Alonzo Fyfe

I know that this is redundant,

But quote wars as such red herring.

They presume that the founding fathers were infallible, that all we need to do is divine their beliefs and we have principles upon which our society should be governed for the perpetual future. I am no more inclined to trust Jefferson's view on the separation of church and state than I am to trust his view on the legitimacy of having sex with thirteen-year-old slave girls.

I will immediately be told that this is necessary to determine the meaning of the first amendment.

But the same method, if used to determine the meaning of "all men are created equal," quickly yields the conclusion that women are not the equal of men, and blacks are not men at all. We readily admit that when the founding fathers said, "all men are created equal," that they were wrong in their interpretation. And a significant part of American history since then has been to correct their errors -- to apply the principles of rights to blacks and women.

Separation of church and state is a good idea. Any quote that shows that the founding fathers were, at times, fans of religious intolerance and the imposition of one person's beliefs on another does not show that such imposition is a good idea and should continue. It shows the fallibility of the founding fathers -- just as their views on slavery and the subjegation of women.

Butters

O.K. Rad,
I'm going to ask again. What do YOU think C&S seperation means. What do YOU think the Government should do regarding religion that they are not doing now? What?

Writer@Large

Indeed. And furthermore, those who engage them apparently fail to realize that "what the Founding Fathers really meant" has been superceded by 200 years of court rulings.

--W@L

Jamie_L

It's also my understanding (though not necessarily an accurate one) that one thing the founding fathers intended was that the Constitution could be interpretted by future generations in ways that fit the situations of those future generations.

Jamie

Radorth

Atheist sources would leave it out I'm sure, the same way they like to cut Washington off in the middle of a sentence.

"Seems"?

But you demand URL's from me, expect me to spend hours locating them and laugh if I can't provide them, or make your snooty remarks.

Right, "Barton must have just made it up. It's the only explanation because I've never seen it before."

Rad

hezekiah jones

Radorth, what is your point exactly, and why are you so apparently upset at the way in which the Constitution has been interpreted? I mean, specifically. Give a couple of SC opinions you find objectionable, you know, something relevant. I don't care how many times the framers said a little prayer, or what they thought of Jesus.

Radorth

Jefferson "left out" by Rad:

I agree with this. Do you? That's the question which is being avoided where the founders are concerned, even the doubtful Jefferson. I just don't agree that Jesus was not divine, but we are talking about his moral teachings and whether the founders hoped they would be spread around. Your turn to "avoid the issue" I guess.

Of course I realize that. That is one of my complaints. Ironically it proves a point I have made, that you can seldom use the Founder's intent to back up separationist activism. Again, it would be more honest to argue that a completely secular society would be better somehow (an argument never yet convincingly made).

Rad

hezekiah jones

Ironically it proves a point I have made, that you can seldom use the Founder's intent to back up separationist activism.

When and why does one need to reach a founder's "intent"?

Radorth

But of course that's one issue this thread was made to talk about, but I will not be so pedantic about it as to avoid other issues.

At least if more power had been left to the states, (which the Framers more or less promised in order to get them to sign up) people could have a choice about what laws to live under, what their kids heard in school, etc. Nevertheless, I agree with the vast majority of the decisions and it is not me who is complaining about our society, which I think has achieved a remarkable balance in a rather disgusting world.

I'm arguing the above for the sake of truth and justice which I consider to have been mangled. I left high school thinking the founders almost all had a low opinion of Jesus. Nobody told me Locke was a flaming fundy, or that Oberlin graduated the first black female. We never saw a word about what they thought of Jesus himself, and I think the ignorance well shows here.

Rad

Radorth

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

I agree with Washington. Do you? Do you think the highly secular humanist L.A public school system will ever stop producing large numbers of whiny, uneducated, filthy mouthed "citizens"?

Meanwhile since I've moved my daughter out of them, she is finally reading at the grade level I did while learning all sorts of myths like she is a precious individual loved unconditionally by God and her teachers, the morals of Jesus which Jefferson exalted, etc The change in her, thanks to God, is remarkable.


Rad

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>