Minx: The Founders have been, pretty much since the first generations after they passed, a blank slate for anyone to project their virtues upon, or more recently pillory for failing to utterly transcend their era in accordance with modern morality.
What is annoying about the process and in most people stating the intent of the Founders is that they
didn't have a consolidated vision or intent. The Constitution was written as a compromise between their various visions, and during the debates surrounding its ratification was derided by its detractors as an abysmal compromise that would inevitably lead to tyranny, while it was often defended by its proponents as the only available compromise that would lift the population away from the abysmal failure of the Confederation. Multiple states ratified the Constitution with the proviso of at least strongly urging the immediate consideration of multiple amendments that eventually became the Bill of Rights.
Specifically regarding religion, the lack of religious testing or qualification was a thorny issue in the ratification debates. It was argued in places like Massachusetts and North Carolina that failing to require proper and particular religious faith would open the door for any old papist, deist, or Mohammedan to waltz in and take office. However, that was countered by the Federalist argument that it was precisely this stance that would prevent repetitions of the various persecutions of Europe that were still fairly fresh in the cultural memory of the colonists.
Now in truth I'd say that for a lot of the participants in the founding of the country the concept of a secular-governed nation would be a ghastly, frightful idea. But here's the real thing... who gives a fuck? The Founders can be respected for the things they got right and for the fact that their compromise government turned out to be a pretty robust institution that had a damn good run. However, the fact is that while it's fine for religious people to vote and same as the rest of us they are free to use whatever criteria they want in who they choose to vote for, the best thing for the country is that we bind ourselves with a pact of laws based on a common logical basis rather than competing theologies.
Which does bring me to another point that gets a sarcastic snort from me: the concept that the religious folks in this country are seriously and with real force being told to 'stay out of politics' or somesuch. Considering that it's still a solid majority that wouldn't elect an atheist president, I think it's safe to say that religious people will still have every right to participate like everyone else. This constant 'Oh god, our large, financially well-heeled majority is constantly on the edge of being stripped of the vote and/or sent to the camps' thing is so damn old hat, for fuck's sake. Yes, I know there are the recent converts to Dawkinism that go nuts with their zealotry, especially on the net, but come on people. Of course for the Santorums of the world it's the fact that their overblown theological ravings aim to take us back toward the eighteenth century or so that causes issues, not the fact that they're religious in and of itself. Every president of the twentieth century had to go on record with their religious beliefs and where they went to church and so on, and as Frigid pointed out Kennedy had to dance hard to convince everyone that he wasn't going to just be the puppet of the pope. My grandparents thought it was going to be pretty much number of the beast revelations time when Kennedy got elected.
For anybody who's interested on reading about the Founders and their actual lives, disputes, and personalities so they can be better informed than your average Santorum, there's some good books out there:
Revolutionary Characters by Gordon Wood takes an individual look at the usual suspects, Washington, Hamilton et al. Shows we were pretty lucky to have Madison to distill the middle ground between Hamilton's warmongering neo-royalism and Jefferson's utopian gentleman planter's society. Also makes a pretty compelling argument for Washington being the best president in history by virtue of the fact that he was the only one we've ever had who didn't chase the job like a congressman chasing a donor check.
Ratification by Pauline Meyer I'm not quite done with this one yet, just got past North Carolina's refusal to ratify until a Bill of Rights gets amended into the Constitution. A fascinating look at the arguments surrounding the Constitution at its inception, how the Federalists managed to counter what looked like insurmountable odds in New York State (hint, it wasn't the Federalist Papers that put them over the top there, though they were specifically written for New York's debates) and similar issues in Virginia, where Patrick Henry opposed ratification. Interesting aside, Jefferson
hated Henry. He said that Henry was the greatest orator of their generation, but he also said in a letter that all they could do was pray for him to die.
(Further aside: contrary to what many just naturally assume, Jefferson wasn't one of the crafters of the Constitution. He was ambassadoring in France at the time, and when he received his copy he was fairly dubious of the scheme, but decided along with most others that it was the best compromise of the moment.)
Infamous Scribblers by Eric Burns This one is both history and a just plain fun read. Our modern media environment has nothing at all on our original media environment where there were no libel or slander laws until the atrocious and ill-fated Sedition Act that was passed specifically in response to the out-of-control state of the Revolutionary-era newspapers. One of the most interesting tidbits I came across was a reference in Ratification to a newspaper that was actually scrupulously printing both sides of the debate on the Constitution and was lambasted for it, because the readers paid for that paper in order to read articles that supported their side of the argument and if they wanted the other argument they'd pay for the paper that supported it. That's a great example of an early echo chamber right there.
Edited to add: This wasn't all aimed at you, Minx. I just started off with your point and then launched into a general ramble. Don't want to come across like I'm lecturing or somesuch.
