ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

My Conversation with the Founding Fathers

Updated on January 2, 2014
Depiction of the Signing of the US Constitution
Depiction of the Signing of the US Constitution | Source

My Elaborate -- and Risky -- Plan

I was a little nervous in undertaking this, for lack of a better word, "adventure." After all, messing with the past can seriously undermine the present and the future. I was reminded of the science fiction story whereupon a hunter travels back in time to shoot a dinosaur who was about to die anyway, but the hunter had to stay on a pre-determined path. Somehow he happens to step on a butterfly and, when he returns to his the present, the entire world has changed! This was on my mind as I stepped into the HETTS device and set the time and place instrumentation for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 25th, 1787. (HETTS - Hawking-Einstein Temporal Travel Ship named after the two great thinkers who realized time travel was possible and laid the groundwork for the research and the resulting construction of the device. Part of the genius of the device is to be able to travel to a where as well as a when. It's amazing technology but this is not a technical treatise so I won't get into that!)

My thoughts went back to some weeks ago when I came up with this idea, which would have been an impossible task without the invention of the HETTS machine. It seemed to me that the United States was going down a path which the Founding Fathers would not have recognized, much less approved of. If only they had clarified a few things in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Man, I wish I could go back and talk to them, I would let them know about some things they might not have imagined to be possible! Then I remembered the HETTS machine. Well, it costs one million dollars and you have to meticulously document your trip and what you propose to do, which is then approved or disapproved by a committee of eminent scientists. Well, I lied to them, saying I just wanted to dress like a colonial and interview some of the Founding Fathers for a local newspaper and, especially, NOT tell them anything about the future. I knew that if they found out what I was really up to they'd never approve of the trip. I also knew that, if I had the desired effect, there was no way they would know the difference because they changes I wanted would, back in my time, would be the norm!

So I mortgaged a few properties I owned and emptied my savings accounts, knowing it would all be worth it. I had to swear an oath not to deviate and sign all kinds of papers and put all the money up front, etc. (all the while wondering how they could enforce these regulations, but that was not my problem). It took the better part of a year, but finally the day came. One of the rules is you cannot take any items of present technology back with you (computers, cameras of any sort, etc.) if you will be interacting with people. I needed my "smartphone" to convince the people I wanted to talk to that I was who I said I was so I managed to sneak it aboard the HETTS machine before they body searched me. Dumb bastards they hire to do this didn't even see me slip the phone under the seat!

So now the day had come. The time travel coordinators went through all the rules and regulations once again to remind me and went over the procedures for return, including what to do if someone inadvertently discovered the machine (a container with an aerosol version of Versed, a drug that makes you forget), and wished me luck. They closed the canopy over my head, I made the Sign of the Cross, and punched the button.

Source
Assembly Hall
Assembly Hall | Source

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1787

I have to say, Philadelphia in 1787 was nothing like Philadelphia of today. Unpaved streets, horses everywhere (and horse droppings as well). The dress of the people on the streets was pretty much like you see in the movies and I was dressed accordingly. Like Superman, however, I had other clothes on underneath (to help convince Messrs. Washington, Franklin, et al that I was who I said I was). I found my way to Independence Hall (it was the Pennsylvania State House then) and stopped outside. A gentleman was making his way in and I stopped him. "Excuse me, sir, might I ask you a question?"
"Certainly, my good man, but I am in a bit of a hurry as we are meeting today."
"We?"
"Yes, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of which I am one. What is
your question?"
"I believe you just answered it. Tell me, will Doctor Franklin attend today?"
"As far as I know. Who are you and why do you ask?"
I gave him a fictitious name. "My name is Jeremiah Johnson and I need to discuss some matters of great importance with the delegates." I almost said "Founding Fathers." That would have raised an eyebrow.
"Well, Mister Johnson, we do not just let anyone in. You must be a delegate."
"Do you not wish to hear the sentiments of the citizenry?"
"Of course, and we have done so, believe me. But we simply cannot open the doors to anyone. Have you written your concerns down? I will be glad to look them over." He pulled out a pocket watch and looked at it. "Oh dear, I must get inside."
They were written down all right, on my smartphone! "May I ask your name?"
"I am George Mason of Virginia."
George Mason! The man who wanted a Bill of Rights and just the man I needed to talk to! I decided to go for broke. "Ah yes, the major proponent of the Bill of Rights."
He had started to walk away and stopped in his tracks. "How on earth do you know that?"
I thought "what the hell, why not?". I took out my smartphone and showed him a picture of the Bill of Rights.
He put on reading glasses and stared at the picture. "What sort of device is that? And what is that document?"
"Let me show you what kind of device this is." I pointed it at him. "Smile."
"Smile, why?"
Click! "Look." I showed him a picture of himself. His eyes opened wide.
"My good sir, how did you do that? Is this some kind of magic?"
"No, Mr. Mason. It is a device from the future, over two hundred years into the future, as a matter of fact."
He frowned. "I have no time for this trickery, Mr. Johnson. Good day."
"Mister Mason, you ignore me and what I have to say and you guarantee major problems in this country in years to come. And I mean major problems."
He turned back to me. "What is it you want of me?"
"Bring me in there and let me address the Convention. Let them hear what I have to say."
He seemed unconvinced. I had to convince him. "Look, the Bill of Rights which you are fighting for will eventually be incorporated into the Constitution and that is a wonderful thing. But I am here to tell you that if you just change the language a bit and add a few more amendments, then you will be fixing things in the future that you could not possibly foresee."
"For instance?"
"For instance, the virtual elimination of religion from public discourse, the dissolution of the American family, the murder of unborn babies, homosexual marriage, the assault on the right to bear arms. Shall I go on?"
What a look on his face! "Are you daft, man? Homosexual marriage? Please go away!"
"Sir, tell you what. Let me show you one more thing." I quickly dialed up one of the videos I had preloaded and showed it to him. A newscaster discussed gay marriage while pictures of men marrying men and women marrying women were shown. The newscaster was speaking: "Several states have now approved gay marriage and the smart betting is that it will soon be the law of the land. Additionally, there is pressure to allow gay couples to adopt and raise children." I stopped the video.
Confused, he said "'Gay marriage?' What is that?"
"In my time 'gay' has become a euphemism for homosexual."
"Why not just call them 'sodomites?'"
"Because it is not 'politically correct.' Please, Mr. Mason, let me address the delegates and all will become clear. I beg of you."
He looked me over for a moment. "Follow me."

Some of the Founding Fathers
Some of the Founding Fathers | Source

The Founding Fathers

Finally! Inside, I found several men sitting around a table in the Assembly Room. There they were, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and a couple I did not recognize. I must say the paintings of these men I had seen many times were quite accurate!
Washington spoke first. "Good morning, Mr. Mason. May I ask who that is with you?"
"Sir, this is Jeremiah Johnson. He claims to be from the future and has important items to discuss with us with regards to our nation's future."
This brought several guffaws. Benjamin Franklin looked over his glasses. "Mister Mason, have you been fooled by a snake oil salesman?"
"No, Dr. Franklin, I have not." He turned to me. "Show them what you showed me."
Before I could respond, Washington stood up. "Mr. Mason, you know we are meeting here in secrecy for good reason and are not to bring someone in. Show the man out now please." He certainly had a commanding presence.
"Wait, gentlemen. Please give me a minute or two. I promise you it will be worth your while."
Washington held up a finger. "One minute, sir, and that is all."
I changed my smartphone into a video camera and aimed it at each of them. "Please say your name as I point this toward you."
"Why on earth for?" It was Washington.
"That will do. Doctor Franklin?"
He smiled and said "Why not? I am Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania."
I turned toward Hamilton. "I am Alexander Hamilton and I fail to see why we are wasting our precious time!"
Washington spoke up again. "Young man, that is quite enough."
I sighed. I replayed the video and held up the phone. Their mouths dropped open as they saw and heard themselves. Franklin spoke first. "How in the name of God is that possible?"
"I told you I am from the future and what I just demonstrated is quite commonplace." I started to remove my eighteenth-century clothing. This brought a few protests but I held up one hand. "Don't worry, I am fully dressed." A minute later they looked upon me in my twenty-first century suit, something I was sure they had never seen anything like. Ever the scientist, Dr. Franklin leaned over and touched the fabric.
"Wool? Cotton?"
"A blend with some synthetic fiber. But that is not important." I turned toward Washington. "Sir, please let the Convention hear me out. I have spent all the money I had and have risked everything to address you today."
Washington turned to the others. "Gentlemen, what say you?"
A few nods and "Why nots" and they turned their attention to me. Washington sat back down. "The floor is yours, Mr. Johnson, but I must warn you, if this is just trickery and you waste our time, I will have you ridden out of town on a rail."
I swallowed hard. He obviously meant it! "Gentlemen, as you well know, you are here to write on one of the most momentous documents in human history - the Constitution of the United States. What you do here in this convention will have repercussions for centuries to come. However, there are negative effects as well, many of them quite serious." I paused. It was clear I now had their rapt attention.
"Go on," said Hamilton.
"Here is what will happen in years to come." I told them about the attempts to construe virtually every public religious display as contributing to the establishment of a state religion. I told them of the assaults of free speech by the "politically correct" crowd. I told them about "gay marriage," abortion, profligate federal spending, huge deficits, and the assault on the right to bear arms. I showed them videos of politicians demanding these things, along with videos of massive demonstrations demanding gay rights, a woman's "right to choose," banning private possession of weapons, and so forth. I showed them a judge being prosecuted for having the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall. I told them of trillions of dollars in national debt (this brought about cries of "Preposterous" and so forth but then I showed them another video depicting the national debt and to whom it was owed. Many of them shook their heads in disgust. ) I spoke of the (then) upcoming Bill of Rights, which some of them opposed. And then I paused. "And that, gentlemen, is what I implore you to preclude today."
Silence. Finally, Madison spoke up. "What do you propose we do?"
Here we go - make or break time. "First of all, when you finally write the amendments to the Constitution, I suggest the following: insure that the definition of establishing a state religion be written in such a way as to insure no one can use these words to, for instance, remove the words "In God We Trust" from our currency. Write an amendment mandating the government balance its budget every year. Write another stating that marriage shall be defined as between one man and one woman. And yet another stating that the banning of certain medical procedures be left to the individual states and not at the federal level. And when you write the amendment concerning the bearing of arms, I suggest language such as this:
An armed citizenry being the best guarantee against tyranny, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, stroked his chin. "I would think the necessity of having a well-regulated militia would take care of this."
"I am afraid not, Mr. Madison. Language such as that will be used to claim only members of an organized militia, police force, or the military can keep weapons, effectively removing them from ordinary citizens. And, I might add, insure that only criminals will own firearms, given that criminals, by definition, do not obey the law."
I noticed that Franklin and a few others were writing furiously as I spoke. Franklin stopped writing for a moment. "Young man, are there actually men marrying other men in, er, your time?"
"Men marrying other men, women marrying other women, people marrying animals, and even inanimate objects."
"Oh, come on." Mason spoke up. "I can believe homosexuals wanting to do that perhaps, but animals? Inanimate objects?"
I dialed up another video with a commentator stating that gay marriage could indeed begin the "slippery slope," with farmers demanding to be able to marry sheep, and an article depicting a woman who "married" a stone wall.
Franklin smiled. "Indeed. But, since in your time you obviously have the capability to record events on that device of yours, how do we know what you showed us is accurate? How do we know you and others like you have somehow contrived those - what did you call them, 'videos?' to suit your purposes?"
Good question. "Sir, I could show you literally hours of video footage to prove my point but, in the final analysis, you will have to trust me. Besides, what could it possibly hurt to better define these rights and help preclude some of the disturbing trends I have shown you?" I paused but no one spoke as they considered my words. "Oh, there is one other matter I am a bit reluctant to bring up because it will undoubtedly be controversial to say the least."
Washington gestured with his hands. "I do not know what could possibly be more controversial than what you have told us, but, please, speak."
I took a deep breath. "If you do not address the issue of slavery, and soon, in a few decades the nation will be torn asunder in civil war. In the long run, the slaves will be freed, but at a great cost. And the bitter legacy left by slavery will be felt far into the future and will have repercussions you cannot even imagine. Besides it is wrong and is an affront to human rights. Yes, I know some of you own slaves. That is all I have to say on that matter."
Again, dead silence. And a few red faces. Washington stood up. "Sir, you have presented us with a list of issues which we have gather here to address, although you have raised some matters that we have not, and possibly could not, foresee. I thank you for your input and now if you would please remove yourself, we will deliberate. And I promise you we will take your words into consideration. Concur gentlemen?" Nods all around. "And with that, we thank you."
I shook Washington's hand. "No sir, it is I that thank you. And thank you Mr. Mason for trusting me. One more thing, all of you, and few that are not here today, especially Mister Jefferson, will forever be known as our nation's Founding Fathers." I noticed Hamilton's eyebrows raise at Jefferson's name but I did not want to get into that! I gathered my belongings and donned my "old clothes" so I would not stand out when I went out of the building. At the door, I spoke once more. "God bless you all and what you do and God bless the United States of America!" I took my leave.

"Back To The Future"

The sun was hot and blinding as I strode out of the building, especially as the delegates had the curtains drawn to ensure privacy. I could only imagine what was now going on inside that hall! Nobody paid much attention to me as I made my way back to the HETTS machine. Insuring there was no one around to see me, I pulled the machine out of the bushes where I had hidden it and got in. I wondered what I had wrought on this day. I cannot imagine that what I did and how it may change the future could possibly be any worse than what my country was turning into in my time. Would it be any better? Will I recognize what I find? Hell, could it be any worse?

With that thought, I pushed the Return button.

The Original Bill of Rights as Created on 25 September 1789, and Ratified by Congress 15 December 1791
The Original Bill of Rights as Created on 25 September 1789, and Ratified by Congress 15 December 1791

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 3 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      @Jayfort - thank you sir!

    • profile image

      Jayfort 3 years ago

      Well done, Alex! Well done!

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "When I read the Declaration and the Constitution that grew out of it, I see everywhere the spirit of biblical and Christian humanism running through these texts . . ." - I can't disagree with you on that, but many other philosophy's espouse the same humanism as Christianity does, nor am I blind to the fact that most, but not all, State Constitutions were in fact statements of preference for one religion, mainly Protestant, or another. In fact, some states blatantly discriminated against those who did not belong to the approved religion in their Constitutions. It was this, the signers of the Constitution wanted to make sure wasn't repeated in the Federal government.

      What the founders wanted was a country made up of people of diverse religions, not tied to a specific philosophy or, as I like to say, America is a country made up of primarily Christians, not a Christian country.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      I was thinking more in terms on organized religion, as in Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. churches. The Founders did not want an official, state religion. If a ruler of a nation declared "Christianity" to be the national religion, which Christian church would he be referring to?

      Monsignor Anthony Mancini of SS Peter and Paul Cathedral in Providence, RI wrote this in yesterday's church bulletin:

      "When I read the Declaration and the Constitution that grew out of it, I see everywhere the spirit of biblical and Christian humanism running through these texts . . . The Founders were men of reason. And the America they founded was not intended to be a theocracy. In fact just the opposite. The Founders specifically disallowed any state-sanctioned religion.

      Nevertheless, the government they did establish was founded on theistic, if not explicitly Christian, principles. Whatever its precise Christian pedigree, it cannot be denied that our government is based on a belief that human rights come from God, not governments, and that the world is in the hands of what the Declaration called "Nature's God" and "the Supreme Judge of the World."

      The Declaration's express belief in the divine origin of the human person is everywhere in the Constitution. And throughout American history, this belief has served as a goad to our national conscience. This belief has inspired reforms and renewal in every generation . . . The Founders' belief in God-given rights continues to be a bulwark for our liberty, pushing us as believers and citizens to make sure that injustice, cowardice, and political expediency never get the final word in our public affairs. Again, it is important to understand that this belief is rooted -- not in secular philosophy, but in the religious humanism of the Christian tradition."

      Peace.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Not really, because well I was looking for the one I was thinking of, I didn't find it, I found many where Adams upholds his basic belief in Christianity. He just didn't believe religion had any business in the federal government. He did, on the other hand, firmly believe, as you also mention, in the need for virtue and morality in both the people being governed as well as those doing the governing if America, as a single Nation, is going to survive.

      I absolutely agree that most, but not all, of those responsible for the Constitution were both God-fearing and Christian, but, they also believed that religion needed to be left to the individual and not imbedded into the Constitution; they took great pains to make sure it wasn't and it almost stopped the Constitution from being ratified.

      As to the Declaration, Jefferson et al was careful to be general in his reference, which is why he used such phrases as "Laws of Nature", "Nature's God", and "their Creator". I am not Christian, yet I believe in the Laws of Nature, Nature's God (which I think are one in the same), and in a kind of Creator.

      Do you disagree with this definition of religion (from Wikipedia) as "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality" It also had this note attached, "While religion is difficult to define, one standard model of religion, used in religious studies courses, was proposed by Clifford Geertz, who simply called it a "cultural system" (Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System, 1973). A critique of Geertz's model by Talal Asad categorized religion as "an anthropological category." (Talal Asad, The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category, 1982.)" If you don't disagree, then how is Christianity not a religion. If you do disagree, are you saying Christianity is none of those descriptors?

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      My Esoteric - so what do you want to do, spend the day finding quotes defending our respective positions? Any suggestion that the Founding Fathers (with an exception or two) were not God-fearing men is ludicrous. Just read the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and you can see where they believed our rights came from. By the way, Christianity is not a religion - it is a philosophy and a set of core beliefs upon which many religions are based.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      And Adams is also famous for saying:

      ""As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816 "

      "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson "

      "What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor "

      "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor"

      And, while not a quote, we have this - "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. … The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797-01-04, which was carried unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed into law by John Adams"

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Have you read James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention? They are quite illuminating regarding those three precepts you list.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      @My Esoteric - common sense and my reading of what the Founding Fathers were all about, i.e., limited government, maximum individual freedom, and a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Interesting piece, Alex. Question, there must be some basis to believe the responses you reported getting would have actually been given had you really been there; what is that basis?

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      @Credence2 - thanks for your comments but, perhaps over time, by reading my Hubs you'll come around to truth and enlightenment! :O)

    • Credence2 profile image

      Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

      Too bad, Alex, I see that our background and interests are in many ways quite similar, but you had to go join the 'dark side of the force'.

      What would the founding fathers have made of universal suffrage for all over the age of 18? Life without slavery, a black president? There are many things that would have astounded them outside of your cell phone that would have baffled even the most brilliant among the founding fathers. I could no more compare the techonology and mindset of 18th century men than I could compare the relatively coarse state of humanity today with the world of, say, Star Trek. Interesting article, I like the time travel approach.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      Thank you wba108 - I'm glad you enjoyed it. It actually was fun writing it.

    • wba108@yahoo.com profile image

      wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY

      Innovative and gripping! You had me on the edge of my seat! The founders would likely have difficulty accepting how low the morals in America had shunk.

      Most of The Constitution and its original meaning already seems pretty clear, if you read the Federalist Papers or the minuits of the Constitional Convention. Its likely that regardless of how clear they defined the issues, judges today in reality make thier own law unless there is a substantial public outcry or political pressure. I think the problem now is we are no longer a Godly nation as we once were and therefore are willing to comprimise our freedoms.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      Okay misc-disc, I've approved your convoluted comments thus far even though you have made little sense and have insulted everyone else, but that's the end of it. You're a misfit and a troll and all you want to do is stir up trouble. So go peddle your bullshit somewhere else. End of conversation.

    • misc-disc profile image

      misc-disc 4 years ago from Greater Earth Area

      Will, you're absurdly foolish. I am no liberal. I am apolitical. I mistrust everything to do with government, as everyone should. But you and many like you have been taken in by the bickering.

      I have a hard time believing it, but I think you ACTUALLY believe that there is a difference between the Liberals you see in office and the Conservatives you see in office.

      They're just fingers on a hand, brother. They take orders from the same people; because the same people give both sides money. Money is what it is all about. But you've been bamboozled into believing that one side represents you better; that they actually care about you.

      I don't like people who agree with me any more than people who disagree with me. I generally dislike most people.

      It's because most people, (the three "men" I am conversing with now included) are really damn stupid. You're too absorbed in a world you did not create and do not control to be considered intelligent. Maybe someday you will be disillusioned and see government for what it is.

      My statements to begin this conversation were not political in nature, because I am not a political person. You three, Alex and Will, made it political and made yourselves look more like sheep than anything.

      I don't mind looking like a crazy asshole as long as it bothered you two enough to maybe---just maybe---think an original thought.

      And don't try to make me seem as if I don't know what a "gun thingy" is. Right to bear arms is important. I support the second amendment heavily. I've shot more types of guns than you have ever seen; members of my family are collectors. Quit trying to put words in my mouth, Will. You sound like an idiot.

      And at this point; I'm just having fun. Phooey.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      If you agree with a liberal, you are an open-minded intellectual of the highest order.

      If you disagree with a liberal, you are a close-minded bigot, who ought to be shot by one of those awful gun thingies.

    • misc-disc profile image

      misc-disc 4 years ago from Greater Earth Area

      And might I mention the fact that in your story, your character goes through all the trouble in the world, sells off everything he owns... for what? To make the world a better place?

      For him.

      None of your fantasies here would make the world a better place. It would make the world a more comfortable place for you--but not a better place.

      You are a selfish man (considering the evidence you have put forth). You would rather limit the ability for your fellow man to be happy than see every human across the globe rise up. You're a cannibal. Not literally, but you are working against members of your own species and therefore you are a cannibal. I don't want you to agree with me. I want you--and everyone-- to try to understand another's point of view.

      If you were homosexual, you would want to be happy. If you were homosexual, you would want to find someone to love. If you were a homosexual, you would want to be successful.

      How is the heterosexual you any different, besides the obvious? You are a man now and you would still be a man if you were homosexual, and you would still deserve just as much happiness as the next man.

    • misc-disc profile image

      misc-disc 4 years ago from Greater Earth Area

      Every single view point you listed just there are all the same view points your crooked Republican counterparts hold dear. I have very little in common with the crooked Democrat politicians or the crooked Republican you use as a--laughably--moral compass. Politicians are crooked throughout and on both sides. You reasoned that I was a liberal because I used the phrase "open-minded." I countered; what is difficult to understand? Your mindset if typified by the vanguard of dinosaurs your party has been parading out for the presidential races the past few elections. You're party's idol is Ronald Reagan. Hah. Oh, phooey.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      "I feel sorry for all of you. Since when did it become a liberal ideology to have an open mind? You're blinded by the politics of crooked men.

      I really can't believe you equated having an open mind to liberalism. And you call yourself a writer."

      Can anybody tell me what the heck this guy is talking about? So if you have a traditional viewpoint on some social issues, you're "close-minded," is that it? And if you have a "progressive" viewpoint on social issues you're "open-minded." That must be it. And who are these "crooked men" our friend is referring to?

      I oppose gay marriage, I support the right to keep and bear arms, I oppose abortion except in the cases of rape and incest, and I'm against "tax and spend" big government. I am in my 60s, have two degrees in political science and international relations, and have followed politics all my adult life, so my political beliefs are based on long experience and observation. But I don't fall in line with this guy's cherished belief system, so that makes me close-minded. misc-disc, the reason liberal ideology has been brought up here is that your attitude is typical of the political left - we know all, we are always right, history is on our side, you are wrong, so shut up and get with the program. This mindset is typified by the current administration in Washington, DC. All I can say is PHOOEY.

    • misc-disc profile image

      misc-disc 4 years ago from Greater Earth Area

      That's Galatians 3:28, as paraphrased by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, fitnezz. Nice try, though.

      I feel sorry for all of you. Since when did it become a liberal ideology to have an open mind? You're blinded by the politics of crooked men.

      I really can't believe you equated having an open mind to liberalism. And you call yourself a writer.

    • FitnezzJim profile image

      FitnezzJim 4 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

      Hey, I found my puzzle for the day in the phrase " in your own holy book, it says that all men are created equal". I pondered that, then I realized that perhaps somehere in the Greater Earth Area, the Declaration of Independence is considered a holy book.

      Wow! The implication is that people become gods when they seek to avoid being unfairly taxed. Just me, but that seems a bit far-fetched.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The politically correct re-education of America has resulted in the accepting and glorifying of the sexual perversion of homosexuality, mostly among the more gullible and ignorant. This is exactly the sort of moral decay that has resulted in the fall of so many great nations, including that of the Roman Empire.

      While America's straight population moves away from the institution of marriage, and America's out of wedlock children subsequently do without the influence of a father (and usually don't even know who their father is), homosexuals 'marry' and try to raise children in a bizarre homosexual environment.

      This is the beginning of American moral decay, and the beginning of the end of the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      By the way, my feelings on "political correctness" can be seen in another hub:

      https://hubpages.com/politics/Political-Correctnes...

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      Walt - thanks. No, they didn't mention that but it makes sense. I'll have to make another trip! :)

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      I have approved the above comments by "misc-disc" in spite of my immediate reaction to trash them just to display to other readers the twisted logic and total BS this man is selling. He knows nothing about me but calls me a "republican sheep" and a hypocrite and claims that I am "afraid" of something - all of this because I don't agree with him on his definition of equal rights! I've already explained what the extraordinary rights are that gays want so I'm not going to repeat it. The analogy to pre-1920 is way off base and totally irrelevant. "None of your views have a root in a thought conceived by your own mind. " Totally false and insulting. Misc-disc, your nearly hysterical replies actually reduce the power of your argument. Two more points I need to make here - he claims I am not a Christian - wrong! I am a practicing Roman Catholic and proud of it. As far as this country not being mine, I served MY country for almost 40 years including 3 1/2 years in uniform and a year in Vietnam. Who the hell are you to tell me it's not my country? And speaking of hell, I invite you to have a nice trip. And that is all I have to say to this "gentlemen."

    • misc-disc profile image

      misc-disc 4 years ago from Greater Earth Area

      "FYI - homosexuals already have the same right to marry as anyone else - they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else"

      By that line of horrible logic, pre-1920 women had all the same rights of men--to vote in elections-- as a man.

      You're logic says that they have equal rights, as long as they masquerade as a straight person.

      So women of the 1920's and before had equal rights as men, as long as they masqueraded as men.

      You see, that's just purely and completely illogical. It's quite naive.

    • misc-disc profile image

      misc-disc 4 years ago from Greater Earth Area

      My "obscene" rant? You're no Christian, man. You're a republican sheep. None of your views have a root in a thought conceived by your own mind. And that's a shame.

      It's such a shame that people become so indoctrinated by their political leanings that they can't see pure logic. It's an even greater shame when someone becomes so brainwashed by their political leanings that they become hypocrites and stop following the basic tenets of their religion. All men created equal. Show me the "extra ordinary rights" homosexuals are asking for and then I'll admit I'm wrong.

    • misc-disc profile image

      misc-disc 4 years ago from Greater Earth Area

      That is the literal definition of marriage as it was first entered into the Webster's dictionary. To take everything so literal is foolish and you know that. I'm surprised that an intelligent person still uses the arguments about the definition of marriage and the sanctity of marriage. First off, the sanctity of marriage has been ruined by opposite sex couples who end up divorced 50% of the time. And definitions of words are always subject to change; to expect anything different is foolish.

      The word gay does not literally mean homosexual; it has become that way through its slang usage. Yet I do not see you vehemently defending the word as being defined "happy."

      Why would you be so angry that the word "marriage" has been redefined? Because (and I'm guessing) you don't like homosexuals. Your assertion that they should not be allowed to be married is relegating them to being second-class citizens.

      You treat homosexuals the same way far-left liberals treat gun owners and devout Christians; with anger, malice and ill-informed, ignorant opinions.

      You're a hypocrite. You whine that people want to take your guns away and that people won't let you pray in school, but then you try to take away people's right to happiness and legitimacy of social existence.

      The United States is borrowed land, pal. It is not yours; it is not mine. The nature of the founding of this country is violent. We cast out the indigenous people and took it for our own. It became a place where anyone who wanted a slice of freedom and safety could come.

      Now you are trying to take people's freedom away and that is universally wrong.

      And I think you know you're wrong. It isn't a good feeling, I know. But you're both men, willstarr and alexdrinkh2O, who have lived a good few years. You're supposed to attain wisdom in that time. I think you know deep within yourself that taking away people's rights is wrong, but you're scared. You're scared of something you don't understand and it is easier to react to that thing in a not-so-nice manner than to admit that you're wrong to take the rights of another human being--the rights of a brother/sister in God--away.

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      I don't believe in censorship, "misc-disc," so your comment -- and your obscene rant -- is there for all to see. FYI - homosexuals already have the same right to marry as anyone else - they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. What they want is an EXTRAORDINARY right and I (like millions of others) oppose it. Simple as that.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The definition of marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman. The objection is to the redefining of marriage.

    • misc-disc profile image

      misc-disc 4 years ago from Greater Earth Area

      At some point in your hub, the word sodomite is used and your character laments that it can no longer be used to describe a homosexual because it isn't politically correct. Calling a homosexual a sodomite is not being un-politically correct; it's being fucking violent and obscene. I'm sure you have a daughter or a niece or a sister or cousin or something of the sort. Chances are, whether she's a godly woman or not, she's a sodomite, too. Are you going to hurl that at her? Just because it is literally correct does not mean it is morally correct.

      Political correctness is the bane of literature. I believe the word "nigger" ought to be kept in Huckleberry Finn. So don't even attempt to guess my views on greater matters of free speech or political correctness. I'm a writer. I abhor censorship in all forms.

      You however, want to censor an entire section of the population. Here is one thing you can absolutely not disprove or work some ridiculous vernacular around: in your own holy book, it says that all men are created equal. That is all men as a race, which includes women, which means every single one of those people, gay or straight, white or black, male or female has the same and equal rights under the eyes of God. No one of those people is allowed to infringe on those rights and that is what you want to do by banning homosexuals from marrying. So by the word of god: that is wrong. And don't even try to tell me its a sin because even if it is, all sins are equal in the eyes of God. And all men are sinners. So if all men are equal, all men are sinners, and all sins are equal, that means you are cheapening the word of God by attempting to take away the right of marriage. A right that has been given to your fellow man. Your fellow human being. We are a common species and we should always be helping each other. You don't want that. You just don't want homosexuals to marry.

      And also, no one is trying to marry animals or inanimate objects. If they are; they are insane and it has nothing to do with homosexuals getting to marry. That's just naive and, frankly, stupid to draw that parallel.

      It's a shame this comment probably won't see the light of day.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "WillStarr - I guess we belong to the "hate" club. Before the election I was called a racist because I dared to support Mitt Romney against you-know-who. Amazing, isn't it?"

      Its also dangerous. We have gone from a people who always enjoyed unfettered free speech, to a timid nation afraid to speak up lest we be labeled. PC is stifling the national conversation, as the left determines what is acceptable to say. I, for one, reject it!

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      Thank you Dennis AuBuchon. WillStarr - I guess we belong to the "hate" club. Before the election I was called a racist because I dared to support Mitt Romney against you-know-who. Amazing, isn't it?

    • Dennis AuBuchon profile image

      Dennis AuBuchon 4 years ago

      This is a fantastic hub. I voted up, awesome, interesting and useful along with tweeting, pinnining and liking. Great job

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Being against gay marriage does not mean you hate gay people. Being against abortion does not mean you are against equal rights for women. Supporting the right to bear arms does not mean you want to go around shooting people. Being against huge government spending does not mean you hate poor people."

      That is the scourge of political correctness speaking. If you point out the slaughter of young ghetto blacks, you are a racist. If you oppose redefining the meaning of marriage, you are a homophobe. If you don't support females in combat, or abortion, you are a sexist.

      And the term 'hate' has almost lost its meaning. Someone found out that I'm a gun owner and called me a 'hater'.

      (sigh)

    • AlexDrinkH2O profile image
      Author

      AlexDrinkH2O 4 years ago from Southern New England, USA

      @WillStarr, Mr Archer, and FitnezzJim - thank you for your kind comments! As you can see from the comment by "misc-disc," anybody who disagrees with liberal orthodoxy is a "hater" and close-minded. This of course is the pot calling the kettle black. Being against gay marriage does not mean you hate gay people. Being against abortion does not mean you are against equal rights for women. Supporting the right to bear arms does not mean you want to go around shooting people. Being against huge government spending does not mean you hate poor people. Sigh . . . will it ever sink in? Oh, by the way, I am not a "little dude" - I am a mature, well-educated, and accomplished man for your information.

    • misc-disc profile image

      misc-disc 4 years ago from Greater Earth Area

      You seem like a hate filled little dude. You should open your mind.

    • FitnezzJim profile image

      FitnezzJim 4 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

      Well done! As Will writes, you will have lots of folks saying ‘I wish I had written this’.

      In decades past, the notion of ‘statesman’ implied a man in government that could anticipate future trends, perceive the consequences of his actions with respect to their impact on the people, and take appropriate action to better ensure the benefit of all. How easy would statesmanship be if we had a historian from the future in the room? Do today’s politicians seriously consider the impact of their actions on the notion of liberty, or do they think only in terms of dollars?

      I’m guessing you may see follow up articles documenting the impact of your visit to the past. What impact would a glimpse of future technology have on Ben Franklin? What jealousies might be incurred at knowing who is better known in the future? There is lots of material for follow-on here.

    • Mr Archer profile image

      Mr Archer 4 years ago from Missouri

      Exceptional work here! Oh, that we had such an opportunity to correct our country's missteps. You have created a wonderful look at what could have been.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      This is an outstanding piece, and there will be several writers expressing the 'I wish I had written that!" lament, and I will be one of them!

      Voted way up and shared.