A purely political point of view

[John81]

Too many are willing to support whoever they think has the best chance to win, regardless of what their positions on the issues are.

[HappyChristian]

Thanks for the kudos! You don't have to agree on every point (we still have that freedom). However, "pandering" is what they did. We could go into a side bar about a whole lot of Biblical perspectives but, it strays from the point. The founders wanted freedom for a reason and so did the masses; they were not necessarily, the same reasons. So, the framers expressed their desires in accord with the desires of the people in an attempt to achieve a common goal. For the Christian, it was freedom from a "state religion" and for Jefferson and others like him, I can't be so sure.

Well, let's look at definitions...
Pandering means to:

Gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.).

v pander (intr; foll by to) 1. to give gratification (to weaknesses or desires)

(archaic when tr)

2.

to act as a go-between in a sexual i

nt

rigue (for)

n also 'panderer

1.

a person who caters for vulgar desires, esp in order to make money

2. a person who procures a sexual partner for another; pimp

Somehow, I just cannot see that our founders were indulging immoral or distasteful ideas...especially since they agreed with the outcome if not the belief...

I do believe they LISTENED to the people, but they were actually going along with what they believed and knew to be man's natural rights as given to us by God. I think if you read a good deal of what the founders wrote you'll see what I mean.

[Guest]

Well, let's look at definitions...
Pandering means to:




Somehow, I just cannot see that our founders were indulging immoral or distasteful ideas...especially since they agreed with the outcome if not the belief...

I do believe they LISTENED to the people, but they were actually going along with what they believed and knew to be man's natural rights as given to us by God. I think if you read a good deal of what the founders wrote you'll see what I mean.

I see where you come from but, this is purely from a "political perspective." The definition doesn't fit the use of the word with regard to politics; on the other hand, it may shed some light on why these powerful and rich men constructed documents which provided for their own goals while providing for the overall needs and desires of the common man.

I think the synonyms provide a closer political definition...

pandering [pan-der]

Main Entry: pander
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: cater to, indulge

Synonyms:
brownnose, cajole, fall all over, gratify, lay it on, massage, play the game, play up to, please, politic, satisfy, snow*, soap, soften up, stroke, suck up to

http://thesaurus.com/browse/pandering?

I've read many of the documents, proclamations, and speeches of the founders. I respect them all for motivating a comparably tiny group of people to take up arms and defy the army and navy of England. I'm thankful to God who allowed all this to take place. We stand together in disagreement today from the effort of the framers and bravery of a fledgling nation.

I can imagine the founders discussing how they might motivate the people to take such drastic actions. Even how they might indulge, stroke, gratify, and encourage them to take up arms. Possibly even promising them land to the west and pensions for their support. I know private ownership is a great motivator.

Back to the main point...ultimately the documents were written to the majority populace, Christians. Christians understood them because they were written to them. You can't properly interpret the documents unless you are a Christian. Edited November 23, 2011 by 1Tim115

[HappyChristian]

I do agree that the majority of documents were written with Christians in mind. But I do not agree with your simplification of the word pander. I don't believe the founders were "indulging" anyone, or, to use one of the synonyms you posted, "brownnosing" anyone. They believed what they wrote.

I agree with your last statement, but would add that a people who are aware of Biblical teachings, even if not Christian, could understand them. Much like those during our founding who were not Christians, but who had a knowledge of the Bible and a fear of God.