Are the Founding Fathers as Infallible as We Think?

[mege]

All of the 'founding fathers' would have been raised in Christian households. Whatever beliefs they have regarding the establishment of the church later in life likely doesn't change their moralistic stand as being aligned with Christianity - a few (Franklin and Jefferson mostly) just rejected the dogma that the church carries. Jefferson even wrote his own bible in an attempt to 'cleanse' it of the evangalism and overreaching human dogma - to purify the message contained within.

I think you misunderstand masonic 'rituals' as being a mason only reaffirms the moralistic ideals. Masons are seeped in Christian mythology and their teachings, now and at that time, were morals of the church played out in 'playful' ways - without the attachment of the church at large. However, G. Washington's wikipedia page indicates that he was buried with Christian rites, as well as masonic rites. Masonry isn't some 'wierd pagan thing', but a fraternity for 'believers' and dogooders. (I understand the sourcing issue, but that's a bold statement to be taken on Wikipedia without it being hyper liberalized - esspecially in recent arguements like this)

All of that aside, there are more founding fathers than just Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin. Even if you can prove unequivocally that they were not thinking in a moralistic way - there's still dozens of other constitutional framers that would have mostly been mainstream Christians at the time. The only 'they weren't Christian' arguements are basically 'they didn't trust the church' arguements and had some streaks of thought outside the mainstream. Philosophical musings aside, are there any actions of Jefferson, Washington or Franklin that make one think they weren't Christian? Jefferson rewrote the Bible to 'purify' it of evangalism, Ben Franklin is quoted multiple times about the neccessity for virtue (and religion's neccessity to achieve it),and President Washington in his farewell address gave his view that a society should be moralistic and religious:

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.

Since George Washington was also the main point of contention,http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=18502415&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+15:+SPEECH+TO+THE+DELAWARE+CHIEFS&query=the+religion+of+jesus&id=gw150049

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.

Over all - I do not deny that many had Deistic thoughts, after all, that's WHY they wanted to escape from the state church (of England) and establish a separation of church and state. They didn't want the dogma to control their lives, but I feel that calling them non-Christian is a gross misservice. Why can't Deism and the teachings of Christianity coexist in this context? You can cite some procedural problems, which are semantics, and don't affect how the individual would act in an every day setting. They all expounded publicly about the need for virtuism and the neccessity of religions in a person's life - what other religion would they be talking about?

Lastly, because I know it'll be brought up - I'm far from being a religious individual. However, I am not some 'god hating athiest' (my belief in a god is intermediate, if there is a god, it won't matter if I acknowledge him or not so why bother?) and do have a respect for those whom have non-evangelical views regarding religion. There are Christian nut-jobs out there, but there are also many people who live better lives because of what they've been taught in a Church (or other house of worship).

 

[klimatos]

Mege: I congratulate you on a well-reasoned and temperate response. Were we to meet, I don't doubt but that we could sit down to an enjoyable discussion on many topics of mutual interest.

It appears that our differences on the "Christian" nature of our founding fathers are semantic. You have a broader definition of the term than I do. Did they live in a Christian culture? Absolutely. Were they exposed to moral teachings based on Christian traditions. Yes. Were they baptized as Christians and attended Christian religious services. Many did--including George Washington.

However, Jewish colonists lived in the same culture without being Christian. This illustrates the essence of our different views. I believe that the term "Christian" implies certain religious beliefs that distinguish a Christian from followers of other religions and from agnostics and freethinkers.

What you call "Christian" morals and ethics are not uniquely Christian, but are shared in many respects by religious teachers and men of goodwill in a wide variety of world religions.

Did Washington think that the moral teachings of Jesus were superior to the moral teachings of the Delaware culture? I believe that he did. Moreover, I believe that that belief would have been shared by the majority of the "founding fathers". This belief, however, does not make him or them Christian.

Deists believe in a "Creator". However, they also believe that this Creator gave no guidance of any kind to mankind as to how man should behave or act. This Creator is completely and utterly indifferent as to mankind's beliefs, actions, or ultimate fate. George Washington was a Deist.

I believe that I have made my point, but doubt that I have made a "believer" out of you. Shall we agree to disagree?

 

[WhoWee]

George Washington was a Deist.

I think it's fine to have an opinion - however, you've made a statement of fact - please support.

I found this explanation:
http://www.adherents.com/people/pw/George_Washington.html

"While he was President, Washington attended Christ Church (an Anglican/Episcopalian congregation) in Philadelphia.

George Washington has frequently been described as a "Deist." Washington is not known to have described himself using this word, nor is he known to have been been a member of any Deist organizations. Some writings by George Washington indicate Deist beliefs; other writings indicate non-Deist beliefs.

Although he was an Anglican and an Episcopalian, Washington reportedly did not take communion and was not considered an official "communicant" (full-fledged adult church member).

It is generally agreed upon that Washington's beliefs could be described as "deist" during at least part of his life. Deism for Washington, as with most historical figueres classifed as deists, was never an actual religious affiliation, but was a classification of theological belief. As nearly all major political figures from Washington's era can be described as "deists" if a sufficiently broad definition is used an if the correct quotations are selected, classifying Washington as a Deist may not by particularly useful or distinctive.

Although the Episcopal Church is the only denomination Washington ever attended with any regularlity, he was not particularly dedicated to the denomination nor did he have a strong Anglican or Episcopalian self-identity. During Washington's era there was no real notion that he was a "non-Christian," and his denominational affiliation certainly placed him well within "mainstream" Christianity at the time. But Washington's religious beliefs could be classified as relatively broad and non-specific. His disinterest or disbelief in some mainstream Protestant Christian beliefs have led later (usually partisan) commentators to label Washington as "non-Christian.""

 

[CAC1001]

Nor would it be Jefferson’s suspicious possession of an English translation of the Quran that might doom him to fail the Newt Gingrich loyalty test.

The reason Jefferson held a copy of the Quran was because he was seeking to learn as much as he could about Muslims, as he was about to declare war at the time on the Muslim states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Tripoli. During that time, for centuries, Muslim pirates were cruising the Mediterranean and African coastlines, pillaging villages and taking slaves. They also robbed ships. When America rebelled against Britain in 1776, American merchant ships lost the protection of the British Royal Navy, and thus began getting captured by the pirates.

Because America had no navy at the time, it tried to appease the Muslim pirates by paying tribute to the them in order to retrieve seized American ships and sailors. Congress appointed a special commission in 1784 consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin to oversea the negotiations. John Adams believed paying tribute was the best way to restore American commerce in the region, but Jefferson believed that all paying tribute would do is incentivize the pirates to keep capturing American ships and sailors and demanding more tribute. Jefferson proposed creating a league of trading nations to end the piracy. Nevertheless, Congress began and continued to pay tribute for the next fifteen years, with the tributes amounting to about 20% of the government's annual revenues in 1800. When Jefferson was inaugurated as President in 1801, one of the first things he did was to dispatch a group of frigates to the Mediterranean to stop the pirates. He informed Congress of it and that the United States was going to paying millions of dollars for defense, but not for tribute.

Jefferson also dispatched the U.S. Marines and some of America's best warships, such as the USS Constitution, the USS Chesapeake, the USS Philadelphia, the USS Constellation, USS Argus, USS Syren, and USS Intrepid. In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt to Tripolitania, where they forced the surrender of Tripoli and freed the American slaves there. The four Muslim Barbary states were unable to withstand all the pounding from the American naval ships and on-shore raids by the Marines, and as a result agreed during Jefferson's administration to end all piracy and slavery. It took until 1815 for the problem to be fully solved with the total defeat of the Muslim pirates.

Note the line from the Marine Corps hymn: "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."

 

[CAC1001]

The article is mostly about politicians (and the general populace) holding completely wrong information about our country.

Our founding fathers didn't agree on the constitution, and when it's ammended, it's also not entirely agreed upon, and then it's changed, and changed again. It's not the ten commandments like some people seem to believe, IMO.

I think people get a bit confused when people talk about the Constitution being sacred or whatnot. When people say adhere to the Constitution, they mean as it is currently written. Also because of what it says and allows (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, checks and balances on the government, etc...). But of course it is changed throughout history. That's the point. The Founding Fathers made it that way. They created a very brief document that covered only the really big stuff, and left everything else up to the government, which is elected by the People. It is the job of the Supreme Court to see if legislation keeps in line with the often silent Constitution, regardless of whether they agree with the legislation or not and whether the Constitution is thought to be morally right or wrong. If a good piece of legislation is found to be un-Constitutional, then that is grounds for creating a formal amendment, not claiming that the legislation is "Constitutional" because the Court's justices want it to be. The Founders included the amendment provision so that the Constitution could be changed and adapted if required. If it is found that the Founding Fathers got something wrong with the Constitution or flat out forgot something or some part is just flat-out outdated, then there is the amendment process to change it. This also is what makes the Constitution timeless, because the Founders, in addition to making it brief, made it flexible. They knew that the world would change as the centuries went by, so they designed it where it could change.

And yes, the Founders disagreed very much on how to author the Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, there were multiple plans put forth for a Constitution that would have given the federal government a massive amount of power, and very little to the states, but this was rejected (Alaxander Hamilton prosposed such a Constitution I believe). The original Constitution as written many of the founders would not even sign until the first ten amendments were added to it (Bill of Rights). Additional amendments outlawed slavery, ensured a woman's right to vote, outlawed liquor, undid the anti-liquor amendment, established the income tax, etc...The problem is that too many today (usually on the far Left) decide to interpret the Constitution as a "living document," that you interpret "according to the times" (which really means the Constitution gets to say whatever they want it to say). With judicial activism, the person's right rests with a few justices on the Court, as opposed to a formal amendment in the Constitution. It also turns the Supreme Court, which is supposed to just interpret what the Constitution is saying and then see if the legislation is in line with the Constitution, into a third legislative branch. A justice on the Court is supposed to keep their political views out of the matter.

Some people on the extreme Right do the 180 degree opposite of the far Left. Whereas the far Left often want to interpret the Constitution as a "living document," many on the Right think that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say something, then it is un-Constitutional. For example, you have the far-Right people who say all foreign military bases of the U.S. are un-Constitutional, that all major government agencies are un-Constitutional (FBI, CIA, NSA, FDA, DoE, etc...), the Federal Reserve is un-Constitutional, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc...are all un-Constitutional. Generally, my understanding is these are all permitted through the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause, which give the government a lot more power then one might initially think from the Constitution.

The Left tend not to like the Constitution except for a few parts of it because it was written as a document that basically says the federal government can only do this, this, and that, and otherwise cannot do much, which is a major pain to those who believe strongly in a big, powerful central government. Often there is the excuse such as, "The Founders did not know about nuclear missiles, the Internet, Facebook, germs, etc..." correct, but that's why they made the Constitution brief and amendable. The Court's job is to make sure the laws made keep in line with the Constitution and if the Constitution needs to be changed, it can be amended.

Also interesting to remember is that originally, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. It wasn't until later on via incorporation that they came to be applied to states and local governments (and only recently the 2nd Amendment I think).

 

[klimatos]

I think it's fine to have an opinion - however, you've made a statement of fact - please support.

Since I obviously did not know George Washington personally, I must rely on the opinions of those who did. The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie was the pastor of the Anglican church in Philadelphia where George and Martha were regular attendees when in that city. I quote him in a conversation with the Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson reported in a letter written on 13 November 1831.

"Sir, George Washington was a Deist!"

The quote is well known, and can be found in a variety of sources on the religious beliefs of our early presidents.

Dr. Wilson, in an earlier sermon, stated "Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian."

Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal entry dated in February of 1800 wrote, "Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system [Christianity] than did he himself." Morris, the chief author of the Constitution, was considered to be an intimate of Washington's.

As you pointed out in your post, Deism is a philosophy, and not a religious sect with any formal structure. A good many of our founding fathers considered themselves to be Deists and were so considered by others who were their contemporaries.