“When in the course of human events,” the well-known text begins, “it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained …” Wait a minute. That’s not quite right. And Thomas Jefferson must have known it too, which is why brackets surround the unfamiliar words. Two lines are drawn through them and, above, with a firm hand, are written the corrections: “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another …”
Corrections were also made in the next paragraph: “We hold these truths,” it begins, “to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent.” Again, wrong. Men are not really created independent: they are born in a state of complete dependence. Condense and clarify: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.”
And the world begins to change…
Two kiosks offer the chance to look more closely at the Library of Congress Gutenberg Bible and examine selected pages; others explain the mythological and literary references in the ornaments of the Italian Renaissance-style Jefferson Building. The exhibition “Thomas Jefferson’s Library” also uses such kiosks to help look inside a few 18th-century books. And yes, these kiosks are what allowed me to see the changes in the Declaration so clearly, even identifying the different handwriting on the document.
These screens are partly meant to attract more visitors, and now their features and information will also be reproduced at the library’s new Web sites – loc.gov/experience and myloc.gov.
Read something new – and old – this weekend.
If in early drafts of the Declartion, 2-3 references to God are removed and replaced with more neutral or natural or deist terms of art, does that provide proof positive we are not a nation based on christian values, or not?
Some guy on book tv this morning mentioned that Romney really blew his religion issues. Seems his father or other Mormon tripe states that the Declaration and Constitution are inspired by God. Seems to me if Romney has just repeated that every time any related question came up, his wacko religion could have been neutralized.
I just spent 30 minutes trying to get to an interactive site for the Declaration. Came pretty close, but no banana.
If anyone makes it, could you post a more direct link?
[edit: not interactive by my definition; but, this link takes you to the Jefferson documents in the article:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt001.html
Took 90 seconds.]
#1 – No it does not. It only proves the writers were intent on creating a country which did not also establish a religion.
How “quaint”.
Editor—thanks for the effort but you anticipated my response. From the article, I thought we could click on some language and get an explanation of the changes and such. Not just a slightly larger page that I still can’t read==atleast not on my monitor.
Our government–still more hype than results. I’d like to see an interactive page if the Library ever produces one.
thanks again.
#3–Benji==better catch up on your reading. The “standard” argument goes that mentioning God does not establish a religion, so removing mentioning of God certainly does not argue for not establishing a religion.
No, removing god from the constitution can only be seen as removing god from the intellectual foundation of our country as well.
Otherwise, words just don’t make sense? I guess that is a silly argument, nevermind.
#6, Bobbo,
The “standard” argument goes …
Bullshit. The “standard argument” is only a rehash of everyone’s wishful thinking. This has only been an issue for the past 40 years. Before that no one cared about “religion” in the constitution; they only cared that the Baptists didn’t get a bigger share of the pie than the Methodists or Lutherans.
Removing “god” from the Constitution was because the framers wanted a secular country. They didn’t want to share the power with religion.
bobbo:
1. how many followers of any non-christians religions were among Founding Fathers? (not counting Jews)
2. what was the percentage of christians in all of the american colonies population? (not counting Jews)
Please find the answers the answers for yourself and then try to argue again about USA being not based on christian values LOL
#6 – Bobbo
Better catch up on my reading? 7 and 8 understood the context of my response.
The point is you committed a logic error by assuming the omission of specific Christian wording in the documents equals the absence (or rejection) of those values by the authors.
It would be as if I were to assume the only reason for the absence of clear thinking in your original comment was because you lack the ability for logical thought.
BTW – Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc… are all proper Adjectives and, as such, should be capitalized. Maybe you should “brush up” on your English grammar.
#9–Benji==when a word is in a draft and then it is deleted, would you call that more likely an omission or a rejection?
Logically, that CANNOT be an omission. Rejection remains debatable if you are the type that likes to quibble about spelling and grammar.
#10 – bobbo
It would be a revision through rejection, not omission. The word could only be considered to be omitted if it were not in the draft in the first place.
However, you continue to make category mistake. Neither the omission nor the rejection of a word, in of itself, nullify the basis of belief or thought on which the concepts are based.
One would need to consider the more general context of the authors’ thoughts and experiences to determine the fundamental beliefs which shaped the documents.
Ironically, omissions from the draft would lend much more support to your argument. Omissions would more likely indicate an absence of the beliefs and/or ideals you wish to deny. In contrast, the rejection of a word originally included in draft more likely indicates the idea was important enough to be considered.
By the way, my point in correcting your spelling was to directly counter your implication I have not read the “standard argument.” (I probably should have refrained from writing that statement, but I couldn’t resist the humor in doing so).