Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:36 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,905,740 times
Reputation: 2618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The assertion that we don't know whether he was a Christian or a Deist is supported by the historical record. The assertion that we absolutely know is not supported by the historical record. That's the bottom line.
Faulty logic,

We can not know everything, therefore we know nothing.

As I said, your support is weak.

The Treaty of Tripoli? That one has been debunked many times, legitimate academics don't even use it for support.

The argument over the number of days as support? Again, this is stretching here, a common fallacious support.

The suggestion that any of those close to him are simply using their bias to make such an account? Again, another unsupported speculation.

I always hear the claim of him not using Christ specifically, but this is selective omission.

George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.


There is ample support to suggest he was, not absolute definitive evidence, but circumstantial support to the extent that we can reasonable obtain without having a divine link as to what his own thoughts were.

George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, Publisher, 1838), Vol. XII, pp. 399-411.
George Washington, The Religious Opinions of Washington, E. C. M'Guire, editor (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1836).

William Johnson, George Washington The Christian (1917).

William Jackson Johnstone, How Washington Prayed (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1932).

The Messages and Papers of the Presidents, James D. Richardson, editor (Published by the Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, pp. 51-57 (1789), 64 (1789), 213-224 (1796), etc.

George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States, Late Commander in Chief of the American Army, to the People of the United States, Preparatory to his Declination (Baltimore: George & Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), pp. 22-23.

George Washington, The Maxims of Washington (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1855).

Again, the argument of "We do not know" combined with "well this seems suspect" is nothing short of clever application of false premises to suggest an unsupported conclusion.


If you care to make a rebuttal, please provide citation to your support. Primary or Original sources please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:36 AM
 
206 posts, read 193,382 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The assertion that we don't know whether he was a Christian or a Deist is supported by the historical record. The assertion that we absolutely know is not supported by the historical record. That's the bottom line.
He was Christian. Read his own works and words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:40 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,905,740 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by murfles View Post
He was Christian. Read his own works and words.
The method of their approach to this is similar to how a lawyer focuses on a word to the point of making it unclear. This is the approach that many have taken in their pursuit to secularize this nation.

"It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

While I agree we can not know "absolutely" (does anyone truly know if a person is a Christian but the person themselves?), the position of arguing over the "absolute" value of this conclusion is devious in position, and honestly absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:49 AM
 
206 posts, read 193,382 times
Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
The method of their approach to this is similar to how a lawyer focuses on a word to the point of making it unclear. This is the approach that many have taken in their pursuit to secularize this nation.

"It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

While I agree we can not know "absolutely" (does anyone truly know if a person is a Christian but the person themselves?), the position of arguing over the "absolute" value of this conclusion is devious in position, and honestly absurd.
I certainly agree Nomander. All this is is an attempt to try and portray that our founders did not believe in God so they can further diminish the role that religion played in the founding of this fine nation. After they accomplish that, they will move to eradicate religious beliefs entirely. The reason for that is to further alienate and divide people by chipping away at the very foundation that made/makes this nation what it is. When that is complete, they can then further their agenda in "transforming" this great country into a government slave utopia. Once values and traditions are extinguished, the populace will turn into grazing government sheep. This is not a new tactic, all tyrannical dictators have used this approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,015,174 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
You brought in the dreaded treaty Article 11. The text that is in bold is missing text in the Arabic translation of the treaty.
Even if this is true (and I have no obvious reason to believe that it is), what would that matter?

It is absolutely in the version that was signed by President Adams and ratified by the Congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:52 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,732,328 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Faulty logic,

We can not know everything, therefore we know nothing.

As I said, your support is weak.

The Treaty of Tripoli? That one has been debunked many times, legitimate academics don't even use it for support.

The argument over the number of days as support? Again, this is stretching here, a common fallacious support.

The suggestion that any of those close to him are simply using their bias to make such an account? Again, another unsupported speculation.

I always hear the claim of him not using Christ specifically, but this is selective omission.

George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.


There is ample support to suggest he was, not absolute definitive evidence, but circumstantial support to the extent that we can reasonable obtain without having a divine link as to what his own thoughts were.

George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, Publisher, 1838), Vol. XII, pp. 399-411.
George Washington, The Religious Opinions of Washington, E. C. M'Guire, editor (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1836).

William Johnson, George Washington The Christian (1917).

William Jackson Johnstone, How Washington Prayed (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1932).

The Messages and Papers of the Presidents, James D. Richardson, editor (Published by the Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, pp. 51-57 (1789), 64 (1789), 213-224 (1796), etc.

George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States, Late Commander in Chief of the American Army, to the People of the United States, Preparatory to his Declination (Baltimore: George & Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), pp. 22-23.

George Washington, The Maxims of Washington (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1855).

Again, the argument of "We do not know" combined with "well this seems suspect" is nothing short of clever application of false premises to suggest an unsupported conclusion.


If you care to make a rebuttal, please provide citation to your support. Primary or Original sources please.
Actually, your argument is faulty.

I've not asserted that because we don't know everything, we know nothing.

I've asserted that the historical record does not support the absolute conclusion that Washington was a Christian. I've asserted that his writings and statements at the time could be interpreted as either Deist or Christian. I've asserted that he did not want to publicly make known his religious beliefs, as is evidenced by his refusal even when asked to publicly make known his religious beliefs. We cannot know because he didn't want people to know. His contemporaries didn't know then, and we cannot know today.

For instance, do we know if George Washington liked to eat ostrich eggs? If he didn't say so, then we don't know. It doesn't mean we know nothing about Mr Washington. It doesn't invalidate what we do know because there are some things we don't know.

We don't know. He didn't tell us. He didn't think it was anyone's business but his own. He didn't think we needed to know. And I agree with him. And I'm going to respect him enough to defend his point-of-view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 11:00 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,732,328 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by murfles View Post
He was Christian. Read his own works and words.
I have. And they could just as easily be the writings of a Deist, or of an independent thinker who valued Christian teachings, but didn't consider Christ to be divine. The belief that Christ was divine is what defines a Christian. If you don't believe that, and Benjamin Franklin didn't, John Adams didn't, Thomas Jefferson didn't, then you're not a Christian. We don't know if George Washington believed in the divinity of Christ or not. You assert that you KNOW. But unless you're very, very old, and were a confidant of George's, then you cannot KNOW. None of us can.

And part of the reason we cannot know is because he didn't want us to know. He protected his privacy in this area. I respect that. People who assert they KNOW his beliefs aren't respecting him, because they are ignoring the fact that he went to great lengths to keep his beliefs private and known only to himself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,015,174 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
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.
The history of this "testimony" is relevant.

Quote:
The Delaware Indians had been formidable opponents in earlier conflicts, but under the influence of Moravian missionaries, whose pacifistic brand of Christianity dampened their war ardor, they had settled down somewhat. The Continental forces wanted to keep it that way. Efforts to keep the lid on the situation took a blow when in November 1778 influential chief White Eyes died during an American expedition. The official story was that he had caught smallpox; it came out later that he had been murdered by members of the militia. In a last ditch effort to save the peace the pacifist and pro-Christian party among the Delawares sent out an embassy to the Continental Congress. Passing near George Washington’s forces they presented him with their petition. The date was 12 May 1779. Washington was taken aback. He had no instructions from Congress on how to deal with the situation. The delegation, he wrote,
… presented me with a long memorial on various points, which they intend to present also to Congress. I was a little at a loss what answer to give and could have wished they had made their first application there. But as an answer could not be avoided, I thought it safest to couch it in general but friendly terms and refer them to Congress for a more particular one. Though there is reason to believe, they have not adhered very scrupulously to their pretended friendship, it appeared to me to be our present policy at least to conciliate; and in this spirit my answer was conceived. I hope I may not have deviated from the views of Congress. I send a copy of my answer.
It is this “answer” that contains Washington’s only use of the phrase “Jesus Christ”. The relevant sentence was a reply to their 4th (in part) and 5th points:
4th … The Delaware Nation think they cannot give more ample Testimony than this, of their firm Resolution to continue an inviolate Friendship with the United States of America to the end of time; and for this desirable purpose the said Delaware Nation repeatedly applyed to Congress through their Commissioners & Agent, for School Masters and Mistresses to be sent among them, & for useful Tradesmen and Husbandmen to instruct the Youth of their Nation in useful Arts: These, tho expensive at present, may in time be fully repaid to the United States in many respects.

5th That the said Delaware Nation have established a Town where numbers of them have embraced Christianity under the Instruction of the Reverend and worthy Mr David Ziesberger whose honest zealous Labours & good Examples have Induced many of them to listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has been a means of introducing considerable order, Regularity and love of Peace into the Minds of the whole Nation—the[y] therefore hope Congress will countenance & promote the Mission of this Gentleman, so far as they may deem expedient; and they may rely that the Delaware Nation will afford every encouragement thereto in their Power.
Washington replied to these points:
My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learnour 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 every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.
Fake Quotations: Washington and American Schools « Fake History

So again, as in the OP, we find that Washington was a great politician who understood the influential value of feigned piety. It is fascinating that his only mention of Jesus Christ in any of his writings turns out to have been pious flattery which he chose to "couch it in general but friendly terms."

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,015,174 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
Or a Presbyterian preacher, as well? If we discount one, we must do it to the other as both are biased on what they observed.
Nonsense.

Even the Federal Rules of Evidence understand the difference between a statement made in one's interest, and a statement made against one's interest.

There is a reason that the latter is an exception to the hearsay rule.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 11:03 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,905,740 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Actually, your argument is faulty.

I've not asserted that because we don't know everything, we know nothing.

I've asserted that the historical record does not support the absolute conclusion that Washington was a Christian. I've asserted that his writings and statements at the time could be interpreted as either Deist or Christian. I've asserted that he did not want to publicly make known his religious beliefs, as is evidenced by his refusal even when asked to publicly make known his religious beliefs. We cannot know because he didn't want people to know. His contemporaries didn't know then, and we cannot know today.

For instance, do we know if George Washington liked to eat ostrich eggs? If he didn't say so, then we don't know. It doesn't mean we know nothing about Mr Washington. It doesn't invalidate what we do know because there are some things we don't know.

We don't know. He didn't tell us. He didn't think it was anyone's business but his own. He didn't think we needed to know. And I agree with him. And I'm going to respect him enough to defend his point-of-view.
Again, you are using a failed philosophical principal to argue your position.

That is, you are focusing on the absence of all absolute understanding to suggest that he may not. There is no other reason for applying such process. The whole point of "we do not know absolutely" is to force the opposing position to require an absolute proof to avoid having to consider the circumstantial evidence that is in support. This is a fallacy.

In matters such as this, where a definitive can not be obtained, then a circumstantial support is to be considered through weight of the evidence. The support for him being so is apparent as was discussed and cited. The support for him not being so is based on "pure" speculation at odds with what is reasonably evident.

I am not declaring an absolute, this is the fallacy of your position demanding such of my conclusion. I need only find reasonable support and there is ample support for this without pure speculation under reasonable assessment. Your position requires stepping outside of reasonable or common belief to assess a position that is highly speculative and founded on nothing but finding holes and filling them with assumptions.

The point is, you use "we can not know for sure" to invalidate that which is known in reason. Its an old failed eastern religion philosophical approach (failed as in its own scholars of belief did not support it either).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top