Continued: Founding Fathers vs Modern Christians

[phoenix]

Mar 18, 2010 9:13:52 GMT -5 noski said:

K
A gun is not a bomb. A gun is personal. A bomb is not.
My point is how can a person stand in front of an abortion clinic holding pictures of fetuses and not later in the day stand in front of a US federal building holding pictures of Arab children blown to bits by bombs payed for by your and my tax dollars? If ALL human life is sacred and a person chooses to complain about the loss of one form and ignore the loss of the other form, that person is a hypocrite in my opinion.

Agreed.

[Stephen]

Mar 17, 2010 18:32:39 GMT -5 KevinR said:

Yes you should refrain because quite frankly it's rude and an assertion I take offense to. The British government committed horrible crimes against the people here in the colonies, and the revolutionaries had every right to stand against them. I would gladly have stood and fought for my freedom. To suggest otherwise is stupid, no matter what political differences you might have with me.

So assuming that you would take a particular denominational position is greatly offensive.

But assuming that you would take a particular political position (in this case, regarding the Revolution) is quite acceptable.

That appears to be a serious compromise of principle.

Do you or do you not want others to make assumptions about your positions on various topics?

[Stephen]

Yoo hoo?

[KevinR]

Mar 18, 2010 16:32:16 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Mar 17, 2010 18:32:39 GMT -5 KevinR said:

Yes you should refrain because quite frankly it's rude and an assertion I take offense to. The British government committed horrible crimes against the people here in the colonies, and the revolutionaries had every right to stand against them. I would gladly have stood and fought for my freedom. To suggest otherwise is stupid, no matter what political differences you might have with me.

So assuming that you would take a particular denominational position is greatly offensive.

But assuming that you would take a particular political position (in this case, regarding the Revolution) is quite acceptable.

That appears to be a serious compromise of principle.

Do you or do you not want others to make assumptions about your positions on various topics?

I think this debate has gotten so bloody disjointed that I don't think you know what you're even responding to anymore. Did you even read the statement you answered? It said the opposite of what you're trying to say here.

I will repeat in no uncertain terms: It's ludicrous to spend days upon days trying to prove I would have supported the British. You have nothing that could ever prove this assertion anymore than I could prove you're a space alien because it's JUST AS LUDICROUS, and you're just attempting to argue instead of saying, "Fine let's move on."

[noski]

Here's how I see this one. Using kevin's current political beliefs, Stephan ascerts Kevin would have absolutely taken the side of the Torries. Because we don't live in those times tho, I'd say Stephan can safely say Kevin probably would have leaned towards Tory beliefs in a general sense. In fairness to Kevin, people stewed for years over which way to lean in the colonies. If something happened to one of Kevin's family members at the hands of the Brits, he probably would have joined the revolt. There is no absolute answer on this one.

[Stephen]

My point is this:

Fewer than 10% of colonists supported the Revolution, and fewer still hold those beliefs today. Yet we live in a nation of 300 million people who violently insist that they hold the views of the founding fathers.

Obviously, someone is wrong.

It is irrational to simply claim that you, me, or anyone else would have supported the traitorous, extremist, rebellious position that the founders held without substantial historical evidence.

It is even more irrational for pro-government, pro-taxation and pro-military people to make such a claim, when their beliefs are the exact opposite of those with whom they attempt to align themselves.

Yet they vehemently demand regardless of any evidence to the contrary, that THEY alone are the exceptions, that THEY would have somehow risked their lives to courageously fight for the very principles that they oppose today.

The simple fact is that very, very few people then or now hold to such a traitorous position as the founders, and fewer still were (or are) willing to fight for it, and many of us who now claim to represent the patriot cause are, in fact, lying to ourselves.

[Stephen]

Kevin, I made my case fairly and clearly with eleven historical points.

It's your turn. Other than your word, what evidence is there to support the claim that you would have supported the Revolution?

[Michael]

Mar 20, 2010 17:55:38 GMT -5 Stephen said:

pro-government, pro-taxation and pro-military

I am not pro-big government (if that's what you were referring to),
I am not pro-taxation. But, I am pro-military, in the protection of US citizens and our allies, I am not pro-military for invading other countries unless it were absolutely necessary for the protection of the US and our allies.

[Stephen]

Fair enough. That may change things considerably. Let's examine each position relative to that of the founders:

Mar 20, 2010 20:19:27 GMT -5 Michael said:

I am not pro-big government (if that's what you were referring to)

All of the Anti-federalists, led by some of the most prominent founders including Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Winthrop, R H Lee, Samuel Adams, George Mason and many more, wanted only a loose association of states such as provided by the Articles of Confederation.

So if you support a federal government at all, big or small, you are already at odds with many of the leaders of the Revolution.

Even those who wanted a federal government would only accept it if it were heavily restricted by a Bill of Rights.

This is the same Bill of Rights that you suggested we ignore early in this debate by torturing alleged "terrorists" without due process.

So in regard to this particular position, at best you could be named among the more left-leaning Federalists. At worst, your favor for a federal government (even a small one) would have been rejected outright.

I am not pro-taxation.

If you are merely neutral on taxation, you may have found a hesitant hearing with either side.

But if you are strongly anti-taxation, this would have been a very solid point with the founders.

If you openly oppose direct taxation and are willing to physically attack government institutions (such as the IRS) that attempt to impose it, there is evidence to believe that you would have done so in 1764 against the Sugar Act, and against both later acts imposing taxes on paint, tea and lead.

If you are strongly anti-tax (to the point of being considered a fanatic in the present day), your views would likely find strong favor with the founders. Doubly so with the Anti-federalists. They would have loved you.

I am pro-military, in the protection of US citizens and our allies, I am not pro-military for invading other countries unless it were absolutely necessary for the protection of the US and our allies.

There are several factors here.

If you are pro-NAVY, and ONLY Navy, then you would find a few opponents, but many more supporters among the founders. Many of the founders advocated a navy and clearly authorized a full time navy in Article I Section 8 of the constitution. They would have accepted your position on this for the most part. Advocacy of a navy would not be a major sticking point between you.

If you are pro-MILITARY, you most certainly would be considered a strong enemy of everything the founders held most dear.

The founders did not consider a navy a major threat to civilians because, obviously, a navy has little or no land forces and can only be used against an opposing force. But the founders did have a strong fear and hatred of anything resembling a standing army in peacetime. That's why a standing army was explicitly outlawed in constitutional law, and the only exception was the two-year constant renewal process designed for wartime use only.

So if you are pro-NAVY, you would likely align yourself with them with little opposition.

If you are generally pro-MILITARY, you would have been hated by the founders and would only have been accepted in Tory circles.


I have not overloaded this post with source data because the Anti-federalist opposition to a federal government is well documented (that's why the Bill of Rights exists), because their opposition to tax is well known (that's why they had tea parties) and because the constitution clearly states their position on the military. But I'm glad to dive further into it if so desired.

[albpilot]

Mar 20, 2010 20:19:27 GMT -5 Michael said:

Mar 20, 2010 17:55:38 GMT -5 Stephen said:

pro-government, pro-taxation and pro-military

I am not pro-big government (if that's what you were referring to),
I am not pro-taxation. But, I am pro-military, in the protection of US citizens and our allies, I am not pro-military for invading other countries unless it were absolutely necessary for the protection of the US and our allies.

Are you for or against ignoring (or worse, riding roughshod) over the Bill of Rights in the name of 'keeping America safe' or the 'war on terror'? If so, why? If not, at what point do you draw the line?

[Michael]

Well considering the Nimitz-class supercarrier control a 400 mile radius and are about to be phased out and replaced by the Gerald R. Ford-class, I think I would mean pro-Navy.

[Stephen]

Remember, the founders were violently opposed to ANY armed government troops on American soil, including their modern counterparts such as militarized police units and SWAT teams, which they referred to with great sarcasm and hatred. It wasn't just an army. It was any government gunmen at all.

If you are only pro-Navy and stand in firm opposition to all other forms of armed government troops, they would have enthusiastically embraced your view on this topic.

Paul Revere and Patrick Henry would have sent you Christmas cards. They were fanatical about it.

[Michael]

Mar 20, 2010 22:10:56 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Remember, the founders were violently opposed to ANY armed government troops on American soil, including their modern counterparts such as militarized police units and SWAT teams, which they referred to with great sarcasm and hatred. It wasn't just an army. It was any government gunmen at all.

If you are only pro-Navy and stand in firm opposition to all other forms of armed government troops, they would have enthusiastically embraced your view on this topic.

Paul Revere and Patrick Henry would have sent you Christmas cards. They were fanatical about it.

But you need to remember that this is no longer 1776. It's 2010 and there are now things such as the mafia, gangs, drug trafficking and human trafficking, these, to my knowledge, didn't exist in 1776. (except for human trafficking, but that was perfectly legal then.)

[noski]

Justed to be wondering out loud here....who took the poll in 1776 that resulted in only 10% of the population in favor of revolution. Before or after the Boston Massacre ,which seemed to be the catalyst.

[Stephen]

Mar 20, 2010 22:17:15 GMT -5 Michael said:

But you need to remember that this is no longer 1776. It's 2010 and there are now things such as the mafia, gangs, drug trafficking and human trafficking, these, to my knowledge, didn't exist in 1776. (except for human trafficking, but that was perfectly legal then.)

If your principles change according to the needs of the moment, they are not principles any more.

They are conveniences.

The founders were ready to die for their principles. Every single day they faced the literal reality that capture would result in an immediate hanging.

But we see a gang in school and someone selling a bag of non-government-approved leaves and we're ready to sell out what our founders were prepared to die for? That attitude would have lasted about three minutes in the Continental Army.