Comments on: Founding Faith Myths

By: Maria

Maria — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:09:40 +0000

sounds like an interesting book

By: Vincent

Vincent — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:22:21 +0000

The problem is not so much in what the founding fathers (and mothers) thought as it should be applied today, but the misrepresentation of what they thought that IS being used today.
There is nothing wrong with arguing that historically X therefore X is a good starting point for modern thought.
The problem is people are lying about X, the most glaring example being the opening statements of House Resolution 888, which is currently in committee and will hopefully die there.
That bill has 70+ statements about the role of christianity in the US origins, most of which are flat lies or distortions.
Nothing wrong with using history to make a point – just don’t lie about it to make people think the past supports your point when it doesn’t.

By: Mriana

Mriana — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:04:31 +0000

It could very well be an interesting read. I have a long book list and several books on my bookshelf that I need to find time to read so I can catch up to my book list. Maybe I’ll get to even this one sometime in the near future.

By: Karen

Karen — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:24:23 +0000

But it is interesting to know what kind of country the founders attempted to create. Unlike some countries that have written up a new constitution in the past 200 years, the US hasn’t. So their words and ideas do still affect those of us who live here.

That’s a good point. I think we have to balance this reality with the insanity of the “originalists” who are trying to use their version of the FFs to push an odious ideological agenda.

Thanks for the recommendation, Mike C. Sounds like a good read.

By: cautious

cautious — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:00:23 +0000

There’s a problem if our best political and social ideals are over two hundred years old

Heck there’s some people who think the best ideals are, at the least, two thousand years old.

But it is interesting to know what kind of country the founders attempted to create. Unlike some countries that have written up a new constitution in the past 200 years, the US hasn’t. So their words and ideas do still affect those of us who live here.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:30:08 +0000

I’m going to second what everyone else has already said. The Founders were great thinkers for their time and they laid the foundations for our country, but they were also smart enough to know that things will change as time goes by and thus left us with a Constitution that can be amended and re-interpreted as needed. While it’s interesting to know what they were thinking back then and they for sure had a lot of good ideas we should not be so quick to forget, we also should not limit ourselves to what they thought back then. If something needs to be changed for the better, then so be it. That’s the beauty of it all.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:22:48 +0000

I do not live my life by the intentions my mother had for me upon birth.

I do not live in my neighborhood in the way the original land developer envisioned.

I don’t care what the founder of my hometown thought the town would be one day.

I live in the west, and I do not adhere to any of the futures that Lewis and Clarke predicted.

Why should anyone care what some 18th century folk thought about what the country should be. These men are worthy of historical prestige, but nothing more. We are the Founding Fathers of today, not them.

By: Bad

Bad — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:15:34 +0000

Looks like another entry in the usual “if I declare everyone in all sides of the issue equally guilty of misrepresentation, I can sound like the calm voice of reason” school of authorship.

Seriously: while there are plenty of newbie messageboard atheists and a couple of “why do research?” journalists running around claiming that the founders were all Deists at best, I’ve found precious few of the major SoCaS defenders making that argument: and plenty of them debunking it (though it’s really just not a question that has one single answer, since there were such a diversity of views and the men changed them over time).

I asked Waldman directly to start naming names instead of just making sweeping “they all do it” accusations, and the best he could come up with was one questionable example (she said that Washington was surprisingly non-religious, which could be interpreted in lots of different ways based on what you find surprising) from someone I’d never heard of.

By: phoobaar

phoobaar — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:04:54 +0000

LOL @ Washington being a "churchgoing Anglican." Apparently this "study" was not as "well-researched" as its reviewer claims.

By: Nadine

Nadine — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:53:23 +0000

Renacier said,
There’s a problem if our best political and social ideals are over two hundred years old.

I agree. I’m listening to the interview on NPR and he makes a point of saying that Jefferson believed in intelligent design (in response to secular people looking to Jefferson as their representative in the group). That’s shocking news about someone who was alive well before Darwin!
I wonder if Jefferson, Madison, and the others would be confused as to why we are so completely obsessed with their personal beliefs.