Is the religious way of portraying the founding fathers and the constitution a good thing or bad?

The founding fathers are basically portrayed as prophets that can not be criticized and the constitution as the bible, by quite a lot of Americans. And even among those that don't, the founding fathers and the constitution although not seen as religious dogma, still seen as fantastic by those people. Is this a good thing or a bad thing in your opinion, and what purpose does this notion serve?

second thoughts like everyone else. The reason our Constitution is amendable is that they realized it wasn't perfect and couldn't anticipate every occurrence. This understanding of their human fallibility shouldn't diminish their greatness. They strove to create a just and fair, liberal society despite their human and 18th century societal flaws.

against the stupid masses, did they not? The notion that the owners of society, that is the business elite, are the ones who should decide policy while the ignorant masses, the population should stay mostly on the sidelines as spectators?

to fuel the industrial revolution of the country like was happening in England and not be a weak and poor agricultural backwater.

Some pursued the perfectability of Man. Some sought to train robots. Some thought to raise good citizens.

But somehow, they agreed to do some basic education, and so public education was born. And it was a well-rounded, basic education, the starting point for educating the self.

And now, we have a new agenda: indoctrination and de-education. Making people as stupid as possible. It is a perversion of the American dream, the American model, the policy that made us the envy of the world and the drawing card for the masses.

It is founded in religious practices, but it's much more sinister than that.

by providing for an amendment process.

And also because such a portrayal has nothing to do with honoring the Founders or honoring the Constitution - and has everything to do with promoting a contemporary, undemocratic, narrow & partisan political viewpoint.

n/t

They provided some great quotes and ideas in our favor that we fail to employ/utilize. We cede this ground to wingnutters at our peril.

it only contributes to the ridiculous concept of "American exceptionalism", in that the founding fathers made the most perfect document since the Bible itself, which, 27 amendments and a long overdue but never ratified Equal Rights Amendment later, it clearly is not.

Is there one anymore? Everything I learned about it in post secondary study has been thrown out.

only "religions (cults)" and dictators feel the need to do that.

One can re-interpret history, when a breakthrough in understanding occurs, or new information comes to light, but keep the worshiping for false idols.

than anyone telling us how fallible they were.

and the Constitution is their compromise. They knew that minds would change, and allowed for it. They hoped that minds would change for the better, but knew that the odds were against it, so they tried to build in some fail-safe mechanisms.

Unfortunately, in 200+ years, the agendas have gotten a lot uglier, the safeguards have been ignored, violated, or gotten around, and here's way too much wealth being thrown around and not siphoned off by taxes into the common welfare.

And there's too much fraud, too much criminality. The Rule of Law has been abandoned and subverted. and so has the ultimate Law of the Land, the Constitution, been subverted.

Religion was kept separate and apart from designing a government built into the Constitution.

The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Episcopalian/Anglican and the balance were Quakers and Congregationalist. A few were Catholic.
Freedom from a state sponsored religion was an important consideration. Freedom of religion was one of the main reasons the colonists came here.

The right has reduced the Founders and the Constitution to Saints and Holy Writ from an untouchable golden age. They actually believe the Constitution is founded in God's Law, not human philosophy. Just look at Anton Scalia and his courtly minions for the most ludicrous example of bone-headed Consititutionolatry. But the teabaggers are worse because they allow their High Gasbags like Beck and Limbaugh do all the interpreting for them. Morons, every last one of them. Don't you think?

Sounds like horseshit to me.

They were human beings with some serious flaws, not prophets. Some of them such as the Puritans did some serious damage to this country and laid the groundwork for "our country is so special because God has blessed us over all others" attitudes.

Five out of six of the men that wrote the Declaration of Independence were Lawyers. The only one that was not was Ben Franklin. Religion was not mentioned in the Constitution at all until the Bill of Rights were added and then only in the First Amendment and only saying people were free to choose any religion they wished without government involvement..This country was in no way founded upon any religion....

There is nothing wrong with loving ones own country. There is nothing wrong with respecting and believing in the document that guides and protects us. The founders are held in such high esteem because they gave it to us.

It is not the founders fault that people have perverted the Constitution in order to sidestep the amendment process so they can push their own personal agendas onto everybody else.

I draw more meaning for us today from the fact that these very real, fallible men with personal agendas, contradictions, and shortcomings somehow managed to establish a Constitution that has inspired generations of Americans to continue the struggle to create "a more perfect union".

The so-called "religious way" wants us to believe they were near perfect "prophets" (to use your word) and that the Constitution miraculously appeared from God as a result of their Christian faith.

The way I portray the founders offers us an example of how we, the (flawed) people with our personal agendas, contradictions, and shortcomings, can continue the hard work of following the guidelines set forth in the Constitution to create that more perfect union.

The religious way leaves us adulating demi-gods and yearning for a far-off Golden Age when we didn't have to do anything except for have faith.

Which approach do you think serves the needs of our Republic (assuming we still have one)?

the public not living up to the ideals of the system of government rather than the system of government not fulfilling the needs of the people. Bad policy becomes a moral failing of the public rather than something which is an outgrowth of the system.

The Founding Fathers were a diverse group of political and religious thinkers and the Constitution is the product of that diversity.
In their time the major debate in political philosophy could be seen as being between the Classical thinkers, man as a social and political animal and the Enlightenment thinkers--government is a necessary evil.If people are rational beings then little government would be required. Are people capable of self-government or are they essentially evil and require more government? The ideal form of government would depend on one's view of human nature. Are we really equal or are some people really better (smarter, morally virtuous) than others. One must remember that many of the Founding Fathers, while opposed to tyranny thought that too much democracy was a bad thing that could ultimately result in the overthrow of their own government.
The genius of the Constitution is that it provides for a government of laws, in the event people with self=government will act only in their selfish interest. It also allows for significant liberty of thought, expression and self-determination as a safe-guard against tyranny.
It is a near-perfect document but the Founding Fathers understood its imperfections and allowed for its amendment.
The Federalist papers are very educational on these subjects.

Is that your opinion or are you describing what these people in the 18th century were thinking about?

This isn't the 18th century though, when people were subsistence peasants and lived and died all within the radius of 5 miles.

We are all part of a very complex economic network dependent on each other which in itself makes it impossible to be self-reliant in any meaningful way. Back in the 18th century, of course the sick and disabled and old and the other weak groups were basically just thrown in a ditch to suffer if they didn't have a large family to take care of them. These groups require alot of big government today. No, churches and other voluntary work for the needy can only do the tip of the iceberg. Large government is needed for the weak who dont have huge support networks to live good lives with self-respect.

There is an interesting spot in David McCullough's biography of John Adams when Adams comments on the difference between the participants in the Continental Congress and the new representatives of the newly founded legislature, He says he's a little afraid of the new politicians taking advantage of the new government to further their own economic interests as opposed to being interested in forming a viable government in the public interest.

....1964 by Noonday Press... reprint of a 1896 work by John Bach McMaster "With the Fathers"... new title "The Political Depravity of the Founding Fathers: studies in the history of the United States".

This is a rare book, long out of print.

A realistic description of the men who founded this country... with warts and all. I suspect the old-style writing puts people off. We need a modern version that shows our FF were just men... and very fallible, but I think this country is hungry for heroes and demi-gods and won't want to hear anything real.

I think this is a bad thing.

If I remember correctly, Nietzsche suggested Founder worship may be a precursor to theistic religions.