I don’t recall Jefferson or Adams being present in Philadelphia in 1787. Perhaps my memory is rusty…
I have to agree with tomndebb on this one, at least partially. I think it would be highly difficult to prove the Constitution was created as a godless document deliberately.
However I think we can all agree it is godless, whatever some of the Founders may have intended, the fact is it is clearly spelled out that the Federal government is supposed to be a completely secular creature. And so debates about why the word “God” never appeared in the U.S. Constitution really don’t seem to be of any substantive value to me. Even if somewhere there was minor usage of the word God, it wouldn’t change the fact other parts of the Constitution clearly specify a secular government, and it wouldn’t change history or the day-to-day functions of government or our lives one little bit.
I’m not really sure why there is so much vehemence on this issue, I think some of the related issues that sort of “surround” this one are much more interesting. Like for example exactly how “secular” are we supposed to be? It’s obvious there’s to be no endorsement of religion, and no official state church. Are we allowed to have references to god in public monuments? What exactly is “endorsement of religion?” These are actual issues that come up in the here and now and that can be debated ad infinitum.
They both certainly were not. And many considered that a good thing, because Jefferson and Adams were both seen as radicals by many.
However Adams and Jefferson both were highly influential political figures. And both of them had some pretty notable government texts under their belt that most certainly influenced the U.S. Constitution.
Well, in fairness, the issue comes up because one of the justifications usually raised in favor of allowing references by government to “God” is that our forefathers were willing to refer to God so often within their official government capacities. So, if the Constitution is deliberately “godless” (whatever that means), then it can be used as a counter-argument, sort of a “this is what they really meant by the First Amendment.”
Of course I’m not sure anyone here has said that the United States founded itself on the Christian religion. Maybe there’s something I’m missing here?
Again, even if the constitution was deliberately godless that wouldn’t necessarily say that the founders intended for it to be unconstitutional for government to make ANY reference to religion. And even if they did, we have a living constitution shaped by amendments, interpretations by all branches of government, and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. And there is a general consensus that you can use the word “God” (see: currency.)
Of course additionally a Treaty with Tripoli isn’t a definitive statement by any means.
It would most certainly be a poor argument if we did not have the presence of state constitutions that DID contain references to God, and many contemporaneous documents that contained reference to God, and the evidence of controversy over government documents that did NOT contain references to God. If we were to look at a series of similar fossil animals that had six legs and one of them had only five, we might reasonably look for REASONS why that animal had only five legs.
Now, in the case of the Constitution we might reasonably assume that there is some reason why it’s so lonesome in its godless and all, and the one that tromps around like an 800-pound gorilla when you think about such a thing is that the people who did it, did it deliberately. I mean, it’s hard to imagine so many of the leading lights of the time – oh, for lack of a better term, let’s call them “the Framers” sitting around in the Constitutional Convention Center and going, “Dude! We COMPLETELY baked on the God thing! There’s, like, no God in this paper at ALL! The mullahs are going to, like, freak!”
One might even suppose that these myterious “Framers” whose existence I somehow how adduced from the existence of the document excluded mention of God in all but the most nebulous of terms because they were well aware that if they mentioned a God which might be considered somehow more like one mullah’s brand of god than another’s they would have one happy mullah and a thousand unhappy mullahs, all of them telling their congregations to oppose ratifying the Constitution.
Now that’s just a bunch of wild-eyed speculating, certainly not PROOF of the sort TomnDebb require, but it’s pretty consistent with the historical behavior of mullahs as a group.
Now, you may wish to theorize that I meant instead to imply that the Constitution, like most great documents, somehow EVOLVED from earlier, simpler documents without human intervention … perhaps a grocery list or a horse parking ticket. If so, I wish you well in your endeavor. It does not seem credible even to me. Frankly, bringing the point up has a certain tastiness all its own. I think we can say without fear of contradiction that this has been a mouth-watering discussion.
I feel hungry all of a sudden.
And which controversies over which documents would those be?
It should, of course, be noted that I have never doubted the secular nature of the Constitution and my particular insistence on very close proof is a response to ambushed engaging in a quite heated exchange on the topic in one thread, then opening a Pit thread on the topic, and finally opening this thread, all for the apparent purpose of getting confirmation of his own belief that the framers have been conclusively shown to have made a deliberate effort to exclude God.
With all that excitement, I would just like to see the conclusive proof.
That really has little to do with the constitution, but the general progression of the legal profession in this country, legislative acts, and actions by the ABA.
Why? I’m very religious and I fully believe in the separation of church and state.
There’s, coincidentally a ordained minister on ESPN.com who is from the group “Americans for the Separation of Church and State.” The general discussion is about coach-led prayer in public high school football games.
His basic arguments are:
-
You can easily be Christian and respect the laws of the land, and he feels the law clearly prohibits this.
-
When he prays, he prays to a specific God. He certainly does not and will not pray to a generic God. And the last thing he would want or need is prayer from a state-paid official to some “generic god.”
Which is a possible “compromise” position and also what some say is “really” happening, that this coach isn’t necessarily praying to the Christian god and this his “prayers” aren’t even necessarily religious in nature.
No, but Madison was, and I think Jefferson’s influence was felt quite strongly. Madison got the Virginia act passed also.
You haven’t heard fundamentalists claim that America is a Christian Nation? I think that’s where the vehemance around this issue comes from.
I believe the Treaty of Tripoli was passed unanimously by Congress. At the time there was a bit of a religious revival, but I suppose much of Congress knew original intent up close and personal.
That’s a textbook example of a straw man, Tom. Be ashamed. No one ever claimed that the Constitution contained one or more references to God but later someone went and “deliberately eliminated” them! Instead, the fact is that they deliberately chose not to insert any such references in the first place, else they would be there still.
The fact that this was a deliberate choice is demonstrated by deductive logic if nothing else, which in all realms must be considered compelling. The fact that “God”, “Creator”, “Providence” or other pseudonym was deliberately chosen to be included in most other early American documents and thus the only expectation is that the U.S. Constitution would also refer to a deity using one term or another. It was just about brand new – and still quite radical – for a constitution to exclude all references to God, so logic and common sense demonstrates that such an exclusion was deliberate.
Given that you are an exceptionally intelligent and well-educated person, Tom, (and you know that’s not flattery since I argue with you often), surely you must understand that the burden of proof in an argument doesn’t go automatically to the person making the positive claim – as is often wrongly believed by the average person – but instead the burden goes to the advocate of the position that is most radical or unlikely. And given that the evidence I’ve quoted very strongly supports the common sense and logically obvious and most compelling position that the absence of a reference to God was a conscious choice, it is YOU that bears the full burden of proof that such absence was accidental (or otherwise non-deliberate, but I don’t know what else that can mean other than “accidental”.
It would not be at all difficult to prove to us that it was accidental: cite for us something from, say, a letter between one or more of the Framers or a passage in one of the Federalists saying something like: “Oh, shit! We forgot about Good Ol’ God!” Remember, Tom, the burden is now on you.
I contend that if their decision to exclude God was accidental – a mere oversight – the Framers could and would have corrected their mistake quite easily by modifying their work and re-distributing it to the States for ratification or by some other means, such as appearing before one of the states’ ratification boards and introducing their original will back into the document. Tom has elsewhere argued that the fact the Framers didn’t add a reference to God into the Constitution Mark II in response to all the extreme pressure to do so given the considerable ratification-level debate over the Godlessness of the Constitution means only that they were forbidden from doing so. That, my friends, seems to me to be utter bullshit. Tom’s telling us that it was effectively impossible for the Framers to have corrected their oversight in any way, but this only adds another point to his heavy burden of proof. As Evil Captor says, “good luck with that!”
All I mean – and I’m surprised that anyone could think I meant anything else judging by the context – by the word “Godless” in this thread is that the U.S. Constitution contains no reference to God. Since there is no reference to God in the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Constitution is, by definition, Godless. That’s all I meant. I can’t accept that anywhere in my writings here is the idea that “Godless” means something akin to “atheist” or “unbelief”.
Ladies and gentlemen, the extreme religionist Liberal (formerly Libertarian, so don’t be confused by the name change), is arguing against the Godlessness of the U.S. Constitution by referencing…
… wait for it…
the date.
How’s that for a sound argument?
With respect, you are mistaken. Allow me to re-quote from my sources:
And THAT, my friends, is compelling evidence for the deliberateness of omitting God from the Constitution.
You’re mistaken again. See above. Unless you want to deny that John Adams was a Founding Father. Or unless you’re going to hang you hat on a very stupid argument from timing.
Holy Bob, man! Re-read my citations in the first two posts here! Do you need glasses or something?
That is one of the most laughable things I’ve ever read!! The argument between natural selection and evolution versus ID is whether or not nature was designed. Yet you’re trying to tell us that whether or not a document that by all rights and expectations should have contained a reference to God but didn’t is comparable to whether or not the document was designed!
MODERATOR: I made a big mistake in Post # 2 that I’d greatly appreciate if you repaired.
I listed the authors as: “Cornell professor of history R. Laurence Moore, and Cornell professor of government Richard J. Schwartz”
This is quite wrong. The correct listing of the authors is: “Cornell professor of history R. Laurence Moore, and Cornell professor of government Isaac Kramnick”
(Kramnick is a Richard J. Schwartz Professor of Government at Cornell.)
Thanks.
How would you know? You’ve never offered any evidence or sound logic. You’ve simply denied them both quite arbitrarily.
Wrong again. See my reply above to Ravenman.
Then you must prove it was accidental. As I explained in an earlier response to you, you have the primary burden of proof. It is a fallacy to argue, as most people do, that the burden of proof lies primarily or solely on the person making the positive claim, since any positive claim can be made a negative claim and any negative claim can be made positive. No, such a position would demand that, for example, those claiming that George H.W. Bush is a human being (as opposed to those who claim he is an extraterrestrial reptilian) would bear the primary burden of proof, and that’s ridiculous. No, the burden of proof falls on the party making the more far-fetched argument or the party arguing against presumptive logic. That, sir, is you. You have to prove that the absence of a reference to any god in the U.S. Constitution was accidental. Otherwise, as I made plain previously, you are ignoring evidence and logic.
Since it is a FACT that no reference to any god exists there, logic tells us that it was either deliberate or accidental. Since nearly all other constitutions, as well as all (well, perhaps just nearly all, since I do not have a catalog) founding documents do make reference to God or gods, logic tells us that this document would very probably also make such a reference also. The fact that this was/is such an extremely far-reaching and vitally important founding document tells us that logically, a huge amount of detailed attention would be given to the precise wording of this document. Thus, logic tells us that this extremely far-reaching and vitally important founding document would be minutely searched and scanned and considered for both the presence and the absence of statements the Framers wished to make. It is laughably absurd to argue – as you have done whether you admit it or not – that these incredibly wise and careful men inadvertently left out something as mind-bogglingly important to the majority of the populace as a reference to God. It is an extremely laughable, insane position you hold, and you must prove it’s true.
No one is confused by my name change. And yes, penned directly onto the document is the declarative statement that it is the year of “Our Lord”. A mere convention used almost without aforethought, you argue? Maybe, but then so is the use of “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, and so would be practically any reference to God if it were anywhere else in the Constitution. (All this is setting aside, of course, that “religion” constitutes at least an indirect reference unless you hold atheism to be a religion.) So while you’re imagining yourself standing on a balcony addressing your ladies and gentlemen, you can go ahead and explain to them why your premise is still true if the writers did not bother to excoriate God from the Constitution’s declaration of authenticity.
Talk about straw men, dishonesty, and abuse of the language! The phrase “eliminate every reference” in the context of people creating a document does not mean “remove existing references.” It simply means that they would have made sure that at any point where God might have been invoked or inseerted, they did not insert (or eliminated) that word or phrase. This is truly a waste of all our time.
[quote=ambushed]
[quote=Jacoby]
Writing in 1786, just before the federal Constitution was written, he took it as given that political constitutions were wholly secular enterprises free of godly involvement or inspiration. “The United States of America,” he wrote, marks “the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature.” The architects of American governments never “had interviews with the gods or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven.” Government, Adams insisted, is “contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” [ Adam’s view of constitution making is also caught up in the secular ideals of the Age of Reason. “Neither the people nor their conventions, committees, or subcommittees,” he wrote, “considered legislation in any other light than as ordinary arts and sciences, only more important… The people were universally too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice… [G]overnments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.”
And THAT, my friends, is compelling evidence for the deliberateness of omitting God from the Constitution.
My understanding of the Constitution is: that we avoid a theocratic government, thus preventing a government such as was in Afghanistan, Iran, etc. We do not need a Christian Taliban as some would dictate( if they could). To me it protects the minority so no one can push their beliefs on another(or non beliefs) As long as no one is forced to follow a certain set of beliefs.
Those who argue that the 10 commandments be placed in public places or their particular beliefs be in the forefront are so afraid of losing their faith they feel every one doesn’t agree with them and secretly think that maybe they are wrong ans need assurance from the law. No one that I know of is being kept from practicing what they believe; If they looked at the first Christians they were in the minority and they weren’t worried about the fact that not everyone believed the same as they.
How wise our fore fathers were!!!
Monavis