A sad day, from ishottheserif:

[wolven7]

Extremist Fundamentalists Disrupt The Senate Prayer.

The first time the prayer was given by a Hindu speaker, two different Christian Fundamentalists are appalingly rude to him. How would they like it, if he came to their church, and started shouting? Oh. Wait. He probably wouldn't do that, and neither would most sane Christians, because they're not dicks.

Open questions to two assholes:

Who were the "founding fathers" of our country?

Why did they begin this experiment (stated reasons will do)?

What were their religious beliefs?

What were their religious practices?

How many of them were what you might call fundamentalist Christian?

Would you shout them down, if they gave a prayer on the Senate floor? Or would you let them speak, because their terminology fit with your dogma?

I hate people so much.

Comments

[laxiola.livejournal.com]

Oh wow. Yeah, I hate people, too.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yeah.

I don't believe I'm actually posting

[mr-hinzelmann.livejournal.com]

Though lately I've taken a "hands-off" live journal policy, after watching the clip, I feel compelled to comment.

1. Who were the "founding fathers?"

When historians refer to the founding fathers, they generally mean the members of that generation of men whose intellectual efforts resulted in the foundational normative and formal documents of our government as well those who contributed to the armed struggle associated with American Independence. Many limit the term to the members of the Second Continental Congress, which framed the Declaration of Independence, as well as Washington and other leaders of the Army of the united Colonies (ca. 1774-1776). Others extend the relevant time period through the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 and the subsequent drafting of the Bill of Rights. It is this second, expanded group which is more historically relevant to your later questions, of only because the framework of religious liberty, remained amorphous and unsolidified until the first Congress under the Constitution agreed to the language of the First Amendment in 1780. The Amendment reads, in relevant part: "Congress shall make no law affecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

2. Why did they begin this experiment?

The introduction to the Declaration and the Preamble to the Constitution are certainly telling in this regard. As such, I will impose upon the hypertext and repeat them here.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."


"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As an aside, it saddens me to know that we, as people, may never write so well again. But that, of course, is another rant.


To assume that the stated reasons are complete, would be a naive opinion at best. However, the text does give us some clues. i will focus on those related to the topic at hand.

[Continued in a further post]

Re: I don't believe I'm actually posting

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Well stated.

Where's the further post, though?

Re: I don't believe I'm actually posting

[mr-hinzelmann.livejournal.com]

I was working on it

Re: I don't believe I'm actually posting

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I noticed.

Re: I don't believe I'm actually posting

[mr-hinzelmann.livejournal.com]

3. What were their religious beliefs?

Starting with the Declaration, we should begin by noting that it mentions the Divine four times - twice in the introduction and twice in the conclusion. From these references we can reach certain basic conclusions. The founders at least came to a consensus on the presence of a single divine sentience responsible for the Universe. They agreed that the presence of this Divine Sentience compelled certain conclusions about the place of man in nture and the relationship among men. We could argue for more, but I doubt we could extrapolate enough to make a claim about a concrete, national, religious identity.

It should also be noted that, other than the First Amendment, the Constitution makes no mention of religion at all. However, I would also like to mention that every session of the Senate has opened with a prayer - a practice that has never been challenged as an establishment of religion.



4. What were there religious practices?

This noncommital religious attitude is to be expected. The range of dogmatic opinion in the colonies was vast. Certainly, there were deists - the category which seems to come up in discussion. But that position was hardly the majority. A vast number were, of course, puritans. Many others were anabaptists and evangelicals. Later, Methodism arose from the teachings of John Wesley. Certainly, there were some Catholics and even a few Jews.

More importantly though, is the range of debate over what religious liberty might mean. The range of debate on that topic was enormous, and I cannot begin to summarize it here. However, it suffices to say that in wrestling with the issue, the best minds of the fouding generation almost universally concluded that religious faith was necessarily an individual issue - an indiviudal right.


More interesting is the advancement of what "religion" meant. Originally, as you might expect, religion referred to Christian religions. Later, the definition was expanded to alll Biblical religions. And then, in the 20th Century, religion extended, at least legally, to a sincerely held belief.


5. How many of them were what you might and call fundamentalist Christian?

The question is what one means by fundamentalist. In the modern parlance, none of them were what WE would consider fundamentalist. The fundamentalist movement in Christianitity is a product of the last century. However if asked, they might have referred to themselves as such. They might have all said that they were dedicated to certain fundamental beliefs and that they attempted to live their lives according to those fundamentals.


And now, to respond to the point at hand:

The strength of our government - its very essence - is the tolerance and even support of political and religious speech. There is no question that those who spoke out in the Senate are entitled to say what they said and to believe it. They too, though we may dislike them, are part of the American political community. They are entitled to speak, the problem is that they were not entitled to speak when and where they did.

The republican (governmental form, not political party) from of government relies on the effecuation of certain concepts. That representatives are crystallizations of the voice of their political subcommunities. The senatorial process is the dissolution and recrystallization of each of those political voices. Therefore, when one the senate speaks, ideally it does so with the crystallized voice of the soveriegn American political community. Ergo, for an individual to rise in the gallery of the Senate and attempt to contribute his voice supertextually - outside the crystallized voice of the community - is for that individual to usurp government from the other ca. 250 million American people. If any one person gets more say, the rest of us get less. For a person to rise in the gallery of the Senate and speak, is to divest the soveriegn political commuinity of its right to rule. It is seiditious. It is an affront to the nation. It is an affront to all of us.

Well that, and since the practices of the senate date back to Parliament. it's also considered downright rude.

Re: I don't believe I'm actually posting

[wolven.livejournal.com]

They are entitled to speak, the problem is that they were not entitled to speak when and where they did. . . Well that, and since the practices of the senate date back to Parliament. it's also considered downright rude.

Precisely my concern. A misapprehension of place and time, as well as the utter dicktitude of the act.

Thank you, for this. It's a very cogent contribution, from someone in a particularly good position to know. Well said.

Re: I don't believe I'm actually posting

[mr-hinzelmann.livejournal.com]

I will say that I'm more concerned about the divestment of equal representation than common courtesy. However, I certainly think they are both representations, though one is a micro-representation adn the other is a macro-representation, of the same subtextual problem.

Re: I don't believe I'm actually posting

[wolven.livejournal.com]

In the long term, the question of equal representation is one that should be and should have been more properly understood, and dealt with. In the short term, people need to stop being such jerks.