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.
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.
Of course not, the federal government was secular in its ability. The US was not founded on the Christian Religion, its laws are not religious specific as they did not mandate when to worship, how to worship, or what to worship. It had no head of church in its organization, no requirement of council to the church to instate its rule, no dictation of such as was common in many European countries and was specifically a concern and point of contest of those countries and the Barbary Nations in the past.
This declaration was to make clear to such that this nation was not ruled in such a manner and that they would have no worry of holy declarations of action and war being brought forth against the them.
This nation was founded on Christian Tradition, the guidance of the moral and virtuous spirit of those who were under such beliefs guided their decisions in its creation, its concept of freedom and its purpose of protection of all who would live as they choose such as was given by God to choose for themselves.
This is what Jefferson was reassuring the Danbury Congregation, that the government was incapable of directing any such issue as it was powerless in the face of religious doctrine and rule. Something the Danbury congregation was greatly concerned about due to past issues with Virgina and its religious doctrinal declarations attempting to dictate religious practice and rule among the people. A wall of separation, to which the Government had no ability to dictate such policy to the people.
Jefferson is one of the few to which a position of deism can truly be made. He despised the corruption of "churches" and often criticized its leadership of being hypocritical to the teachings. Even so, Jefferson greatly admired Christs work and believed in the teachings strongly enough to take steps to see that it was taught in the schools.
Nobody can deny the position of the founders on morality and virtue, they were extremely adamant about it believing that nation without such would surely fail as a society without morality and virtue could have no respect for individual liberty.
The point is, our nation is not one founded on "religion" which is a process of dictating policy and adherence to doctrine, but rather "tradition" of such. More specifically, Christian Tradition and the core values and teachings of morality and virtue to which the founders believed were important to the health of the nation.
Washington spoke of that very Divine Intervention you talk about more than once in letters to his contemporaries. I have just posted the letter to his wife that he wrote in so doing. Yes he believed in the Supreme Being and he did say that that Being had intervened in keeping him alive that day. I guess you can't see that but maybe you don't want to see it.
I'm sorry, but what exactly are you arguing?
It seems like you are asserting that belief in a supreme being makes someone a Christian. But that's not true. Deists believe in the existence of a supreme being.
To be a Christian, one MUST believe that Christ was divine.
His letters don't reference Christ.
So you have no proof that Washington believed that Christ was divine, ergo you have no proof that Washington was a Christian.
This isn't a matter of some great progressive conspiracy. This is a matter of historical accuracy.
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.
You need to grasp the significance that Nelly AND others felt the need to speculate. It's not a one or another account we have to accept. My point was that Washington's contemporaries were so uncertain of his religious beliefs that we have SEVERAL of them speculating. In contrast, no one speculates about President Carter. Why? Because he's a self-avowed Christian. No one speculates about President George W Bush. Why? Because he's a self-avowed Christian. Speculative letters from several contemporaries, Nelly and the Presbyterian minister included, are evidence that people didn't know. Why? Because Washington refused to publicly commit himself to the Christian religion.
You need to grasp the significance that Nelly AND others felt the need to speculate. It's not a one or another account we have to accept. My point was that Washington's contemporaries were so uncertain of his religious beliefs that we have SEVERAL of them speculating. In contrast, no one speculates about President Carter. Why? Because he's a self-avowed Christian. No one speculates about President George W Bush. Why? Because he's a self-avowed Christian. Speculative letters from several contemporaries, Nelly and the Presbyterian minister included, are evidence that people didn't know. Why? Because Washington refused to publicly commit himself to the Christian religion.
They were not speculating out of a position of indecisiveness, they were accounting the position as a matter of fact, the issue is that there were claims being made that he was not and those who were close to him found the idea insulting, preposterous, and suspect. It would be misleading to claim that their accounts were an unknowing question, they never questioned it specifically, it was simply a matter of fact. It was later those who wished to question such by creating detailed inquiries into any subtly of the language to make such a suggestion to which this "question" came about, not because everyone was on the fence concerning it.
It seems like you are asserting that belief in a supreme being makes someone a Christian. But that's not true. Deists believe in the existence of a supreme being.
To be a Christian, one MUST believe that Christ was divine.
His letters don't reference Christ.
So you have no proof that Washington believed that Christ was divine, ergo you have no proof that Washington was a Christian.
This isn't a matter of some great progressive conspiracy. This is a matter of historical accuracy.
Not in a definitive, no... but then by simple documented accounts of himself, and the accounts of those who knew him personally, it is far more supportive to the position that he was.
The claim that he was not relies on vague assumptions that could honestly be used to twist any position. The fact is, by even the smallest actions and accounts, the claim that he was not is purely a process of assumptive reasoning based on loose speculation. That is, the position that he was not has not even remotely been properly supported or proven. Switching the argument around demanding perfect evidence that he was is nothing more than a fallacious approach that hides the poor support in the counter argument. One does not need to prove that he was, it is the burden of those to prove that he was not. They have not done so in any proper manner to which would be accepted in court or in scientific inquiry.
Edit:
What did he say in the following speech?
"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 every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention."
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.
Certainly it does not "prove" he was a Christian, but like I said, it is a stretch to attempt to disprove it. Questioning if he was a Christian? You might as well question his patriotism while you are at it. It is equally pointless and a position that will never contain proper support for its claim. It doesn't have to though, like most speculations of mind, all that form of argument requires is to instill doubt and it has achieved its goal.
They were not speculating out of a position of indecisiveness, they were accounting the position as a matter of fact, the issue is that there were claims being made that he was not and those who were close to him found the idea insulting, preposterous, and suspect. It would be misleading to claim that their accounts were an unknowing question, they never questioned it specifically, it was simply a matter of fact. It was later those who wished to question such by creating detailed inquiries into any subtly of the language to make such a suggestion to which this "question" came about, not because everyone was on the fence concerning it.
They were trying to answer a question with whatever knowledge they had of Washington. The point is that the question WAS being raised. Why was it being raised, because even when Washington was asked point-blank, he refused to say that he was a Christian. WASHINGTON REFUSED TO SAY THAT HE WAS A CHRISTIAN. And yes, he did attend church every once in a while. Which is why people wondered. Because his actions and his words seemed to show an ambivalence.
If his contemporaries could not be sure of exactly what he believed, it boggles the mind to think that over two hundred years later there are people who assert that they KNOW without any doubt what his beliefs were. That's dishonest. We cannot KNOW what his beliefs were regarding Christ because he chose to keep his beliefs private and personal. He wrote extensively. He kept diaries. He expressed his beliefs eloquently and at length about the political and social issues of the day. But said nothing, ever, about Christ. People who assert that they KNOW Washington was a Christian are disrespecting his memory. We cannot KNOW because Washington carefully avoided claiming such.
They were trying to answer a question with whatever knowledge they had of Washington. The point is that the question WAS being raised. Why was it being raised, because even when Washington was asked point-blank, he refused to say that he was a Christian. WASHINGTON REFUSED TO SAY THAT HE WAS A CHRISTIAN. And yes, he did attend church every once in a while. Which is why people wondered. Because his actions and his words seemed to show an ambivalence.
If his contemporaries could not be sure of exactly what he believed, it boggles the mind to think that over two hundred years later there are people who assert that they KNOW without any doubt what his beliefs were. That's dishonest. We cannot KNOW what his beliefs were regarding Christ because he chose to keep his beliefs private and personal. He wrote extensively. He kept diaries. He expressed his beliefs eloquently and at length about the political and social issues of the day. But said nothing, ever, about Christ. People who assert that they KNOW Washington was a Christian are disrespecting his memory. We cannot KNOW because Washington carefully avoided claiming such.
How is that evidence? A refusal to answer a question is not evidence of anything. Why did he refuse? Maybe he thought the question was absurd, maybe he had contempt for those who would even question such?
Let us go with it though. How does it support the claim that he was not? You have to speculate to claim such. You have to make assumptions that are not properly supported. You are essentially answering for him when you make such a claim. A refusal to answer a question is evidence of nothing, it is support of nothing other than rumor mongers.
What actions? By all means, support your position. What actions contradicted with him going to church? by what actions can you support that claim?
He never said anything about Christ?
"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 every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention."
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.
How is that evidence? A refusal to answer a question is not evidence of anything. Why did he refuse? Maybe he thought the question was absurd, maybe he had contempt for those who would even question such?
Let us go with it though. How does it support the claim that he was not? You have to speculate to claim such. You have to make assumptions that are not properly supported. You are essentially answering for him when you make such a claim. A refusal to answer a question is evidence of nothing, it is support of nothing other than rumor mongers.
What actions? By all means, support your position. What actions contradicted with him going to church? by what actions can you support that claim?
He never said anything about Christ?
"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 every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention."
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.
I don't support the claim that he wasn't a Christian. I support the claim that we don't know if he was a Christian or not. I support my argument with the numerous examples that have been brought out on this thread that his contemporaries were unsure if he was a Christian or not. I support my argument with the fact that people were so unsure that they asked him, and he avoided answering. We don't know. Because he refused to say so. Your assertion that he didn't answer because he thought the question was ridiculous is WILD speculation. All I'm asserting is that when you read his writings they could just as easily be the writings of a Deist as a Christian, and given his refusal to commit one way or another, the modern-day assertions that he was a Christian are not supported by historical fact.
I'm quite happy to live in a state of unsureness about his religious beliefs. I'm quite happy that he clearly felt that the matter of his religious beliefs were personal and private and took pains to keep them from the public. Out of respect for him, I've posted on this thread because I don't think it's respectful for us today to try to pigeonhole his religious beliefs, when clearly he didn't want that.
I don't support the claim that he wasn't a Christian. I support the claim that we don't know if he was a Christian or not. I support my argument with the numerous examples that have been brought out on this thread that his contemporaries were unsure if he was a Christian or not. I support my argument with the fact that people were so unsure that they asked him, and he avoided answering. We don't know. Because he refused to say so. Your assertion that he didn't answer because he thought the question was ridiculous is WILD speculation. All I'm asserting is that when you read his writings they could just as easily be the writings of a Deist as a Christian, and given his refusal to commit one way or another, the modern-day assertions that he was a Christian are not supported by historical fact.
I'm quite happy to live in a state of unsureness about his religious beliefs. I'm quite happy that he clearly felt that the matter of his religious beliefs were personal and private and took pains to keep them from the public. Out of respect for him, I've posted on this thread because I don't think it's respectful for us today to try to pigeonhole his religious beliefs, when clearly he didn't want that.
I didn't say my reason why he didn't answer was a support, I said "maybe" which my point was that we do not know why he did not answer and therefore using his lack of answer as evidence to anything is purely speculation and rumor mongering.
The modern day assertions is based on his record, the historical facts of his attendance, speeches, his observed devotions (he is accounted for praying over the deceased, etc...) as well as his speeches to the tribes, his speeches during the war, etc... all attached to the correlation of personal opinion of those closest to him.
Is that proof? No. That said, the circumstantial basis of these accounts plainly suggest this as a likelihood. The position that he was not is not even remotely supported without inserting extensive excuses, assumptions and speculative manipulation to reach that conclusion while focusing on irrelevant facts to suggest otherwise. I could do the same with anyone and speculate, focus on the "details" of a word and manipulate its intent to my liking causing even the most devout person to be brought into question concerning their belief.
I didn't say my reason why he didn't answer was a support, I said "maybe" which my point was that we do not know why he did not answer and therefore using his lack of answer as evidence to anything is purely speculation and rumor mongering.
The modern day assertions is based on his record, the historical facts of his attendance, speeches, his observed devotions (he is accounted for praying over the deceased, etc...) as well as his speeches to the tribes, his speeches during the war, etc... all attached to the correlation of personal opinion of those closest to him.
Is that proof? No. That said, the circumstantial basis of these accounts plainly suggest this as a likelihood. The position that he was not is not even remotely supported without inserting extensive excuses, assumptions and speculative manipulation to reach that conclusion while focusing on irrelevant facts to suggest otherwise. I could do the same with anyone and speculate, focus on the "details" of a word and manipulate its intent to my liking causing even the most devout person to be brought into question concerning their belief.
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.
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.
