{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:a-reply-to-bishop-spalding",
  "slug": "a-reply-to-bishop-spalding",
  "title": "A Reply to Bishop Spalding",
  "subtitle": "On God in the Constitution.",
  "excerpt": "A reply to Bishop Spalding on the question of God in the Constitution — and why the Framers deliberately declined to organize the Republic around an Attribute of the Deity.",
  "year": 1890,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/a-reply-to-bishop-spalding/",
  "wordCount": 1245,
  "body": "• An unfinished reply to Bishop J. L. Spalding's article\n    \"God in the Constitution,\" which appeared in the Arena.\n    Boston, Mass., April, 1890.\n\nBISHOP SPALDING admits that \"The introduction of the question of\nreligion would not only have brought discord into the Constitutional\nconvention, but would have also engendered strife throughout the land.\"\nUndoubtedly this is true. I am compelled to admit this, for the reason\nthat in all times and in all lands the introduction of the question of\nreligion has brought discord and has engendered strife.\n\nHe also says: \"In the presence of such danger, like wise men and\npatriots, they avoided irritating subjects\"—the irritating subject\nbeing the question of religion. I admit that it always has been, and\npromises always to be, an \"irritating subject,\" because it is not a\nsubject decided by reason, but by ignorance, prejudice, arrogance\nand superstition. Consequently he says: \"It was prudence, then, not\nskepticism, which induced them to leave the question of religion to the\nseveral States.\" The Bishop admits that it was prudent for the founders\nof this Government to leave the question of religion entirely to\nthe States. It was prudent because the question of religion is\nirritating—because religious questions engender strife and hatred. Now,\nif it was prudent for the framers of the Constitution to leave religion\nout of the Constitution, and allow that question to be settled by the\nseveral States themselves under that clause preventing the establishment\nof religion or the free exercise thereof, why is it not wise still—why\nis it not prudent now?\n\nMy article was written against the introduction of religion into the\nConstitution of the United States. I am opposed to a recognition of God\nand of Jesus Christ in that instrument; and the reason I am opposed to\nit is, that: \"The introduction of the question of religion would not\nonly bring discord, but would engender strife throughout the land.\" I am\nopposed to it for the reason that religion is an \"irritating subject,\"\nand also because if it was prudent when the Constitution was made, to\nleave God out, it is prudent now to keep him out.\n\nThe Bishop is mistaken—as bishops usually are—when he says: \"Had our\nfathers been skeptics, or anti-theists, they would not have required\nthe President and Vice-President, the Senators and Representatives in\nCongress, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States,\nto call God to witness that they intended to perform their duties under\nthe Constitution like honest men and loyal citizens.\"\n\nThe framers of the Constitution did no such thing. They allowed every\nofficer, from the President down, either to swear or to affirm, and\nthose who affirmed did not call God to witness. In other words, our\nConstitution allowed every officer to abolish the oath and to leave God\nout of the question.\n\nThe Bishop informs us, however, that: \"The causes which would have\nmade it unwise to introduce any phase of religious controversy into the\nConstitutional convention have long since ceased to exist.\" Is there\nas much division now in the religious world as then? Has the Catholic\nChurch thrown away the differences between it and the Protestants? Are\nwe any better friends to-day than we were in 1789? As a matter of fact,\nis there not now a cause which did not to the same extent exist then?\nHave we not in the United States, millions of people who believe in no\nreligion whatever, and who regard all creeds as the work of ignorance\nand superstition?\n\nThe trouble about putting God in the Constitution in 1789 was, that they\ncould not agree on the God to go in; and the reason why our fathers\ndid not unite church and state was, that they could not agree on which\nchurch was to be the bride. The Catholics of Maryland certainly would\nnot have permitted the nation to take the Puritan Church, neither would\nthe Presbyterians of Pennsylvania have agreed to this, nor would the\nEpiscopalians of New York, or of any Southern State. Each church said:\n\"Marry me, or die a bachelor.\"\n\nThe Bishop asks whether there are \"still reasons why an express\nrecognition of God's sovereignty and providence should not form part of\nthe organic law of the land\"? I ask, were there any reasons, in 1789,\nwhy an express recognition of God's sovereignty and providence should\nnot form part of the organic law of the land? Did not the Bishop say,\nonly a few lines back of that, \"that the introduction of the question\nof religion into that body would have brought discord, and would\nhave engendered strife throughout the land.\" What is the \"question of\nreligion\" to which he referred? Certainly \"the recognition of God's\nsovereignty and providence,\" with the addition of describing the God\nas the author of the supposed providence. Thomas Jefferson would have\ninsisted on having a God in the Constitution who was not the author of\nthe Old and New Testaments. Benjamin Franklin would have asked for the\nsame God; and on that question John Adams would have voted yes. Others\nwould have voted for a Catholic God—others for an Episcopalian, and so\non, until the representatives of the various creeds were exhausted.\n\nI took the ground, and I still take the ground, that there is nothing\nin the Constitution that cannot on occasion be enforced by the army and\nnavy—that is to say, that cannot be defended and enforced by the sword.\nSuppose God is acknowledged in the Constitution, and somebody denies the\nexistence of this God—what are you to do with him? Every man elected to\noffice must swear or affirm that he will support the Constitution. Can\none who does not believe in this God, conscientiously take such oath, or\nmake such affirmation?\n\nThe effect, then, of such a clause in the Constitution would be to\ndrive from public life all except the believers in this God, and this\nprovidence. The Government would be in fact a theocracy and would resort\nfor its preservation to one of the old forms of religious persecution.\n\nI took the ground in my article, and still maintain it, that all\nintelligent people know that no one knows whether there is a God or not.\nThis cannot be answered by saying, \"that nearly all intelligent men in\nevery age, including our own, have believed in God and have held that\nthey had rational grounds for such faith.\" This is what is called a\ndeparture in pleading—it is a shifting of the issue. I did not say that\nintelligent people do not believe in the existence of God. What I did\nsay is, that intelligent people know that no one knows whether there is\na God or not.\n\nIt is not true that we know the conditions of thought. Neither is it\ntrue that we know that these conditions are unconditioned. There is no\nsuch thing as the unconditioned conditional. We might as well say that\nthe relative is unrelated—that the unrelated is the absolute—and\ntherefore that there is no difference between the absolute and the\nrelative.\n\nThe Bishop says we cannot know the relative without knowing the\nabsolute. The probability is that he means that we cannot know the\nrelative without admitting the existence of the absolute, and that we\ncannot know the phenomenal without taking the noumenal for granted.\nStill, we can neither know the absolute nor the noumenal for the reason\nthat our mind is limited to relations.\n"
}