"We forgot."
-Alexander Hamilton on why the Founding Fathers did not include God in the United States Constitution.
So did John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
The Founding Fathers were, as a whole, ambivalent toward religion and privately, as with Adams and Jefferson, sometimes disdainful. They were creatures of The Enlightenment and put their faith in Reason, and its son, Science. They established no state religion in the New Republic, making it unique at the time, and gave its new citizens freedom to believe as they wished--in the Christian deity, some other or others, none at all, or in themselves. It was this last that was most important for in both their private thoughts and public acts the Founding Fathers intended and brought forth a new Man who would create heaven on earth if one was to exist at all.
They believed that man with his reasoning ability could decide all matters under the sun for himself: which if any entity to pray to, who to lead him on earth, how to provide material sustenance, how, if it was possible, to go beyond that and prosper.
All of this we see now as on a plausible continuum beginning with the Renaissance but it was not the only plausible outcome, it was one of the least. For there was no template for what they did. It also looked to some half-baked then and even now when we see it...baked. Their Declaration of Independence from England was very much an "open letter," a defensive open letter, to Europe:
"When in the course of human events, [etc.]...a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes..."
Gulp. Little help here.
There follows a litany of complaints including a variation on James Otis' campaign slogan,
"imposing Taxes on us without our Consent,"
and inciting the people who were here before them, who the Declaration affectionately refers to as "the merciless Indian Savages."
These and many more all deducing to:
"absolute Despotism."
"absolute Tyranny."
It may do well here to compare Tyrants. Another of the Founding Father's complaints against George III was,
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury."
Terrible. Terrible thing that.
The Chinese people were not deprived of Trial by Jury in many (not all) cases. George III's contemporary in China, the Emperor Qianlong, had a...different approach to people who wrote things like declarations of independence about him. Qianlong's approach was called "literary inquisition" and is described by Wikipedia as follows:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"Creator?" The one you "forgot" later in your Constitution? Or a different one? Not sure if there's a God so let's keep it a little fuzzy and use "Creator?"
"Endowed" you, huh? The Creator, whoever he/she/it was, "endowed" you--ALL men--with "Rights?" Where'd you ever get an idea like that? The concept that the common man ("all men") had Rights, "unalienable" ones, was not "self evident" in the eighteenth century.
If this had been a term paper and the "opinions of mankind" the civics class professor the above section would have been circled in red.
"Mr. Hancock, ET AL, you need to cite to 'Authority,' i.e. to those more impressively 'endowed' by your 'Creator' than you, for the propositions you assert, especially such...bold ones as this!"
"All men are created equal:" Slavery, women, merciless Indian savages. C'mon.
"Among those" rights: Not sure? Maybe some others? Maybe some different ones? You changed them once before, from "property" to "pursuit of happiness." This is very wobbly.
"The pursuit of happiness:" What the hell does that mean? What do you want, an orgasmatron?
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Yeah, tell that to Emperor Qianlong.
That civics class term paper would have come back with a "D" on it.
Sources: Hamilton quote, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," Gordon S. Wood. Professor Wood appends the qualifier "allegedly." Adams and Jefferson on religion: "Radicalism."
-Alexander Hamilton on why the Founding Fathers did not include God in the United States Constitution.
So did John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
The Founding Fathers were, as a whole, ambivalent toward religion and privately, as with Adams and Jefferson, sometimes disdainful. They were creatures of The Enlightenment and put their faith in Reason, and its son, Science. They established no state religion in the New Republic, making it unique at the time, and gave its new citizens freedom to believe as they wished--in the Christian deity, some other or others, none at all, or in themselves. It was this last that was most important for in both their private thoughts and public acts the Founding Fathers intended and brought forth a new Man who would create heaven on earth if one was to exist at all.
They believed that man with his reasoning ability could decide all matters under the sun for himself: which if any entity to pray to, who to lead him on earth, how to provide material sustenance, how, if it was possible, to go beyond that and prosper.
All of this we see now as on a plausible continuum beginning with the Renaissance but it was not the only plausible outcome, it was one of the least. For there was no template for what they did. It also looked to some half-baked then and even now when we see it...baked. Their Declaration of Independence from England was very much an "open letter," a defensive open letter, to Europe:
"When in the course of human events, [etc.]...a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes..."
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united (sic) States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..."
Gulp. Little help here.
There follows a litany of complaints including a variation on James Otis' campaign slogan,
"imposing Taxes on us without our Consent,"
and inciting the people who were here before them, who the Declaration affectionately refers to as "the merciless Indian Savages."
These and many more all deducing to:
"absolute Despotism."
"absolute Tyranny."
It may do well here to compare Tyrants. Another of the Founding Father's complaints against George III was,
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury."
Terrible. Terrible thing that.
The Chinese people were not deprived of Trial by Jury in many (not all) cases. George III's contemporary in China, the Emperor Qianlong, had a...different approach to people who wrote things like declarations of independence about him. Qianlong's approach was called "literary inquisition" and is described by Wikipedia as follows:
“The accusation of individuals began with the authority's own interpretation of the true meaning of the corresponding words, the necessary 'evidence' needed to achieve a successful persecution would come from further interpretation of the words. The authority would judge any single character or any single sentence's neutrality; if the authority had decided these words, or sentence were derogatory or cynical towards the rulers, then persecution would begin.”
And what would happen to offenders found guilty by this procedure?
"the victims [were] beheaded or corpses [were] mutilated, or victims [were] slowly sliced into pieces until death." :o
And so we may see that you have Tyrants and then you have Tyrants.
The oppressed Englishmen in the American colonies stated the principles upon which they acted:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"Creator?" The one you "forgot" later in your Constitution? Or a different one? Not sure if there's a God so let's keep it a little fuzzy and use "Creator?"
"Endowed" you, huh? The Creator, whoever he/she/it was, "endowed" you--ALL men--with "Rights?" Where'd you ever get an idea like that? The concept that the common man ("all men") had Rights, "unalienable" ones, was not "self evident" in the eighteenth century.
If this had been a term paper and the "opinions of mankind" the civics class professor the above section would have been circled in red.
"Mr. Hancock, ET AL, you need to cite to 'Authority,' i.e. to those more impressively 'endowed' by your 'Creator' than you, for the propositions you assert, especially such...bold ones as this!"
"All men are created equal:" Slavery, women, merciless Indian savages. C'mon.
"Among those" rights: Not sure? Maybe some others? Maybe some different ones? You changed them once before, from "property" to "pursuit of happiness." This is very wobbly.
"The pursuit of happiness:" What the hell does that mean? What do you want, an orgasmatron?
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Yeah, tell that to Emperor Qianlong.
That civics class term paper would have come back with a "D" on it.
Sources: Hamilton quote, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," Gordon S. Wood. Professor Wood appends the qualifier "allegedly." Adams and Jefferson on religion: "Radicalism."
