randman

lpetrich, do you have any actual evidence to support what "might have been" Washington's view.
Are there any historians that view Washington as essentially despising religion, and making that statement endorsing religion in general as some kind of cynical comment on the poor intellectual quality of the masses?

randman

"Paine discovered that his contributions to the American Revolution had been all but eradicated due to his religious views."

This is a very important point. Americans were actually very religious at the time, so much so that a great patriot of the revolution was scorned for being anti-religious. I think Washington's endorsement of the nation's strong religious sentiments is therefore more than just some cute phrases, but rather a stunning accusation and warning towards men like Jefferson.

Btw, noone disputes that Jefferson and his allies were upset over us not taking sides in the war, but it is noteworthy that Jefferson later in life admitted Adams had been right.

Toto

Founding Brothers

I am not sure what part of Ellis's work supports what you are saying. But be careful about relying on Ellis. He recently confessed to falsely claiming to have seen military action in the Vietnam war.

Some facts on Ellis

another article

(thanks to Buffman)

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Aethernaut

There's some great reference material here, straight from the horses mouths as it were. 18th, 19th, 20th & 21st century documents.

It's the site where I found Washington's farewell address in it's entirety.

-SK

Vorkosigan

And as to the French Revolution, I will quote one of its leaders, Maximilien Robespierre: "Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is altogether popular." However, he had had no taste for the Catholic Church. And some French Revolutionaries were outright atheists.

Yes, the atheists were executed by the Revolution, which made it a crime to be atheist. Robespierre was being arch and sarcastic; he was the one who declared atheism a crime and had atheists executed. I suggest you read about the Festival of the Supreme Being in 1794, where Robespierre compared atheism to the Church, and burnt the monster of Atheism in effigy.

Really, Randman, for someone who reads history books, you are not very well-informed. Perhaps you should be reading a better grade of book.

Also, we refer to web sites as a courtesy, not because we read only websites. Although, judging from your colorfully erroneous beliefs, I'd put my websites up against your books any day.

Michael

Malaclypse the Younger

So far, the only plausible evidence for Washington's consists of Washington's statement:

We cannot merely presume by "religion" or "religious principle". that Washington meant "Christianity". Indeed, Washington specifies what he means by "religion":

It is clear that the religion (or at least a "good" religion) entails the security for property, reputation and for life.

First, christianity does not necessarily entail these things. Thus, by Washington's criteria above, many interpretations of christianity would be either not religious or a "bad" religion.

Regardless, Washington's opinion is not authoritative: He might simply be wrong. It might not be necessary to hold "religious" principles to be moral or patriotic. Or he could simply be labelling as "religious" that people hold certain values directly; this definition does not imply the connotatation of belief through the authority of either the church or the bible.

Malaclypse the Younger

Also note that no one here asserts that atheism implies any particular moral philosophy. It is trivially obvious that both theists (e.g. Robertson, Phelps, Torquemada) and atheists (e.g. Stalin, Pol Pot) can act in ways that we agree are entirely immoral.

The charge that Robertson et al. are, by their actions, not True Christians (tm) is met by the equivalent statement that Stalin et al. are equally, by their actions, not True Atheists (tm).

However it is objectively determinable that Stalin is not actually a (secular) humanist, which is the moral philosophy held by most atheists here. And it is trivially obvious that Phelps is not a (religious) humanist; these observations imply that humanism is the determinant ethical position, whether secular or theistic.

Indeed, I have no substantive ethical disagreement with religious humanists.