The Founders weren't perfect. Private ships who ventured overseas should have done so at their own risk. Interesting to note that the U.S. had previously successfully brokered a temporary peace treaty with muslim fundamentalists:

"Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Link

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Madison didn't want the War of 1812. He was doing his utmost to negotiate a peace treaty. He was pressured into war by the "War Hawks" in his own party.

"Known at the time as ‘Madison's war’ after the US president who prosecuted it so badly. This war was a failed attempt by the young USA to seize Canada while Britain was engaged fighting Napoleon in Europe. It might better have been called ‘the Republicans' war’, for it was this party, and in particular the ‘war hawks’ who dominated the House of Representatives thanks to the leadership of Henry Clay of Kentucky, that most wanted it."

Link

I will admit that there does seem to be a change at times in Madison's words regarding support of a standing army. After Jefferson was elected President in the House of Representatives, Madison said:

"True to his Democratic-Republican party creed that a standing military is a threat to liberty, Madison writes to Jefferson, "And what a lesson to America & the world is given by the efficacy of the public will when there is no army to be turned [against] it!"

Of course, when we're looking at such a change, one must ask: When did he say it? Why did he say it? And what were his actions after he said it?

If Bill Clinton said "I truly believe in the institution of marriage and that one man can be faithful to one woman" - it would be meaningless because his actions would refute his words. If he said it before getting married or after a divorce, the context would change the validity of the statement as well.

So when did Madison change and begin to allegedly favor a standing army? It was during wartime, during the War of 1812, in which the capital was burned. Obviously, quite an emotional experience for someone to live through, and emotion has a way of clouding reason:

(from the same source) "the 63-year-old Madison remained on horseback for most of four days and nights while the capital burned and then returned immediately to its charred ruins to resume official business. Within a month of the burning of the White House he sends his sixth State of the Union message to Congress candidly acknowledging England's potential "deadly blow at our growing prosperity, perhaps at our national existence."

His choice of words there is clearly emotional. America could not have been conquered by England.

Another factor that most likely influenced his thinking on the issue was that the war was not popular, and some of the state governors exercised their independent rights and refused to allow their militia to serve in the war:

"Initially the war goes badly, and Madison, who has made some bad appointments, must bear some of the blame. Federalists heap criticism upon Madison's leadership and label the war "Mr. Madison's War." The merchants in New England trade with the enemy, and in reward the British blockade imposed in 1813 exempts New England. New England's Federalist governors refuse to let their militia serve outside their own states."

Since Madison was seeing the results of the war first hand, and had to watch Washington DC being burned, such a refusal by governor's could obviously seem very threatening.

But what were Madison's actions after the war ended? Did he relentlessly pursue a standing army? No. In fact, he reiterated his support of the militia in his state of the union speech in 1815. He did call for more military schools, which would also potentially be used for training of the militia as well, but he did not want the primary means of defense to be a standing army:

"As an improvement in our military establishment, it will deserve the consideration of Congress whether a corps of invalids might not be so organized and employed as at once to aid in the support of meritorious individuals excluded by age or infirmities from the existing establishment, and to procure to the public the benefit of their stationary services and of their exemplary discipline. I recommend also an enlargement of the Military Academy already established, and the establishment of others in other sections of the Union; and I can not press too much on the attention of Congress such a classification and organization of the militia as will most effectually render it the safeguard of a free state. If experience has shewn in the recent splendid achievements of militia the value of this resource for the public defense, it has shewn also the importance of that skill in the use of arms and that familiarity with the essential rules of discipline which can not be expected from the regulations now in force. With this subject is intimately connected the necessity of accommodating the laws in every respect to the great object of enabling the political authority of the Union to employ promptly and effectually the physical power of the Union in the cases designated by the Constitution."

Link

Madison would not have supported today's foreign policy. You will note from his writings that he constantly states of "asking Congress," "asking Congress" and "asking Congress." He knows the President has no authority to do such things at his own whim. He would not have been in favor of a President able to deploy troops or other military operatives, such as the CIA, to foreign countries in the defense of abstract "American interests."

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

The problem with this is that the U.S. is not a secular nation. It is a nation where we have religious freedom.

The U.S. can not be a secular nation becuase the religion of secularism is naturalism. Therefore, a religious viewpoint must be taken by any form of government.

The early U.S. decided to base its laws and customs on the Christian moral system. (one nation under God, all men are created equal, etc.)

However, the framers did set out to make sure that the Government was not going to tell you what you could, or even what to believe. This is why we refrained from going into holly wars and such. If we weren't going to tell our own people what to believe why should we tell other peoples?

galaxguy - The US government is secular.

Truth-Bringer - Thomas Jefferson sent US Naval ships to fight the Barbary pirates without getting authorization from Congress before they left.

__________________
"We consider this our duty - to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence, and fanaticism." -Ahmed Shah Massoud
Ahmed Shah Massoud T-Shirt

This might seem like an absurd question, but how are the opinions of the founding fathers relevant? They died two hundred years ago, they couldn't predict the world we live in today. Their views on matters of 1800 world politics bear questionable relevance today.

Bushfan, seriously dude, "radical muslims"?

They have little relevance today in terms of political issues, but their core beliefs of a federalist style government are still popular amongst libertarians and other conservatives.

However, you might notice that a lot of people on this forum like using the image of the founding fathers to support their positions while ignoring the vast history and complexities that these figures dealt with. Instead they nit-pick quotes and positions of the founding fathers to prove a point without analyzing these people's hypocrisies and double standards. It has come to the point that if you use the founding fathers as a reference, you are basically referecing demi-gods that can't be argued with.

As for radical muslims... that was a bit overboard especially since they were more like "aggressive entrepeneurs" or pirates for short.

__________________
Signature:

Well I dont think its a absurd question.

I think we have to determine law and policy based on the world we live in NOW and not what some guys over 200 years ago would have wanted. We have a framework they provided but by the time more centuries go by and we have revised and it and changed it to keep up with our changing times and world....none of it may actually be left (which is ok).

I think we get into danger of making religious figures out of them and we end up trying to live current life according to the dictates of a past culture. That wont help us move forward, in fact it would only prevent it or slow it down. It would discount the wisdom and things we have learned SINCE their times and wouldnt allow us to integrate that information and apply it to our laws and policies.

Tell me something about government or human nature that we have learned since then?

I ask because I think that anything you might be able to come up with will support the ideals of the founding fathers, not make them irrelevant.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

How about every persons right to vote (including women and blacks)...the idea that human ownership is an abomination. Imperialism is not recognized as a GOOD thing, its recognized as a BAD thing and that national sovereignty is sacred. The idea that direct democracy is better than allowing power to reside with a small group of elites.

Also, how do you plan to deal with all the ISSUES they cant possibly have dealt with since they didnt exist. The US wasnt nearly as large as it is now. We still have these fights about state rights vs federal rights....we cant operate 50 different 'Nations" within one. The original idea seemed to be something akin to the EU but each state having most of its rule done locally. I dont think this is feasible anymore...it might have been when the US was smaller and communication and life was concentrated in such a smaller localized way...but we are far beyond that now and it would be better to function as a one nation with some sort of consistency than so much being left to "state".

I dont think its wise to try to look to men that lived and died hundreds of years ago to develop law or policy regarding the energy crisis, global and environmental concerns, foreign policy, internet laws/restriction, abortion, discrimination etc. We seem to search for their quotes and apply them to current situations, as if they are lines from a song we apply to our personal lives...they are there for numerous people to interpret numerous ways and will be slanted and cherry picked to support their own view (much like is done with religion).

It mucks things up because in the end, WHO CARES what they would have thought about it all...they arent here, we are.

Oh really? Then how do you explain things like "In God we trust, One Nation Under God, men are endowed by their CREATOR with certain, etc.?"

Also, if the U.S. is a secular nation, why are our laws based on a view of the law derived from Christian morals?

As many people on this board have shown, religions vary widely on moral issues. (all of the Muslim bashing posts show the differences)