Toto

Rad: please find an instance where Washington mentioned Christ anywhere. There is no need to even argue that a secretary might have interpolated it.

Radorth

Oh come on Toto, Washington never thought for one second you could have morality without religion. Morality and "true religion" were inseparable in his mind. Even Jefferson thought so, and would never have written his Bible if he thought otherwise.

He was just stroking their egos? You're the one who is dreaming. When all else fails, impugn Washington's integrity and motives. I suppose he went to church just to get elected to some office when he got out of the army, eh? Why don't you just call him a big hypocrite and get it over with? That's what I'd call him if I thought he went to church for the wrong reasons.

Washington calls Jesus "the Author of our religion." Who is he talking about? At the very least they gave Christ some credit for his "unsurpassed" wisdom, and wished it spread around while you patronizingly compare him to Mithra or Socrates or whoever. JQ Adams said it best:

"...a farthing candle and the Sun!"

Rad

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

And if I give you a quote where he does mention Christ, what difference will it make?

You'd simply say, "What does one quote prove?" Right?

Rad

Toto

Rad - give me a valid quote from Washington containing "Jesus Christ" or admit that there is none. Be sure to include a reference so I can look it up.

Actually, give me any coherent argument. I'm tired of these little hints that there is something out there.

Radorth

And I'm tired of typing out obscure quotes and hearing you say you and U of Va are omniscient of everything Washington ever said or wrote, so they must be manufactured, even though I have a source such as:

From his Address to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, John C Fitzpatrick ed,The Writings of Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources(Washington DC National Bureau of Literature and Art, 1907)

Even though I'm confident he said that, I don't bother in your case, unless I have a more original source. Perhaps you already know something about this address, and I would certainly be interested.

But even if he does not technically mention Jesus Christ in his known writings, it is absurd to assume a long time Christian church member never mentioned him, or even that he did not believe he was his savior. I don't know. Maybe Washington wanted to dissociate himself from religious practices he found reprehensible. Maybe, knowing Washington and the lousy legalistic nonsense taught at the time, he felt unworthy to be called a Christian. I personally believe that is why Washington did not take communion. Surely he had read "he who drinks unworthily drinks condemnation to himself." The alternatives require us to impugn his motives, which I hardly think appropriate in his case.

You are merely being technical now, since he did refer to Jesus and when he says ...the path of true piety is so plain as to require little political direction... he is not talking about deism. Is he?

Rad

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Buffman

<a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WasFi15.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=40&division=div1" target="_blank">SPEECH TO THE DELAWARE CHIEFS</a>

(Extracts)
Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethen of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. 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; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

In the writing of Robert Hanson Harrison. The document is signed by Washington, who added, beneath his signature, "Commander in chief of all the Armies in the United States of America." The above text is from the signed document (which is mutilated) in the possession of Dr. A. S. W. Rosenbach, of New York City and Philadelphia. The portion in brackets was supplied from the copy by Caleb Gibbs, inclosed in Washington's letter to the President of Congress, May 14, I779, q. v.
(End extracts)

This is as close as I have been able to come to a verification.

{edited by Toto to shorten link}

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Radorth

Thank you Buffman. The searches I did didn't pick it up.

"...above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are."

Indeed.

Well, Toto, is it another manufactured quote?

Rad

Buffman

Radorth

According to what I read, Washington signed what Robert Hanson Harrison (his secretary) wrote.

Jesse Ventura recently signed a Christian advocacy document written by someone else. Is Jesse a devout Christian?

Doesn't it seem more reasonable to view all these men through their personal writings, words, and actions over their entire lifetimes rather than through a single document? If you agree, wouldn't the lack of any other Washington reference to Jesus, or the superiority of the Christian faith, seem to confirm that he was a devout believer in morality and spirituality rather than any specific religious doctrine? That is the primary point that people have been attempting to convey to you.

You have been projecting your own religious prejudices on everyone but yourself. I hate labels, but elected to call myself a Non-Supernaturalist in order to indicate a position that is even more anti-superstition and myth than that held by someone merely labeling themself an Atheist. Are you a Pro-Supernaturalist? Someone who believes in, advocates and promotes beliefs in superstition and myth?

Additionally, when you sarcastically challenge Toto, perhaps you should first respond to my request for you to prove your "slavery" allegation...among so many other off-the-wall statements and quotes...which have already been shown to be in error...whenever someone is able to track them down with no help from you.

Whether you like or trust David Barton is irrelevant if you still wind up using his ideas of an accurate quote as your evidence and justification for your beliefs. And that is exactly what you have been doing whenever you fail to cite a source for your quotes that can be researched for accuracy. This time you provided one, and "VOILA!" Everyone following this string has learned something that they may not have known before. That is a positive result and fun for me.

Read these and gain some additional insights:

<a href="http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/forgeries/index.html" target="_blank">http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/forgeries/index.html</a>

<a href="http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/forgeries/notes.html" target="_blank">http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/forgeries/notes.html</a>

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misqidx.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misqidx.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.maaf.info/downloads/washingtonchaplain.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.maaf.info/downloads/washingtonchaplain.pdf</a>

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Toto

Actually, I think that phrase must be read as tongue in cheek - it could refer to any religion whose adherents think they have the truth. The plain meaning of that sentence is that religion does not need government support if it is true.

Buffman

Toto

I rather suspect that there was a very practical reason for mentioning the Christian religion to the Indian Chiefs. Both the British and Continental armies were employing Native Americans in the battles. Washington was very knowledgeable and experienced concerning how Indians conducted themselves in battle...so were many of his men who viewed them as savage heathens, but who now had to fight with them side-by-side.

Though the British had fought Indians who had once been allied with the French, during the recent French and Indian Wars (1754-60), they had not been as exposed to the family, friends and home traumas experienced by so many of the soldiers in the Continental Army who had been dealing with Indian raids on a constant basis for many years. Washington understood this.

There is little question in my mind that Washington desired to be remembered as a moral and spiritual leader as well as a military one. Earlier in his career, he had been a commissioned officer in the British Army. Obviously he did not wish to see massacres hung around his name or the demoralizing effect they could have on his own troops...or the enervating one on the enemy forces. (Yet there were Indian massacres on both sides.)

Naturally he would wish to introduce anything into the official records that would indicate an effort on his part to promote a "civilizing" of his "savages." The Revolutionaries desperately needed as many Indian tribes as possible to fight on their side.

<a href="http://www.nps.gov/cowp/Timeline.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nps.gov/cowp/Timeline.htm</a>

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>