By George, I think you have it. And that we have something upon which we can agree. Perhaps a good deal more than that upon which we disagree. I think to some considerable degree we may have been talking past each other rather than to each other. I acknowledge my share of the responsibility for that, and I will try to keep in mind that many pose constitutional principles in language somewhat at variance with mine.
On this business of doing one’s own research (msg 194), you were more than a little the innocent bystander in this instance. But, be advised, around here innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire on a regular basis. And, when researching the Christian influence on the development of our nation, it makes no more sense to consult only atheist websites than it does for Christians to consult only creationist websites when they are researching science,
Well thank you for that. The statement that I wouldn’t lift a finger to defend the Constitution in any context cut me to the bone after a lifetime of intellectual and physical defense of a document I have sworn an oath to protect and defend. I will take care to include as much relevant language as possible when quoting our beloved Constitution in the future; especially when it pertains to the specific, limited, and enumerated powers granted. As to the source for the dispute between the newspaper account and Madison’s recollections (and later text of the speech, and note added later in Franklin’s handwriting); the website was the first one that came up on a google of a phrase which is present in both accounts. Do you have any evidence that the information they sourced was incorrect? It seemed pretty authoritative and definitive and agreed well with js##’s account. It would be a great blow to their credibility if they were found in an outright lie.