A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
Here's a snippet from page 17 of his book with which I take issue: The Founders included a presidential oath in the Constitution, and while it did not contain any religious language, many presidents have chosen to swear on a Bible and add "so help me God" after the oath. Even that is controversial: A lawsuit by atheist activists following President Barack Obama's election in 2008 tried to ban Obama from using the phrase "so help me God" following the oath, but a federal judge refused the request.
George Washington was the first president to place his hand on the Bible during the presidential oath. He set other "precedents," too. Among them was his comfort with using religious language in official statements and proclamations. [end snippet]
Notice how the author manages to both obscure, distort, and misstate the facts: 1) GW did place his hand on a Bible during his first inauguration, but there is no indication that he chose to do so. Furthermore, there's no evidence that GW included a Bible as part of his second inauguration. That's also true for the next five presidents. 2) In GW's second inaugural address, unlike his first, he was just as comfortable to not include any religious language. 3) Yes, many presidents have added SHMG to their presidential oath, but the fact is that most have not. 4) Atheist activists, namely Michael Newdow, did not try to ban Obama from adding SHMG at the end of his oath. The lawsuit wanted to prevent CJ John Roberts from prompting Obama to add that extra-constitutional and non-biblical phrase.
As you can guess, I did email a list of my concerns to both authors. Here's how "Tommy Kidd" responded:
Dear Ray,
Thank you for your interest in our book! I am sure that Matt and I have our own perspectives on the church-state debates (although I am not sure that they are the same), but we’ve tried in the book to be as even-handed as we can, especially in the choice of documents. Perhaps our approach will not fully please everyone, but on such a contentious issue, doing so is difficult.
Best wishes, Tommy Kidd [end of response]
I'm sorry, but that's not my idea of being even-handed. Washington and Lincoln would want an even-handed approach, which is to say that they would allow equal access to the public square. That's not the samething as saying, "For Lincoln and Washington, a secularized public square was inconceivable."
I don't see how you laid a glove on Kidd here, Ray. Try a rephrase and mebbe I'll get your point.
1) GW did place his hand on a Bible during his first inauguration, but there is no indication that he chose to do so.
Kidd did not say otherwise. 2) In GW's second inaugural address, unlike his first, he was just as comfortable to not include any religious language.
Specious. The 2nd Inaug was a few hundred perfunctory words; the First Inaug was a major occasion. The only conclusion to be drawn is that GWash considered the re-inauguration no big deal.
3) Yes, many presidents have added SHMG to their presidential oath, but the fact is that most have not.
Perhaps a valid objection, but it's more on what Kidd didn't bother to say, and nobody except you or Mr. Newdow cares. Further, it's unlikely that any president in the next 100 years will leave it out because America likes it that way. if it was not the custom, it sure is now, and we're into meaningless quibble. It's here to stay.
4) Atheist activists, namely Michael Newdow, did not try to ban Obama from adding SHMG at the end of his oath. The lawsuit wanted to prevent CJ John Roberts from prompting Obama to add that extra-constitutional and non-biblical phrase.
OK, a fair quibble. Should have stuck w/that one as it's the only one with any real importance, Ray.
Do you have a link to U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton's rejection of Newdow's suit, Ray? I'd like a look at Judge Walton's language.
I see Mr. Newdow also tried to ban Rev. Rick Warren from praying at President Obama's inauguration. Yes?
I don't think Dr. Kidd deserved this trashing. He gave you the courtesy of a reply and your demurrals are still minor at best, over a few paragraphs in his book. I think you certainly have the right to disagree, but there are many historians out there fronting for far bigger errors.
Ray, I sustain your objection on Kidd saying Newdow wanted to "ban" Roberts "prompting" SHMG: can you can put it into an equally compact phrase? At this point, if I were Kidd, I would cut the reference to Newdow and this mini-controversy completely rather than expend any more words on it.
1) GW did place his hand on a Bible during his first inauguration, but there is no indication that he chose to do so.
TVD>Kidd did not say otherwise RS>Kid did say, "many presidents have chosen to swear on a Bible and add "so help me God" after the oath." The implication is that GW was among their number, especially where he says "He [GW] set other 'precedents,' too."
2) In GW's second inaugural address, unlike his first, he was just as comfortable to not include any religious language.
TVD>Specious. The 2nd Inaug was a few hundred perfunctory words; the First Inaug was a major occasion. The only conclusion to be drawn is that GWash considered the re-inauguration no big deal. RS>Hogwash. Outside of showing up at Fedral Hall in his chosen attire of American manufacture, GW didn't plan that grand event. He & his cabinet did plan his 2nd, much less pompous, Inaug in Philadelphia. I differ that there's only Your One conclusion that this "was no big deal."
3) Yes, many presidents have added SHMG to their presidential oath, but the fact is that most have not.
TVD>Perhaps a valid objection, but it's more on what Kidd didn't bother to say, and nobody except you or Mr. Newdow cares. Further, it's unlikely that any president in the next 100 years will leave it out because America likes it that way. if it was not the custom, it sure is now, and we're into meaningless quibble. It's here to stay. RS> Thanks for your 2 cents, but again, it's not a matter of what the president says, it's a matter of how the CJ administers the presidential oath.
4) Atheist activists, namely Michael Newdow, did not try to ban Obama from adding SHMG at the end of his oath. The lawsuit wanted to prevent CJ John Roberts from prompting Obama to add that extra-constitutional and non-biblical phrase.
TVD>OK, a fair quibble. Should have stuck w/that one as it's the only one with any real importance, Ray. RS>I do so appreciate your granting an "OK" on this one. I feel much better, now.
4 comments:
Thomas Kidd co-authored the book, The Founding Fathers and the Debate over Religion in Revolutionary America (2012) with Matthew L. Harris. You can get more of Thomas Kidd in this Aug. 3, 2011 article, Secular Extremism, Evangelicals, and Rick Perry's "Response".
Here's a snippet from page 17 of his book with which I take issue:
The Founders included a presidential oath in the Constitution, and while it did not contain any religious language, many presidents have chosen to swear on a Bible and add "so help me God" after the oath. Even that is controversial: A lawsuit by atheist activists following President Barack Obama's election in 2008 tried to ban Obama from using the phrase "so help me God" following the oath, but a federal judge refused the request.
George Washington was the first president to place his hand on the Bible during the presidential oath. He set other "precedents," too. Among them was his comfort with using religious language in official statements and proclamations. [end snippet]
Notice how the author manages to both obscure, distort, and misstate the facts:
1) GW did place his hand on a Bible during his first inauguration, but there is no indication that he chose to do so. Furthermore, there's no evidence that GW included a Bible as part of his second inauguration. That's also true for the next five presidents.
2) In GW's second inaugural address, unlike his first, he was just as comfortable to not include any religious language.
3) Yes, many presidents have added SHMG to their presidential oath, but the fact is that most have not.
4) Atheist activists, namely Michael Newdow, did not try to ban Obama from adding SHMG at the end of his oath. The lawsuit wanted to prevent CJ John Roberts from prompting Obama to add that extra-constitutional and non-biblical phrase.
As you can guess, I did email a list of my concerns to both authors. Here's how "Tommy Kidd" responded:
Dear Ray,
Thank you for your interest in our book! I am sure that Matt and I have our own perspectives on the church-state debates (although I am not sure that they are the same), but we’ve tried in the book to be as even-handed as we can, especially in the choice of documents. Perhaps our approach will not fully please everyone, but on such a contentious issue, doing so is difficult.
Best wishes,
Tommy Kidd [end of response]
I'm sorry, but that's not my idea of being even-handed. Washington and Lincoln would want an even-handed approach, which is to say that they would allow equal access to the public square. That's not the samething as saying, "For Lincoln and Washington, a secularized public square was inconceivable."
I don't see how you laid a glove on Kidd here, Ray. Try a rephrase and mebbe I'll get your point.
1) GW did place his hand on a Bible during his first inauguration, but there is no indication that he chose to do so.
Kidd did not say otherwise.
2) In GW's second inaugural address, unlike his first, he was just as comfortable to not include any religious language.
Specious. The 2nd Inaug was a few hundred perfunctory words; the First Inaug was a major occasion. The only conclusion to be drawn is that GWash considered the re-inauguration no big deal.
3) Yes, many presidents have added SHMG to their presidential oath, but the fact is that most have not.
Perhaps a valid objection, but it's more on what Kidd didn't bother to say, and nobody except you or Mr. Newdow cares. Further, it's unlikely that any president in the next 100 years will leave it out because America likes it that way. if it was not the custom, it sure is now, and we're into meaningless quibble. It's here to stay.
4) Atheist activists, namely Michael Newdow, did not try to ban Obama from adding SHMG at the end of his oath. The lawsuit wanted to prevent CJ John Roberts from prompting Obama to add that extra-constitutional and non-biblical phrase.
OK, a fair quibble. Should have stuck w/that one as it's the only one with any real importance, Ray.
Do you have a link to U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton's rejection of Newdow's suit, Ray? I'd like a look at Judge Walton's language.
I see Mr. Newdow also tried to ban Rev. Rick Warren from praying at President Obama's inauguration. Yes?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-judge-tosses-out-newdow-s-challenge-inaugural-prayers-so-help-me-god
I don't think Dr. Kidd deserved this trashing. He gave you the courtesy of a reply and your demurrals are still minor at best, over a few paragraphs in his book. I think you certainly have the right to disagree, but there are many historians out there fronting for far bigger errors.
Ray, I sustain your objection on Kidd saying Newdow wanted to "ban" Roberts "prompting" SHMG: can you can put it into an equally compact phrase? At this point, if I were Kidd, I would cut the reference to Newdow and this mini-controversy completely rather than expend any more words on it.
SHMG is here to stay, at least for our lifetimes.
Tom,
Gloves aside, let's revisit what you said:
1) GW did place his hand on a Bible during his first inauguration, but there is no indication that he chose to do so.
TVD>Kidd did not say otherwise
RS>Kid did say, "many presidents have chosen to swear on a Bible and add "so help me God" after the oath." The implication is that GW was among their number, especially where he says "He [GW] set other 'precedents,' too."
2) In GW's second inaugural address, unlike his first, he was just as comfortable to not include any religious language.
TVD>Specious. The 2nd Inaug was a few hundred perfunctory words; the First Inaug was a major occasion. The only conclusion to be drawn is that GWash considered the re-inauguration no big deal.
RS>Hogwash. Outside of showing up at Fedral Hall in his chosen attire of American manufacture, GW didn't plan that grand event. He & his cabinet did plan his 2nd, much less pompous, Inaug in Philadelphia. I differ that there's only Your One conclusion that this "was no big deal."
3) Yes, many presidents have added SHMG to their presidential oath, but the fact is that most have not.
TVD>Perhaps a valid objection, but it's more on what Kidd didn't bother to say, and nobody except you or Mr. Newdow cares. Further, it's unlikely that any president in the next 100 years will leave it out because America likes it that way. if it was not the custom, it sure is now, and we're into meaningless quibble. It's here to stay.
RS> Thanks for your 2 cents, but again, it's not a matter of what the president says, it's a matter of how the CJ administers the presidential oath.
4) Atheist activists, namely Michael Newdow, did not try to ban Obama from adding SHMG at the end of his oath. The lawsuit wanted to prevent CJ John Roberts from prompting Obama to add that extra-constitutional and non-biblical phrase.
TVD>OK, a fair quibble. Should have stuck w/that one as it's the only one with any real importance, Ray.
RS>I do so appreciate your granting an "OK" on this one. I feel much better, now.
Just trying to hep, Ray. I don't have to agree with an argument to see how to sharpen it. Anyone who knows me will tellya that.
If you're going to be the aggressor against a solid and respected scholar like Tom Kidd
Notice how the author manages to both obscure, distort, and misstate the facts:
best your arguments be as solid and substantive as possible, and the pissiness kept to a minimum.
Post a Comment