The good folks at American Creation have called me out for a “minor” error in my post “Maybe America Was Meant to be a Christian Nation After All.” Apparently the first constitution of New York DID have a religious test oath. While this is slightly embarrassing, I am actually very glad that I tried out some of this material in the blogosphere before I made the same error in my forthcoming book. Thanks to Ray Soller for catching this mistake. I should add that I still stand by my larger argument in the post.
As long as we are discussing being corrected for errors, I thought you might enjoy this hilarious piece by Craig Silverman in the Columbia Journalism Review. Silverman has a website that chronicles various “corrections” made in newspapers around the English-speaking world. He has even written a book on the topic. His CJR piece lists some of the stranger corrections that have appeared in newspapers during the past year. Here is a taste:
From the LA Times: Bear sighting: An item in the National Briefing in Sunday’s Section A said a bear wandered into a grocery story in Hayward, Wis., on Friday and headed for the beer cooler. It was Thursday.
From the Guardian: A reply to a question in Notes & Queries yesterday recommended purchasing lion and tiger urine from Chester Zoo to stop neighbourhood cats from urinating in a vegetable patch (G2, page 17). Chester Zoo would like to forestall requests for its big cats’ urine: it asks us to make clear that it does not in fact sell either tiger or lion urine. Many years ago the zoo sold elephant dung, but it no longer does.
From the Independent (UK): Further to the reference in the paper on 14 June to Rebekah Wade allegedly hitting her first husband, Ross Kemp, after a “drinking bout” with David Blunkett, Mr Blunkett has been in touch to correct the record: “the alleged ‘drinking bout’ was a cup of tea at 5.30 in the evening (with witnesses including Rupert Murdoch)… There was no ‘drinking bout’, I’ve never been involved in such a ‘drinking bout’ – with or without Rebekah Wade”.
I will now go back to trying to properly interpret obscure eighteenth-century state constitutions!