Misrepresenting our Founding Fathers (to include other notable free-thinkers)

[Gilgamesh]

Probably because the U.S. still operates under that very same Constitution.

I would have thought that obvious.

Not talking about the constitution, necessarily. I wonder why people think the opinions of founding fathers are any more relevant or valid than the opinion of any random person.

[sarcasticgeographer]

The gift of hindsight makes some people seem like great geniuses. We can always judge upon actions of the past, yet we do not know what it was like in Philadelphia in 1787.

All I can say is that I am amazed by the document that is our constitution. Many people question some of the parts of our great document, but I revere it for what it is worth. It is a document detailing our government, and am thankful that the writers were so intelligent to allow amendments.

[Chas]

Probably because the U.S. still operates under that very same Constitution.

I would have thought that obvious.

Not talking about the constitution, necessarily. I wonder why people think the opinions of founding fathers are any more relevant or valid than the opinion of any random person.

Because they wrote it.

I would have thought that obvious.

[Minimalist]

Probably because the U.S. still operates under that very same Constitution.

But it is not the very same constitution. It has been amended 27 times not to mention numerous court cases.

I rather think the founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they could see it today. It is not what they intended at all.

[sarcasticgeographer]

Probably because the U.S. still operates under that very same Constitution.

But it is not the very same constitution. It has been amended 27 times not to mention numerous court cases.

I rather think the founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they could see it today. It is not what they intended at all.

Not so. Look at Article 5. Within article 5, it clearly states how to amend the constitution. It was clearly what the founding fathers intended, since it was part of the original constitution.

[Rahul]

Many of our founding fathers feared a strong centralized government. Those that did tried very hard to ensure it would never happen in the US.

They failed.

[Minimalist]

But it is not the very same constitution. It has been amended 27 times not to mention numerous court cases.

I rather think the founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they could see it today. It is not what they intended at all.

Not so. Look at Article 5. Within article 5, it clearly states how to amend the constitution. It was clearly what the founding fathers intended, since it was part of the original constitution.

A very cumbersome method to be sure. Perhaps to make sure that was done rarely? I can only look at what they produced. We have come a long way from their vision.

[Cato]

Kind of like how Thomas Jefferson changed his mind half-way through.

And a green M&M rolled off my couch. So what?

Thomas Jefferson changed his mind regarding? Half-way through what?

Specificity is in order man! Else, you are simply talking about my green M&M.

[Polaris]

Kind of like how Thomas Jefferson changed his mind half-way through.

And a green M&M rolled off my couch. So what?

Thomas Jefferson changed his mind regarding? Half-way through what?

Specificity is in order man! Else, you are simply talking about my green M&M.

His views on the Separation of Church and State. You see a change in his views somewhere between 1789 and 1803.

I know, and so why people think their words are relevant is beyond me.

Probably because the U.S. still operates under that very same Constitution.

I would have thought that obvious.

It's not the same as it had been changed dozens of times.

[Minimalist]

They did?

No man [should] be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor [should he] be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor ... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ... All men [should] be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and ... the same [should] in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

The man seems rather consistent to me. Or have you been listening to that fool Barton, again?