Why do the founding fathers matter in 2013? (conspiracy, Rockefeller, Obama)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Specifically, why should we take everything they thought and wrote down with holy reverence, as opposed to learning from them in the process of making a government made for today?
Over the last 237 years, they've been elevated to a level somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. I refuse to believe that the best and only solutions to the problem of government were made by a group of enlightened super-men from a past age of civilization. Neither they nor their contemporaries thought nearly as high of their ideas as many people do today.
Can you tell us what you would like to change about the Constitution rather than simply rant against it?
Can you tell us what you would like to change about the Constitution rather than simply rant against it?
There's more to it, but I think it should be much less vague and it should actually be enforced instead of allowing widely different interpretations to fly around. I also think it should be easier to change; people on here are right in pointing out that an amendment process exists, but our Constitution has one of the most challenging of these in the entire world. How about we eliminate the influence of money in politics by a strong measure in the very root of our government? I think the Constitution is a good second try, but no one with an open mind can look at it and think it's perfect.
I happen to be extremely prejudiced against traditionalism and dogma in the macro scale. The founding fathers were great because they dared to try something radically different. Now that spirit has entirely vanished. Fields like science and philosophy are continuously evolving, yet many think politics should remain as close as possible to 18th century ideals. The proven best way to find the truth is to admit that you may not already have it.
There's more to it, but I think it should be much less vague and it should actually be enforced instead of allowing widely different interpretations to fly around. I also think it should be easier to change; people on here are right in pointing out that an amendment process exists, but our Constitution has one of the most challenging of these in the entire world. How about we eliminate the influence of money in politics by a strong measure in the very root of our government? I think the Constitution is a good second try, but no one with an open mind can look at it and think it's perfect.
Perfect? No. Would making it easily changeable to a fickle population make it better? No.
Quote:
I happen to be extremely prejudiced against traditionalism and dogma in the macro scale. The founding fathers were great because they dared to try something radically different. Now that spirit has entirely vanished. Fields like science and philosophy are continuously evolving, yet many think politics should remain as close as possible to 18th century ideals. The proven best way to find the truth is to admit that you may not already have it.
The Constitution wasn't really radically different from what was already in place in other areas. Science doesn't constantly evolve either. The basics of science have been around for a very, very long time and to overturn the laws of science is far harder than amending the Constitution.
The FF's, Jefferson in particular, wrote that all men are created equal. That would be the same as as all life is created equal now. The prevailing thought is that all life is not created equal. Insects are not equal to humans. Dogs are not equal to humans. You get the point...
All life is created equal and there is no god portioning out your control over the planet or your piece of the pie.
No it wouldn't. That is the point of the OP, that things aren't the same. Our society, culture, values, technology, perspective, etc. are not the same, which is why the Founding Fathers should be revered but not worshiped or held on infallible grounds. Some people on here treat the Constitution like the Bible.
Quote:
Blacks, and in general colored people, were thought to be inferior to whites for all sorts of reasons. Hell, it was progressives who came up with eugenics and now they want to act like they have some sort of authority on making things equal.
Get over yourselves... Your shady ass past is as bad as everyone else's and you placing yourself above it all is GD disgusting.
And it was the progressives that got slaves free and freed slaves equal rights, so what's your point exactly?
The basics of science have been around for a very, very long time and to overturn the laws of science is far harder than amending the Constitution.
How can you say this? For almost 2000 years people believed in ideas from Aristotle that can be observed with the naked eye to be wrong. Definitive proof for multicomponent atomic theory is scarcely over 100 years old.
Nope, I knew exactly where you were going with that, I just wasn't going to play into it.
Nope? It wasn't about gender and race? I specifically said white males implying both. More to the point, that was the world in the Americas then, but like I said it went over your head brutha.
Specifically, why should we take everything they thought and wrote down with holy reverence, as opposed to learning from them in the process of making a government made for today?
Over the last 237 years, they've been elevated to a level somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ. I refuse to believe that the best and only solutions to the problem of government were made by a group of enlightened super-men from a past age of civilization. Neither they nor their contemporaries thought nearly as high of their ideas as many people do today.
Because it's the rule book. When we watch a football game, the refs enforce the rules. When we watch a basketball game, the refs enforce the rules. In baseball...the umpires enforce it. The entire game hinges on whether or not they do.
Likewise, the American society hangs on whether or not we live by the rule book we have. If you don't like it, change it. But we can't make up our own rules as we go.
How can you say this? For almost 2000 years people believed in ideas from Aristotle that can be observed with the naked eye to be wrong. Definitive proof for multicomponent atomic theory is scarcely over 100 years old.
We can not base our laws on theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
