Kind of Funny
Jonathan Rowe on May 30th 2007
Now that James J. Goswick is starting to see that Madison was not a Christian just like him, he seeks to minimize his importance as a Founder and attack his character, both physical and personal. He calls Madison “a little fish compared to the other framer’s [sic]” and concludes:
In the end, Madison was a contradiction, who was weak in character as well as physically, changing his friends as well as views at the whim of a hat. No comment should be made about his faith….
Mr. Goswick claims I should pay more attention to Hamilton, G. Morris and Wilson. Well, from what I have studied, they are, like Madison, key Founders (though not as important as him). They, like Madison, played pivotal roles at the Constitutional Convention. And Hamilton, like Madison, was one of three primary authors of the federalist papers. They were all, also, like Madison, theistic rationalists, not orthodox Trinitarian Christians. Hamilton did convert to orthodox Christianity, but not till towards the end of his life.
Moreover, whatever personal problems Madison might have had — he was, through no fault of his own a physically small man, a hypochondriac, thinking he would die an early death (little did he know), and may have suffered a nervous breakdown — the other three had personal character issues which put Madison’s to shame.
G. Morris had a more active sex life than Bill Clinton’s; he was an avid fornicator and adulterer, going so far as to purposefully try to impregnate a married woman. Hamilton too was an adulterer and died in a very “un-Christian” duel, leaving his family behind. And Wilson was a deadbeat who lived the end of his life running from creditors and finally died a pauper after serving time in debtors’ prison.
Filed in The Basement, The Belfry, The Bureau
a little fish compared to the other framer’s>>
He was a little fish compared to Hamilton, Sherman, and Wilson, or Washington and Morris for that matter. Madison’s envision of the Constitution was shelved by the other framer’s, as well as the other framer’s disagreed with him and overruled his proposals.
Madison was a contradiction>>
This is a true statement. He said christianity was divine in 1785, implied that it wasn’t divine in 1812, and then said it was the best and purest religion to a christian, go figure.
They were all, also, like Madison, theistic rationalists, not orthodox Trinitarian Christians.>>
Not true. Hamilton and Wilson believed the bible was divine in 1775, and 1790 respectively. Madison called Christianity the best and purest religion to a Christian.
the other three had personal character issues which put Madison’s to shame.>>
We have to look at exactly what happened with Hamilton
and his adultery, it’s not as though he went out to do
this, give him a break, he was framed by someone, and
he fell into temptation, he repented and is in heaven because of his repentence.
But Hamilton and Wilson weren’t hypocrites their entire life like
Madison was.
We all have flaws, but regarding their work, Hamilton, Sherman
and Wilson are more key founders.
It was common knowledge
he wouldn’t go outside past 10 o’clock for fear he
would get sick. The cold air doesn’t get
you sick, viruses in the air get you sick. Hamilton
couldn’t understand why he left their friendship.
Something tells me Jefferson was controlling Madison,
after all, Jefferson hated Hamilton, because he was
smarter than him? On top of being a hypocrite, Madison was gullable too. At least the Great Hamilton was
humble and confessed to what he did. Jefferson would
never have did that. He had too much pride.
So Wilson made some bad decisions in investing, he paid for it, he still wasn’t a hypocrite like James Madison was. If Wilson was a deadbeat, why was he still serving on the Supreme Court?
Religionists may not have any truth, but they can be the best dissimulationists, fact-deniers, revisionists, and casuists. For examply, Blaise Pascal (of probability theory fame) and a heretical Catholic indicts these casuists in his “Provincial Letters.” And, while Pascal is credited as the founder of statistics and probability, “probability” is an illusion, too.
It’s known as the “Problem of Induction.” Both David Hume and Karl Popper expose the “fiction,” but both grant it’s not only a useful fiction, but maybe a necessary one. We could not make many moves in life without the “fiction” operating, but it is still a fiction.
This difference is a difference of significance. Rather than dissimulate, end-run, revise, edit, etc., face the facts as they are, and if we cannot face life itself without a useful fiction, use the fiction knowing it’s a fiction. So, most of us “believe” that 14 billion previous instances has a significantly higher probability of repeating the 14,000,000,001 time than a single instance of I repeating to 2. But there is no good reason to “believe” this probability or comparing the two odds.
But faith in this fiction is both known as a fiction and useful fiction, psychologically. I have a very high degree of probability in the expectation that the “sun will come up tomorrow,” even though I have absolutely no reason to believe it, nor is the fact that it has done so every 24 hours for the past 365 days over the past 14,000,000,000 years make it any more or less probable than a coin toss.
If religionists would at least concede they have even less reason to believe what they believe than 99% Probability, the Problem of Religion might become one of those useful fictions, known as a fiction, and useful as a fiction psychologically, but still false. No, they cannot do that. Why? Are they too insecure? Is their incredulous Will to Believe so strong that they cannot resist? Are they a co-dependent? I don’t know, frankly, but it is terribly odd that a “faith” which offers neither any valid reasons nor physical evidence for its claims still has a hold on its claimants.
Perhaps Marx and Freud were both right (for once): It’s an opiate, an illusion, an anodyne. But even chemically-dependent folk at least recognize that fact. That too is a distinction with a difference.