And the equivalent of the PM was? The Constitution very firmly separated the executive branch (the ministers in England ) from the legislative branch - totally unlike England then or now.
Another difference was in proportional representation. This was decades before the reforms of the 1830s, and there were parliamentary districts with no people, and cities (like Manchester) with no MPs. Redistricting based on a census was a big break.
A lot of the Constitution was designed to remedy problems with the English system, not to copy it.
Absolutely possible. But how about this. It was accidental, in that that they were not congregated to define a philosophy, but to lay down practical and utile laws.
The motives of any group on any side are irrelevant! Are you saying that because of the motives that a particular group may ot may not have, that we should skew the facts? Alter history to make it comport with the senasibilities we now have?
And Jefferson was more than just a Deist who believed in Nature’s God. While he didn’t believe that Jesus was the son of God, he did believe in an afterlife.
If you are right, I agree. But I don’t think that you are. The passages I provided do not show hostility to religion, although based on the editing I did I can see how you may get that impression. I struggled with how much to include, as some of these mentions are tucked inside very long speeches. But I invite you to go to the website and read them in full context. I’d be very interested to see which passages, when in context, convey a hostility toward religion or God.
I believe that is was not an issue because they were crafting laws, and they new that the laws had to be based on reason and not religion, as there was more than one. Thus, they focused on utility, not belief. And I would keep in mind that in their day the State was sacrosanct, and the federal government had to give them wide berth. Religion, as it applied to taxes and law, was a state issue. The Founders were trying to form a union that would least encroach on their individual rights.
So if they knew all this before hand, they started the task of creating the Constitution without weighing the role of religion; it was not on the agenda.
A brief stop to mention my appreciation for this thread and it’s thought provoking content. Thanks magellan01 for the quotes. This is a good example of what I enjoy about the SDMB.
My 2 cents.
In reading this thread I would have to say it seems that the state reps came to the convention with the concept that they were decideing on a pratical legal document and the issue of religion was not a big influence.
Is there any evidence of even one memeber of the convention argueing vigorously to include God or Jesus in the constitution, or any member argueing to leave God out?
I tend to agree with magellan01 that in that day much more was left for the states to decide than in the 225 years since.
It seems if there was discussion that the agreement was to let the states decide for themselves and to simply outline the federal guidelines.
One of the great things about our founders is their realization that in order to protect the rights of the individual to worship freely and to think freely, the role of the government should be to protect that right for all men rather than impose any groups concept of right thinking. A worthy goal that we still struggle with.
I wouldn’t expect it to have god all over - but using god as a justification of the government (as several people during the ratification fight and after wanted) I might expect.
Not at all. I was just giving the reason this debate is interesting. From further reading of Jacoby’s book, (which is now 2,000 miles away) it seems several clerics thought the founders were mistaken to leave god out, but did not dispute that it was deliberate. Today, not being as close to the writing of the Constitution, it is easier for some to claim it is religiously based (in essence.)
I see suspicion to some religion, but certainly not to God. Madison and Jefferson’s support of Paine is further evidence of this.
Here is the example:
This shows more support for the secular nature of the country, and suspicion of religion.
That’s exactly it. The standard justification for the right of the state to make laws before this came from god. The king, he who enabled the laws, got his right to rule from god. The reason that god is not in the Constitution is that God was not considered to be the justification for laws in the new country, and thus did not need to be mentioned as this justification.
And it might well be this was so clear to them that it didn’t need debating. But it was not accidental or an oversight.
Sorry. I misunderstood you. A book that you ight be interested in, as a counter to Jacoby’s, is Original Intent, by David Barton. He has a definite point of view, but the book is about 75% quotes from the founders. I don’t like to get into a battle of the founders quotes on this board, because aside from many of the ones that have been presented being incorrect or out of context, the battle of can go on for days. What I did find it interesting though, was the sheer number of quotes—in context—in support of his position.
Although I agree some is there, in context it doesn’t seem to be suspicion of religion exclusively, but suspicion of the fallibility of man through whatever he might believe.
I agree completely. God was invoked in the D of I as the source of man’s right to create his own societel laws. But, in creating those laws, it was incumbent upon man to use his (God-given, I think they would say) ability to reason. I think there was a very practical side to this, as well. They knew that the laws they created had to be universal, applicable to all men. The more they were based on sound reasoning and not “faith”, the more readily they would be accepted by all. And thus, more useful to the society.
That is not the way I was using accidental. I was using it in the sense: not a necessary component of. They knew that the document they were creating had to be utile. To take the analogy further than it should probably go, it would be as if they were creating a hammer. There is very little role for God in that endeavor. In reading that back I have the urge to delete it. But I think you’ll see what I’m getting at.
I have not been able to find any. It seems that for it to have an real weight, that it would either be found in the notes on the convention debates (best) or in the later papers of the men that were there, as they reflected back on the debates.
It’s not God (big G god), it’s the god (small g god) of the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment was not a religion, it has NO gods, IMHO they were using a euphemism.
