Who the heck were our Founding Fathers, and what did they personally believe in?
Well, for one thing, they were all well-educated, many remarkably so for their time, and they also were relatively financially successful people. And they weren't all a bunch of Free Masons, as many conspiracy theories, books, and movies would have you believe. When they framed the Constitution, there are several things they had in mind.
One thing they considered was religious freedom. The general consideration of the day, was that they wanted to see decent, educated people with strong Protestant values elected to office. Yet they were sensitive to the issue of religion, and wisely deemed that neither religion nor morality, should be questions directly addressed by the budding American Constitution.
Another consideration was educational requirements of voters. They favored people being able to read, if they were to be able to vote. This, in a time when adult literacy rates among adult white males in the US was less than 60%. That would mean approximately 25-30% of the people inhabiting the newly minted United States, would be eligible to vote.
Some also wanted people who wished to vote, to own land. Well, that wasn't typically exclusionary at the time… Unless you are considering women and slaves!
You see, our Founding Fathers wanted the people who would elect their own government to be smart, hardworking landowning men. Because of the prevailing social context of the day, it was never really considered that women have the vote, nor anyone not of European descent. At the time, the standing of a black male was in question, as to whether or not he would qualify as a "man" under the eyes of the law.
But times change, and luckily our Constitution had a built-in capacity to change with the times. Thank goodness that now, more than 95% of the law-abiding adult citizenry can vote, thanks to Amendments. Thank goodness that people of all colors are considered equal under the law, thanks to Amendments. Thank goodness that now, we don't squander our nations intellectual resources by providing inadequate education to a large part of the population, because of Amendments -- because now we are all truly equal.
But it's really easy to fall into a trap of thinking our Constitution, or the men who wrote it to be the amazing document that it is, was perfect as written. It was not, and the Founding Fathers knew this. This is why there was a provision for Amendments to be made. To take care of any of these little details that might come up later!
So, in historical and social context… In America in the 1770s and 1780s, it was very likely that most people feared a tyrannical government. They of course were thinking of the British. And so the Founding Fathers did a pretty magnificent job of ensuring that no foreign forces would want to come in and take over against our armed population.
And armed we were. Most households outside of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and the likes, relied on hunting to provide for their families. And some intrepid folks lived out on the fringes, on the frontier. It was quite likely that they might sometime confront a bear or mountain lion in the wilderness, an angry buck or stampeding buffalo even. These were the realities of the day. Guns made a lot of sense!
The thing is, tell me when the ownership of guns by most of the population, could have saved us from some tyrannical government? Well, hmmmm, an armed population really didn't do jack SH%T to prevent 9/11. So that one is out.
Oh! We were attacked at Pearl Harbor! No, wait, arming the population at large really wouldn't have been terribly effective then, either.
I'VE GOT IT! That war of Northern Aggression thing! YEAH! That's when it was a good thing that most people owned guns. Oh, wait, that tore our country apart and was a complete disaster.
So it is just SLIGHTLY possible that the INTENT of our Founding Fathers, that we be able to defend ourselves if Britain or France or Spain wanted to make a move on us, just MAYBE isn't as relevant as it was 250 years ago.
Sure, we still have to confront bears and mountain lions here on the Frontier in Virginia. If by that you mean the one person in one million who will be robbed or assaulted at knife point.
Then again, the need to defend your honor against A$SH0$ES cutting you off on the toll-road or those annoying guys with the white shirts and bicycles, is ever-present. As is the need to eliminate that neighbor's dog who won't quit barking. Or that damned politician who beat my guy in the last election.
Today, of course, these needs are pressing and we have to consider that these offensive elements might, themselves, be armed. So, in order to truly protect ourselves from them, we need BIGGER, FASTER guns. We need M-16s and AK-47s and semi-automatic handguns with clips that hold 30 rounds. Because you just never know about those damn LDS kids on their bikes.
And you know, I'm pretty sure that, even though homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, and even though it is a part of History back to ancient Greece -- I'm pretty darn sure that the Founding Fathers didn't take THAT into account. And even if they had, homosexuals would probably faced the same fate as many a suspected Witch in Salem did 100 or so years before.
Needless to say, the Founding Fathers really didn't give much thought to who was, and was not, considered a "man". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but we had a bunch of pretty liberal-minded yet devout Christians framing our Constitution. And I can't really say that, other than wanting voters to be smart enough to, say, pick up a leaflet or newspaper and read about the issues, the candidates, the platforms -- I really can't see that they wanted to be discriminatory.
That "woman" could be considered the equal of "man" one day, just wasn't a concept they were familiar with. That "black man" could be equivalent to "man" one day, wasn't something they were familiar with. In our times, I think it is safe to replace the term "man" with "human being".
So, I have to wonder…. If a man is gay, does that mean he is NOT a human being? Not a "man"? Or is a gay woman not also a human? The government is set up to provide Rule of Law. NOT Rule of Church, or even Rule of Morality. Back when the Founding Fathers wrote the basis of all our current Law, adultery or even pre-marital sex would have been considered a serious threat to one's standing in the community, let alone a reason for impeachment from any public office. Today, we scoff at elected officials having relations outside of marriage.
Although adultery is still a crime in 20 States, it usually results, if proven in a court of Law, in a fine. And oddly, most of these laws went on the States' books in the early 1900s, not when our Founding Fathers lived and breathed.
You see, Morality is and always has been a personal matter. Until your immorality adversely affects someone else, it's your business. Our Founding Fathers would have seen it as between you and God -- because that was the social context of the day. They did not INTEND to codify Morality into Law… That is not the business of a government of man.
Regardless of how you view homosexuality, it exists. And regardless of how you view the Law, it too exists. There is no language in our Constitution barring any identifiable group, to be denied basic rights of citizenry. And the only omissions, were those just not foreseen at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.
So unless you deny the very HUMANITY of gay, lesbian, transgender or bi-sexual people, it would be unlawful to discriminate against them. Period.
Judge not, lest you be judged!
And further, the Constitution does not say anything about guaranteeing an education to all of the citizenry. Maybe this too, was an oversight. With more than 85% of children nationwide, graduating from high school, I can see where this argument could be made.
Certainly, if ANY government, at the County, State, or National level, is going to fund some sort of public education system -- it must be free of bias, for or against any groups. It should be totally unacceptable, for instance, to deny an education to the child with a disability, or to deny them one that is relevant to their needs. It should be unacceptable to have segregated schools. It should be unacceptable to force the child who does not believe in God, to utter the word "God" when they say the Pledge of Allegiance. And it should be unacceptable to enforce our standards of morality on students -- even ones who are gay, who follow Islam, who speak Spanish, who have a lisp, who get pregnant at 13, or (GULP!) think Hitler was a genius.
And clearly, the Constitution did not expressly bar people who are functionally illiterate from voting. Or people who are bigoted. Or fundamentalists in any religion. Hallelujah, yes, even the ignorant -- be it through their own devices or otherwise, are eligible to vote in our blessed country! Nope, you don't have to be able to pick up a newspaper and read it, much less understand the Constitution OR what any of the candidates for office are saying, in order to have YOUR say in our government. Good intention of the Founding Fathers notwithstanding.
In fact, there are some people who still have to demonstrate literacy and understanding of our Constitution and government, in order to vote. These would be naturalized citizens. Because, of course, we sure don't want any darned illiterate ignorant immigrants coming in here and messing up our country! But if you were born here, of course you understand all these things inherently. Of course.
As an American, you have to take the bad with the good. Because that's what we, the human race, are. We are a big mixture. Of beliefs. Of religions. Of languages, sexual orientation and sexual activity, of political leanings… Of good and bad. And our country represents us, all.
Benjamin Franklin, no formal education past age 10, identified himself as a Deist, and was a slave owner briefly, but turned into an anti-slavery advocate.
George Washington, educated only to age 15, attended Anglican/Episcopalian, Catholic, and Quaker services, and was a slave owner.
Thomas Jefferson, attended college at William and Mary, admitted to the Bar, and was Anglican/Deist and a slave owner, but also signed into law the end of the slave trade in Virginia.
James Madison, educated at what is now Princeton, an Anglican/Episcopalian and slave owner.
John Adams, attended Harvard and was an Episcopalian/Anglican or Unitarian in different periods of his life.
Alexander Hamilton, attended Queens College and was most closely affiliated with the Presbyterian church, and was an anti-slavery advocate.
Samuel Adams, attended Harvard and was a Congregationalist/Unitarian.
Patrick Henry, educated at home, was considered Catholic or Anglican.
John Hancock, attended Harvard and was a Congregationalist/Unitarian.
Thomas Paine, elementary school education, considered a Deist.
Roger Sherman, grammar school education, was a Congregationalist/Unitarian.
John Jay, attended what is now known as Columbia, and was Episcopalian/Anglican and an anti-slavery advocate.
Gouverneur Morris, who had attained a Masters degree, was not a fan of "organized" religion but who was identified as a Deist.
AND
James Wilson, studied at various colleges in Scotland without attaining a degree, and was an Episcopalian/Anglican.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Someone wanna forward to Michelle Bachmann? She could use a brush-up.
ReplyDelete