On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Frank and thanks for writing, 
  
 FM> FM> thought on which the "fathers" of the American revolt against 
 FM> FM> England 
 FM> FM> drew upon and still considered only the best they could do and 
 FM> FM> capable 
 FM> FM> of being altered even in the deepest aspect of sovereignty later 
   
 FM> JB> Hence, the brillance of our founding fathers.  However, do you 
 FM> JB> not see 
 FM> JB> this was our founding father's dogma, the belief they "considered 
 FM> JB> only 
 FM> JB> the best they could do and capable of being altered even in the 
 FM> JB> deepest 
 FM> JB> aspect of sovereignty later ...."? Our founding fathers did do 
 FM> JB> something 
 FM> JB> new, and did so by -NOT- doing what has gone before. 
   
 FM>    No, John, most definitely NOT.  You have only to compare 
 FM> Robespierre's and 
 FM> his contemporaries' slaughter of Frenchmen en masse to insure absolute 
 FM> mental 
 FM> and physical conformity with the slogans of the French Revolution with 
 FM> the 
 FM> peaceful social revolution taking place within American societies as 
 FM> the 
 FM> colonies carried through their rebellion against the British Crown and 
 FM> Parliament (first as Englishmen themselves) toward independence. 
   
  Did you see my words of "Hence, the brill[i]ance of the founding 
fathers...."?  IOW, I agree there IS A DIFFERENCE, but rather 
I see it a difference in -ASSUMPTIONS- about human nature. 
  Even, Sowell, indicates, the big difference in the -assumptions- 
of the founding fathers between USA and France. 
  
 FM> Constitution was the furtherst thing from a political "dogma."  It is 
 FM> commonly 
 FM> characterized as a "bundle of compromises" and those who cobbled 
 
  Yep, I agree.  But, do you not see, this "bundle of 
compromises" is based upon an assumption, man's inability to 
know the full nature of man's existence (BTW, this is consistent 
with what you have been saying). 
  Because, when one assumes man isn't capable of "solving such 
problems" (man's inability to the full truth),the best one is 
left with is "compromise." 
  
 FM>    The brilliance of our "founding fathers" lay in their wisdom in 
 FM> drawing 
 FM> upon many sources, ancient and modern for political canons and in the 
 FM> Bill of 
 FM> Rights upon the centuries of English traditions of slow curtailment of 
 FM> monarchical power.  Ideologues they most definitely were NOT.  Many 
 FM> kept up 
 FM> with and embraced the scientific efforts of the civilized western 
 FM> world of the day. 
   
  The ideology, assumed to be true and unquestioned, used by 
our founding fathers is man's inability to know to full extend 
of REALITY.  
  You and I both agree Ideology -can- be destructive, however, 
where you and I disagree is -all- ideology is destructive. 
  
 FM> JB> Yes, they did, however, haven't -you- defined ideology as 
 FM> JB> "discovered 
 FM> JB> final and unalterable truth...."  You have set ideology to be 
 FM> JB> "discovered final and unalterable truth...." 
   
 FM>    Yes, that is what the ideologues think it is. 
 
  And this is what you think of ideology, you have set the 
definition of ideology as "discoverd final and unalterable 
truth." 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------