ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

bigweb14...your argument is "valid". I question the "Founding Fathers", because their beginning was "Not Honestly Christian". Although, they spoke and wrote many words of "Godly Wisdom", it was "Racially Bias" it was not spoken or written for the "Native American, African American, Hispanic American or any Race, Creed, Nationality or Origin", their "Words" seem to apply "ONLY" to a "Rich American" Then and Now! The Democratics Actually abided by the "Words" written in the "Constitution and the Declaration of Independence" which is "The American Law". Even though, many people declare they know "Christian Values", they judge "Unrighteously"! What's the difference between being "Prejudice and being a Hypocrite"......The God I know, gives people a "Choice"....and He and He alone will be "Our Judge"!

Serious | 09/10/08

Serious: It's difficult to read all of your comments with so many quotation marks. In most of the places you used them, it was inappropriate. Regarding the topic, this an unbelievable display of gross ignorance reading the Founding Fathers' place in history. You are conveniently judging them through the eyes of a 21st century American. What they did simply by throwing off the rule of Great Britain and setting up a representative type of government was absolutely unheard of. To set up a President with limited powers and a limited term of office was completely revolutionary. It's easy to reap the benefits of the country they founded and sit back and nitpick everything they did. It's similar to the heiress of a billionaire's fortune whining about him not giving her a better car.

AmazonQueen | 09/10/08

The founding fathers were business men first. There pocket books were getting hit with new taxes meanwhile cheap tea was being sold without those taxes. They used a movement that was based in ideals to create a government that would benefit them. They also had the brain to realize that things change and allow the document to change. Saying a founding father was Christian is like saying they were a human being. There were no other popular religions in the United States back then and they probably had never even really researched them, or would be excommunicated from their community for changing religions. This is less then a hundred years after people were burned at the stake for being witches. A lot of the founding fathers had an interesting view on Christianity that most bible thumping people today would argue with. God was a clock maker incense, he set the rules and the world in motion, but he wasn't interfering. He definitely wasn't talking to us through tongues or showing up in toast.

Salty_Dick | 09/10/08

Salty Salty Salty.... You do know Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran - the one Keith Ellison took his oath of office on? I guarantee you he and the other founders knew more about other religions that you or I do. And if they set up our govt for their own self interest, why did they create the Bill of Rights? Your entire argument is flawed.

AmazonQueen | 09/10/08

For one, the opposition to gay marriage argument is easy to make without any reference to religion. Second, to say we should stop venerating the founding fathers is to suggest we stop acknowledging our independence, as well as our foundation of law that was created just eleven years later. If you take issue with Christianity as a reason to ban gay marriage, that's one thing; don't pretend that ignoring our founding fathers will somehow make things better for you.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 09/10/08

Actually the opposition to gay marriage is not easy to make regardless of your starting point. Though that doesn't stop people from spewing bigotry, but the fact remain there is no valid legal opposition to gay marriage. Just like there is no valid legal opposition to women's sufferage or desegregation. However, the rest of your argument is a good one Pit Bull. Admiration of our founding fathers is perfectly ok, their accomplishments stand nearly unmatched in the history humankind. The legacy they built is extraordinary and worthy of veneration. However, the original poster makes a valid point, though it's a bit hidden. Using the founding fathers as an excuse to oppose things that are distasteful to you is weak-minded. If you oppose a thing, do some research and build a useful argument, rather than projecting your own (christian) beliefs onto some long dead men.

BlueBloodLiberal | 09/10/08

Amazonqueen, you are right in saying that I am conveniently judging them through the eyes of the 21st century. However, we do need to do a sanity check on a few of your statements. "What they did simply by throwing off the rule of Great Britain and setting up a representative type of government was absolutely unheard of." Yes, they were the first of the British Empire's colonies to emerge victorious. However, Britain didn't fair too well in the Anglo-Dutch wars so the Revolution certainly wasn't their first ever defeat. And I hope you're not saying that a representative government was unheard of? Democracy existed in Ancient Greece and popped up throughout history. Even England signed the Magna Carta in 1215 and they had a working parliament, it was just that the colonies couldn't participate in it. The idea of natural or inalienable rights came from John Locke, the idea of checks and balances came from Montesquieu. These ideas were definitely, "heard of." Limited term of office? Term limits didn't come around until after FDR. America was lucky that Washington stepped down after two terms, and it is an amazing person who can deny himself that power, but FDR certainly didn't follow his example. And what's so great about America's representative democracy which allows a candidate to become president WITHOUT a majority of the popular vote? What's democratic about that? The electoral college is a means of taking power away from voters. Why do we VENERATE this idea? "It's easy to reap...and then nitpick..." I don't deny that they made a lot of right choices that all Americans have benefited from. However, there are also quite a few wrong choices in there that, if people continue to hold the founding fathers on a golden pedestal, will never be corrected. "Billionaire Heiress...car..." How did you know I was a billionaire heiress? And for the record, a father should always want what's best for his child, so if Daddy can afford the best and he gives anything less then he's not a good father. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to switch cars...the satellite internet in this one is interfering with the tanning bed in the passenger seat.

bigweb14 | 09/10/08

As far as why did the Founding Fathers write the Bill of Rights, check this out: < /br> http://www.bordc.org/resources/borhistory.php < /br> The Bill of Rights does not exist because government officials wanted to protect the rights of the people of the United States. It exists because the people, who knew firsthand what it was like to live as colonists under a king, demanded it and refused to ratify the U.S. Constitution without a promise that it would contain a Declaration of Rights. < /br> It is interesting to look at the English Bill of Rights, from 1689, and to compare it to the U.S. Bill of Rights, created 100 years later. The English Bill of Rights was an act of Parliament that guaranteed the right of British subjects to petition the king and to bear arms. It also prohibited excessive bails, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. The English Bill of Rights became part of the British Constitution and set a precedent upon which Enlightenment philosophers relied. Some of those philosophers lived in the American colonies, and they imported parts of the English Bill of Rights into the U.S. Constitution. < /br> That's my point right there. We are indoctrinated in school about the Greatness of the Founding Fathers, but that doesn't always line up with the Facts. How many Americans know that the English Bill of Rights came 100 years earlier? How many Americans know that he called it a "Parchment Barrier?" In fairness, Jefferson eventually convinced him it was needed.

bigweb14 | 09/10/08

The electoral college was designed to give power to ALL voters, not just those in the few biggest states by extremely lopsided margins. That's still what it does. Eliminating the EC in hopes of more legitimate and fair voter representation is a paradox.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 09/11/08

I didn't know I accepted this debate...sorry for the late anbd quick reply

theyoungdem | 09/11/08

Yes, lets forget John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, etc, who needs them?

strongleader | 09/12/08

Google Thomas Jefferson quotes and you will have an idea of what he thought of religion. He did believe in God, but questioned the idea of Christianity altogether...bottom line, it doesn't matter anymore what they thought...it matters how you interpret the constitution. The preamble says ...life, liberty and the persuit of happiness...how does denying a gay the right to marriage impede this...let me count the ways. What the founding father's wrote actually was a better document than they were living at the time...for it guarantees rights to all citizens...women, men, gays, straight...all...even though they didn't even consider gay or women rights at the time. Jefferson also thought that he would rather deal with the imperfections of granting liberty to all, than to have a government involved in taking liberties away.

Press12 | 09/12/08

Not all the founding fathers were Christian....Ben Franklin and I believe Hamilton were both Agnostic. You can't look to them for everything, but you can look to themto see exemples of how they came to decisions, not the decisions themselves. They needed to compromise. Slavery was strongly disapproved of in the north yet Adams knew pushing the issue when the south wasn't ready would have destroyed the country prior to the formation. They knew it would need to be reaprroached after time. Gay marriage will eventually be legal, just like seperate but equal was found to be unconstitutional and women were given the right to vote just like men. That is the beauty of what the founder did. They left our system pliable enough to change with time since they recognized that everything changes. We face new challenges that there was no way they could forsee 200+ years ago and they new this would be true. Before they were Christians, they were sons of enlightment.

Paparune | 09/12/08

correction after reading.....Jefferson

Paparune | 09/12/08

Their political opinions are out of date now but that does not mean we should ignore the ideals that formed this country, and those ideals started with the founding fathers.

leftwingteen | 09/12/08

In a discussion with a Republican friend(I'm a democrat) he tried to use Lincoln's education to improve Sarah Palin's weak educational record. I was having none of it. College 180 years ago pre-civil war, was much different than that of today's. It goes to show how weak Palin's education is when connections can be made between it and Lincoln's... For that reason, I'll agree with you bigweb. Our founding fathers (and some of our greatest presidents) lived in times completely seperate from our own, and drawing comparisons between them is silly. However, we should remember that they fought against the world's superpower for freedom, and we should always honor their memory, remembering them as great men at their times....

TarnishedEagle52 | 09/13/08

SL, I agree let's also be rid of Lincoln, T Roosevelt, FDR, Ike, Kennedy, and Reagan they're all too old and too dead for anything they said or did to be of any importance.

MorgMcA | 09/13/08

Just want to get back to USA Pit Bull. You are right in saying that the Electoral College was to protect the representation of smaller states. But the reasoning at that time was because communication was so slow, the Founding Fathers were worried that Candidates would campaign only in big states so they could garner a majority without even visiting the smaller states. Also involved in this issue of representation was the infamous 3/5ths compromise. Now, instead of small states being ignored, it is the larger states with known leanings which are ignored. There were 13 states then, there are 50 states now. At the touch of a button I can have all the information and more that I could ever want about a candidate. Back then they had to wait months. Candidates can go on nationally televised debates, whereas before they had to travel on horseback to every town to be seen by a few hundred or a few thousand people. The world is different now than it was then and our laws and system of government should reflect the way the world is now.

bigweb14 | 09/14/08

So bigweb14 you would prefer a system where everyone not living in California and New England would be ignored as opposed to states that are a shoe in for one canidate over the other.

MorgMcA | 09/14/08

We should not try to read the minds of our founding fathers and try to guess what they would have wanted. They purposely made the constitution and all that so that they would not be needed. To think that since they would have wanted one thing over another and that we should vote that way is silly. I think they would have wanted our new generations to be able to think independently from the dead founding fathers. Sure, we shouldn't forget what they held dear to them, but if something isn't working anymore for us, we shouldn't keep it just because the founding fathers needed or wanted it. Now, because I'm guessing this whole face-off was started with the second amendment in mind, personally, I think the second amendment should me limited (who needs an AK-47 or a tank?) but not completely exterminated (because some people do need some extra protection). so yeah.... that is it.

Your God(ess) | 09/14/08