all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 51 points 8 months ago (10 children)

Explanation: For all the many flaws of the 'big 7' Founding Fathers, 6/7 of them were firmly secularist. 2 were not Christians in the modern sense (Jefferson, Franklin), two may not have been Christians (Washington, Madison), two were secular Christians (Hamilton, Adams), and only one advocated for involvement of the Christian faith in public affairs (John Jay).

In fact, for several generations after the American Revolution, Christian fundamentalists in the USA regularly condemned the foundation of the country by 'heathens' as wicked, and the USA itself as an aberration.

It would seem once they saw an opportunity to worm their way into power, they reversed their opinion on the American polity.

Nowadays, church and state remain formally separate in the USA, but in practice, there is a rapidly eroding barrier between the two due to the support of a majority of voting Americans for conservative and fascist shitheads.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago

    Likewise, John Marshall, who often gets left out of these conversations but who in my opinion is worthy of being included with the 'Big 7' as the 'Big 8', was a Unitarian, but he didn't attend church. His wife Polly did and was a devout Christian, but she would go on her own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    only one advocated for involvement of the Christian faith in public affairs (John Jay).

    literal who?

    secularism is social progress, and thus, woke.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    literal who?

    • Minister to Spain during the Revolutionary War.
    • A negotiator for the Treaty of Paris. Later negotiated "Jay's Treaty" which was deeply unpopular but arguably delayed another war with Britain until Madison got drunk on imperialism one night and started the War of 1812.
    • Secretary of Foreign Affairs when the US was still under the Articles of Confederation (acting Secretary of State under Washington several months thereafter).
    • Third co-author of The Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Madison.
    • First Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (albeit at this time the caseload was light, and the court's stature was nothing like it became under Marshall). This mainly included establishing how the court was actually supposed to do its job.
    • Governor of New York for six years and got emancipation passed there.

    Jay was incredibly influential in the early success of the US, but no one thing he did is individually "sexy", so he's not liable to be the focus of a secondary school US history lesson.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    wasn't there also something about bi party?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 14 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Washington, in particular, was an opponent of political parties as a whole, which he felt lent themselves to tribalism and graft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Why did the fundamentalists see the US as an aberration?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 5 points 8 months ago

    Precisely because it was well-known that the First Amendment was meant seriously. As the Treaty of Tripoli says, signed by John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers who definitely was Christian, as ratified by the Senate:

    As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;

    Effectively, secularism and pluralism were still, at that time period, radical 'liberal' ideas that many conservatives were not onboard with. I mean, shit, Jews were still kept in ghettos in most of Europe, and in most places only Catholicism or (generally a specific strain of) Protestantism were accepted, rarely both. Whoever heard of a country that wasn't founded on GOD!?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    At this point I have to do this

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    " However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. "

    George Washington - Farewell Address | Saturday, September 17, 1796

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    He called this shit on day fucking one. Not listening to the no political parties thing doomed us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    If GW were alive today questions about Church v State would probably be way down on his list of "WTF is going on here?!".

    I mean the BoR applying to the States, individual taxes, the stupid amount of power that the Federal Government has, the utter disregard of the 9th and 10th Amendments, our large standing Army...all of these things would be of WAY more concern and confusion to him.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 6 points 8 months ago

    As Washington himself noted, "To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff." He was foundational in establishing the Legion of the United States and establishment of the US Navy as a permanent standing force, and was generally aligned with the Federalists who wanted a stronger Federal government. I presume by 'individual taxes' you mean income tax, considering that one of the first taxes in the USA was levied on individuals producing alcohol, which Washington was willing to use force to ensure compliance with.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago

    ICE throws Washington into an unmarked vehicle and deports him. No birth certificate, technically a British Subject, and threatens the current regime.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago

    Hey George can you clarify the 2nd amendment?

    George Washington, looking up from the trump-epstein files: Give the people manpads

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    He'd still be looking for his wife's favorite escaped slave. (A real person)

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    If Washington were alive today he would say "The Moon? You mean the big round thing in the sky? The fucking moon? People went there? They walked on it? On the fucking moon?"

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    Wait till they hear about Jesus. Dude was a communist hippie.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. "

    Washington: "Called it."

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Probably close to reality:

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago*

    Washington if he were actually alive today: "My that's a fine Ryebourbon industry we've got going"

    Edit: He made rye not bourbon

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Pretty sure that liberals (in the center-left popular definition) haven't been using"woke" in ages, since the term has been successfully muddied and vilified by conservatives.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    If Washington was alive today he’d ask how all those slaves were walking around in public. You don’t get much more non-woke than a slave owner.

    And for anyone who cites his writing about how bad it made him feel, imagine how the humans he held in bondage that was enforced by multiple layers of brutal violence felt, and reflect that for Washington’s purported struggle he somehow never landed on “grant them their freedom.”

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 12 points 8 months ago*

    Considering that most of the last year of his life was consumed by him attempting to sell his estate and and making plans to (ideally) purchase the dower slaves he did not legally own, but who formed families with the slaves that he did, in the interest of granting them all their freedom? And when he unexpectedly and quickly died, his will freed all the slaves he did own?

    You can say it's still insufficient, and you're not wrong. But "he somehow never landed on grant them their freedom" isn't it.

    He also implemented the first non-segregated units in the US military and was a supporter of the abolition of slavery, so I doubt he would be asking about where 'slaves' got 'gold chains'.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Washington: wakes up in 2026
    mad scientists: Mr. President, what do think of this modern era!?
    Washington: where are my wife and children!?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Separating church and state is so woke.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    GW owned slaves, so idk where this glorification is coming from.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    I keep spotting new deranged details, like the “republican” hat being slightly wider to accommodate the text.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I bet he would ask about his slaves.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment