "Mayflower Compact" of 1620 formed a precedent for the principle that government should be based on written agreements, the principle embodied a century and a half later in the new state and federal constitutions of independent America."

In "Pilgrams' Progress," William Bradford comments on "..., being the first foundation of their government in this place, occasioned partly by the discontented and mutinous speeches that some of the strangers amongst them had let fall from them in the ship: that when they came ashore they would use their own liberty, for none had power to command them, the patent they had being for Virginia, and not for New England, which belonged to another government, with which the Virginia Company had nothing to do..."

From what I can determine, this is what actually led to the writing and signing of the Compact...and why I felt it was significant to note the actual location of composition and signing.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Oresta · 08-03-2002, 11:20 AM

What an extraordinary thread this is!
I agree with Buffman that the Mayflower point is not a nit-picking one. The Senate error of the date of signing indicates a total misunderstanding of its purpose, which he points out with Bradford's quote in the above post. Well might the Pilgrims be concerned with needing an agreement of this sort with the other passengers, given Pilgrims were in the minority and other passengers, during the voyage
had been making "mutinous" noises about being bound by no laws.
I also agree that this document has been given greater weight than it merits as being religious in spirit and intent. It would be difficult, however, to argue that point succinctly and in 25 words or less for our Senators, who evidently didn't take the time to examine what they endorsed.

Edited AGAIN to nit pick.

.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]</p>

Toto · 08-03-2002, 11:30 AM

I found this article from the National Review that is the only one that appears to have read the legislation:

<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york062802.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york062802.asp</a>

Quote:

The interesting thing about the wording is that it declares Congress's action in 1954 as being clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution. Those are words that are dear to the hearts of conservatives, and with Senate Bill 2690, every one of the Senate's 50 Democrats voted to endorse them. It might seem like a small thing in an inconsequential piece of legislation, but it is nevertheless possible that in the future, when the Senate becomes embroiled in debates over "original intent" versus the so-called "living constitution," the phrase "clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution" from the pledge of allegiance bill will be cited early and often, and not in a way that will make some of the most liberal Democrats happy. "The Democrats generally don't like to cite the text and intent of the Constitution," says one Republican. "They like to cite opinion polls and the emerging consensus of law professors."

. . .

One of the reasons Republicans went to the trouble to reaffirm a law that was already on the books was GOP unhappiness with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Atkins case, in which the Court outlawed executions of the mentally retarded. In that case, some of the justices relied on public opinion polls and the actions of state legislatures to argue that public views on the execution issue had changed. Senate Bill 2690 is a refutation of that kind of thinking. Not only does it approvingly cite the "text and intent" of the Constitution, it also makes clear that public views on the nation's historic commitment to God remain just as they were fifty years ago. "There cannot be any question about whether public attitudes on this issue have changed since 1954, because we just passed it again," says one Republican. That, in turn, might become useful in future cases involving religion and the First Amendment. The Senate made clear that it supports "under God" not because it sounds good, or that many Americans support it, but because it is clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution.

I think the last paragraph is particularly muddled, but this is a useful guide to Republican thinking (and reasons to oppose the legislation.)

RichardMorey · 08-03-2002, 12:13 PM

What I really don't understand about conservatives is this idea that liberals REJECT original understanding. I went to see Scalia speak recently, and it is amazing to hear that sentiment from such a well-educated man. Anyone who has taken basic philosophy of law or history of jurisprudence classes know that modern jurisprudence sees original understanding as a tool to be used among others, not as chains to bind the minds of judges. Ideas change over time. "Cruel and unusual" is relative. Conservatives need to get over it.

Buffman · 08-03-2002, 01:19 PM

Perhaps this is not the easiest of articles to read concerning the relationships between the Pilgrams and the Puritans, and how those groups have been used to manipulate the American cultural heritage by vested interest Protestants, but it does provide some well documented history and an even handed approach to the current political (religious-secular) implications.

<a href="http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/puritan/purmain.html" target="_blank">http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/puritan/purmain.html</a>

Buffman · 08-09-2002, 10:22 PM

RichardMorey

Rather than allow all our effort simply die on the vine, I just forwarded a copy of what we had done so far to Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. to use for potential references in the FFRF efforts to educate the public. I only used my name at this point, though indicated that I had had special expertise arriving at the draft copy I had forwarded to him.

(Added)

I did send him a hyperlink to this specific URL just in case he wished to review some of the dialogue surrounding the development of the draft.

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2002, 10:59 PM	#21
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Toto (I'm slowly catching up to you "Speed Merchants." 1. It is nitpicking to say that the Mayflower Compact was signed on this continent rather than prior to embarking, but it is not nitpicking to point out that the Compact is not an official document of this country. It should be entitled to no more respect than a Buddhist prayer offered by an Asian immigrant before embarking to California to work on the railroad. <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000558" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000558</a> I have been struggling with this one. The Mayflower Compact has been made to seem as though it is a religious compact. However, based on what I read above, and at other Pilgram discussion sites, it seem to be more of an economic and social compact between two different groups in order to achieve harmony and the best chances of survival. Here is an extract from "Sources of the American Republic" Vol 1, Meyers-Cawelti-Kern, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, Illinois, 1967: "Because they had no legal authority to settle at Plymouth---and for other reasons given by Bradford---the Pilgrim leaders drew up and signed a document stating their consent to form a civil society and obey its laws. The "Mayflower Compact" of 1620 formed a precedent for the principle that government should be based on written agreements, the principle embodied a century and a half later in the new state and federal constitutions of independent America." In "Pilgrams' Progress," William Bradford comments on "..., being the first foundation of their government in this place, occasioned partly by the discontented and mutinous speeches that some of the strangers amongst them had let fall from them in the ship: that when they came ashore they would use their own liberty, for none had power to command them, the patent they had being for Virginia, and not for New England, which belonged to another government, with which the Virginia Company had nothing to do..." From what I can determine, this is what actually led to the writing and signing of the Compact...and why I felt it was significant to note the actual location of composition and signing. [ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

08-03-2002, 11:20 AM	#22
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	What an extraordinary thread this is! I agree with Buffman that the Mayflower point is not a nit-picking one. The Senate error of the date of signing indicates a total misunderstanding of its purpose, which he points out with Bradford's quote in the above post. Well might the Pilgrims be concerned with needing an agreement of this sort with the other passengers, given Pilgrims were in the minority and other passengers, during the voyage had been making "mutinous" noises about being bound by no laws. I also agree that this document has been given greater weight than it merits as being religious in spirit and intent. It would be difficult, however, to argue that point succinctly and in 25 words or less for our Senators, who evidently didn't take the time to examine what they endorsed. Edited AGAIN to nit pick. . [ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ] [ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ] [ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Oresta ]</p>

08-03-2002, 12:13 PM	#24
RichardMorey Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Missouri Posts: 112	What I really don't understand about conservatives is this idea that liberals REJECT original understanding. I went to see Scalia speak recently, and it is amazing to hear that sentiment from such a well-educated man. Anyone who has taken basic philosophy of law or history of jurisprudence classes know that modern jurisprudence sees original understanding as a tool to be used among others, not as chains to bind the minds of judges. Ideas change over time. "Cruel and unusual" is relative. Conservatives need to get over it.

08-03-2002, 01:19 PM	#25
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Perhaps this is not the easiest of articles to read concerning the relationships between the Pilgrams and the Puritans, and how those groups have been used to manipulate the American cultural heritage by vested interest Protestants, but it does provide some well documented history and an even handed approach to the current political (religious-secular) implications. <a href="http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/puritan/purmain.html" target="_blank">http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/puritan/purmain.html</a>

08-09-2002, 10:22 PM	#26
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	RichardMorey Rather than allow all our effort simply die on the vine, I just forwarded a copy of what we had done so far to Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. to use for potential references in the FFRF efforts to educate the public. I only used my name at this point, though indicated that I had had special expertise arriving at the draft copy I had forwarded to him. (Added) I did send him a hyperlink to this specific URL just in case he wished to review some of the dialogue surrounding the development of the draft. [ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.