In fact, Ambushed, given that the writers were, as you say to Tom, “incredibly wise and careful men” who didn’t do anything inadvertently, that means that they cited “Our Lord” deliberately, doesn’t it?
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 inserted, they did not insert (or eliminated) that word or phrase. This is truly a waste of all our time.
You realize, of course (well, you obviously do not, but the rest of us can see it) that this is the first evidence that you have presented to support your claim that references to god were omitted. All the rest of your long and wearying posts have relied on appeals to authority (the judgement of Ms. Jacoby), irrelevant side issues (the no religious test clause), and bits of circumstantial evidence–evidence that has been appealing, but not conclusive. This statement by Adams is the first actual bit of documentation from the founders regarding the omission of god from the country.
(Of course, you are quoting Adams, who was not at the Convention, without providing the context of his remarks, but at least you have begun to grasp the notion of actually supplying primary evidence to support your claim.)
Adams was not at the Convention.
The timing is not stupid; it is crucial.
Based on your claim that the attacks on the godlessness of the Constitution demonstrate that it was deliberate, you must also agree that attacks on legislation and court rulings that guard against discrimination against homosexuals is a deliberate effort to cary out the “Gay Agenda.” After all, various preachers have attacked those rulings after the fact, so the preachers must be correct in their claims on intentionality. That is the “logic” you are using.
You really do not understand how thios sort of discussion works, do you? You are the one arguing in the affirmative, the burden is on you.
Everyone recoignizes that the word god does not appear in the document. There are various explanations possible for this phenomenon. I am open to any of them, both deliberate and accidental. You insist that it must have been deliberate, not accidental. That places you in the position of affirming your belief; it is up to you to demonstrate the truth of your claim.
There is no place in this discussion for deliberate ad hominem displays, particularly ones that are intended to be insulting and are irrelevant to the discussion.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
I invite you to go read the Articles of Confederation from 1781. The single vague reference to a “Governor” is employed in a single paragraph after the end of the document in which they simply note that they convention was called for the purpose of drawing up the articles. There is no corresponding paragraph in the Constitution describing the convening of a committee, so there is no place in the Constitution into which to insert such a vague reference.
That looks pretty accidental, to me. Fail to insert one unnecessary paragraph that happens to contain the one vague refereence of ceremonial deism and the divine drops right out of the document–six years earlier.
I am not arguing that it had to be accidental. I am demonstrating that your hyperbolic cries that a thing is obvious and incontrovertible are overblown.
Ambushed, I’ll give you an analogy to clarify.
The Laws of Soccer require that a person have “deliberately” handled the ball for a foul to be called and a free kick awarded.
If I, as referee, see a player move his arm up towards a ball and strike the ball with it, knowing that the ball was going to be there, I can infer his effort was deliberate without him admitting so.
But, if he does NOT raise his hand into the path of the ball, I would be hard pressed to say that he “deliberately” failed to raise his hand. He might have deliberately left it at his side. He might not have; it might not have occurred to him to move the arm at all. In such a case, if the ball strikes the arm, I cannot make an assumption that the arm was deliberately left there to be able to interfere.
Similarly, we have a document devoid of mention of God directly (other than in the date, which, despite your scathing effort to belittle the commentary, is a very valid point). We cannot know this was deliberate unless we have some evidence on the issue. Given that we have extensive notes of the debates of the Convention, given that we have oodles of secondary materials from primary and secondary participants, if there actually was a deliberate effort by the drafters to avoid the mention of God in the document, there should be evidence of that fact. Can’t guarantee it, in which case all that can be said is that the evidence is inconclusive.
You have made an affirmative assertion. You offer a rationale that lacks logic (absence ='s deliberate action). You need support for your affirmative assertion. Offer evidence.
You’ll note that tomndebb isn’t arguing that the lack of evidence would be conclusive proof (or even persuasive proof) that the absence of mention of God is unintentional. He, at least, understands the meaning of a lack of evidence.
I think it a mistake to confuse references to the “god” of the enlightenment (“creator” in the DoI) with big g “God”.
[QUOTE=ambushed]
With respect, you are mistaken. Allow me to re-quote from my sources:
Yes, I understand that some critics of the Constitution would have preferred to have a religous test. That point is agreed upon. But I understand that you’re arguing that the delegates to the constitutional convention went further, and intentionally designed not just a secular government, but an atheistic constitution. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I hope to get a clear response from you to one key question: **Is there any evidence from the Constitutional Convention (not the debates on ratification of the constitution, but from the convention itself) that details any debate on the extent which God should be mentioned in the Constitution, other than the clause on the religous test? **
If there is no such evidence – neither side of this debate seems to have made reference to it yet – then that fact bears acknowledgement. Again, I’m not terribly familiar with the history of the Constitutional Convention, so I’m interested in this debate from more of an academic perspective, rather than arguing one view or another. If someone had started a thread arguing the exact opposite point as yours, I’d be asking the same questions.
That’s certainly a good reflection of Adams’ thoughts, and I do indeed consider him a Founding Father for his role in the revolution and his service as President, but I understand that he did not participate in the drafting of the Constitution. Am I wrong?
Do you realize that your high emotions in this debate doesn’t actually work to convince people? I would hope that we could dial back the emotions a bit and discuss this with cool heads. And I had lasik surgery several years ago, so my eyes are just fine.
I guess the irony is lost on you. But I thought Evil Captor’s response on parking tickets and such was delightful.
Possibly, but keep in mind that although a theist cannot be a deist, a deist can be a theist. At any rate, there can be no confusion as to Who is referenced by “Our Lord” in the last sentence of the document. It wasn’t King George. Now, Ambushed dismisses this because it is a date; and yet, he maintains that the Founders were wise and careful men who wrote nothing without thoughtful deliberation. If he wishes to dismiss the notation of “Our Lord”, then he must retract at least that assertion.
Oh come on now, that was the common way dates were written then and remains even today. It is a serious stretch to call that referencing God. I, an athiest, say “God bless you” when someone sneezes and write A.D. after a date. It doesn’t mean that I am referencing God, just that I am using the common saying to express an idea. If the Constitution had said this Thursday the 17th of September would that be referencing Thor?
I meant only to say I was making what I would consider a reasonable conjecture, but did not have any evidence, such as an authenticated historical document entitled “We Din’t Put No God In the Constitution And Why” by the Framers. Frankly, I am surprised and a little suspicious that no record of any debate on whether or not the Constitution should be a secular document exists, given that so many of the delegates were quite handy with a quill pen and a sheet of foolscap.
That said, I can’t think of any halfway credible explanation for the Constitution’s godlessness other than deliberate omission. And I think the reasonable explanation for that is that they deliberately excluded it because they didn’t want to empower religion in the Constitution. They were not seeking to promote atheism, but they were after a secular federal government. Would that our current leaders were half so wise.
I addressed that argument pre-emptively. (By the way, I think that most atheists write CE after a date nowadays.) But again, you must bear in mind the argument that Ambushed is making: that the wise and careful deliberative Founders made a conscious effort to exclude any and all references to God. Clearly, they did not. It might have been a common way to write a date, but a main premise that Ambushed holds is that these were not common men, and they were not writing a common document. How is it that they deliberately poured over it with a magnifying glass determined to rid it of every vestige of deity, but suddenly screwed up at the last second? “And now we shall affix the date, but using ordinary methods rather than the inspired and bravely new methods we’ve used so far.” Ambushed cannot have it both ways. Either the Founders did nothing inadvertently and therefore referenced God deliberately, or else they were not perfectly meticulous and therefore referenced God inadvertently.
I, an atheist, do this also; to me, it’s just common courtesy and says nothing about my beliefs (much like holding a door for someone is decidedly not me attempting to reinforce gender roles).
I never really considered the implications until my wife asked me if I felt it was being hypocritical. I still do it, just because I think not to is the type of pedantic inanity that causes so much unnecessary friction between people. The same can be said about removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance or “In God We Trust” from money; yes, I think that these phrases should be removed, but I’m not gonna get my panties in a wad about it.
I doubt that CE is used commonly outside of archeology/history. I can’t think of any document I have recieved or for that matter anywhere outside of ancient history books where I have seen CE. Even still, CE references Jesus as much as A.D. does. There is nothing significant about the birth of Jesus that would justify it as the Common Era.
My point is that writing The Year of Our Lord is not accurately described as a reference to God. It was simply the common way to write the date and does not necessarily mean a reference to God. Just as Thursday can not be accurately described as an homage to Thor anymore, A.D./Year of Our Lord can’t be accurately described as soley religious.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I was wondering why this question was driving so many people crazy, but this may be it. The lack of the word god in the constitution does not make it an atheistic document.
It would be nice to have a smoking gun, but none exists. I don’t agree that the lack of a concluding paragraph makes the omission of God accidental - the preamble would be a good place to put it. I also don’t agree that the fact that no one admitted to the deliberate omission of God is evidence that it was not deliberate - the goal was to get the Constitution ratified, and to have a religious debate. Is there any evidence that a supporter of the Constitution apologized for this oversight (even if not considering it important enough for a revision?) The quotes given seem to say otherwise.
This is of no legal bearing. The legally important clause, the ban on religious tests, is clearly intentional.
And, BTW Lib, I don’t use CE, except sometimes in board posts. I certainly don’t object to it in legal documents and the like. I was exposed to this in Hebrew School, so I actually cared more about this usage before I was an atheist. I think we can agree that the writers deliberately did not make the US a Christian state, so the use of AD is just bundled with the date, and has no hidden meaning.
But that’s what I said. It indeed was a common way to write the date — made common, in fact, principally by the prosyletic conquests of Charlemagne. But the question that I asked remains unaddressed. Why would uncommon men, chiefly characterized by unprecedented wisdom and extraordinary care in acting with full deliberation, use something so common without so much as giving it a thought? Other enlightenment thinkers were already attacking the “Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi” connotations of the phrase. The French made a huge deal out of it by drawing up a whole new calendar after their revolution. Why were our Founders so mousey as to scribble a whimpering Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven, when they could have emblazened a revolutionary First Year of Our Republic? The fact is that they used both, noting that it was the twelth year of Independence. They were therefore well aware of what their guideposts were. Again, the argument that I am making is not that it is an explicit reference to God, but that if it is not, then the conclusion cannot be drawn that the Founders deliberately refused to mention God. After all, other years were mentioned without referencing the Year of our Lord (as in Article I, Section 9). If it was such a common practice, why wasn’t it used elsewhere in the document? Why is it used exclusively in Article VII? In other words, Ambushed’s argument doesn’t hold water. There was no intentional exorcism of God from the Constitution. Reference to Him simply was not necessary. God wasn’t mentioned in the Constitution for the same reason He isn’t mentioned in a doctor’s prescription or a cell phone user’s manual. It was not a religious statement one way or the other.
Please see my posts to Treis. I don’t think it has a hidden meaning either. But that fact forces the conclusion that the Constitution is not deliberately Godless in the sense that God is denied, but merely in the sense that God is not relevant. It’s much like the difference between immoral and amoral, or between uninterested and disinterested (all in their classical senses).
No one is saying that the Constitution is atheistic in the sense of denying god. The OP, and Jacoby, and others it seems are saying that it is secular. The debate about this during ratification was that many thought it improper to consider god to be irrelevant. Even the current debate is between those who say god is irrelevant in government and those who say god is. That’s what the pledge debate is about really.
If you believe the writers of the Constitution deliberately found god to be irrelevant, (and I think that is a very fair conclusion) you are agreeing with the OP. There is zero evidence that they are anti-god. Anti-religion, anti-clergy, yes, anti-god, no.
The debate in the OP was originally spawned by an opinion I had offered in a previous thread, which the OP (ambushed) took issue with. My theory was that the U.S. Constitution did not have the mention of God one might have expected (based on the Declaration of Independence) because it was a practical document, one designed not to espouse philosophy, but to enumerate laws. The OP (ambushed) took great issue with this, telling me that it was “utterly ridiculous”. He then added “No, my friend, the absense of a Nod to God in the Constitution was extremely deliberate and was fought over tooth and nail!..”
My response to this was to go back to Madison’s notes on the Convention, for if there really was all this fighting—“tooth and nail”—surely Madison would have recorded it. I found that Madison’s notes had the following mentions:
Creator: 1 mention
God: 2 mentions
Religion: 6 mentions
This information was supplied to the OP (ambushed). He did not comment on what I supplied, but instead supplied the quotes from Susan Jacoby, which I maintain (and as some of you have opined) do NOT substantiate his claim of the founders fighting “tooth and nail”.
In reading this current thread it seems that very little attention has been given to the debates of the Continental Convention, where the great debates concerning the document were held. Subsequently I went back and looked at the notes of ALL participants I could find who took them. It seems to me if there was all this fighting over whether to include or exclude God from the document, that it would be found here. I found seven participants who took notes: Alexander Hamilton, Rufus King, Major William Pierce, Dr. James McHenry, William Paterson, Robert Yates, James Madison.
I searched each of their notes during the Convention, from May 14, through September 17, for the words: religion, God, or Creator. I think that if there was a heated discussion over including or excluding religion from the document that they would contain at least one of these words. Hamilton, Paterson, and Pierce recorded zero mentions of the three words. The grand total of all mentions are:
Creator: 1 mention
God: 3 mentions
Religion: 10 mentions
I supply those mentions here, in chronological order, with enough context to allow you to glean what was being discussed. The only time religion is part of the discussion as it pertains to the document they were creating is regarding the issue of religious test for office.
June 6 — Recorded by James Madison
“…Respect for character is always diminished in proportion to the number among whom the blame or praise is to be divided. Conscience, the only remaining tie, is known to be inadequate in individuals: In large numbers, little is to be expected from it. Besides, Religion itself may become a motive to persecution & oppression. -These observations are verified by the Histories of every Country antient & modern. In Greece & Rome the rich & poor, the creditors & debtors, as well as the patricians & plebians alternately oppressed each other with equal unmercifulness. What a source of oppression was the relation between the parent cities of Rome, Athens & Carthage, & their respective provinces: the former possessing the power, & the latter being sufficiently distinguished to be separate objects of it? Why was America so justly apprehensive of Parliamentary injustice? Because G. Britain…” – James Madison
June 19 — Recorded by Robert Yates
“…All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right…” – Alexander Hamilton
June 28 — Recorded by Rufus King
“…They apprehend combinations between Mass. Penn. & Virginia against the other States. But there is nothing in Religion, manners, modes of thinking or Habits of any sort, manufactures or course of Business, commerce or natural Productions which would create a common interest or Prejudice between these … - James Madison
June 28 — Recorded by Robert Yates
“…but no one can say that the large states were wrong in refusing this concession. Nor can the gentleman’s reasoning apply to the present powers of congress…Where is the probability of a combination? What the inducements? Where is the similarity of customs, manners, or religion? If there possibly can be a diversity of interest, it is the case of the three large States. Their situation is remote, their trade different. The staple of Massachusetts is fish… - James Madison, June 28
June 28 — Recorded by James Madison
“…I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it….” – Benjamin Franklin
June 28 — Recorded by James Madison
“…In point of situation they could not have been more effectually separated from each other by the most jealous citizen of the most jealous State. In point of manners, Religion, and the other circumstances which sometimes beget affection between different communities, they were not more assimilated than the other States.- In point of the staple productions they were as dissimilar as any three other States in the Union. The Staple of Masts. was fish, of Pa. flower, of Va. Tobo…”
July 2 — Recorded by James Madison
“Mr. Govr. MORRIS. thought a Come. adviseable as the Convention had been equally divided. …Something more then is now wanted. 1. the checking branch must have a personal interest in checking the other branch… In Religion the Creature is apt to forget its Creator. That it is otherwise in political affairs, the late debates here are an unhappy proof. The aristocratic body, should be as independent & as firm as the democratic… If the 2d. branch is to be dependent we are better without it …”
July 7 — Recorded by Rufus King
2) “Unless we can agree with others in establishing a vigourous General Government, we must for our own safety make vigourous State Govts., & not depend on a weak General Govt. Germany has an Emperor and a powerful one, a common Language; her religion, customs, Habits and interests are not dissimilar, yet the glory of her Princes and the Prosperity of her free cities are preferred to those of the Empire…” – Gov. Morris
July 7 — Recorded by James Madison
“Do Gentlemen wish this to be ye case here. Good God, Sir, is it possible they can so delude themselves…” – Govr. Morris
August 21 — Recorded by James Madison
“Mr. RUTLIDGE did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this Section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections and would readily exempt the other States from the obligation to protect the Southern against them. Religion & humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the Southn. States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of Slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.”
September 14 — Recorded by James Madison
“…The other part fell of course, as including the power rejected. Mr. MADISON & Mr. PINKNEY then moved to insert in the list of powers vested in Congress a power-"to establish an University, in which no preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of Religion.” – George Mason
September 17 — Recorded by James McHenry
“…Moved To authorize Congress to establish an university to which and the honors and emoluments of which all persons may be admitted without any distinction of religion whatever. Congress enabled to erect such an institution in the place of the general government…”
September 17 — Recorded by James Madison
“…It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error…” – Benjamin Franklin
I do NOT think that this proves my original position was correct. I do, however, be lieve it supports my position more than it shoots it down. But barring evidence from the letters of the founders or any of their contemporaries, I think it goes a long way to show that the OP’s claim that the founders fought tooth and nail over the issue is pure fantasy.
For a further explanation as to the cowardly pitting of me by the OP (ambushed) and some of the discussion that lead to this thread, I direct you to the thread in which the he cowardly and unfairly pitted me.
Maybe you can convince him to apologize.
Here is the original thread. Our particular discussion cound be found on pages 10-12.
I guess I don’t see your point here. Did you expect the convention to have an open debate on how to write the date at the end of the Constitution? You had a convention that wrote a Constitution basically copying exactly the British government, drawing on mainy British philosophers written by people who for all intents and purposes were British why would you expect them to sign it any other way than the way than the British did?
Becuase as evidenced by the French attempt changing a calender for no good reason is retarded. And as previously stated, they signed the document in the exact same way that British documents were signed.
For the same reasons I don’t write Anno Domino after every year I write. Its needless and is only used to make things sound flowery and official. I don’t understand how if the date is not a reference to God then that excludes the Founders deliberately refusing to mention God.
But your doctor doesn’t write:
when writting your prescription either. That is a phrase clearly is appealing to higher ideals like Justice and Liberty, why is there no mention of God? Now that phrase, is important unlike the date, becuase it describes the fundamental basis of the Constitution. Its very suprising to not see God mentioned in there somewhere.
Compare with the Articles of Confederation:
The Declaration of Independence:
I am not saying that God was deleberately left out of the Constitution but a reference to Him is conspicuously abstent.
Irrelevant only with respect to the document in se. I took another swim through the murky waters of the OP and its follow-ups. I see a different argument than you do.