Date: Tue Sep 23 10:41:50 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Answers (Re: Question du Jour)
At 05:18 PM 9/22/97 0500, you wrote:
The most thorough and authoritative source on the founding period I know is David Barton. He has an organization called Wallbuilders.
VERY interesting cite. I especially like the page devoted to unconfirmed quotes. It builds credibility.
He has no agenda except the truth.
Everyone, repeat everyone, has an agenda. Do not confuse discrediting myth with identifying the truth. There are no absolute truths, certainly not from the mouths of men with an agenda. Don't ever believe anyone who says he thinks he knows the truth but doesn't have an agenda. I've got one, you've got one. They're not the same on this issue, but I doubt that either one of us has cornered the market on "the truth" when it comes to the role of religion in government (or vice versa).
He has the view that Jefferson, Washington, Adams, etc. knew more about what they thought and wanted for this country than those today who pervert the truth to push their own political/social agenda.
Even presuming to know what the founding fathers personally believed in leading their own lives is inadequate (although helpful) to understanding their "original intent" in what the constitution was supposed to mean. And even if we could be sure as to their real intent, it begs the question whether or to what degree it should be applied to interpretation of the Constitution today. Unlike most, the beauty of our constitution is that it is a "living document." Its interpretation is not immutable. That's why it's survived so long with so few amendments and is the model for other countries.
I am studying the history of the constitutional convention now in order to judge for myself what the founding fathers said, and hopefully determine what they were thinking and why. But all of it needs to be understood in context, which you and I still don't have (although we're learning). What Madison said is not the final word on what the first amendment meant even though it was modeled on the Virginia Constitution which he had a heavy hand in. Getting the amendment through Congress took a lot of political give and take, but even what Congress meant (if we knew) when it sent the bill of rights to the states, is not the final word, because the question then becomes: what did the states who ratified the amendments really have in mind at the state level as to what they thought they were ratifying?
The minute you take a stand on an issue, you've got a political/social agenda. Calling it the truth won't make it so. I'm not saying it isn't, just be wary of those who presume to know "the truth." Of course it will sound like the truth to you, because you already agree with it, or because it is consistent with what you want to believe. The search for truth is what truly matters. The moment we think we've found it, we're being presumptuous.
Don't get me wrong. Clearly there is a place for faith, piety, reverence in our social institutions, as many of the founding fathers wrote in their personal and sometimes public writings (although the more public a politician's profession of faith the more suspect Jesus would have found it, no?). It's just not the government's role to presume to tell us what that absolute truth ultimately is or how to arrive at it. The first amendment is not about majority rule.
http://www.Christiananswers.net/wall/wallhome.html
Very good site, but the domain name itself suggests a certain bias, doesn't it?
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment