# Did he just call me a fabricator or just that anything I say is always wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 8, 2005, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302 "2005-10-08T11:25:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/1 "2005-10-08T11:25:05Z")
In the GD thread: [Reciting Pledge of Allegiance in public schools ruled unconstitutional. Discuss.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=334973), 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6649427&postcount=567), 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: > [@Susan Jacoby](#): > > In their seventies, with a friendship that had survived serious political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with satisfaction on what they both considered their greatest achievement – their role in establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views. … > > If large numbers of Americans had not been familiar with both the language and philosophy of the Enlightenment, the secularist revolutionary leaders would not have used those concepts in the nation’s founding documents. … > > In 1779, Jefferson proposed a bill that would guarantee complete legal equality for citizens of all religions, and no religion, in his home state of Virginia. Jefferson’s was the first plan in any of the thirteen states to call for complete separation of civil and religious authority, and seven years of fierce debate and political bargaining would pass before a version of his bill was enacted into law… It is impossible to overstate the importance of Virginia’s 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, for, much to the dismay of religious conservatives, it would become the template for the secularist provisions of the federal Constitution. … > > In America, where the great debate over the federal Constitution was just beginning, Virginia’s law was hailed by secularists as a model for the new national government and denounced by those who favored the semi-theocratic systems still prevailng in most states. As the Constitutional Convention opened in 1787, with George Washington as its president, legally entrenched privileges for Protestant Christianity were the rule rather than the exception in most states. The convention could have modeled the federal Constitution after the Massachusetts constitution of 1780, which extended equal protection of laws, and the right to hold office, only to Christians. And not all Christians: Catholics were permitted to hold public office onlhy if they took a special oath renouncing papal authority. … > > But the framers of the Consitution chose Virginia, not the other states, with their crazy quilts of obeisance to a more restrictive religious past, as the model for the new nation. The Constitution is a secularist document because of what it says and **what it does not say**. [emphasis mine]. … As a North Carolina minister put it during his state’s debate on ratification of the Constitution, the abolition of religious tests for officeholders amounted to “an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us”. … > > The debate over the secular provisions of the Constitution did not break down along predictable lines… > > Without downgrading the importance of either the establishment clause or the Constitutional ban on religious tests for officeholders, one can make a strong case that the omission of one word – God – played an even more important role in the construction of a secular foundation for the new government. The Constitution’s silence on the deity broke not only with culturally and historically distant precedents but with proximate and recent American precedents – most notably the 1781 Articles of Confederation, which acknowledged the benefience of “the Great Governor of the World.” With its refusal to invoke any form of divine sanction, even the vague Deistic “Providence”, the Constitution went even farther than Virginia’s religious freedom act in separating religion from government. … > > But the secularism of the Constitution did produce substantial controversy during the ratification debates conducted by state conventions. The framers were denounced by religious traditionalists both the Constitution’s ban on religious tests for public office and for its failure to acknowledge God as the ultimate governmental authority. The opposition to article 6 frequently took an anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic tone. At the Massachusetts convention, one speaker warned that unless the chief executive was required to take a religious oath, “a Turk, a Jew, a Roman Catholic, and what is worst of all, a Universalist, may be President of the United States.” … > > **But the omission of God elicited the most inflamed rhetoric.** The Reverend John M. Mason, a fiery New York Federalist who did not share John Adam’s views, declared the absence of God in the Constitution “an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate.” If the American citizens should prove as irreligious as the Constitution, the Reverand Mr. Mason warned, “we will have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck.” Now, we come to the crux of this Pit thread… In his response, **magellan01** wrote: > [@magellan01](#): > > Thanks for all your typing, but sorry, I do not consider someone making the same arguement as you as a valid cite for this claim by you. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/2 "2005-10-08T12:04:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/3 "2005-10-08T12:24:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/4 "2005-10-08T12:54:41Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > 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. On important point of debate is separating factual issues (such as the > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Miss\_Violaceous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Miss\_Violaceous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miss_Violaceous)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/5 "2005-10-08T14:03:57Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/6 "2005-10-08T15:13:21Z")
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: > [@](#): > > Despite that lengthy quotation, you have not provided any evidence to support your premise. You have, instead, pointed us toward someone who shares your belief. We do not yet know whether there is evidence to support that theory. All we do know is that Susan Jacoby appears to agree with you. Why does she agree? Who knows, because what you quoted doesn’t tell us. 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/7 "2005-10-08T15:18:15Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > 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. 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!” Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/8 "2005-10-08T15:31:17Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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!” 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! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/9 "2005-10-08T17:14:40Z")
What is a cite? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/10 "2005-10-08T17:23:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In short: the cite doesn’t prove the matter. But it’s evidence in favor of it. Precisely. **Campion** , your response to **ambushed** ’s cite have the seed of a legitimate rebuttal in them; **magellan** ’s response did not. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/11 "2005-10-08T20:44:08Z")
> [@Ms. Jacoby via abushed](#): > > In America, where the great debate over the federal Constitution was just beginning, Virginia’s law was hailed by secularists as a model for the new national government and denounced by those who favored the semi-theocratic systems still prevailng in most states. > . . . > But the secularism of the Constitution did produce substantial controversy during the ratification debates conducted by state conventions. The framers were denounced by religious traditionalists both the Constitution’s ban on religious tests for public office and for its failure to acknowledge God as the ultimate governmental authority. 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/12 "2005-10-08T20:49:58Z")
(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.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/13 "2005-10-08T21:59:28Z")
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](http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm) shows that state governments were not so secular as the Federal government: > [@](#): > > \ > > We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. > > \ > > Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. > > Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. > > \ > > Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law. 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. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/14 "2005-10-09T01:47:52Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > 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. 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. > [@Campion](#): > > That quotation reiterated **ambushed** ’s theory, but makes plain that it is just a theory. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/15 "2005-10-09T02:40:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. 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. > [@tomndebb](#): > > 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** 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. > [@tomndebb](#): > > 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? **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? > [@tomndebb](#): > > 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). 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. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/16 "2005-10-09T02:42:14Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > I merely suggests that the Framers were unanimous in their decision to omit God. That was supposed to be “It merely suggests…” ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/17 "2005-10-09T02:46:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > (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.) 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. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/18 "2005-10-09T02:51:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/19 "2005-10-09T06:00:15Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302/20 "2005-10-09T07:21:20Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > 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. 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. * * * > [@ambushed](#): > > 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. 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: > [@](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > There were references to God in **other** documents, so the Framers intended to place a reference in the Constitution?? 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. > [@](#): > > 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? 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. > [@](#): > > How _dare_ you suggest that my emotions are not genuine! 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.) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-he-just-call-me-a-fabricator-or-just-that-anything-i-say-is-always-wrong/325302.md?page=2)