I must express my approval of the “WWJD?” (“What Would Jesus Do?”) fad. I find it inquisitive, searching for those basic principles of Christianity that are so positive. “What would Jesus do?” is a simple way of getting to the core of Christian beliefs, placing their messiah back in the center of their religion as a role model to emulate.

There are many spin-offs of the WWJD? phenomenon, and I’m going to throw my own bootleg into the ring with this essay. In the realm of Democracy, American Democracy, we have our own core principles, defined more than two centuries ago by a group of individuals the average American citizen knows little about. These are the Founding Fathers, and despite our ignorance of who they truly were, we bring them up in debate to support our various stances on issues, just as disputing Christians use Jesus to defend their competing beliefs.

So let’s bring the spirit of inquiry into our disputations and look to the Founding Fathers as the role models they are. Let’s ask ourselves, “What Would the Founding Fathers Do?”

This is a difficult can of worms. Religious and Humanists each believe the FF support their stance on the separation of Church and state. Conservatives and Liberals each claim them for their own. The FF established many of the Governmental services we take for granted today and at the same time warned strongly against a consolidated Government that was too authoritarian. They rejected political parties, but later joined them as a necessary evil in order to get things done.

When people look to the Founding Fathers and the way they resolved their disputes, the endless labor they poured into establishing this country, is it any wonder so many of us look at our modern political system, with its lowest-common-denominator approach to disputation, and wonder how our country could have fallen so far?

Of course, I personally disagree with the whole premise of the above question. We still have great politicians in our government, who are true of heart, academic in their approach to governance, and respectful in disputation. Remembering the FF and what they really stood for, what America really stands for, is an exercise that will help us to respect the right politicians once again, and let the mighty rhetorical blow-hards fall out of the spotlight again.

Who Were the Founding Fathers?

The most well known Founding Fathers are James Madison, George Washington, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Wilson, Governor Morris, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and John Hancock, but there are 54 signatures on the Declaration of Independence and 39 for the Constitution. All of these signers are part of the Founding Fathers, and they do not include such important contributors such as Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Paul Revere–also part of the FF.

Most of the FF were deists, heavily influenced by the enlightenment, and all were revolutionaries. A few of the FF were traditional religionists, Christians, but their influence on the establishment of the American government was minimalized by the strong secular nature of the FF’s intellectual powerhouses, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

European Enlightenment

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.” – Thomas Paine

The Enlightenment was responsible for the emergence of both capitalism and socialism. “Sapere aude!” or “Dare to Know!” was its motto, questioning all established dogmas, political and religious. It took “common sense” to task, demanding justifications for then established paradigms we find irrational today.

Revolutionaries

All of the FF were rebels. Philosophically, they rebelled against the notion of the divinely-granted authority of the monarchy. Politically, they rebelled against the totalitarian British rule. Militarily, they directed armies to maintain possession of the colonies.

Thomas Paine was nearly executed for his revolutionary writings. George Washington took daring measures against British forces. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson shirked the conventional religiosity of their day to produce a secular governance.

Intellectuals

Most of all the FF were well read, well educated people. They were hard working, free-thinkers. Their political world was one of academics within their ranks, and one of persuasive rhetoric when dealing with the masses. They rejected inflammatory emotive appeals and debated from a common foundation of Enlightenment Philosophy.

Although they engaged many schools of thought, this is not the same as accepting them. Benjamin Franklin appreciated and cooperated with religionists, although he was not one. Thomas Jefferson appreciated the teachings of Jesus, although he disregarded the rest of the Bible, including the miracles. They were able to entertain ideas and appreciate differences, but maintain a strong ideological foundation.

Religious?

The Federalist Papers are often cited as evidence of the FF’s Christian origins, but the Federalist Papers contain no references to the Bible and almost 30 references to the governments of pagan Greece and Rome. Then there are the Anti-Federalist Papers, which complicate matters. None of these documents were ever themselves ratified, because they were part of a much larger scheme of disputation over America’s ultimate design.

The phrasing on The Declaration of Independence is used by both sides of the debate over the separation of church and state to make their case. Advocates of religion in government point to the reference to “God” and “Creator” as proof that America was founded on religious principles. Secularists point to the qualifiers used with these words, in context “Nature’s God” and each man endowed by “their Creator,” as implying an each unto their own approach to religion. Benjamin Franklin convinced Thomas Jefferson to modify the text, “‘We hold these truths to be self-evident.” from the original draft, “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable.”

This secularist line of reasoning follows into the American Constitution, which invokes no power higher than “We the People.” While many state constitutions at the time required obedience to Jesus Christ for citizens to hold public office, the United States Constitution did not. Beyond the one vague mention of God in the Declaration, we see no more references to God in American politics until President Eisenhower replaced the national motto “E Plurbus Unum” (“Out of Many, One”), with “In God We Trust” in 1955.

Near the end of George Washington’s second term in 1796, the United States signed a treaty with “Bey and the People of Tripoli.” Article XI of this treaty contains the sentence, “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion…”

The fact that several of the FF, including George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, were Free Masons lends some contradiction to their non-Religious stance mentioned above, as Masons do believe in a Supreme Being (not the Christian one), but the FF were primarily deists. They believed a god created the Universe, but was not an intercessionary part of it. They came from a country that believed in a god that served as an active guide in human dealings and even anointed a leader to them, the king. The FF believed that human beings were responsible for their own destinies and this motivated them to establish a free democracy for governance.

Additional Quotes:

“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [formation of the American governments] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven…”
– John Adams

“If by religion, we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your [John Adams’] exclamation on that hypothesis is just, ‘that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it’.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their [not our?] religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” – George Washington (Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792)

“I detest it [the Bible] as I detest everything that is cruel.” – Thomas Paine

Representative of the FF?

Here are my four favorite Founding Fathers. I have already mentioned the importance of going eclectic in surveying the worlds of ideas in these individual’s heads. Perhaps readers will find some bias in this selection then?

Thomas Jefferson

In an attempt to get at what was real in the gospels, TJ created his own version of them, leaving out the miracles, in what became The Jefferson Bible. What greater act of humanism than this?

George Washington

In his Farwell Address GW warns against the emergence of political parties for their factional results. He also warned against geographic identification, foreshadowing the civil war and the red/blue state factionalism we see today. He also warned against the disillusionment of the separation of powers, which would consolidate federal power and lead to despotism.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin

This scientist, inventor, journalist, politician, and diplomat helped establish America’s first lending-library, non-religious college, and postal system. Franklin’s writings range in diversity from the secularism in the Constitution to essays like “Fart Proudly.” There is no human being I can think of being more deserving of the descriptor “polymath.”

Thomas Paine

Perhaps no other member of the FF embodied the ideals of the Enlightnment more than this author of Common Sense and The Age of Reason, both texts which were highly influential in the emerging American revolution. An anarchist, Paine detested both government and religion, questioning the “common sense” of his own age through his many philosophical works.

In Conclusion

We have found the FF to be a complex and diverse group. They are contradictory as both a whole and as individuals. Their intentions are obfuscated in the centuries of time that separate us from them, and we cannot predict with any degree of certainty how they would react to our modern day ethical and constitutional dilemmas.

Which raises the question: Why should we? Why should we look to a group of people who valued meritocracy, but not enough to include African Americans and Women in the system? What wisdom could this group of people have that we lack, who established slaves as counting for 3/5ths of a person in the Electoral College?

I am not saying we burn away our history, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We certainly must value those who came before us. We must show gratitude to these great men and women who framed our Country’s values, but we must also accept that we have elaborated on their concepts. It was those who came after the FF that abolished slavery, established women’s suffrage, and promoted civil rights. The FF’s concept of equality was too narrow and we have expanded it appropriately.

The FF were a group of fantastic minds for their time, and it is only nostalgia for the non-existent “Golden Age” that keeps us bringing their intentions up in debate. It does not matter what the FF meant when they set the second amendment down over 200 years ago. What matters is the ideal mean we reach today that best suits all American citizens.

How much better, and easier, it is to try and emulate the principles the FF advocated. It does not matter that their actions often failed to grok with equality, meritocracy, democracy, and freedom. What matters is that they started the dialogue about these concepts for us to uphold and refine through open discourse. These were people who believed in the primacy of education, human improvability, and egalitarianism. They were on the right track. What does it matter their means of implementing them?

Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Parrots are able to communicate with human beings, demonstrating the ability for abstract thought, and holding a theory of other minds raises serious ethical questions about the “human” rights of such animals.

Already most farms have strict requirements for the humane treatment of cows because their emotional discomfort affects the productivity of milking. Providing a comfortable environment for cows that promotes their emotional well-being is simply good business. It is not some leftist hippy nonsense like many scientifically ignorant pundits would like us to think.

Our society has recognized the importance of humanely treating animals, going so far as to adopt the Animal Welfare Act. Many states have adopted or are in the process of adopting laws to regulate the practice of chaining dogs without supervision or the similarly inhumane practice of declawing cats. Both scientists and human rights activists agree that animal experimentation must be restricted to only the most pressing needs and then it must be strictly regulated to ensure it is as humane as possible.

My immediate concern is for the many species of primates and their well-being. Consider Coby, a chimpanzee abandoned by owners who taught him sign language and the apparent frustration he feels at suddenly being deprived of those communication tools we take for granted. Writing this being off as merely an “animal” in order to absolve ourselves of responsibility to him is a cop-out.

Is preservation or integration the best solution to the dilemma of primate well-being? We have established sanctuaries all around the globe. We even have havens for primates retired from scientific experimentation.

In Coby’s case, he has acclimated to human interaction and his well-being relies on that interaction. Setting him free to live in a sanctuary or reserve is not an ideal solution. Primates have neocortexes just like human beings, allowing them greater flexibility in adapting to their environment. Primates used in psychological and scientific experimentation are not adapted to life in the wild. What should we do with them?

My own humble suggestion, one I truly believe would make a difference and it’s crazy enough that I can hope for PETA either backing it or lobbying for it:

Allow these primates to form cultural sanctuaries, teach them our means of communication, open a dialogue between our species. If chimpanzee’s can sign, then we can sign with them. If they can compose sentences on computers, then the world can converse with them.

Why force them into a retirement where they will live in forests they are unaccustomed to and a lifestyle they were not raised with? Give them the option of voluntary continued interaction with humans rather than an enforced return to the primitive.

In Dr. David Brin’s “Uplift” saga, the human race has proactively raised the consciousnesses and capabilities of chimpanzees. We know from experimentation that this is a real possibility. Chimpanzee’s trained to communicate with human beings would raise awarenessi* on both sides of the exchange. Chimps would learn ways to express the abstract concepts we know exist in their minds. Humans would find reflections of their consciousnesses in the minds of another species, and with that, a more accurately defined worldview.

* My feeble attempt at the plural of “awareness.” : )

At one end of the spectrum are the religionists, who believe the human race was created above the animal kingdom, distinct from it. Animals have nothing in common with human beings other than the relationship of being at our subjugation. At the other end of the spectrum are environmentalists who see animals as equals to human beings, no matter how rudimentary their cognitive capabilities, and they hold this position with a religious fanaticism.

Anthropomorphism

We tend to project ourselves onto the world around us. We are egocentric. Evolutionarily it makes sense to be most concerned with ourselves and to therefore watch the world as it relates to us.

Pro-Life advocates anthropomorphize the heartbeat of a developing fetus into a fully developed human being. PETA anthropomorphized chickens in stocks with prisoners at Auswitch. Children anthropomorphize dolls and action figures into real human beings.

Another extreme is pets. We project motives and character onto our animal friends. We believe they are intuitive, sneaky, conniving with levels of cognitive complexity of which they are incapable.

Many of us even anthropomorphize the Earth into a living being. “Mother Earth” and “Mother Nature” are two terms that take the complex interactions of our shared biosphere and create a metaphor for a collective living being out of them.

All of us anthropomorphize inanimate objects in our world. We refer to cars and ships as “she,” and even use attitude descriptors to characterize their behaviors. “The computer refused to accept the command,” is one example. In the field of logic, this is known as the Pathetic Fallacy, but there are cases where we try so hard not to anthropomorphize that we miss the obvious similarities between ourselves and the world around us.

Anthropodenial

B.M. de Waal coined this term, and throughout history, people have sought to definitively raise human beings above all other forms of life. It is important for us to feel special as a race, held above the rest of life on Earth as if on a pedestal. Many people find the very notion of being lumped in with the rest of the animal kingdom outright offensive. We merely need to look at the history of our public discourse on evolution to find evidence of such revulsion. The cartoon depicted here of Darwin as a monkey was inspired by such outrage at the notion of primate ancestors.

It is no wonder then that so many rationalizations exist to erect a wall of reason separating the human race from all other species. “Beasts abstract not,” John Locke said, attempting to distinguish humans from animals through what he and most others believed a uniquely human cognitive capability.

The Anthropodenialists reject the parrot, N’kisi, who has a 950 word vocabulary and has demonstrated the ability to combine words in new ways so as to describe new things. The famous chimpanzees Washoe, Lucy, and Lana, each had between a 100 and 200 word vocabulary in sign language and written word.

Buy why should we even go to such extremes in the animal kingdom to make the point that animals share more with us cognitively than many care to admit? When a pet cat purrs or a dog becomes excited in our presence, what are we doing to ourselves when we write these emotional exhibitions off as purely instinctual?

We are forced to consider our own emotional reactions as mere programming, and that begins a slippery slope. Denial taken to an extreme can begin to exclude other humans. Eugenicists throughout history have always sought such rationalizations for their egocentric ideologies. After humans separate themselves from the animal kingdom, the next step is for cultures to begin distinguishing themselves.

Bishop Berkely had a response to Locke’s above comment, “If the fact that brutes abstract not be made the distinguishing property of that sort of animal, I fear a great many of those that pass for men must be reckoned into their number.”

What is Human?

If Chimpanzees and parrots have the ability to abstract, if gorillas and other primates have culture, then what makes humans special is merely the level of sophistication in which we exhibit these traits. What is a human becomes a question of degree.

Likewise, the conclusions we draw about how we should interact with our world rely on this subjective notion. Personally, I try not to eat beef because I see cattle as having sufficient cognitive capabilities to perceive their slaughter as cruel. At the same time I have no problem eating chicken and fish because their relatively rudimentary cognition.

Both anthropomorphism and anthropodenial are characteristics of our egocentrism, either by seeking ourselves in our surroundings or by distinguishing ourselves from them. Like all false dichotomies, either extreme is simply wrong; therefore, a perpetual disputation supplemented with persistent inquiry is required to find the ideal mean between excesses.

---

Further Reading:

“The Dragons of Eden,” Carl Sagan, 1977, Ballantine Books.

The American Tax system, with all of its hidden taxes in addition to its wage tax, has created a “boiling frog” syndrome, where the taxes increase slowly in many, virtually undetectable, ways, until we are unknowingly crushed under their burden.

Take an example of earning $100, we subtract 20% for income tax. Then, when the remaining balance of $80 is spent, it is further reduced by a 5.5% sales tax, or a %20 sin tax, or utility taxes, corporate taxes, or other taxes passed on to consumers. Or yearly property taxes… When we reach the end of this long parade of living expenses what do we have left to save toward our personal “Rainy Day” financial security or retirement? Diddly-squat.

The danger of the increasing levels of bureaucracy in our system is that it has become impossible to quantify its aspects. Ten different economists can generate ten completely different and contradictory mathematical products of our system. When we cannot quantify, we cannot debate. America’s current system is too complex to debate rationally.

Everyone has their own numbers to argue with depending on what they want the public to think. Politicians distract us with the plight of wealthy and poor special interest groups to prevent anything from changing. Now consider a system that is honest about its socialist needs and charges us 20%-35% upfront. That’s it, no hidden costs, only every American citizen and corporation contributing the same exact percentage into the collective pot, a completely equal tax system.

For this reason, I support a flat-tax system, devoid of exemptions and all the other variables that make our current system so impossible to gauge. All citizens, wealthy and poverty-level, would have to contribute the same percentage of their total income to the Federal Government. The tax-rate would be determined by the President and Congress at the beginning of each fiscal year. If the government needs more money, the rate might go up a fraction of a percentage point, and the public could all argue over one common number. The debate would shift from tax-payer burdens to focus on how our government spends the money.

Our government would face an agonizing process of checks and balances to raise it a fraction of a percentage, it would be like interest rates. Debates would rage, economists would speculate, investors would cringe or cheer, and some of the macro would be taken out of macroeconomics.

Everyone, no matter how poor or how rich would contribute. This way, everyone pays into the system and everyone can rightly feel that they have a stake in it. By having a low-income cut-off point for paying taxes, we create an “income hump” that people have to get past climbing the economic ladder. If everyone pays, then no hump.

Another major advantage of the Flat Tax is the elimination of bureaucracy. No more IRS, volumes of tax codes, audits, thousands of Federal Jobs eliminated, and every one of them becomes another working, tax-paying citizen.

Of course we can continue to have tax shelters. These will be reservations, completely undeveloped, that are not part of America. The wealthy can go there and not pay taxes, but their American tax money will also be valueless, except for kindling. Poor people seeking relief from the tax burden can go live there without roads, libraries, public schools, and all the services America provides them. Of course, the laborers will be at an advantage in such a system and will eat the rich for food.

Yes, I’m simplifying things. shifting to such a system would be incredibly complex and would have dramatic ramifications on the government spending on Unemployment, Corporate Bailouts, Bankrupcy, welfare, etc. etc… There’s a reason our Federal Budget requires several phone-book sized ledgers to convey it. Our Government would also lose one of its most powerful social controls, tax-breaks as rewards for behaviors society condones and taxes on behaviors that hurt society. Charitable contributions would vanish unless citizens were able to allocate a percentage of their taxes to them. This is nowhere near as simple and ideal as it sounds.

Regardless, this proposal is also completely unfeasible because of the way politicians phrase the debate. A person who made $1000 will pay $150 in taxes, and a person who made $1 Billion will pay $150 Million. Liberals will cry foul a system that takes $150, which could pay for heat and food for the impoverished member of society. Conservatives will complain about a system which forces one individual to pay $150 Million in taxes, while others only have to pay $150, and claim that people will stop wanting to be rich under such a system.

So as long as I’m fantasizing, I’d also like to propose legislation to have politicians who engage in excessive roguish tomfoolery be publicly flogged. Our system will grow more complex, the budget will continue to grow, and Americans will find a way to manage as we always have.

---

Note: This is a “Random Thought” not a “Theory” of mine, and it’s tongue-in-cheek. I love the idea of a flat tax system for the reasons cited above, but I know, for the doubts I have expressed, that it is not pragmatic. Still… thinking in this direction might help us all come to an ideal mean on the issue.