tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post202125818574241322..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: George Washington, the Oath of Office, and So Help Me GodBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10794703622876153692009-01-25T13:03:00.000-07:002009-01-25T13:03:00.000-07:00."Pink, this is actually somewhat of a debate amon....<BR/><I>"Pink, this is actually somewhat of a debate among scholars and historians - whether the focus of history should be on the FACTS or on the interpretation. I'm oversimplifying it perhaps, but it's all part of the modernist vs. post-modernist thing."</I><BR/>.<BR/>Yup, I got that part.<BR/>.<BR/>I think the key word in your statement is, somewhat.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes academics miss the point and that gives scholarship a bad name.<BR/>.<BR/>But, free speech rules the day and that makes me happy.<BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure I understand your reference to "modernist vs. postmodernist".<BR/>.<BR/>I have been asking these "scholarly" ones about their standards and ethics; but, haven't, as yet, got any response.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53314663064444467032009-01-25T12:48:00.000-07:002009-01-25T12:48:00.000-07:00Pink, this is actually somewhat of a debate among ...Pink, this is actually somewhat of a debate among scholars and historians - whether the focus of history should be on the FACTS or on the interpretation. I'm oversimplifying it perhaps, but it's all part of the modernist vs. post-modernist thing.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53432191164757120872009-01-23T07:06:00.000-07:002009-01-23T07:06:00.000-07:00.While I don't feel qualified to get involved in s....<BR/>While I don't feel qualified to get involved in some discussions regarding historical accuracy, I do have two questions to which I would like to see a clear answer:<BR/>.<BR/><B>1.</B> Are historians under the guidance of a certain set of standards, ethics, rules, etc., and is there a recognized authority that acts like a clearing house of authentication for any statements that may be made regarding historical facts? <BR/>.<BR/><B>2.</B> Or is the study of history just so loose that observers can believe whatever seems correct to them?<BR/>.<BR/>Huh?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88694735645272520772009-01-22T18:27:00.000-07:002009-01-22T18:27:00.000-07:00Ah, thx. My buddy John Adams. Author-philosopher-...Ah, thx. My buddy John Adams. Author-philosopher-twit. It's indeed gratifying Hamilton agreed.<BR/><BR/><I>However, therer is no place in the historic record for speculations presented as evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, mostly I agree with that. Yet I hear Hamilton and were Washington were "theistic rationalists" all the time, a speculation that is at worst false and at best is unprovable.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63843650157264010842009-01-22T17:56:00.000-07:002009-01-22T17:56:00.000-07:00Tom: "No, Ben. Speculation is always permitted."If...Tom: "No, Ben. Speculation is always permitted."<BR/><BR/>If the historic record indicates that many speculated or believed in events for which there is no evidence, I agree.<BR/><BR/>However, therer is no place in the historic record for speculations presented as evidence. It is difficult enough understaning the historic record with out introducing unsubstantiated speculation.<BR/><BR/>In any event, I came across a <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/volokhs_comment_policy.php" REL="nofollow">quote</A> via Volokh -> Ed Brayton. I immediately thought of *you*! :-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63363416141442553402009-01-22T02:56:00.000-07:002009-01-22T02:56:00.000-07:00While lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, a ...<I>While lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, a lack of evidence is sufficient to remove such speculation from the historic record.</I><BR/><BR/>No, Ben. Speculation is always permitted. In fact, only out of courtesy for Ray Soller as a blogbrother did I offer my opinion that I found his research to be most persuasive under "preponderance of the evidence" standard. But that didn't mean that I didn't find Brian Tubbs' argument about "oral tradition" to be invalid. I went 60-40 or 51-49 in favor, whatever.<BR/><BR/>Even when the "conventional wisdom" goes 99-1 against, the voice in the wilderness is right that hundredth time.<BR/><BR/>Here's a gun with a hundred chambers, Ben, with only one bullet in one of the chambers. Wanna play Russian Roulette? You put up a buck and I'll put up $100.<BR/>Click. Click...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59965591687825230782009-01-21T19:50:00.000-07:002009-01-21T19:50:00.000-07:00Ladies and Gentlemen,It is absolutely INCORRECT to...Ladies and Gentlemen,<BR/><BR/>It is absolutely INCORRECT to assert that there's "no evidence" for George Washington saying "So Help Me God" at his 1789 inauguration.<BR/><BR/>What you CAN say is that there's no DIRECT evidence for the claim. But it's dishonest to say that there's NO evidence. <BR/><BR/>That is exactly what I'm talking about in this whole discussion. <BR/><BR/>For the record, there IS evidence...<BR/><BR/>1. "So Help Me God" was a common addition and/or response to official oaths during the founding era, thus it would NOT have been scandalous or at all exceptional for GW to have said the words.<BR/><BR/>2. Saying "So Help Me God" was in keeping with GW's personal faith in Providence and his reliance on prayer.<BR/><BR/>3. The fact that GW says (in his Inaugural Address) that he didn't want to "omit" God from the "proceedings" is CONSISTENT with (and at least mildly implies) his possibly saying "So Help Me God" in the oath.<BR/><BR/>4. Griswold's account is still evidence! Even though Griswold wasn't present at the event, he was in a position to have heard accounts of the inauguration from others (including, it would seem, Washington Irving). Historical scholarship can't simply dismiss this with the wave of a hand. For crying out loud, wasn't the earliest biography of Alexander the Great written 400 years after the man died!?? Unless Griswold is shown to be completely untrustworthy, then his account of the event (published as a history book) must be taken seriously. <BR/><BR/>Now, look, I acknowledge that the evidence is thinner than direct eye-witness testimony. I further acknowledge that, regardless of whether GW said the words, he would NOT want those words imposed on anyone. To do so would violate the Constitution.<BR/><BR/>But we simply can't prove this issue one way or the other.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50052063942529653142009-01-21T19:35:00.000-07:002009-01-21T19:35:00.000-07:00Clarification...I realize the danger of labels, bu...Clarification...I realize the danger of labels, but it gets tedious to type "secularists who passionately push to dump 'So Help Me God' from the oath" all the time. So, rather than keep saying that (or similar words), I shortened it to simply "secularists." And that has caused some heartburn here.<BR/><BR/>Look....the bottom line...there are quite a few secularists who are hostile to religion. That's a fact. It's also a fact that the modern secularist movement is heavily influenced by people who are called "New Atheists" (people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, et al). And these New Atheists aren't simply "I don't believe in God" types, they are actually HOSTILE to God and those who believe in God.<BR/><BR/>I believe that much of that is in play with this debate over "So Help Me God."<BR/><BR/>I'm NOT saying that EVERYBODY feels that way or is motivated by those sentiments, but they are present (in a major way) in this debate.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50576626731320369142009-01-21T17:50:00.000-07:002009-01-21T17:50:00.000-07:00Tom: "I believe Mr. Soller, et al., have done enou...Tom: "I believe Mr. Soller, et al., have done enough conscientious research to make a firm case for the negative."<BR/><BR/>I'd think it more proper to say; Mr. Soller, et al., have done sufficient research to demonstrate that is no evidence for the claim. While lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, a lack of evidence is sufficient to remove such speculation from the historic record.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38507887735335878392009-01-21T17:24:00.000-07:002009-01-21T17:24:00.000-07:00.Sometimes, it's convenient to rale against and to....<BR/>Sometimes, it's convenient to rale against and to be, in general, strongly against "Secular Humanism". That's a good strategy to impress the highly biased congregations that, after all is said and done, hold the power of the purse over their religious leaders.<BR/>.<BR/>Being a preacher is one tough row to hoe. <BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-977926014883694732009-01-21T17:13:00.000-07:002009-01-21T17:13:00.000-07:00Brian,I agree with Phil, your implication that sec...Brian,<BR/><BR/>I agree with Phil, your implication that secularism is anti-religious is insulting ... actually Phil didn't use that word, but I will.<BR/><BR/>Regarding you comment: "We don't know for sure if Washington said "so help me God," therefore historians need to refrain from any unequivocal declarations that he did."<BR/><BR/>As there is no historic record of the words, the best a historian can do is say that many believed that such and that the clain was widely accepted during the 20th century. A historian would also mention that there is no historic evidence of the claim.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your comment: "[...] They ALSO, I will add, need to refrain from unequivocal declarations he didn't."<BR/><BR/>No problem, and no offense intended, but they won't mention he didn't walk on water, or fly to the moon either.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37426005112736823232009-01-21T17:00:00.000-07:002009-01-21T17:00:00.000-07:00I've been working all day ... now that I'm...I've been working all day ... now that I'm free I'm going to fire of a volley of comments ... you might want to duck ;-)<BR/><BR/>Brad: >>We cannot say CONCLUSIVELY that Washington did or did not say, "So help me God." Simply put there is not enough evidence to prove this issue beyond a reasonable doubt. For one camp to insist that their case is foolproof is a bit of a stretch.<<<BR/><BR/>I find the point logical, but I also think it misses the point. <I>Speculation</I> and has no place in the historic record.<BR/><BR/>As Caitlin said: "[...] historians must rely on positive evidence when asserting positive claims."<BR/><BR/>... and fwiw, it is my opinion that both Justice Roberts and President Obama took measures to ensure the oath was constitutional. It is reported that Obama asked that the words be included, and the Justice rephrased the words so as to give the President an option. Kudos to each.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73659992234320437522009-01-21T15:12:00.000-07:002009-01-21T15:12:00.000-07:00You seem predisposed to misunderstand me, Ray. I ...You seem predisposed to misunderstand me, Ray. I intended props with the "single-handedly" comment, perhaps a bit of hyperbolic, but that's all.<BR/><BR/>Above, I say you did thorough research and make a firm case against Washington saying "so help me God." If I didn't exactly say it---preferring to urge people think for themselves instead of just spouting my opinion---I think you met the threshold of "preponderance of the evidence," even though arguing for a negative is the far more difficult task.<BR/><BR/>It takes conscientious effort, something lazy skeptics refuse to invest.<BR/><BR/>To be accused of "turning your words around" hurts me.<BR/><BR/>As for Washington's inauguration, it's been my larger argument from the first that his swearing on a Bible and talking a lot about God makes the oath issue not paramount.<BR/><BR/>As for Newdow's current case, I believe my take on Justice Roberts turning it around to "so help you God?" is an original point and I'd hoped it would be acknowledged. It might just pass judicial muster against Newdow's challenge where the old way might not.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54722741653513750922009-01-21T14:58:00.000-07:002009-01-21T14:58:00.000-07:00Tom, I didn't say that Washington avoided referenc...Tom, I didn't say that Washington avoided references to the Almighty during his administration or that he felt private and community religious worship as being unnecessary for the public good. I am saying that crediting GW with saying SHMG is not apt to head up the litany of state sponsored pro-God endorsements any longer. Please don't turn my words around.<BR/><BR/>Newdow's lawsuit is still on the docket. If he gets a chance to present his case, I seriously doubt that any defendant is going to assert, without being challenged, that GW said SHMG and that is a tradition carried on by most presidents ever since.<BR/><BR/>If you lower the standard to what is the preponderance of the evidence, then there's no contest - Washington didn't add SHMG to his presidential oath. If you ask me to demonstrate the same proposition to a reasonable certainty, then I believe that all of the facts, at the very least, point in this direction, if they aren't judged as exceeding it.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31217826540653351932009-01-21T14:51:00.000-07:002009-01-21T14:51:00.000-07:00Irving's report of Washington's First Inaugural co...<I>Irving's report of Washington's First Inaugural counts as "oral tradition." That should not be dismissed, simply because we lack OTHER witnesses attesting to it.</I><BR/><BR/>This approach lacks any kind of rigor. Perhaps an attorney can comment on the reliability of eyewitness testimony to events that happened a week, or a year or 10 years after the observed event. It's my understanding that Irving was 6 years old at the time of the inaugural and his recollection was made some 65 years after that. This does not inspire a great degree of confidence in it's veracity.<BR/><BR/>Plus, there is a published contemporary account that excludes the phrase. Either account could be tainted for nefarious reasons only known to the author that is why corroborating evidence is needed. On whole, the contemporary accounting - as far as I know unchallenged at the time - is far more likely to be accurate.<BR/><BR/>This is not a cynical approach. It is a way of establishing objective reality which I believe the founders would find the more persuasive method.<BR/><BR/>Why chance giving tacit approval to a possible untruth? Why not present it with the appropriate caveats rather than give it the weight of accepted history?<BR/><BR/>Since GW is generally looked upon with a deserved respect and his words and actions are used as authoritative precedent, the truth here matters more than in most cases. As I said, this weak story is too often presented as settled fact in order to establish a larger narrative. It seems to me that a sound narrative should be built on a firm foundation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44513030468132287732009-01-21T14:28:00.000-07:002009-01-21T14:28:00.000-07:00Well, I don't think skeptics shed all burden of pr...Well, I don't think skeptics shed all burden of proof, although they often attempt that tactic.<BR/><BR/>However, on this matter, I believe Mr. Soller, et al., have done enough conscientious research to make a firm case for the negative. <BR/><BR/>That's not the same thing as a lazy skepticism that appoints itself judge and jury and insists on a level of proof that can never be met to its satisfaction.<BR/><BR/>The standard in these things is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," as in a criminal procedure, it's the "preponderance of the evidence," like any other civil matter.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19987765309068343112009-01-21T14:11:00.000-07:002009-01-21T14:11:00.000-07:00Caitlin GD Hopkins said... The burden of proof is ...Caitlin GD Hopkins said... <BR/>The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, not the one denying it.><BR/><BR/>Some people on this blog don't believe that.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23914039021235697882009-01-21T14:09:00.000-07:002009-01-21T14:09:00.000-07:00...but they can no longer enter the courtroom and ...<I>...but they can no longer enter the courtroom and use this single episode as the flagship event, which is taken from our common historical heritage, for the purpose of interlarding the taxpayer's public square with state-sponsored acknowledgements of God.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh my.<BR/><BR/>Moments after George Washington became a "government official," he acknowledged the hell out of God in his inaugural address. <BR/><BR/>The historical record is full of almost countless incidents of "interlarding the taxpayer's public square with state-sponsored acknowledgements of God."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58088688049376827442009-01-21T13:56:00.000-07:002009-01-21T13:56:00.000-07:00.Brian, my monitor does not show that you have pos....<BR/>Brian, my monitor does not show that you have posted a link to your radio interview. I would like to hear it.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64452146663755204752009-01-21T13:30:00.000-07:002009-01-21T13:30:00.000-07:00Brad Hart said, "Simply put there is not enough ev...Brad Hart said, "Simply put there is not enough evidence to prove this issue beyond a reasonable doubt." I can assure everyone that, at least for myself and historian Peter Henriques, there is sufficient evidence to conclude, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that Washington did not add "So help me God" to his oath of office. It all boils down to what an individual considers a reasonable analysis of the facts versus what is sustainable by virtue of its traditional longevity.<BR/><BR/>Even if others wish to disagree with the factual conclusion, the Senate Historical Office is still acting unconscionably irresponsible by not removing the non-historical information listed at their website, <A HREF="http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/factsandfirsts/index.cfm" REL="nofollow"><B>Facts and Firsts</B></A>.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36936744108017879002009-01-21T13:29:00.000-07:002009-01-21T13:29:00.000-07:00Brian:I couldn't get the radio link to work.Brian:<BR/><BR/>I couldn't get the radio link to work.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56251687264733744552009-01-21T13:07:00.000-07:002009-01-21T13:07:00.000-07:00Jimmiraybob (and Ray and Caitlin), my point about ...Jimmiraybob (and Ray and Caitlin), my point about historical tradition is NOT that we should just embrace all the "feel-good tales" we wish to, regardless of the evidence. That's not what I said. <BR/><BR/>What I mean is....<BR/><BR/>We are much too quick to dismiss Washington Irving's report of the inauguration. <BR/><BR/>We've become much too cynical and much too dismissive (in many areas). <BR/><BR/>Irving's report of Washington's First Inaugural counts as "oral tradition." That should not be dismissed, simply because we lack OTHER witnesses attesting to it.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28647163726549541902009-01-21T12:43:00.000-07:002009-01-21T12:43:00.000-07:00I updated my blog post here to link to a radio int...I updated my blog post here to link to a radio interview I did yesterday (Jan 20) on this issue. Just FYI - if anyone's interested.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12483487650719122752009-01-21T12:42:00.001-07:002009-01-21T12:42:00.001-07:00Ray & Caitlin, as I've mentioned before, I...Ray & Caitlin, as I've mentioned before, I agree with you on two points...<BR/><BR/>1. We don't know for sure if Washington said "so help me God," therefore historians need to refrain from any unequivocal declarations that he did. (They ALSO, I will add, need to refrain from unequivocal declarations he didn't).<BR/><BR/>2. No President should be FORCED to say "so help me God" in order to assume the presidency, and this would certainly become an issue if we ever elect an atheist or polytheist to the White House. I hope that day never comes, but if it does, then I will concede that you both (and the others here who agree with you) have a point.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19469936873581291792009-01-21T12:42:00.000-07:002009-01-21T12:42:00.000-07:00"If we're talking about generally accepted histori...<I>"If we're talking about generally accepted historical tradition, then I don't believe that direct, eyewitness testimony is necessary to confirm that tradition."</I><BR/><BR/>Then you are advocating that our national character be grounded on unfounded feel-good tails - as long as they are not challenged for some length of time? Should the test be one or ten or a hundred years? This defies reason if reason is to be used to establish an objective reality. For each person that can martial the weight of evidence to imagine GW as saying, "So help me God" there is someone that can martial the weight of evidence to imagine that he did not. <BR/><BR/>I would like to believe that GW chopped down the cherry tree or that our recently departed president really was a rancher but that would not make it so. I should state, as I did in earlier comments on a previous post, that I would find no harm to myself or the nation if that evidence surfaces.<BR/><BR/>As it is this claim, presented as fact, is being used by some to create a larger narrative that this is a "Christian Nation" in a way that I don't think is correct or healthy for the general liberty of all citizens.<BR/><BR/>This story should be placed on the "tentative" shelf until such time that un-ambiguous evidence can be put forth to establish it as fact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com