In the GD thread: Reciting Pledge of Allegiance in public schools ruled unconstitutional. Discuss.,
I’ve been arguing with magellan01 – who’s nearly as irrationally stubborn as lekatt – that, among other things, any reference to “God” or “Providence” or a “Creator” was very deliberately omitted from the Consitution, since the Framer’s specifically wanted to form a secular State based on the secular ideals of the Enlightenment. The Framers – while none of them were atheists – did not believe and thus did not want to say that the nation they were founding was “ordained by” or “founded upon” or “guided by” God, and so they very deliberately didn’t say such a thing, willfully omitting God from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Of course, this deliberate omission pissed a lot of people off, mostly during the ratification debates and the like, but the Framers never waivered and they refused to put God in the Constitution. (In fact, this omission was so irksome to so many people for so long that some blamed the Civil War on the fact that we have a godless Constitution).
We pick up the debate in This post of mine, which is my response to magellan01’s request for a cite for those views. I provided this citation: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, by Susan Jacoby, and quoted here extensively:
Now, we come to the crux of this Pit thread… In his response, magellan01 wrote:
Now, what would be a “valid cite”? Posting from a book that didn’t say what I claimed it said? Posting from a book which disagreed with me? What?
What does this asshole want? And how should I respond to him?
No idea what he wants – but I can see why you took this to the Pit. Sometimes “asshole” is just the perfect word.
The topic is one of those where you’ll have a fairly large core of true believers who aren’t going to be swayed by facts and logic. Good effort, though.
Well, on the one hand, that cite is just as much one person’s opinion as your own post. The author may (or may not) be more knowledgable than us, but it is still just an author giving her take on events. I’m sure someone could dredge up another author writing the opposite opinion.
On the other hand, a “valid” cite would require detailed analysis of notes and personal correspondance from the period which you can’t just link to. Even then, it is something that will be as much opinion as fact.
I think this board suffers from cite-itis. Somebody posits that the framers of the Constitution thought X, and a disagreeing person says “cite?”. It’s ridiculous, you can’t “cite” someone’s thoughts and feelings, and nobody is going to do a thorough review of the historical documents. That’s a huge project, not something to link to.
Which is precisely why, in my opinion, it is fine to cite to a treatise done by a well-respected person who has taken the time to do the research. I see no problem with the OP’s citing the article and I see only intellectual laziness and dishonesty on magellan’s part.
Precisely. It would be acceptable for the OP to write an article on this subject and cite the book/paper he cited. In that case, he’d be judged by what he cited, but he shouldn’t have to rehash the details of the research that went into the cite for it to be valid. The problem is that, rather than examining the cite and coming up with a real reason to discard it, magellan would rather discard anything that disagrees with her own worldview. It must be comforting to never have to be wrong. But to say that any book or article cite is no good because it’s just one author’s opinion is to disregard our existing system of scholarly research. The crap flows downhill, is all.
Disclaimer: I’m relying on the OP; I haven’t read the referenced thread, on the assumption that the OP has fairly stated the best case he can.
Despite his inelegant phrasing, magellan01 has the right of this. Look, ambushed made an argument. magellan01 asked for a cite. ambushed quoted extensively from something. That quotation reiterated ambushed’s theory, but makes plain that it is just a theory. The quotation cites no evidence for its supposed premise, that references to God were omitted from the Constitution in a deliberate attempt to form a secular state.
So perhaps magellan01 should have said:
I agree with Cheesesteak, and I’ll add a corollary. Citations may be hard to come by, but when given, people ought to read them and analyze them. If someone does that, and criticizes the citation because it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, I don’t consider that to be “intellectual laziness and dishonesty.”
This is true; however, the quotation gives several facts that lend support to the theory (Virginia’s 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, the Articles of Confederation’s “the Great Governor of the World,” etc.) magellan ignored the various facts within the quotation that supported the theory, focusing instead on the theory.
He might equally ask for proof that bricks exist; and when ambushed points at a wall, dismiss it by saying, “That’s just a bunch of mortar!”
Yes, but those facts don’t necessarily support the point it appears ambushed was making: that the Framers deliberately omitted reference to God in an attempt to create a secularist state. The fact that the Articles of Confederation use “the Great Governer of the World,” and the Framers modeled the Constitution on Virginia’s more secular governing documents are perhaps circumstantial evidence to support ambushed’s point, or perhaps not. There may have been other reasons than the one ambushed advanced for those choices. In short, there is nothing in the long quotation that goes to what the Framers were thinking, and why they made the choices that they did. Instead, the quotation is just a more long-winded version of: the Constitution doesn’t say “God” when other documents at the time did; therefore the Framers did it in a deliberate attempt to create a secular state.
The conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premise, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to call a poster on citing to something that does no more than reiterate the poster’s theory.
Or, more properly, he might ask for proof that a wall is made of bricks, and when ambushed points to a pile of clay and straw, say, but that’s not proof that a wall is made of bricks!
A cite, in our world, is the reference to a reliable authority that tends to show the truth of a factual assertion being made.
When the assertion being made is purely factual: what the specific gravity of lead is, for example - it’s easy to garner a reputable cite, or ten.
When the assertion is an inference, as it is here, then a request for a cite is really a request for a list of facts that compel the conclusion that the inference is true.
ambushed’s citation provides an author who also believes the inference is true, but certainly doesn’t prove it. But there is no possible way to prove this to the same degree that you can prove the specific gravity of lead. All you can do is pile more and more pieces of evidence up.
On the other side, the appropriate response is to not simply dismiss the citation out of turn: even though it doesn’t prove the inference is true, it provides evidence consistent with truth. To rebut this, magellan01 must offer other facts that weaken the inference, or that compel a different conclusion.
In short: the cite doesn’t prove the matter. But it’s evidence in favor of it. magellan01 may offer other evidence against the matter, or explain why the offered cite’s evidence invites another conclusion. He cannot simply wand-wave it away.
These statements are at the heart of the dispute. By the time the other thread reached this point, the specific turning of opinion was whether the framers had actually debated the inclusion or exclusion of the divine during the writing of the Constitution with some possible support if the framers had argued against the inclusion of the divine during arguments for ratification.
Ms. Jacoby’s text simply does not support the specific claim by ambushed that the framers deliberately excluded the divine–which was the specific evidence sought by magellan01. It is fine to note that some (unidentified and uncited) secularists may have approved the outcome just as it is fine to note that some (mostly unidentified and still not explicitly cited) religious proponents attacked the document. Neither of those after-the-fact reviews by people not present support the claim that the ommission was argued and chosen deliberately to exclude the divine (as opposed, for example, to simply finding neutral language that kept the Congregationalists and the Baptists and the Episcopalians from sinking the document based on sectarian theology).
Now, it is unfortunate that the Constitutional committee did not keep a running record of their actual floor debates, but that is not magellan01’s fault. If ambushed or Ms. Jacoby can provide letters or diaries from the participants written during the summer of 1787 that lay out the secular leanings of the committee (or influential members of the committee), then that would provide the evidence sought by magellan01. (It also does not help ambushed’s case that God is invoked on at least three occasions in the Federalist Papers. If it was so important to leave God out of the document, why did its defenders let Him sneak back in to their primary effort promoting the document?)
Now, my sympathies are with ambushed in terms of viewing the Constitution as a secular document. However, magellan01 questioned specific claims by ambushed that particular decisions were made for particular reasons and the only evidence provided has been second-guessing by people who were not at the convention. The position of magellan01 was not “assholish” (a term that would seem more appropriate to a Pit thread that appeals to the mob for support when one’s argument has failed to persuade). One may choose to Pit stubbornness, but if so, magellan01 is hardly the only stubborn participant in the other thread.
(It is also not generally considered polite on the SDMB to Pit someone without providing them the opportunity to respond–usually by letting them know that such a thread has been opened.)
While it seems very likely that the Framers deliberately left God out of the constitution, their intention would have been to set up a secular Federal government. (“Their” meaning most or many of them, not necessarily all of them). But their views on what was acceptable for state governments was probably quite different. For example, some of the states had established churches well into the 19th century. A quick look at the MA state constitution shows that state governments were not so secular as the Federal government:
Empahasis added. These overtly religious articles were amended in the early 1800s, but they stand in stark contrast to the US Constitution when both were first ratified.
What I DID was I provided a cite, a cite to a book based on known historical facts, which the author simply informs us of.
I quoted no theory, I quoted from a book of historical research. The book reported historical FACTS (albiet among a small amount of speculation, which struck me as simply a rhetorical device). The author did not speculate on the actual facts at all.
Yes, it did cite such evidence. For example, it pointed out that there were many ratification debates which specifically attacked the omission of the word God, but the Framers refused to budge, even though their creation stood in jeopardy. This is clear evidence that the omission was not casual or accidental, else they would have inserted it due to all the umbrage being taken: the only possibility left was that it was deliberate. Q.E.D.
Furthermore, there was ample recent precedent to reference God or a Creator in such documents. As the quotation I provided indicated, nearly all states but Virginia’s made reference to God or to religion. And the Articles of Confederation cited “Providence”. So the Framers choice to reject all the state constitutions but Virginia’s (which again was proved by the result) – and in fact to go even further than Viginia’s toward total secularism – is a fact that proved their actions were deliberate.
I could well have cited more evidence as well as the author’s citations, but it would be quite stupid of me to go to all the effort of that given magellan01’s ludicrous, assholish response complete rejecting the efforts I had made. Furthermore, as I wrote in that post in the other thread, if I kept citing more and more, I would violate fair use.
No, it wasn’t. You are being unfair in re-phrasing the debate in your own way to favor your own arguments. The truth is that magellan01 stated as an absolute fact that the omission of a reference to God was merely casual because the document was supposed to be nothing but practical. Again, you’re being unfair by restating the debate in the way you have. I disputed magellan01’s claim, arguing that it was not causual, but deliberate, and I cited Jacoby. And the FACT is that there is enough FACT in there to conclude that it was not a casual or accidental decision, else they would have inserted it when it caused controversy that may well have meant that their precious Constitution would not be ratified without it. And it follows inevitably that that which is not casual or accidental is deliberate. That the Framers did not record a debate about the issue among themselves is evidence of nothing, and you know it. I merely suggests that the Framers were unanimous in their decision to omit God.
Again you re-phrase the argument to your own liking! That’s NOT was magellan01 said! He said he rejected by citation merely because it agreed with me! That, sir, is assholish and intellectually dishonest in the extreme.
What blatant sophistry! There were references to God in other documents, so the Framers intended to place a reference in the Constitution?? Answer me, Tom: Then why isn’t it there? Was it accidental? Did they forget? Tell me what else it could be but deliberate?
Although I can’t cite the source at the moment (because I’ve forgotten), I’ve read other historical analysts say that such mentions in the Papers (all or some, I can’t recall) were sardonic. Weren’t some or all of them in the nature of “Oh, God!” and the like?
How dare you suggest that my emotions are not genuine! Your moderator duties have clearly swollen your head if you think you can justifiably claim that I had an agenda and didn’t call him/her “assholish” solely because I genuinely believe he/she is “assholish”! Magellan01 rejected my citation not because of the words you and others have so dishonestly and unfairly put in his mouth, but merely because they agreed with my arguments! That, oh most high and mighty, is assholish, even if you want to pretend otherwise.
Really? I was following your lead in that: in some thread or other, you criticized a poster for linking to a pit thread that challenged another poster he was responding to.
This is most emphatically true. In fact, part of my argument was derived from this fact – that references to God were by far the rule rather than the exception – that this made it effectively impossible that the godlessness of the Federal Constitution was anything other than deliberate.
Yes, and that supports your assertion that references to God were deliberately left out of the constitution. But it undermines your assertion that this was in order to set up a secular state. It certainly set up a secular federal government, but the in the days of the founders it was the states that had authority over most issues in the daily lives of the citizens (true even to a large extent today, when the federal government is immessurably more powerful than in the early days of the Republic). And state governments were often not secular, without being in conflict with the secular federal government.
You appear to have misread that exchange.
Poster A was Pitted by Poster B.
Some time later, in a wholly separate thread from the one that inspired the pitting, Poster C provided a link to Poster A’s thread with the claim that it provided “evidence” in opposition to Poster B’s statements. The thread was a general pitting that was quite old by that time. Had Poster C linked to a post that he had made within that thread that directly addressed the argument at that point or if he had “called out” Poster B with a new Pit thread and a link to his OP, there would not have been a problem. Poster C was admonished for linking to a separate thread, already aging, where the OP (the linked post) did not actually address the issues, but merely served as a blanket condemnation of Poster B.
FACT? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Go back and read what you provided from Jacoby. There is no reference to what the framers thought about inserting or omitting “God” at the time that they created the Constitution. There is not even a reference dating to the time that the Constitution was written that even indicates that they discussed the issue.
Specifically:
This is simply not true. The only controversies mentioned by Jacoby are those that arose among people not at the Convention after the document was submitted to the states. At that time, there was no way that the framers could “call back” the document to insert God into it. (Heck, they could not even recall it to insert the Bill of Rights, having to use proposed future amendments as a lure to get enough votes to ratify the Constitution–and we do have some evidence that they discussed some of those issues during the convention, unlike the God issue for which we have no evidence.) The fact that the document was attacked (or defended) after it was submitted to the states simply says nothing about the deliberations that took place during the creation of the document.
You are letting your emotions create statements that have never been made. That is just silly.
I did not claim that they intended to put God into the Constitution. Read what I actually said. Your argument is that they deliberately excluded God from the Constitution. Fine. They may well have done so. However, you have no evidence (diaries, newspaper accounts, letters, or other documents written in the summer of 1787) that the failure to mention God was a deliberate act. On the other hand, when a group of the framers sat down to sell the Constitution to the rest of the country, on a couple of occasions, they did, indeed, make reference to God. This does not mean that they “really” wanted to put God into the Constitution and somehow forgot. What it does indicate is that in a sales pitch to adopt the Constitution, they were willing to invoke God in the discussion. Given no evidence (documents, remember?) that demonstrate an intent to exclude God, their inclusion of God in their sales pitch weakens (does not destroy) your claim that the omission of God had to be deliberate. It is a minor point, but one that is not improved (or disproved) by building a strawman to attack it.
Yeeesh! Just call up the Federalist Papers and do a search on “god.” Wouldn’t that be easier than wildly speculating and hurting your position? HINT: You are mistaken.
Why do you continually attack things I have not said?
I am sure your emotions are genuine enough. I simply find it less than admirable that you let your (very genuine) emotions prompt you to initiate a Pit thread two days after a thread has gone quiescent for the purpose of seeking to rile up other posters to your side after failing to persuade magellan01 with your arguments. Even the title of this thread displays more (honest) emotion than fact: magellan01 never accused you of fabricating your arguments: he pointed out, as I have, that you have not provided the evidence (documents, letters, diaries, newspapers, etc. written in 1787) that demonstrate that the omission of God from the Constitution was a deliberate act by the convention and not one of happenstance. (With all the (non-existent) evidence so far provided, it might have been Madison, alone, controlling the writing of the text and eliminating the typical “providence” and “blessings” clauses and no one noticed because they were focused on the meat and not on the sort of “ceremonial deism” that was typically inserted without much thought in other documents. That (invented) scenario would result in a “godless” Constitution through the efforts of a single participant without reflecting the thoughts of any of the other framers.)
that was typically inserted without much thought in other documents. That (invented) scenario would result in a “godless” Constitution through the efforts of a single participant without reflecting the thoughts of any of the other framers.)