Let us be honest with one another. There is a new religion forming in the United States.

At the center of this religion are a mythical group of people known as the Founding Fathers. (Please note that there are apparently no founding mothers.) Practitioners of this religion insist that all new laws must be in keeping with what the Founding Fathers desired. Would they, for example, have approved of homosexuals being allowed to marry? (I suspect they would not, as such a thing was unheard of in their day.) Would they have approved of restitution being paid to persons of African descent? (They would not have, as they considered persons of African descent to be property.)

Even those persons who lean leftward in their politics are not immune to this religion. They point out the intent of the Founding Fathers when discussing such issues as the Second Amendment and gun violence. It is not enough for practitioners of this religion to acknowledge that these men helped found the United States. No, according to them, we must always consider the will of the Founding Fathers. It has become a rather specific form of ancestor worship.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

AkioTsukino · M

It's irrelevant. Here's why.

[quote]At the center of this religion are a mythical group of people known as the Founding Fathers.[/quote]

Mythical: 1. occurring in or characteristic of myths or folk tales. 2. idealized, especially with reference to the past. 3. fictitious.

All three definitions fit your application. 2 seems contextually more apparent. The problem is the context itself is equally appropriate.

[quote](Please note that there are apparently no founding mothers.) [/quote]

Fair enough. Do you think if you could go back in time and insert founding mothers it would profoundly improve the scenario? Then you could blame the mothers as well as the fathers?

[quote]Practitioners of this religion insist that all new laws must be in keeping with what the Founding Fathers desired.[/quote]

Does it? What are the alternatives?

[quote]Would they, for example, have approved of homosexuals being allowed to marry?[/quote]

As a formerly practicing homosexual, i.e. as a homosexual no longer practicing I have to say, the church and the state wouldn't have been much of a concern for me. True, there may be legal advantages and disadvantages but that's true of everything. The church and state's approval or validation would mean nothing to me. It's ideology.

[quote](I suspect they would not, as such a thing was unheard of in their day.)[/quote]

Mythologically? I suppose not. Realistically? Very probably it was a part of all of their lives, just as adultery in marriage.

[quote]Would they have approved of restitution being paid to persons of African descent?[/quote]

No. Not so much because it's a stupid idea, but because it wouldn't have been politically popular. More ideology.

[quote]Even those persons who lean leftward in their politics are not immune to this religion.[/quote]

Right now they seem to be holding the reins. But it doesn't matter. The reins change hands with little effect. The ideology itself even changes like fads.

[quote]They point out the intent of the Founding Fathers when discussing such issues as the Second Amendment and gun violence. It is not enough for practitioners of this religion to acknowledge that these men helped found the United States. [/quote]

With gun violence.

[quote]It has become a rather specific form of ancestor worship.[/quote]

Nationality always has two sides. Divide and conquer. It's boring. Typical human fair.

CorvusBlackthorne · M

@AkioTsukino [quote]It's irrelevant.[/quote]
How generous of you to share your opinion.

[quote]Mythical: 1. occurring in or characteristic of myths or folk tales. 2. idealized, especially with reference to the past. 3. fictitious.[/quote]
Precisely. These were complex and fallible human beings, whose lives have been oversimplified and mythologized until they would not have recognized their own biographies.

[quote]As a formerly practicing homosexual...[/quote]
In other words, a homosexual in denial.
[quote]I have to say, the church and the state wouldn't have been much of a concern for me.[/quote]
What has that to do with marriage equality? The Founding Fathers themselves stated that church and state should be separated. They had endured for quite long enough under a theocratic king.

[quote]Mythologically? I suppose not. Realistically? Very probably it was a part of all of their lives, just as adultery in marriage.[/quote]
No, homosexual marriage was [i]not[/i] a common thing in their day, because it was illegal.

[quote]No. Not so much because it's a stupid idea, but because it wouldn't have been politically popular. More ideology.[/quote]
I say again, these men owned slaves of African descent. They would not have considered them human, with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson.

[quote]Right now they seem to be holding the reins. But it doesn't matter. The reins change hands with little effect.[/quote]
Which serves to prove my point. No matter which side is in office, worship of the Founding Fathers continues to impede progress.

[quote]With gun violence.[/quote]
I shall indulge your red herring for a moment, but only for a moment. There is a difference between a war being fought between two well-regulated militias and a madman walking into a school or nightclub with the intention of killing innocent civilians. But such nuances are lost on so many.

As regards your final point, I don't even consider it to be a point.

AkioTsukino · M

@CorvusBlackthorne [quote]In other words, a homosexual in denial.[/quote]

Of what?

[quote]What has that to do with marriage equality? The Founding Fathers themselves stated that church and state should be separated.[/quote]

And they should be. That's why I include both in reference to legal marriage. If marriage as defined by either church or state is disagreeable to you then you could only possibly object to it in an ideological sense. You can't and shouldn't force acceptance upon the church. Theoretically you can the state. But ultimately if neither are acceptable so what? I don't give a fuck what they say unless I do. "Oh, now, the church has to accept OUR definition and standards of marriage! HOORAY!" Who cares? Now go find something else to fill the stupid empty void in your life until the world is made in your image and then defend it with all the same integrity and veracity as the former dictators - and watch and see if all of the socio-politically contentious don't find your world all that appealing.

It's irrelevant. Like Solomon said, nothing new under the sun, all is vanity.

[quote]No, homosexual marriage was not a common thing in their day, because it was illegal.[/quote]

Homosexuality needn't have been illegal unless it were common. That's like saying speeding isn't common because it's illegal. It wasn't just marriage. It was illegal even in my relatively short lifetime.

[quote]I say again, these men owned slaves of African descent. They would not have considered them human, with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson.[/quote]

[Laughs for a long time] Are you still arguing with me about the relevance of this nonsense? There are more slaves today than then. Black people enslaved black people, white people enslaved white people, every country in history has some sort of slavery. You and I are a slave to debt. Don't be so dumb to embrace ideology or popularized virtue signaling. Why doesn't any of these commentators ever do any research of form a coherent and well constructed argument?

[quote]Which serves to prove my point. No matter which side is in office, worship of the Founding Fathers continues to impede progress.[/quote]

Really? Because Fox News said? That kind of dumb shit is what they teach the young children before they teach them evolution. Although that may have changed recently. The British are coming! Theoretically they may mouth that nonsense but do you think either put it into practice?

Who cares? The people who must be divided and conquered. I more often than not think they are so stupid, on both sides, that they get what they deserve.

[quote]There is a difference between a war being fought between two well-regulated militias and a madman walking into a school or nightclub with the intention of killing innocent civilians. But such nuances are lost on so many.[/quote]

Not really. Murder by idiots for some stupid or fake reason. Pretty much sums both up. You only formalize one over another. Killing 20 kids for no reason is bad but killing a million for no real reason is okay. Iraq.

CorvusBlackthorne · M

@AkioTsukino [quote]Of what?[/quote]
Of your homosexuality.

[quote]And they should be. That's why I include both in reference to legal marriage.[/quote]
Then if neither of us is saying that separation of church and state is bad, why are we still on the subject, if not to distract from my actual point?

[quote]If marriage as defined by either church or state is disagreeable to you then you could only possibly object to it in an ideological sense. You can't and shouldn't force acceptance upon the church.[/quote]
No, thank you. I do not want a red herring. Marriage equality is an issue to which only a bigot would take exception.

[quote]Now go find something else to fill the stupid empty void in your life until the world is made in your image and then defend it with all the same integrity and veracity as the former dictators - and watch and see if all of the socio-politically contentious don't find your world all that appealing.[/quote]
I told you I do not want any more red herrings. Please either remain on topic or leave.

[quote]Really? Because Fox News said?[/quote]
Do I sound like the sort of imbecile who watches Fox News? I have observed for myself how American people worship a group of dead men who would absolutely hate the way the country they founded has turned out.

[quote]That kind of dumb shit is what they teach the young children before they teach them evolution.[/quote]
We can do without the profanity or the insults.

[quote]Not really. Murder by idiots for some stupid or fake reason. Pretty much sums both up. You only formalize one over another. Killing 20 kids for no reason is bad but killing a million for no real reason is okay. Iraq.[/quote]
You were the one glorifying gun violence, not I.