tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6781658157259364333..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Kraminck and Moore on Utah's State ConstitutionBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91089340762378128492010-01-05T10:30:06.743-07:002010-01-05T10:30:06.743-07:00Some folks here obviously have an unrealistic view...Some folks here obviously have an unrealistic view of academia. Academics are not required to be perfectly scientifically objective in everything they write. Their only duty when not being scientifically objective is to ensure that they're not pretending to be. K&M, having explicitly stated that they weren't pretending to be, have done nothing wrong, no matter how much wailing and gnashing of teeth occurs. <br /><br />They have, perhaps, made some errors. Or perhaps they haven't made errors so much as they've taken a stand on certain claims wherein others take a different stand. Or perhaps they're just guilty of a little hyperbole ("Mormons ... recognize"), but who isn't at times?<br /><br />Not having read their book, I'm not making a defense of it, per se. I'm only noting the irony of a non-academic making such absolutist (and flatly inaccurate) claims about how academics are supposed to behave.<br /><br />They're people, too, you know, with values, ideals and issues they care about. And sometimes they just want to fling off the constraints of objectivity and let fly. What you're suggesting is a superhuman standard, the kind that suggests a doctor has proven himself a fraud if he has an occasional cigar, or the minister isn't a true man of the cloth if he sneaks a peek at a pretty girl walking by.<br /><br />Argue about whether K&M are correct or incorrect, by all means. But set aside the ridiculous they're-academic-frauds claim, which is wholly baseless.James Hanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18431950784819780004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74325907374036470552010-01-05T07:50:51.693-07:002010-01-05T07:50:51.693-07:00Does the defense rest?
The defense needs a rest s...<i>Does the defense rest?</i><br /><br />The defense needs a rest so that the defense can get some work done that keeps the roof over its head. That being said, I'm sure there'll be other opportunities.:)jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64703367093475604052010-01-05T06:17:23.670-07:002010-01-05T06:17:23.670-07:00.
Only one state in the fifty United States provid....<br /><i>Only one state in the fifty United States provides specifically [see Utah State Constitution, Article 1 - Declaration of Rights, Section 4] that no discrimination may flow on account of religious belief "or the absence thereof,"</i><br />.<br />Seems to me this raises questions about the prohibition on congress to make laws respecting worship in combination of the First and Fourteenth amendments.<br />.<br />Can laws be made respecting religious views in America?<br />.<br />Are such laws Constitutional?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78668033669762239382010-01-04T23:11:06.405-07:002010-01-04T23:11:06.405-07:00JRB: Then I assume that you've retracted the s...<i>JRB: Then I assume that you've retracted the spurious charges that...</i><br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />Heheh. Not atall, JRB. Does the defense rest?<br /><br />Kramnick and Moore abandoned their "scholarly authority" for polemics. They admitted it themselves at the outset, their betrayal of their own PhD, university professor and "scholarly authority." Convicted by their own testimony.<br /><br />They should be kicked to the curb, along with David Barton. <br /><br />The prosecution rests. I want to be done with these minor criminals.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9581063941943364172010-01-04T22:16:04.363-07:002010-01-04T22:16:04.363-07:00I agree there. I think both the "secular nat...I agree there. I think both the "secular nation" and the "Christian nation" arguments are so chalked full of political, religious and pop-culture nonsense so as to make them completely "crap" as you put it.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58048755442516078432010-01-04T22:10:20.667-07:002010-01-04T22:10:20.667-07:00I do not believe in the "Christian Nation&quo...I do not believe in the "Christian Nation" thesis per se. The case closed in the "Godless Constitution" ploy to prove the "Secular Nation" thesis. It is a crap argument.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56475058185301209452010-01-04T22:02:41.022-07:002010-01-04T22:02:41.022-07:00KOI writes:
48 OUT OF 50 STATE CONSTITUTIONS STIL...KOI writes:<br /><br /><em>48 OUT OF 50 STATE CONSTITUTIONS STILL REFERENCE GOD! Case is closed.</em><br /><br />Oooh...let's be careful here not to jump the gun. This doesn't prove anything in a "case closed" fashion. Not even close. Yeah it proves that religion was important but if this is being used to prove the "Christian Nation" thesis then I will be the first to say foul. <br /><br />Let's keep in mind that these were EVOLVING constitutions, many of which had roots going back to colonial times. I am working on a post right now that I hope will demonstrate how many of these state constitutions serve to illustrate the clash between a state's colonial roots and the struggle of the revolution. The battle over religion was ever shifting and it would be a mistake to think that the revolution itself -- or these various state charters -- somehow sealed the deal.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72860245169289557012010-01-04T21:27:43.670-07:002010-01-04T21:27:43.670-07:00The "Godless Constitution" argument as p...The "Godless Constitution" argument as proof that America is some sort of secular nation is a fraud. A fraud on the same level as David Barton at times. It is not so much what people say it is how they know people on their side of the fence that do not know better are going to take it. Jon nails Barton on this aspect for good reason. These other guys are just as guilty. <br /><br />48 OUT OF 50 STATE CONSTITUTIONS STILL REFERENCE GOD! Case is closed.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65748400069196268312010-01-04T21:04:52.111-07:002010-01-04T21:04:52.111-07:00Then I assume that you've retracted the spurio...Then I assume that you've retracted the spurious charges that 1) they admit to being dishonest scholars (by writing a polemic and clearly labeling as such) and 2) they somehow are being sneaky or somehow underhanded by including editorial content when clearly they say up front that they are including editorial content. Both comments appeared to be made to impugn character rather than address substance and didn't give a clear indication of having read the material. My apologies if I got that wrong.<br /><br />Good I'm glad to move on.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26337178254325414852010-01-04T19:59:04.021-07:002010-01-04T19:59:04.021-07:00And what are the opinions and practices that they ...<i>And what are the opinions and practices that they find wrong and unjust? The concerted effort on the part of many on the political religious/Christian right to frame America and the Constitution as an extension of Christian/Biblical authority.<br /><br />*this might be read Barton et al.</i><br /><br />Cite the offenders, chapter and verse, if you must. Until then, as Mr. Abbott put it, this is a slaughterhouse for strawmen.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33740213202589413392010-01-04T19:55:41.111-07:002010-01-04T19:55:41.111-07:00someone who hasn't made the effort to even ope...<i>someone who hasn't made the effort to even open the pages</i><br /><br />Actually, I have, JRB. I even cited it once months ago where they admitted how many states had religious tests. It was I, you might recall, who linked via Google Books both then and now.<br /><br />And please, JRB. TGC is cited all the time by its sympathizers as authoritative, in fact, its title has become a slogan and a self-evident argument. <br /><br /><i>I'm not arguing that it should get a pass either, but if it's going to be discussed it should at least be in a fitting manner - by substance</i><br /><br />And I just illustrated how they drew an unwarranted conclusion from Utah's constitution. Mr. Soller also caught them off-base on the NY state constitution, if you've been reading the blog. We fit substance in.<br /><br />But frankly, the larger issue as it affects this blog and the American discourse is how the search for the truth is hindered, not helped by polemicists.<br /><br />All I hear around here is how dishonest Barton is, and how stupid his sympathizers are. Well, now the shoe's on the other foot.<br /><br />I'd rather have no part of any of it, because I say screw 'em all, but if you continue to insist on defending K&M and their book, I'll keep slapping them down. But I've been begging you over several threads now to talk about the actual facts instead, for which we need neither David Barton nor Kramnick & Moore. It's a second-hand discussion as long as they're in the room. This blog has always been about original sources, not regurgitating historians and scholars, and especially not advocates.<br /><br />If somebody came around here trumpeting Barton, I'd slap 'em down, too. Remember we used to have a prolific commenter who used to argue that republicanism had its origins in the Old Testament [which Barton does not]?<br /><br />Manned up. Kicked that shit to the curb, too.<br /><br />If you've got some brilliant argument from K&M that hasn't already been discussed on this blog, bring it. Make it, defend it. Surely they're not wrong all the time. In the meantime, I've having some well-earned payback fun at their expense. But when they disappear from the room, and I hope that's soon, so will my interest in them.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60585918447384671422010-01-04T19:44:21.811-07:002010-01-04T19:44:21.811-07:00[cue thunder and lightning special FX]
St. Peter ...<i>[cue thunder and lightning special FX]</i><br /><br />St. Peter at the Gate: What happened?<br /><br />Jimmiraybob: Don't know, just walked into the light. Let me know when TVD gets here.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8531456372295209752010-01-04T19:39:06.860-07:002010-01-04T19:39:06.860-07:00I should add that it is not a book advocating the ...I should add that it is not a book advocating the removal of religion from America or the public square or that religiously-informed people should have no place in politics.<br /><br />(p. 25) - <i>"In that chapter (9), and doubtless elsewhere, we allow ourselves an editorial voice. We trust, however, that by then the voice will have been earned and will seem as something other than a volley of cheap shots. One of the authors grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home. The other is descended from Irish and German Catholics on his mother's side and Calvinist protestants on his father's. They write with a deep respect for America's religious traditions, traditions that prescribe tolerance but also the obligation to offer sharp dissent from whatever opinions and practices seem wrong and unjust."</i><br /><br />And what are the opinions and practices that they find wrong and unjust? The concerted effort on the part of many on the political religious/Christian right to frame America and the Constitution as an extension of Christian/Biblical authority. <br /><br />(p. 15) - <i>"Suffice it to say that our intention is not to marginalize religion. If anything, it is to warn against the ways that some aggressive proponents* of religious correctness are doing exactly that in their political battles, even as they try to lay the blame elsewhere."</i><br /><br />*this might be read Barton et al.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56308840973350748742010-01-04T19:31:49.413-07:002010-01-04T19:31:49.413-07:00Yeah, I get you, Ray. But you needn't be so b...Yeah, I get you, Ray. But you needn't be so brusque, man---I'm the first one to jump up against anti-Mormon slags around here, and never get into whether they're "Christian" or not. They came well after the Founding, back when they cared about such things legally. <br /><br />And <i>my</i> statement still stands, going a little deeper into it, that the suspicion of Mormonism that delayed their statehood would have been suspicious of any religious test, especially since it would likely be administrated in a Mormon milieu. As was pointed out since the Founding era, who gets to decide who's "Christian" or even who God is? [Does he live near Kolob?]<br /><br />Any religious test for Utah would have been a non-starter, and drawing anything else out of its constitution's lack of one isn't history, but unsupported assertion.<br /><br />And so, I was giving Kramnick & Moore a well-deserved smack. I have no time [or inclination, since I'm not a polemicist at heart] to research K&M's other offenses against the truth, which would probably just piss me off and wouldn't make much difference to their defenders anyway.<br /><br />But since you cited them, I thought I'd give 'em a parse, which turned into a fisking. TGC is cited often enough in discussions like these that now I feel quite comfortable comparing TGC to David Barton's books. Neither deserve a place at the grownup table. We take only "A" students.<br /><br />Neither are <i>always</i> wrong, but wrong enough and wrong in their advocacy approach that they can never be given the benefit of scholarly doubt, because both leave stuff out.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46370525256574723932010-01-04T19:08:37.341-07:002010-01-04T19:08:37.341-07:00...because there are tons of people going around q...<i>...because there are tons of people going around quoting them as scholarly authority.</i><br /><br />But they <i>are</i> scholarly authorities. If people are going around saying that it is a scholarly book then they can't read or don't know what a scholarly work is. <br /><br />When the authors clearly state "What follows then is a polemic" (p.12) and "In that chapter [9], and doubtless elsewhere, we allow ourselves an editorial voice" (p.25) and "because we have intended the book to reach a general audience, and also because the material we have cited is for the most part familiar to historians and political scientists, we have dispensed with the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes" (p.207), they are not trying to be sneaky. And writing polemically does not amount to admission of dishonesty - these are two charges that you have made.<br /><br />Do they make any errors? Probably. Do the sources they rely on contain errors? Very well could be. But this is a far cry from charges of making things up out of thin air or intentional dishonesty. Who here wouldn't rather it be a scholarly annotated and perfected work? I'm sure that anybody that writes prays that their errors are few. Let he who is without sin so on and so forth.<br /><br />If I've defended anything it's that the book doesn't deserve a cheap dismissal especially by someone who hasn't made the effort to even open the pages and relies instead on someone else's point of view and minimalist review. And yes, historian that he is, Dreisbach is also writing with a point of view and purpose in mind. <br /><br />Neither author are leaders within a political party/movement and each have distinguished academic careers. And there is no reason that they shouldn't muster their earned knowledge and understanding and direct it to the public in a format that the public will accept. Does this risk a reliance on authority? Yes - but again they <i>are</i> scholarly authorities. Does this risk being attacked for making it less convenient to fact check. Yes. But neither of these things disqualify the substance. I'm not arguing that it should get a pass either, but if it's going to be discussed it should at least be in a fitting manner - by substance. And a fair raking over the coals here is not out of line.<br /><br />I don't know how many times you've told me to man up but let me make that same call to you for the first time. You might start by saying why it is you feel the need to attack the book and the authors?jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76224742578898430722010-01-04T18:17:29.215-07:002010-01-04T18:17:29.215-07:00Tom, I recognize that you "can parse with the...Tom, I recognize that you "can parse with the best of 'em." That's no matter to me, my statement still stands. My meaning was this: the Utah state government functions on par with other state governments even though there is no individual requirement to acknowledge a form of deity, which Mormons like Mitt Romney are accused of not worshipping.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54157943085621833492010-01-04T18:06:38.455-07:002010-01-04T18:06:38.455-07:00Brad, as I recall, Brigham Young did conclude his ...Brad, as I recall, Brigham Young did conclude his oath with "so help me God" when he was sworn in as the first Governor of the Utah Territory. Still, at the time when Utah achieved statehood it's my feeling that it was no small measure of satisfaction that there was no requirement for those entering state employment to acknowledge under oath the existence of some ethereal deity as legislated by the Civil War Congress of 1861 and later reinstated by the Congress of 1881.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76096140930538811402010-01-04T17:56:21.644-07:002010-01-04T17:56:21.644-07:00Yeah, that what Utah's constitution sort of sa...Yeah, that what Utah's constitution sort of <i>says</i>, but Kramnick and Moore say Mormons in Utah <i>believe</i> it.<br /><br /><i>Mormons in Utah recognize that religious conviction or the lack thereof are not per se evidence of ability to handle state affairs wisely.</i><br /><br />Two different things. C'mon, Ray, I can parse with the best of 'em.<br /><br />;-)<br /><br />Also, that "'no discrimination may flow on account of religious belief "or the absence thereof'" does not mean that Goddish folks aren't the best officeholders. In fact, I believe that some states similarly forbid such discrimination, but still have religious tests for office on the books. [Wasn't that your point about NY state, 1788?]<br /><br />Now mebbe Kramnick and Moore offer more evidence for their statement, but the anti-discrimination clause isn't textual proof of their assertion atall.<br /><br />Look, I'm tired of David Barton. I'm tired of these guys. If somebody wants to defend their ideas, fine. But I [and a number of reviewers] think they miss a lot of counterarguments, and indeed, a polemic by definition will skip over the ones it has no answer for. And as we see, they make some assertions contradicted or at least unsupported by their own reference texts.<br /><br />Sloppy scholarship in the least, rhetorically misleading at times, provably.<br /><br />Defend their ideas if you want, but be prepared to face the fury of the WHOLE truth!<br /><br />[cue thunder and lightning special FX]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68901220735823814032010-01-04T17:56:06.840-07:002010-01-04T17:56:06.840-07:00K & M got a little lazy with their egos and di...K & M got a little lazy with their egos and did something improper with doing away with the conventional footnoting method. And indeed, they made some errors in their book to boot.<br /><br />Barton hit and run with that with "they just made stuff up" which they didn't. Yet, that's a line Rodda uses on Barton (you are just making this stuff up).Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77529250948616511532010-01-04T17:35:43.649-07:002010-01-04T17:35:43.649-07:00Tom, I haven't done the research, but my guess...Tom, I haven't done the research, but my guess is that you're right regarding the notion that Congress erected a series of hurdles over which the people of Utah needed to pass before achieving statehood. On the other hand, the Utah Constitution does effectively demonstrate "that religious conviction or the lack thereof are not per se evidence of ability to handle state affairs wisely."Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91003504265089251732010-01-04T17:17:03.709-07:002010-01-04T17:17:03.709-07:00One major difference between Barton's work and...<i> One major difference between Barton's work and The Godless Constitution is that Kramnich and Moore" are historians and have researched and written on the founding</i><br /><br />Which makes their abandonment of scholarly objectivity even more inexcusable, because there are tons of people going around quoting them as scholarly authority.<br /><br />But when they abandoned their objectivity as a polemic by definition does], they abandoned all authority as scholars, which is the very ground you're defending them on.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89129894059165200102010-01-04T17:00:33.635-07:002010-01-04T17:00:33.635-07:00One major difference between Barton's work and...One major difference between Barton's work and <i>The Godless Constitution</i> is that <a href="http://government.arts.cornell.edu/assets/faculty/cv/kramnick_cv.pdf" rel="nofollow">Kramnich</a> and <a href="http://www.arts.cornell.edu/history/faculty-department-moore.php" rel="nofollow">Moore"</a> <i>are</i> historians and have researched and written on the founding.<br /><br />To dismiss their work out of hand is to toss out the Federalist Papers because they're just polemical hackery......which of course did <a href="http://www.michaelmeyerson.com/federalist.html" rel="nofollow">happen</a>:<br /><br /><i>“The work is of no use to the well-informed, and it is too learned and too long for the ignorant.”</i> - Louis Otto, the French Charge d’Affaires during the ratification of the Constitution*.<br /><br />*couldn't verify the quote and am at the mercy of the blog author.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4981026656086111172010-01-04T16:29:30.855-07:002010-01-04T16:29:30.855-07:00I don't think we should read too much into the...<i>I don't think we should read too much into the "Only 2 Utah governors have been non-Mormon" just as we shouldn't read too much into what TGC has to say on the matter.</i><br /><br />I agree. I just presented a possible counterfactual. I object to the rhetorical fast one they tried to pull. The statement <br /><br /><i>Mormons in Utah recognize that religious conviction or the lack thereof are not per se evidence of ability to handle state affairs wisely.</i><br /><br />cannot be made definitely pro <i>or</i> con.<br /><br />As for people reading David Barton's books, I don't think they have to in order to disagree with his approach to history. To say he's an advocate and he's not a real historian and therefore shouldn't be trusted as fact is to me a perfectly legitimate observation and argument.<br /><br />In fact it's why I don't like to see him appear at this blog. And since TGC is written with the same advocacy, it's beneath my radar as history and should be likewise consigned to the culture wars, on which neither side is concerned with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14735377818373440002010-01-04T16:25:26.855-07:002010-01-04T16:25:26.855-07:00And continuing the theme of poisoning the well...
...And continuing the theme of poisoning the well...<br /><br /><i>This of course is opinion if not sneaky editorializing...</i> <br /><br />That is because they've admitted to being dishonest scholars by telling everyone up front that they've written a polemic and then having the audacity to sneak in a polemic. And the polemic contains opinion <i>and</i> editorializing - that's almost like when they say they're going to offer their views*. Sweet baby Zeus. Save the wimmins and chillens.<br /><br />Dreisbach's was hardly the scathing nail-in-the-coffin critique that you imagine. Of course he too seemed caught off guard that polemical writing was indicated by the phrase "we are writing a polemic*." <br /><br />Thanks RS for following through on this - including the last post. <br /><br />Does anyone have a copy of the 1997 version? I'd like to compare paragraphs with my 2005 version and the earlier one available on-line doesn't have the page I'm interested in.<br /><br />*paraphrasing in what I hope to be an honest and not-sneaky way.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49027541603036445062010-01-04T15:58:27.007-07:002010-01-04T15:58:27.007-07:00TVD writes:
I don't read David Barton much, b...TVD writes:<br /><br /><em>I don't read David Barton much, but when someone actually posts a questionable quote of his [seldom---it's usually a general characterization of his views and often inaccurate], it's quite fair for folks to criticize it.</em><br /><br />Well, if they haven't bothered to read Barton's book then I would agree. It's great that we criticize a book and all regardless of the author. I just think we should be careful. <br /><br /><em>Must I suffer through a Howard Zinn tome to disagree with his polemical approach to history?</em><br /><br />No, but if you are going to attack his book (or any book) then I think you should have read more than a few reviews. Isn't that just "piggy-backing" somebody else's take?<br /><br />As for Utah not electing Mormon governors, perhaps it is because of their deep religious majority in the state but that's not very different from other places. The simple fact that the majority of Utah governors are/were Mormon doesn't mean a whole lot. I imagine that the majority of the early elections (when Mormons have over 80% of the population) featured Mormons v. Mormons in their elections. In addition, you can also look back and see that Utah has only voted for 3 non-Republican presidential candidates since it became a state. I don't think we should read too much into the "Only 2 Utah governors have been non-Mormon" just as we shouldn't read too much into what TGC has to say on the matter.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.com