Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which particular reference in the diary are you referring to?
Excuse me? If I am referring to how many times he went to church each year, that means I am referring to a lot of different diary entries.
In 1768 he went to church 15 times, in 1769, 10 times, in 1770, nine times, in 1771, six times, and the same number in 1772. In 1773, he went five times, while in 1774 he went 18 times, his banner year.
In 1785 he attended church just once. In 1786 he went once. In 1787 (the year he was present at and presided over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia) he went three times. In 1788, he attended church once.
In 1789, he became President, during which time the Diary is incomplete.
After Washington retired from the Presidency he went to church as few times as possible. In 1797 he attended four times, in 1798, once, and in 1799, the year of his death, twice. Only twice in the Diary does he ever comment upon the sermon; once, when he called it "a lame discourse," and again when he said it was in German and he could not understand it.
I didn't bother pointing out that Nelly was also mistaken on the issues of his receiving Communion, or of not allowing visitors on Sunday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Also, her comments appear to be a general account, not a specified number to contest. As she stated, as weather and road permitted. Considering it was a 2-3 hour ride, 12 times a year is rather a good account and unless his diary has some other contest, that is not what I would call "dramatic".
Okay... let's think about that.
1. 12 Sundays a year is less than one in four.
2. The 2-3 hour ride was only in Alexandria. In New York and Philadelphia the distance was measured in a few city blocks. He did not attend church in those cities any more frequently than he did in Alexandria.
3. The weather and road seems amazingly selective. In January 1749, he hunted on twelve days and went to church just once. In 1748, he spent 15 Sundays going to church, recording 49 days spent fox hunting, attending two balls, one play and received a reprimand from a Scotch Presbyterian acquaintance for spending too much time at the card table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
There is a lot of supporting evidence concerning him being a Christian, though I am unsure why people are so adamant about proclaiming him otherwise. /shrug
You actually have that backwards. The fact that all the "supporting evidence concerning him being a Christian" consists of pious frauds demonstrates that all the real effort is from people "adamant about proclaiming him" a Christian. After all, it takes a lot more effort to write fiction than it does to simply refer to the actual evidence.
Secular progressives want to believe all that crap about the Founders but I find their belief very hard to accept since most of the white people in the nation in 1787 were Christians and if not God, what did cause that group of people to gather in Philadelphia that summer. Some people who were supposed to attend the meeting failed for whatever reason. Yep, I believe that the hand of God was involved in that writing of that document that secular progressives of today want out of their way but will never make it.
It worked so well for over 200 years and so many others have tried to copy it but failed because they weren't Christian. I say that secular progressivism will become irrelevant or the nation will die. Study up on the progressive period of the early 20th Century and try to understand what seculars wanted.
You are so right about Christians not walking the walk but the time is coming when they will begin to understand how wrong they have been in dealing with all seculars.
As for Washington failing to say God and using the words of the day to describe Providence, I don't see anything there but just what I said at the beginning of this sentence. It works for seculars, of all kinds, to use to destroy our Constitution and Christianity as a part of the game they are playing. Washington didn't say anything about Jesus because he was talking about God who he considered to be the Creator whether he used the word or not. You of the progressive bent are only able to believe the words of the early progressives who wanted to destroy religion for whatever reason. I just hope that if you people win you are able to fight off the Islamists at least as long as you live. What will you say about them since they don't want to hear that kind of talk either?
Notice how he dismisses all of the 'supernatural' aspects of Christ's life? He was also a unitarian, as was John Adams - both rejected the Trinity; they did not regard Christ as divine.
Note also that while John Adams was president, the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, part of which states:
" As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072)."
And from Thomas Paine:
" I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everbody's Vacation Publishing Co., 1945, p. 362)"
These are not 'new' findings, nor have they only recently been made available. They exist in their primary forms, letters, etc. written in the very hands of Jefferson, Adams, Paine, etc.
You do them a disservice when you try to apply your wants and desires to their realities.
Why yes I do believe that progressives have been trying to destroy Christianity for a number of years, nearly 100 of them, because they think they must do that in order to take over the rest of everything.
Riiiight. That's why there are so many of us in church every Sunday. We're infiltrators just trying to learn all we can so we can bring it all crashing down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
They fear Christianity as an enemy of what they believe.
And just what is it that we believe that is so contradictory to Christianity?
And, I'm talking about Christ's version, not Pat Robertson's, John Hagee's or James Dobson's.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not what most educated Christians believe, and above all it is not what the Christian right believes. For a good deal of history you could've been put to death for defining Christianity that way.
It did mean "Christianity" in that context. Read the whole context.
I guess that makes me but just about ignorant then huh. I won't even dignify the later on 'context'. I understand Jefferson perfectly and for me, that is all that matters.
You'd do well to learn:
Quote:
George Washington: Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on June 12, 1779
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”
George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55. OI-270.
George Washingtong Information (http://lwhf.com/george_washington_information.html - broken link)
I doubt that Washington in his wildest dreams, never once dreamt the behaviors of his life would be put under a microscope and tested by the people of the United States.
Note also that while John Adams was president, the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, part of which states:
" As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072)."
You do them a disservice when you try to apply your wants and desires to their realities.
You brought in the dreaded treaty Article 11. The text that is in bold is missing text in the Arabic translation of the treaty. There are four documents that are surrounding this treaty.
First let me point you to the reasons this treaty was needed in the first place. (already posted once in this thread)
'Their [only] fault, their crime, is recognising Jesus Christ as the most divine Saviour... and of professing Him as the True Faith.'
Quote:
Many slaves converted to Islam, though, as Morgan put it, this only meant they were 'freed from the Oar, tho' not from [their] Patron's Service.' Christian women who had been taken into the pasha's harem often 'turned Turk' to stay with their children, who were raised as Muslims.
Quote:
According to observers of the late 1500s and early 1600s, there were around 35,000 European Christian slaves held throughout this time on the Barbary Coast - many in Tripoli, Tunis, and various Moroccan towns, but most of all in Algiers.
Secondly let me point out too, Adams was under a great deal of stress to get this stopped and he needed the royal navy support. That document needed to be signed in order to get that support. There was no time (think about curry time) to waist. The text in bold was transcribed into it by...Barlow (an anti-christian fellow); the only time that text appeared is in the English translation and not in the other documents derived afterwords. Since it doesn't appear in the Arabic, it's the dreaded appearing, disappearing Article 11. Also as anyone in law would know, that also makes that document null in that one side does not reconcile with the other, therefore there were no meeting of the minds.
Conclusion, I find that odd. Do you not find that odd?
You brought in the dreaded treaty Article 11. The text that is in bold is missing text in the Arabic translation of the treaty. There are four documents that are surrounding this treaty.
Secondly let me point out too, Adams was under a great deal of stress to get this stopped and he needed the royal navy support. That document needed to be signed in order to get that support. There was no time (think about curry time) to waist. The text in bold was transcribed into it by...Barlow (an anti-christian fellow); the only time that text appeared is in the English translation and not in the other documents derived afterwords. Since it doesn't appear in the Arabic, it's the dreaded appearing, disappearing Article 11. Also as anyone in law would know, that also makes that document null in that one side does not reconcile with the other, therefore there were no meeting of the minds.
Conclusion, I find that odd. Do you not find that odd?
No.
I find it much odder that a portion of the treaty designed to accommodate (some would say appease) the Arabs would've been left out of the final Arabic draft. A failure of archive maintenance by eighteenth-century seafaring Arabs seems a more likely explanation than a mysterious anti-Christian conspiracy.
Whether the document is "null" legally or not is not the point. It was published--including the occluded Article 11--in the United States in 1796 and aroused no public controversy. That is because everyone knew that what it said was true: that the Christian religion was no part of the government of the United States. Any perusal of the Constitution would've provided anyone with the same conclusion.
I guess that makes me but just about ignorant then huh.
Not necessarily ignorant, but not an orthodox Christian either.
Quote:
I won't even dignify the later on 'context'. I understand Jefferson perfectly and for me, that is all that matters.
A few of us do believe in objective standards of scholarship. You may excuse yourself from that requirement if you like.
Quote:
I doubt that Washington in his wildest dreams, never once dreamt the behaviors of his life would be put under a microscope and tested by the people of the United States.
I doubt that Washington ever (not never) once dreamt that there would be a pack of fanatics in the United States that turned him into an icon of Christianity.
I don't give a rat's ass if Washington (or Jefferson or Madison) believed Jesus of Nazareth pissed champagne and shat marble. If they did, it would have no effect at all on the Constitution they left us, which provides for the separation of church and state. That's the only thing I care about.
Excuse me? If I am referring to how many times he went to church each year, that means I am referring to a lot of different diary entries.
In 1768 he went to church 15 times, in 1769, 10 times, in 1770, nine times, in 1771, six times, and the same number in 1772. In 1773, he went five times, while in 1774 he went 18 times, his banner year.
In 1785 he attended church just once. In 1786 he went once. In 1787 (the year he was present at and presided over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia) he went three times. In 1788, he attended church once.
In 1789, he became President, during which time the Diary is incomplete.
After Washington retired from the Presidency he went to church as few times as possible. In 1797 he attended four times, in 1798, once, and in 1799, the year of his death, twice. Only twice in the Diary does he ever comment upon the sermon; once, when he called it "a lame discourse," and again when he said it was in German and he could not understand it.
I didn't bother pointing out that Nelly was also mistaken on the issues of his receiving Communion, or of not allowing visitors on Sunday.
Okay... let's think about that.
1. 12 Sundays a year is less than one in four.
2. The 2-3 hour ride was only in Alexandria. In New York and Philadelphia the distance was measured in a few city blocks. He did not attend church in those cities any more frequently than he did in Alexandria.
3. The weather and road seems amazingly selective. In January 1749, he hunted on twelve days and went to church just once. In 1748, he spent 15 Sundays going to church, recording 49 days spent fox hunting, attending two balls, one play and received a reprimand from a Scotch Presbyterian acquaintance for spending too much time at the card table.
You actually have that backwards. The fact that all the "supporting evidence concerning him being a Christian" consists of pious frauds demonstrates that all the real effort is from people "adamant about proclaiming him" a Christian. After all, it takes a lot more effort to write fiction than it does to simply refer to the actual evidence.
Then cite the references as context is a common misleading result to the issue here. Also, we are talking about simply attendance, yet how does this extend to "He was not a Christian" as a conclusion? The numerous citations of evidence is the accounts of him praying, the accounts of his attention, devotion and continued attendance to Church. His invlovement in such and the accounts by those close to him.
The position that he was not rests in extreme speculation and requires extensive twisting to result in such a conclusion. The basis of him being a christian is supported, the claim that he was not tries to dismiss that which was obvious in order to obtain a more complex position of support which honestly relies far more on assumptive interpretation.
You contest a witness account by his adopted daughter who was very close to him and you do so by speculating concerning intent, meaning, etc.... all that is as close to the source accounts are pushed aside to dictate meaning from "words" as to meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, Publisher, 1838), Vol. XII, pp. 399-411.
To say that he [George Washington] was not a Christian would be to impeach his sincerity and honesty. Of all men in the world, Washington was certainly the last whom any one would charge with dissimulation or indirectness [hypocrisies and evasiveness]; and if he was so scrupulous in avoiding even a shadow of these faults in every known act of his life, [regardless of] however unimportant, is it likely, is it credible, that in a matter of the highest and most serious importance [his religious faith, that] he should practice through a long series of years a deliberate deception upon his friends and the public? It is neither credible nor possible.
Honestly, if you are going to argue the case, please provide the specific quotes and citations to their original sources and use those quotes to make your position. For context is the true position for a case in these issues, not simply "words" to which may be manipulated freely as to intent and purpose.
Your position of "days spent" in church does not explain "why" church was missed, nor does the case of him not attending a certain number of time make the case he was not Christian (what magic number is required for one to be a Christian? Also, by what requirements of the faith is it to be a Christian?). For a persons faith and belief is not defined by their attendance.
We do know.... He did attend by accounts and was active within the foundations and direction of the churches. There are multiple accounts of his character concerning such by those closest to him. Now you can certainly speculate as to his minds eye, pick apart words and place context to your choosing, but in the end, the evidence supports that he was and only by extreme speculation of intent can you say otherwise. That is, the evidence that he is not is simply guessing in the face of what is known plainly and accounted by witness.
Personally, I will take the accounts of those close to him such as Nelly's account over pretentious historians who think that they have any clue as to someones internal thoughts and are often motivated by a personal desire for their speculation to be truth to sustain their political motivations concerning this country and its relation to Christianity.
Edit:
Honestly, this is a topic where specific citation is a must, and primary and original sources must be used lain out with their full context in citation. I apologize if this is a strict requirement, but this issue is clouded with poor sourcing support and out of context declarations.
So, with your point concerning his days in attendance, please cite me each supporting position, also please properly support the conclusion that his "number" of attendance is proper support for the conclusion of his personal acceptance of Christianity. Thank you.
Last edited by Nomander; 06-10-2010 at 07:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we discount one, we must do it to the other as both are biased on what they observed.
