Radorth

Buffman, IMO it is highly disingenuous to attach David Barton's name to a quote in order to make your case, when it has other references. Why don't you just take the quote itself to task instead of relying on innuendo? That's what you "scholars" are supposed to do, but one thing I've learned at II is that "scholar" and "integrity" are generally unrelated.

You have not stated the 2 cases accurately Toto. Look, I don't think Steele is particualrly dependable, and neither does Federer apparently. We don't rely on or accept anything Steele says which we can find recorded in realtime by Madison. You pick on Steele for his embellishing and bad memory after ten years, and you cannot even get the facts right in the same week.

Interesting that Buffman asked why that period was any more contentious than another. You guys should talk. Anyway you are wrong about how the delegates responded. Hamilton seems to have responded that way. Others said it was a good idea, come to late, and one delegate stated that the "real reason" was that they had no funds. Others worried about sending the wrong message to a doubtful, anxious public. So your synopsis is very misleading.

Huh? I don't recall Steele saying all that.


The truth is that they did go to church together on the 4th AFTER they had reassembled. Federer, at least, makes no other interpretation, although he does seem to think that God intervened through the clergy to help the delegates over the humps.

My own OPINION is that Franklin's speech did make Washington smile, for we have overwhelming evidence that Washington believed in and relied on the intervention of God. I think his speech was used, by God yes, to make the majority of the delegates think about their own baggage and bias, to pray more than usual, and to rise above their own wisdom for the sake of the common good.

(Hooker's "mutual submission" theory at work, without which democracy cannot form or function)

Rad

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Toto

Rad - perhaps Washington smiled because there was a little joke between him and Franklin, since both knew that prayers were empty rituals designed to bamboozle the crowd into submission. Perhaps that's why the rest of the convention rejected the idea - they were above that. That's why they produced some obviously lame excuses, like "no time", or "no money to pay a clergyman" when there were a number of clergy in the convention.

I have as much evidence for this as you do for your scenario. Except that if I believed in a god, I would not want that god associated with a compromise on slavery.

What part of "The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary" do you not understand?

Buffman

That last Radorth post is typical of his level of research...filled with errors and half truths. I am too busy seeking the accurate history to waste time constantly dealing with his personal allegations and shortcomings. To do so is an apparent waste of valuable time I can ill afford to lose.

Federer uses Barton's quote. Barton may have selectively used the Farrand Notes. I don't know. I am, with extremely able assistance, examining "all" the Farrand Notes including #15 on page 452 of Volume One in which Farrand concludes "A distorted account of this incident is given in Appendix A, CCCLV; see also CXCV, CCCLXVII, CCCLXXIX and CCCXCIII."

Unfortunately many resource reference facilities are closed until after the new year.

Stay tuned.

(Added)

It should be rather obvious that Radorth is using the tired, old, fundie propaganda technique of using other people's independent reseach to support their own agenda. When he can offer new information from independent research, it will go a long way in re-establishing a degree of credibility. However, to simply attack the findings of others, without offering any verifiable evidence to support the attack, is a technique aimed at only one thing...selling his own agenda to the underinformed and unwary.

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Radorth

Yeah Buffman says my post is filled with half-truths, but he can't prove it until next year sometime. What do you expect to find Buffman? Is the Net closed? I thought you had all this stuff at your fingertips.

It's Toto who is wrong about what Steele said, based on his own snurl posts, and he was very misleading about the reasons given at the convention, as anyone can see for themselves here:

<a href="http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0628.htm" target="_blank">http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0628.htm</a>


They would want someone not in the convention to be praying for them, as a moment's thought would reveal. And they were in such disagreement they worried about how it would appear to a worried public to have prayer. You left that out, AGAIN. But they made all that up, right Toto?

Note that suddenly nothing they say is anything but a "lame excuse." But by now, Toto's post is so typical of a cynic losing a quote war, it is the only "lame excuse" in this debate.

Rad

Buffman

Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye. measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence,--& thenceforward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning. Dr. Frankn. 2ded. this motion After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.15

[Note 15: 15 In the Franklin MS. the following note is added:--“The Convention, except three or four persons, thought Prayers unnecessary.” A distorted account of this incident is given in Appendix A, CCCLV; see also CXCV, CCCLXVII, CCCLXXIX and CCCXCIII.]

Radorth

You are using this AGAIN, when we have no idea who wrote it or when?

Man you are grasping at straws now.

Skeptics debate rule # 15:

When all else fails, use cryptic notes found on original documents, if applicable. Hopefully the nice Christians won't make to much of it.

Rad

Radorth

And which of my corrections of Toto's poor research and numerous errors is mistaken exactly?

And why do you have to get assistance to find out?

Rad

Buffman

<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html" target="_blank">http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html</a>

(Extract)
Farrand's Records remains the single best source for discussions of the Constitutional Convention. The notes taken at the time by James Madison and later revised by him form the largest single block of material after the official proceedings, but the collection includes notes and letters by many other participants, as well as the various
(End extract)

What doesn't Radorth understand about "single best source?"

Radorth

And your evidence of how many opposed the idea, and why they did, comes from where exactly?

Skeptic's debate rule # 16:

"When all else fails, throw in a red herring."

I see, so if God did anything to facilitate the Constitution, he would have been a bad God anyway. He would be what, too accomodating? Too forgiving of human frailty? And how many delegates do you think would agree with that? Do answer, as I'm sure many skeptics have lost you.

Heh. Your logic is certainly unique, and your demands of God are certainly flexible, I'll say that.

Rad

Radorth

A fine source, but not the only source. It never occurs to Buffman that some of the Christians at the time were interested in various events and made notes about them. Is Farrand interested in whether "the entire Convention" assembled in church together (per Randolph's suggestion) on July 4th and heard a sermon by William Rogers?

Rad