The Founding Liberals

Author: May 20, 2013 12:04 am

Today is the Fourth of July, a time when we as Americans celebrate our nations independence. Conservatives across the country are pretending to be patriotic. Liberals on the other hand are celebrating the biggest achievement that appears on their resume’: the founding of America and its government. You see, the Founding Fathers were, and always will be, liberals. And here are seven reasons why.

1. Although Thomas Jefferson didn’t know it at the time, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, he created the document that would be used as the basis for universal human rights, which liberals wholeheartedly support. Today’s conservatives are more interested in stripping away human rights, and have fought relentlessly to repeal rights from women, religious groups, and minorities. I understand that the Founding Fathers owned slaves, but I never said they were perfect either. The Founders, however, did believe that slavery had to end at some point and they knew that progress could not happen all at once, especially when they were just trying to keep the new nation afloat, but they intended us to progress. It would take another liberal to end slavery almost 100 years later, and yet another liberal would grant women the vote in the early 20th century.

2. Conservatives always claim that liberals are the supporters of big government. Well, the Founding Fathers also supported big government. Oh sure, they tried small government at one point but The Articles of Confederation didn’t cut it. The Federal Government under that document was useless and powerless. General chaos reigned among the states. Revenue couldn’t be raised. Laws conflicted between the states. Small government had failed. So, the Founders had an idea. They met in secret in 1787 and wrote the Constitution which created a bigger, stronger central government. Conservatives would call that growing the government.

3. Within the Constitution, the Founders gave power to the Congress to levy taxes as necessary. The Founding Fathers never had an issue with taxes. On the contrary, the founding generation waged the American Revolution because they felt that they were not properly represented in the British Parliament. The legislative branch established in the Constitution, however, properly represents every American. We vote for who represents us. Therefore when Congress raises taxes, they are doing the job we voted for them to do. Conservatives today consistently associate tax hikes with liberal policies. So, according to Republicans, the Founders are liberals. James Monroe, our fifth President, once said, “To impose taxes when the public exigencies require them is an obligation of the most sacred character, especially with a free people.” It most certainly applies today.
4. The Founding Fathers made it possible for us to change the Constitution when necessary. That is the beauty of the document. But Republicans are only lobbying to change the Constitution so that only the original document applies. They would repeal most of the amendments and many of the rights. Liberals on the other hand are all about change for the better and seek to perfect the Constitution which is what the Founders intended.

5. Republicans have claimed time and time again that health care mandates and government run health care is unconstitutional. They have also consistently slammed liberals for being the ones that introduce such programs and laws. What they fail to recognize is that health care mandates and government run health care dates all the way back to the Founding Fathers. In 1798, John Adams signed the very first health care mandate into law. The law required sailors to pay a tax to the United States government which in turn would provide medical care to them. The next President, Thomas Jefferson, apparently approved of this program as well, since he never challenged it, nor did he ever try to repeal it. According to Republican logic, Adams and Jefferson are a couple big government liberals.

6. Republicans are currently owned by corporations. They have not only defended corporations but have worked tirelessly to push corporate sponsored legislation through Congress. The Founding Fathers feared this kind of relationship and viewed corporations with suspicion and largely kept them at arms length. In fact, one reason the founding generation went to war with Britain is because of the influence that the East India Trading Company had on the British Parliament. A corporation even once governed Massachusetts on behalf of England. The Revolutionary War ended this practice. After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. Still not convinced? Here is some advice from Thomas Jefferson that all Americans should take to heart.

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

7. Separation of church and state is not just a liberal concept, the Founding Fathers made it part of America’s sacred foundation. Freedom of Religion was not included in the Constitution just to protect Christianity. Freedom of Religion protects ALL religions, even if you do not practice any religion at all. The idea that a wall between church and state doesn’t exist is absurd and the idea that the Founders meant America to be a Christian state is equally absurd. Nowhere in the Constitution can you find God, Jesus, or any mention of a specific religion whatsoever. The only mention of religion is that we all have the freedom to practice whatever religion we want and that government cannot make any law that puts one religion over the other, even Christianity.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
~First Amendment, Bill of Rights of the Constitution

Even our Founding Fathers interpreted Freedom of Religion as being the wall between church and state. Take these quotes for instance.

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
~James Madison

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

In the present day, Republicans are heavily allied with Christian right wing extremists that would require Bible studies in every school across the country. Considering how diverse America is today, even the Founders would reject that. Christianity is a dying religion and the extremists have only themselves to blame for that. Their hard line stance is disgusting and un-American. It goes against everything the framers of the Constitution envisioned when they wrote the first amendment. If these fundamentalist Christians want to teach the Bible in private schools, let them. But stay out of public schools. People do not pay school taxes so that their child can be indoctrinated into barbaric and outdated religions. Religion is not what our children need to be learning. Our country needs more men and women of science, mathematics, and history. Not Bible thumpers.

Each of these seven items represent precedents set by the Founders. Their vision has carried us forward and we owe it to them to not let that vision die.
The Founding Fathers were not conservatives as Republicans would have us believe. Not even Republicans began as conservatives. Early Republicans believed that they were doing what the Founders would have done. That is precisely why they fought against slavery and fought for women’s rights. In the ever continuing quest to perfect the American experiment, the liberal Republicans of the 1850′s and 1860′s took over the torch that the Founders lit and carried it forward to brighten the future. Liberals have carried the torch forward ever since and now are under the Democratic Party banner. If the Founders had been conservatives, that torch would have remained unlit and we would still be under British rule. So as you celebrate America’s independence, remember that it was a bunch of liberals that gave us freedom and the ability to change and perfect our nation. The very word “liberal” means favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. Conservatives certainly have no interest in concepts of maximum freedom. They only seek to strip freedom and rights away. Liberals have not changed much since the founding era. Liberals still believe in the power of government to help and care for its people. They still strive to increase civil rights and still believe in bringing the American Dream to every man, woman, and child living in this country. Liberalism is the embodiment of what makes America great and is something we should all celebrate and cherish with our lives today.


facebook comments:


  • Fred demonstrates the constant “Fox News” view of the world. That ‘facts’ can be twisted into something a wee bit more convenient.

    His assertion that Xtianity was what the Founding Fathers intended can be easily dismissed with the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:
    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”

    So once again, Conservatism- FAILS.

  • George Washington, as President, chose to personally lead the army sent to suppress Shay’s Rebellion, an anti-tax insurrection.

  • In some aspects Christianity is a dying religion and also barbaric…generalities tend to allow room for other generalities to flare and then the ‘battle is on’…

    The problem isn’t Christianity, it’s, as usual, people, often select people promoting a very narrow view…so with the generality being presented, an opportunity is also being presented, one that too often is not accessed.

    Much is often made of the term, In the Year of Our Lord…often claims of a religious nature, yet it was the common terminology used at the time, much like current terminology. It means little beyond the obvious, a call for recognition of a statement, in the above case a time frame.

    Separation of Church and State. So often it is said, especially in recent times, that the meaning of the First Amendment was merely to avoid a ‘national religion’, yet based on Christianity…taking the whole to mean that Government can not influence Church yet Church should influence Government.

    A great many of us do not believe this to be true. By allowing ‘Church’ to influence government, there is a violation of the First Amendment, simply because it is ‘one church’ or one flavor of religion…Christianity.

    The best idea for us all to subscribe to is…Keep out Government out of our Churches and take those Churches out of our Government.

  • Adam Rinkleff

    I agree!

  • keiron j baker

    wow, you people use the word liberal like bush used the word terrorist. you’re still looking for reds under the beds, lol. it is not a crime to want what is best for all, health-care education etc. but it is bloody criminal to deny it to any. a social conscience does not make someone a marxist or a communist. why people are still arguing about this shit in the 21st century astounds me. peace, may you one day find some

  • As usual, Foster misrepresents and twists history to suit his own purposes. He clearly has a biased agenda. Suggesting that conservatives simply pretend to be patriotic, after all, doesn’t not speak well of his ability to be either open minded or accurate. His claim that the Founders were liberals is true only in the sense that they were the liberals *of the day*. By claiming that they were anything like today’s liberals, who are just early 19th century progressives under a different name, shows that Foster either a liar or ignorant, or maybe a little bit of both.

    1. Thomas Jefferson wrote a document supporting the idea of INDIVIDUAL rights, not universal “human” rights. If those two seem the same to you, then you have already bought into the *modern* liberal’s concept of rights, and not Jefferson’s concept. Those who first signed the Declaration of Independence and later ratified the Constitution were divided on the issue of slavery, many opposing it. However, they had to choose between standing together against King George and giving in to some of the southerners and letting slavery stand. They chose standing together against King George, believing that slavery would soon come to an end. Women were never prohibited from voting by the federal government. Many women who owned their own property were able to vote as were women in Wyoming from the first days of that state’s existence. The amendment does not GRANT women the right to vote – it says they can’t be prohibited from voting.

    2. The claim that the Founding Fathers supported big government is absurd and really shows Foster’s ignorance. Those who buy his argument are unaware of what exactly took place. It is true that the Articles of Confederation “didn’t cut it.” But not because it didn’t allow for a big, powerful government. They made it impossible for the central government to even function. Delegates from the 13 states met in Philadelphia supposedly to amend those articles. They met in secret because they didn’t want word to get out that they wanted to get rid of them altogether and create a new form of government, one which would take some of the powers away from the states. They met in secret because they knew there would be great opposition to this idea. They were acutely aware of the risks of giving power to a central government which is why they provided a specific list of powers that the federal government would have. They sought to create a SMALL and LIMITED government, restricted by the Constitution. That is NOT the modern liberal view.

    3. The Constitution did not give Congress the power to levy taxes “as necessary.” It gave Congress the authority to levy taxes to exercise those specific powers it was granted in the Constitution. It was another way the Founders sought to LIMIT the federal government. When congress raises taxes to provide for anything other than what falls under those limited powers, it is NOT doing what the founders intended. Colonists who supported the American Revolution were concerned about more than not being represented in Parliament. They were concerned with the constant meddling in their affairs and the disrespect they got from the King. Read the Declaration of Independence to see a nice list of their grievances against the crown. Conservatives also oppose the constant meddling of the Federal government in the affairs of our daily lives and are just as opposed to taxation without representation as the Founders were. I have no say whatsoever in the policies of California and yet congress would consider using my tax money to bail them out? If I and others complain, we are mocked and dismissed. That is the exact kind of thing the Founders believed to be unacceptable. Congress has NO authority to raise taxes or even levy taxes for anything other than what is in Article I, Section 8.

    4. Yes, the Founding Fathers made it possible for us to change the Constitution, but only through the amendment process, which they purposely made difficult. They knew the dangers of giving in to the political passions of the day and believed that the amendment process would ensure that it would be less likely for changes to be made based on current whims and beliefs. They knew that times would change, new concerns would come up. Conservatives have never said they want to repeal most of the amendments and since they don’t believe that the Constitution GRANTS rights, there are no rights to be stripped away, certainly not by repealing any amendments. Liberals do not want to change the Constitution for the “better,” unless by “better” they mean “grant” rights that would support causes they believe in while restricting rights that would support causes they don’t believe in – like the Second Amendment right. Liberals are free to introduce and work for amendments to the Constitution. But changing the Constitution by applying modern meanings of words to the words in the Constitution is not the process our Founders put forth as the method of change.

    5. Conservatives and Libertarians have claimed time and again that health care mandates and government run health care is unconstitutional because it IS. It is not one of the limited powers the federal government was given. Period. Using the Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen as proof that Adams and Jefferson were big government were big government liberals is…it has to be said…stupid. And it certainly is not proof that either of them supported a federal government mandate for health insurance for every citizen in the entire country. It would take too long to explain all the problems with this comparison, so anyone who is actually interested in the truth and not modern liberal spin is invited to read the article, “No, John Adams did not pass the first Obamacare law,” which can be found here: It does a good job of discussing the problems and contains a link to the act itself. But…you don’t have to believe this article. Anyone who is interested in discovering the truth about this Act can find ample information about it, other than the simple claim that it was the first health care mandate. Read up on the details.

    6. Both parties are owned by corporations, but the Democrats are also owned by unions. That means they have even more task masters than the Republicans have. Perhaps Foster would like to explain just how corporations got so big. Claiming that the mean and greedy Republicans let them, is both ignorant and absurd. Republicans are not the only ones in control of the government. Try looking up how often Democrats are in charge of congress. When you create numerous and pointless regulations that make competition impossible for all but the largest companies, then all you’re going to have left competing are large companies. Which party is it again that finds the solution to every single business problem to be more regulations? (Hint: not the Republicans.) It’s not the KIND of regulations, as Foster would have you believe makes the difference, it’s their number and purpose. When they serve to restrict corporations from interfering with general welfare (i.e. the health of the commonwealth – the nation as a whole) and to protect people, then they can be good. But when they serve to stifle and kill competition, they are very, very bad. As for corporations in New England, yes, they were business ventures – and when they failed, they failed. The reason the colonists were upset about the East India Trading Company is that Parliament was essentially giving them a bailout. They were in trouble and Parliament was giving them exclusive rights to the sale of tea. The colonists in the tea trade (some illegal, btw) were being denied the opportunity to COMPETE.

    Foster provided a nice quotation from Jefferson, but here’s another one:
    “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

    7. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. If you read the actual amendment, you’ll see it says this:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Notice that it says congress can’t establish a religion or prohibit the practice of religion. Period. When Jefferson used the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Baptists, he was saying that religion was none of the federal government’s business. At all. It should not be involved in religious issues. At all. It was up to the states to determine issues of religion. The Federal government has no business at all getting involved in religious issues, including whether a courthouse displays the ten commandments or whether prayers are said in a school. Once the federal government gets involved in any way, it has already jumped over that wall of separation.

    It is true that God is not mentioned in the Constitution and with good reason. But to imply that God did not influence the Founders’ views is just as absurd as claiming that they sought to create a Christian nation. The Declaration of Independence lays the philosophical framework for the Constitution. Without it, you can’t understand why the Constitution was designed the way it was – to create a government whose main function was to protect the inherent rights of individuals, rights given to them by *a creator*.

    Republicans as a group are not heavily allied with Christian right wing extremists who would require Bible studies in every school across the country. That is a totally absurd assertion. I would advice Foster to be more concerned with proposed studies of Islam, reading the Koran, and providing for special prayer rooms for Muslim students. His rant against Christianity is just that – a rant, and an irrational one at that.

    The liberals, like Foster, are now desperate to show that they are the true inheritors of the beliefs of the Founders. It is not only ignorant and delusional, it’s a real insult to the Founders, some of whom lost everything, including their lives, in the quest for *individual* rights.

    On the one hand Foster claims that the liberals today are the true standard bearers of the Founding Fathers, and on the other hand he says, “Liberals still believe in the power of government to help and care for its people.” The Founders did not believe that. They believed that the federal government needed to get the hell out of people’s lives and stay out. They were liberals all right – CLASSICAL liberals. Today’s liberals are really progressives who were embarrassed by their connection to the wrong side of issues like eugenics and fascism and consequently started calling themselves liberals.

    Now after years of denigrating the Founding Fathers, criticizing every aspect of their lives, tearing them down, and trying to convince us of their irrelevance, liberals are trying to change their skin again, embarrassed no doubt for one again being on the wrong side, and are now trying to tell us that progressivism, a philosophy that believes in a controlling central government and human rights of the group, is the same as classical liberalism, a philosophy that believes in a small central government and inherent individual rights.

    Maybe the uninformed and gullible idealists will buy that comparison, but the rest of us understand which group is more closely aligned to the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

    • “Conservatives also oppose the constant meddling of the Federal government in the affairs of our daily lives”

      But transvaginal ultrasounds mandated by state governments are perfectly okay, right?

      • Really? After a well thought out, factually and historically correct rebuttal, you are going to try to sandbag his statement by putting words into his mouth? Perhaps you should ask his opinion on the matter first? As a conservative I can’t make an argument that people should be forced to get an ultrasound, and I’m not sure the author would try to make that claim either. However, even if he did, the point is irrelevant. This post is about the founders, who created the federal government, and his rebuttal was in regards to the founders and the role of the federal government. Valid state powers are an entirely different subject. Though you can make the argument that the constitutionally protected inalienable rights are to be shielded from state infringement as well, again that is a totally different topic.

        Naturally, since you couldn’t address any of his points you decided to take a cheap shot that was way off target. Standard.

  • “Nowhere in the Constitution can you find God, Jesus, or any mention of a specific religion whatsoever”

    “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.”

    I sure see a mention of religion in the Constitution “Lord”!

  • Sadly, this will never be read by nor will it convince any Rabid Conservative, nor will they see the connection between their precious so-called anti-tax T.E.A. party and the big corporations that rip us all off.

    I find the piece above generally well written and inclusive of the ideas of and suitable support for the lead-in headline, but the sections quoted below are gratuitous and unnecessary, and divert the theme of of the piece:

    “… Christianity is a dying religion and the extremists have only themselves to blame for that. Their hard line stance is disgusting and un-American … If these fundamentalist Christians want to teach the Bible in private schools, let them. But stay out of public schools. People do not pay school taxes so that their child can be indoctrinated into barbaric and outdated religions. Religion is not what our children need to be learning. Our country needs … Not Bible thumpers …”

    The lead-in headline was NOT about the arcane antiquity of Christianity, so the above quoted sections are unrelated to whether or not our self-governance should or should not pay any attention to any religion.

    Rabid Evangelicals are as definitive of Christianity as the Taliban Militia are definitive of Islam.

    However, the question is not about separating only extreme religious beliefs from our self-governance, but separating ANY religious beliefs from our self-governance.

    Also, the presumption of liberal beliefs being the basis of today’s Democratic party is ludicrous especially considering the preponderance of corporate support tendered to Democratic politicians, and the quid pro quo of allegiance those politicians return in favor of corporate interests.

    Thanks for the thoughtful and analytical summary of whether or not the founders of the US would align themselves with today’s liberals or with today’s conservatives.

    Love and hugs,
    Peter Blaise

    • Sans any real education in history, constitutional law, and the philosophy that our founders read, I guess I could see how you might come to this conclusion.

  • This screed is riddled with numerous errors, but perhaps the most pervasive is the false equivalency of the Founding Fathers’ liberalism with modern-day “liberalism.” While it is true that the Founding Fathers were liberals, they were so in the classic sense. Liberalism has changed so radically since the time of the Founding Fathers that to compare today’s “liberals” with the Founding Fathers is erroneous at best, egregious at worst.

    The liberalism of the Founding Fathers, and of its founder John Locke, is known today as classic liberalism—the core belief of which is that all human beings have individual rights including life, liberty, and property (a right neglected by the modern liberal), and that it is the main duty of government to protect those rights.

    But as the 19th century progressed, liberalism underwent a grotesque transformation, hastened by the ideas of Karl Marx, whose notions of class warfare and wealth redistribution would usurp the original ideals of John Locke. No longer was the government’s role seen as the protector of human rights, but the arbiter of the “common good”, and if that meant allowing the state power to strip certain individuals of their rights, including that of property, so be it. All things must be held in common, comrade!

    So yes, the Founding Fathers were liberals, and in fact were more liberal than today’s “liberal,” who shouldn’t be called liberal, but Marxist (though I prefer “moonbat”). True liberals, classic liberals, go by another name: libertarians.

    The classic liberalism of the Founding Fathers and John Locke are not alive within individuals like Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Krugman, or Michael Moore. Those individuals harbor the spirit of Karl Marx, not John Locke. Classic liberalism—true liberalism—is alive within the likes of Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Bill Barr, John Stossel, Andrew Napolitano, and Llewellyn Rockwell.

    For more info for those who wish to learn the truth, I suggest watching this video:


  • lightswitch

    1. This argument deserved a much longer, more detailed analysis. You basically just state your claim as fact, and then maybe throw out a quote that seems to support your idea.

    2. Many of the Founding Fathers may have been considered liberals at the time. That does not mean they would be liberals now.

    3. Using an article about the Founding Fathers as some kind of liberal chest pounding exercise is disgusting and spits in the face of their towering achievements. Here’s why: from Alexander Hamilton to Patrick Henry, the Founding Fathers crossed the entire spectrum, and were just as politically diverse as Americans are today. The Founding Fathers true genius was their ability to brings to conflicting ideas together into a workable compromise. The Constitution itself is probably the greatest cross-partisan legislation of all time.

    So when you, sir, try to claim such an important and respected group of individuals for your particular partisan view, even though you have no possible have any way of verifying said claim, it makes me sick to the stomach. If it had been narrow minded men like you locked in that stuffy room in Philadelphia, rest assured this country never would have even happened.

  • I agree with most until the second to last paragraph.
    Christianity is ANYTHING BUT a dying religion. It is powerful enough to affect the
    outcomes of elections. The First Amendment, as the article pointed out, says
    the government should not be pro or con any religion. I wish the end of this
    article did the same. Just as some use Christianity to subvert the First Amendment,
    this author uses his hatred of that fact to use the phrase “barbaric and
    outdated religions”. No wonder Conservatives call Liberals
    “Godless”.   If that part was deleted, this would be a
    stellar article.


  • Has to be the dumbest article in the history of ever.

  • These arguments are flawed. But all it shows is that neither modern political theology would be a true representitive of what our Founding Fathers believed. We can probably all agree that if the Founding Fathers were here today, they would be appalled.

  • I have to disagree with your statements made against Christianity and your negative generalizations against Christians. But enjoyed the rest of the article.

  • I would like to congratulate Mr. Foster on a well written piece. unfortunately I cannot. You did a wonderful job right up until the point you erroneously assume that Christianity is a dying, outdated, and barbaric religion. You make an assumption that a few radical right wing evangelical nutcases speak for Christianity as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth and in actuality it is the liberals who are practicing Christ’s message in how the treat their fellow man and this planet. An appology and retraction would be most appreciated and proper to keep to the message I’m sure you would like to convey to your readers.

  • i thought yeah great article until you called christianity outdated and barbaric. you seem to have never, like these “christians” have never, learned what the real message of christianity is. Jesus is LOVE. for ALL mankind. these biblethumpers are fools filled with hatred and are not true christians. please, dont make a fool out of yourself. that last little snide comment does just that. remember, Jesus was the biggest liberal of his time. totally against the political and religious structures of his day.

    • I agree that the true message of Christianity is love for all mankind, and that Jesus as a person (if he really existed) was a very progressive-minded individual who staunchly opposed the Roman and Hebrew status quo. And most of us on the Left are far more inclined to act in accordance with these basic tenets of “Be excellent to each other and party on, dudes.” We just do so without mentioning this imaginary friend every time we do something.

      However, the point that Stephen makes and with which I fully agree, is that the *institution* of Christianity is wholly barbaric and outdated, and completely contrary to the teachings of the man upon whom it was based. Since its creation, it has brought innumerable instances of murder, war, genocide, torture, child molestation and the Bush administration. Jefferson himself wrote that “Christianity is the most perverse institution that has ever shone on man.” I wish it were in fact dying, but sadly it is not.

  • I appreciate the work you put into this, and like the power of its message. However, I must point out one error. Speaking as an atheist, I have to admit that Christianity is NOT a dying religion. While it is true that Christian adherence has fallen dramatically in Europe and moderately in North America, Christianity is still very “popular” throughout the developing world (along with Islam). Just being factual.

  • In THEIR time, rejecting the monarchy was the VERY DEFINITION OF LIBERAL. The entire Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution, AND the Bill of Rights – each one of those documents is grounded in classical liberal political philosophy.


  • There are too many assumptions made in this. Granted, anyone will try to only show what supports their argument, but this article shows very little actual evidence, and chooses instead to state these assumptions as fact and hope the reader will believe them without researching the context.

    I say down with them all, politicians on BOTH sides are taking money from private parties to push the agenda of the rich… they are supposed to be PUBLIC servants. R, DFL, doesn’t matter. Corruption is the mold of our government, it took time to build up its stench and it will take time scraping its putrid filth away.

  • IT’S REAL! IT’S ALL REAL! Also Thomas Paine is also known as the real father of social security. Thomas Jefferson was the one who thought of the public school system.

  • Only when most Americans wake up and take a stand will the monied interests and corrupt politicians cease to control policy. I fear that too many Americans are too busy watching Jersey Shore.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.