Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Those Radical Founding Fathers

The following is a brief list of founding fathers quotes assembled by John Torrenti, a friend of mine (among them is the quote I keep on my blog’s header). Notice the similarity between the views of our founding fathers and those of the neo-con.

On religion:

"What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ." - George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible." - George Washington

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity." - John Adams

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." - George Washington

On fighting:

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." - George Washington

14 Comments:

At 3:43 PM, Blogger James Howard Shott said...

Yes, conservatives haven't abandoned the foundations established by the Founders.

The progressives, on the other hand, believe many of those foundations have outlived their usefulness.

 
At 8:55 AM, Blogger allen said...

Nah, progressives, or whatever the current, self-congradulatory phrase might be, have never had much patience for the principles embraced by the founding fathers.

That's why they have no qualms about forcing their opinions on others and why they have no patience with uncertain, but morally defensible, persuasion.

 
At 4:47 PM, Blogger R said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11:40 AM, Blogger Nick Speth said...

On the issue of the first quote, I don't think that it was ever the desire of the founding fathers to have education be a federally-controlled business.

R: can't one believe in God, and respect His role in the shaping of western civilization without going to church? Just asking.

 
At 3:24 PM, Blogger Kyle said...

Do me a favor Dan, and give me a republican's view as to why the United States should NOT be a part of the Kyoto protocol. I'm interested in hearing the other side.

 
At 8:39 AM, Blogger allen said...

- the notion of anthropomorphic global warming has as much scientific credibility as the "nine out of ten doctors" who recommend Anacin and is often presented exactly that way.

- the nations that support, and have signed onto Kyoto, seem to have the common characteristc of suffering minimal economic consequences while the economic consequences to the United States would be nothing short of horrific. Funny that.

- the study of global climate change is in rapid flux. Processes that effect the global climate are being discovered, recharacterized, linked and measured at a much higer level of precision and resolution then ever before.

Making predicitions is always chancey. Making predicitions when you don't understand the extent of your own ignorance is just, plain stupid.

- technology is in the process of reducing man's impact on the environment. The same technology that backrupted millions of farmers in the U.S. is allowing the farms to return to the wild. If you think automobile pollution is bad you've never experienced horse pollution. Kyoto will slow that progress by imposing costs and empowering a bureaucracy.

- the history of Kyoto-like policies at the national level is a litany of failure. Welfare, national health care, national transportation systems, nationalization of industries have all proven to be expensive failures. Why would Kyoto be any different?

 
At 12:20 PM, Blogger Kyle said...

- Actually, the notion of human activities causing the atmosphere to warm up is a very popular idea. Even the EPA thinks so: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html.

- So the United States is going to sell the future of the world out to some money hungry jerks who run these companies? I feel safe now.

- Very true that there is still a lot we don't know, but there is a lot we do know. I suggest you read the cover article from the latest Scientific American (I couldn't find it online), but it puts yet another idea on the table: that humans actually began warming the climate thousands of years ago (by processes such as deforestation). It says that the Earth is, indeed, in a natural cycle, and that we should be in an ice age now, but the human-related warming has prevented that. The extra pollution from big factories, etc. is just adding to that warmth... just remember, that we don't want things to be too warm.

- So what if other similar policies have been failures? Shouldn't we at least try? Shouldn't Bush try to look down the road a few decades, or even centuries, rather than limiting his view to the next four years?

My consideration is that it's better to be safe than sorry. It's a hell of a lot easier to warm the Earth than it is to cool it off. I'm sure that if the President put enough time and effort in to the whole ordeal, he could think of ways to minimize economic loss. Perhaps we should be willing to put forth a little loss, since what we get in return may be far greater.

 
At 3:46 PM, Blogger Republican Dan said...

In a week or so I will publish a carefully researched article on the failed Kyoto treaty and global warming. There's only one thing, Kyle, that I'd like to mention right away: You say that we should be in an ice age now but global warming has prevented that. Do you think that it's bad that we're not in an ice age now? Maybe if we were all sitting around in our individual little blocks of ice we would at least have the satisfaction of saying: "Well, it's natural."

 
At 4:20 PM, Blogger Kyle said...

Actually, I simply posed that as one of the many theories on the table. But, if true, it would mean that we are indeed warmer than we "should" be, and we are still continuously warming. What happens if we warm too much? It won't be good.

 
At 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ryan-
As Nick Speth stated, you can believe in God and not go to church. Is that the best argument you have against the quotes? Interesting that you don't comment on the substance, and rather on my character. Sack up and say something to my face.
John

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger allen said...

-save popularity contests for high school. Scientific credibility is a little higher bar and anthropomorphic global climate change doesn't meet it.

-yes. Those "money hungry jerks" on any given day have done more to aleviate human suffering and improve the human condition then all authoritarian compassion-mongers since the beginning of time.

-the important question isn't whether we know a great deal or very little but whether we know enough. Some of the basic mechanisms that drive global climate change have only recently been characterized. That suggests that maybe there are other factors we either don't know about at all or don't know enough about to use in credible predictions of global climate change.

-because the only credibility a seer can claim is found in their record. Who would you take stock market advice from? The guy who's been right nine times out of ten or the guy who's been right zero times out of ten or a guy who had no record at all?

The trouble with the "better safe then sorry" idea is that it implicitly ignores the loss of opportunities that taking the "safe" course results in.

And, it hasn't even been established that Kyoto is the "safe" course. Without knowing how the climate works it's impossible to confidently predict that Kyoto won't accelerate global warming, slow down global warming or have any noticeable effect on global warming. How is it the safe choice to shatter the U.S. (and world) economy in pursuit of a goal that may or may not be obtainable and may or may not exist?

And I haven't even touched on the erosion of soveriegnty that would result from signing Kyoto. You may feel that's a good idea, a lot of lefties, progressives, liberals, whatever, seem to imbue the "international community" with a mystical justness but I don't share that view.

Anyhow, I'm a Republican and that's my view on the subject. I'll now shut up and let our host weigh in.

 
At 9:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't normally post here, just enjoy reading the debates here. However, I came across a good (very bias, but lots of facts) article about christianity and the founding fathers. I would like to see everyone read it, in hopes that it would further the debate.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen

 
At 11:51 AM, Blogger Nick Speth said...

For interesting insight into global warming, check out Michael Crichton's new book, State of Fear. It's obviously a work of fiction, but he does properly cite all facts he uses.

 
At 11:15 AM, Blogger JARHEAD said...

"So what if other similar policies have been failures? Shouldn't we at least try?"

Do moonbats ever think before they speak? That's almost as intelligent as Hanoi Jane saying if we understood communism, we would pray that we had it here, never mind that it was responsible for the death's of, oh I don't know... 100 million people.

"To be young and not liberal, means you have no heart. To be old and not conservative, means you have no brain."
Winston Churchill

 

Post a Comment

<< Home