stone savage

zeitgeist: Friday, November 23, 1787
ortgeist : On the campaign trail for the Constitution

“Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.” - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers #1.

[More:]

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay collectively authored The Federalist Papers undor a single pseudonym of “Publius” (Latin for “of the people"). Madison, widely recognized as the Father of the Constitution, would later go on to become the fourth President of the United States. Jay would become the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Hamilton would serve in the Cabinet and become a major force in setting economic policy for the US.

The purpose of the Federalist Papers was to garner popular support for the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Within the 85 documents making up the collection are the very heart and soul of what our Founders hoped our Constitution would provide those it governed.

I listen intently to what it is people think motivated our Founders. I am often surprised to hear things like “so the people could rule by popular will through government” or “to ensure a democratic government", etc. It was not either of those two things, and rarely any of the other things people mention.

So what’s this all about, you ask? It’s about my frustration in hearing people blithely say things like “it’s the current will of the people to let moral values legislate for the masses". I have a problem with that… a serious problem.

You see, for me, this country - America - is not a country of religious ideology. We’re a country of freedom. Even if I could like the idea of being ruled by religion-based morality… I have to wonder whose religion it is that’s doing the ruling? Which faction of Christianity or non-Christianity is the power behind the decisions or even the vote? What happens when the majority faction is no longer advocating your moral values but is now enforcing theirs upon you?

What would happen if, in 10 years time, the population of this country was 51% Islamic in their faith? What if they elected an Islamic majority to Congress and the Presidency? What if they began talking about a Constitutional Amendments to mirror their Islamic laws? Would you be bothered by that?

To whom would you appeal for protection of the rights you currently enjoy? Would not the end-result, if the train of such a “hostile” take-over could not be derailed, be an inevitable mass exodus from this country or a revolution of some kind?

America is divided today not because half the country is immoral and half the country is moral. It’s divided because people won’t sit down and listen to each other.

This country was founded on secular philosophy, not religious ideology. Our Founders loudly condemned the idea that any given faction within a society should be able to impose their factional ideology onto others - it was the reason they chose to make this country a Republic rather than a true Democracy. So that even if 51% of the Population wanted to legislate a particular item - that our elected officials, and our system of checks and balances, might be able to make the “right” decision. Those aren’t my words, they are the Founders’ words.

Were our Founders men of faith? Most were, yes - but more importantly, they were men of Reason. They specifically hoped to have the Constitution and the government it outlined to be the premiere contract limiting government from infringing upon the rights of the citizen - and empowering the Federal government to ensure that that which was considered “right” was determined not by religious value, moral dictate, nor even the majority of the population; but was, instead, determined by justice and the philosophies behind the making of our country - that our life, our liberty, and the pursuit of our happiness could not be granted by majority rule - but was what should be protected by an Enlightened Reason.

————————————————————————–