Replies

” When he claims that our Founders were flawed, our constitution is flawed, capitalism is flawed, our nation is flawed, etc, etc, etc, he’s taking the same tack as Obama and the godless liberals rewriting history.”

Does it therefore follow that in order to be “welcome” on FR one needs to embrace the theory that the Founders were perfect, that the Constitution (original, with all the amendments, with only some of the amendments) is perfect, that capitalism, or some undefined variant of it, is similarly perfect (the fact that a “capitalistic” medical system forces even veterans onto the dole for care, etc, etc notwithstanding) that “the nation”, be that the meddlesome warrior nation of the post Vietnam era or the national security state we are subject to today, is perfect, etc. etc.?

Right?

Does accepting those precepts mean that one is not rewriting history like the “godless liberals” and is therefore welcome here? I have to tell you that from what I have seen of the writings of my ancestors since arrival at Cape Ann in 1623, none of them would have qualified and they were remarkably clear headed about human nature and the nature of the human social experiment they were engaged in. They were, Mr. Robinson, very, very successful in great measure because they didn’t try to fool themselves.

On a purely personal note, it appears your problem was not with stfassisi, but rather with the writings of Bishop Fulton Sheen. Bishop Sheen was a truly great American, worthy of the respect of every poster here on FR. Certainly he is respected by virtually all the Latin and Orthodox Christians on this site. Attacking him, in all honesty, appears to be an attack on the Catholic Church here in America. If Latin Catholics or Orthodox Christians respect Bishop Sheen and his writings, should they leave this site?

"... none of them would have qualified and they were remarkably clear headed about human nature and the nature of the human social experiment they were engaged in.

I do believe the most all of the founders of this nation were of similar mold. It is much why there was effort to reduce or limit powers of government.

Though I cannot prove it, I've been told that among the earliest conversations in the first Continental congress (held somewhat in secret at that point, to evade detection by Tory tattle-tales) was agreement to an unnamed person expressing sentiment that "all men are evil" or similar. They knew that whatever they did produce, there would always be those whom would strive to subvert it for their own ends. That much, has been known from the beginning. I dare say that most then realized also, that no amount of "law" would overturn the capacity for evil in the heart of man, so a wary eye should be turned towards not providing simply another avenue for an individual or group of persons to use powers of government to unduly oppress others. Oppressing certain behaviours or tendencies, was another matter entirely. For that was part of the very thing they needed to do.

Is there some other model elsewhere, which does this better? In the end, what are we left with regardless, other than a center of gravity reliant upon how well a majority follows the teachings of God, seen through the lens of Christ?

What nation is that? Where is it? What is it's name? There was none other at the time...for other efforts were by "king's prerogative", or by diktat.

Is there some superior model (to our original U.S. Constitution)? If so ---where?

While searching for this governmental nirvana, please do not allow yourself to be confused as to the founding father's considering the form of government eventually settled upon (as distasteful as it was to more than a few, even then) as being considered perfect. Rather, remarking upon it today, it could be much as what Churchill is attributed to having said of "capitalism". It is the worst system in the world ---except for all the others.