Buffman

fromtheright

Thank you for the kind words. Post, or send me, the specific quotes to which you refer and I will do my best to provide the most accurate original sources I can locate. However, I must admit that they are out there for anyone to uncover who sincerely wishes to get the accurate facts. If I can do it, anyone can.

fromtheright

Buffman,

(1) the quote from Henry is from his "Liberty or death" speech, to which I have ready access:
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

(2)the quote from Washington is from his Farewell Address, I believe, of which I also have at least one copy:
"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

(3) This quote from Washington I'm not familiar with:
"Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the emaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thee and thy son, Jesus Christ."
I just did a Google search on that quote and it is attributed to Washington's private prayer book. Here is the link:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap18.html

(4) The Adams quote:
"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Interestingly, a Google search took me to this atheists.org website
http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/charlotte.html
but I found it interesting that most of the quotes they "challenged" they didn't argue with the accuracy of the quote but simply challenged what it meant! That's all well and good but let's don't call them "misquotations" as they did. The same is true of this website.

Toto

Washington's alleged prayer book was discussed in this thread, along with the numerous fradulent efforts to claim Washington was a Christian:

Washington a Believer (?)

fromtheright

Toto,

Thanks. I read the first page and saved it to read the rest later. I didn't see anything much from what I read, though, that gave any basis to question the authenticity of the prayer book, but it is certainly something worth debating and I appreciate the link.

Buffman

fromtheright

(I apologize for this quick overview. I must get ready to go out for the rest of the day; but felt I should offer something before I did.)

(1) Here is Patrick Henry's entire speech. You decide which parts should/should not be quoted in text books and why. (Compare it to what you have.)

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

(2) There is considerable amount of propaganda floating around about Washington and his religious convictions...from both sides of the issue. Many of Washington's Christian biographers attempted to turn him into Saint George. He was an icon. The accurate factual truths about him are far more difficult to uncover. It would require a rather lengthy discussion and considerable time and research for me to provide you with original, verifiable, source data about him and the reasons I have come to question so much of the history I was taught concerning him. After reading "American Aurora" by Richard N. Rosenfeld, St. Martin's Griffin, New York, 1997, I started to do some more thorough investigations into Washington's life and experiences. That investigation revealed an entirely different Washington than the one that was presented to me as a young man. Though still a great American historical figure, the icon had heavy duty feet of clay. But the more BS I was able to strip away, the more human and understandable he became. Here are just two URLs to review that may help to reveal some of the propaganda that has been used to help create the St. Washington Icon.

John Remsburg: Six Historic Americans chapter 3

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html

(3) (It the string that Toto just supplied doesn't satisfy your curiosity, let me know and I will read it when I return and see if I can find additional amplifications about the alleged Prayer Book of his teenage years.)

(Asides from your supporting URL):

(a) Washington was still remembered and revered for his exploits 20 years earlier in the French and Indian War. Were you aware that Washington is the person that can be considered as the most responsible for that War?

(b) He said he would accept the command only on the condition that Congress appoint and fund chaplains for his troops, which Congress promptly did. Is there an original source document for this exact statement?

(c) He was definitely a committed and believing Christian, but not a wild-eyed Separatist like Roger Williams. And the proof of this is....? Roger Williams "a wild-eyed" Separationist? Could that be because he was the first to recommend the separation of church and state?

http://www.rogerwilliams.org/biography.htm

(d) Historians have avoided discussing Washington's religious life, in part because of bias and in part because Washington himself did not discuss it much. Hmmmmm? (See immediately above.)

(e) But he also believed that faith was primarily a matter between the individual and his Maker, which in itself is a very Protestant belief. That is the Deist belief. Protestants worship Jesus.

(4) With what, specifically, do you take exception at the following URL? The interpretation of Adams' writings? When each side enters into the interpretations of the "accurate" quotes, they normally do so with conflicting agendas. I rather suspect that if certain Christians did not attempt to lay claim to every Founding/Framing Father as some sort of "apostle of Christ" in order to bolster their goal of this being "their" Christian Nation, you would not have others attempting to expose the factual evidence surrounding such claims. Unless one places those accurate quotes back in the historical settings of the day, they prove very little for either side other than that these men were highly educated and shrewd politicians.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/aiken0.htm

fromtheright

Buffman, I'm not arguing with what "should" or "should not" be quoted in textbooks. My point was simply to ask why the original excerpt is illegitimate to be quoted by the conservative Christian side of the debate.

(2) Thank you much for the website re Washington's status within the Episcopal Church. It was enlightening as to his status as a communicant, or rather noncommunicant. But it still doesn't address the original point of the importance he gave to religion and morality in his Farewell Address. No, I'm not trying to argue whether he was a devout Christian, simply to make the point made.

As to the (a), (b), (c) and (d), though they may have been included in the URL but aren't part of the question I was discussing, which was the quotes earlier noted. I was quite surprised by the statement that Washington was responsible for the French and Indian War. For all of the questions as to sources on the other points, I didn't see any references to sources for this, at least to me, extraordinary assertion. The response offered in (e) "that faith [as] primarily a matter between the individual and his Maker" was rather a Deist belief rather than a Protestant belief with the glib dismissal that "Protestants worship Jesus" instead. In fact, Protestants do believe that faith is a matter between the indiviudal and his Maker (whether Deists also believe it or not). Though not myself a theologian, I believe this is what is referred to in the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer.

(4) My point was exactly yours, that neither the atheist websites, nor, unfortunately, many Christians, point to the historical context of many of the quotes offered. The atheist websites didn't seek to put the quotes into context but simply offered quick burst responses that Adams or whoever could not have believed what was stated and then went on to throw out their own quotes out of context.

Also, I'm just curious if anyone has seen Barton's Original Intent, which is supposedly a cleaned up version of The Myth of Separation after the misquotes were exposed? Though I do remain essentially on his side of this issue I am chagrined to have such a fraud in my corner. As you all probably know Barton takes his show on the road and I do look forward to the opportunity to challenge him on this. The last time I heard him I asked him about Robert Cord's Separation of Church and State, which, although on the conservative side of the debate, takes a more moderate position. Barton was dismissive without addressing what to me are some substantial differences.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

SLD

I just wanted to add a little to this debate concerning Patrick Henry. Patrick Henry was a true patriot - no doubt. Also it is true that he was most assuredly a Christian. A bible believing Christian that would probably make Jerry Falwell proud.

But quoting him that the foundation of our government is religion or christianity is the same as quoting Jeff Davis on the righteousness of the Dred Scott decision. They were both losers in their respective debates.

Patrick Henry's attempts to establish state religion in Virginia and his opposition to the US Constitution both went down to defeat thanks to the cooler - and smarter - heads of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. If Patrick Henry had his way we would indeed not have separation of church and state. Thus quoting him only proves the point - the founders, especially Madison and Jefferson, were very much opposed to any possible intermingling of church and state.

fromtheright

SLD,

Point well taken, but I think the point of the Henry quote in the link in the original post was rather to add some context to the "liberty or death" statement, that God reigns in the destinies of nations rather than any value he may have added to the strict issue of CSS (though I don't deny that this is probably the motivation).

Personally, though I too am a great admirer of Henry's role at the opening of the Revolution and don't doubt his conservative credentials, I am also glad that Madison prevailed in the Va. ratification convention (though, as you know, Henry got even by keeping him out of the Senate) and in the assessment debate--believe it or not, my friend.

Gene/fromtheright

Buffman,

You noted in your opening post a list of URL's that you can E-mail me. Yes, please send it to gawisdom@hiwaay.net. Thanks much.

Buffman

fromtheright
(First installment)

I am a little suspicious that we are not discussing exactly the same things. I am discussing the statements provided at the following URL...though not in the same order. (That is because the e-mail that was sent to the gentleman I am attempting to assist were in a different order and I addressed them accordingly.)

http://www.thecitizennews.com/main/a...on/ltr-03.html

Then we have the four items you presented which I attempted to address because you appeared to be unsure of why certain of the original statements were less than forthright. You identified Patrick Henry, Washington's "Farewell Address," Washington's Prayer Book and the John Adams quote interpretation challenge.

As you can see, the the author of the Patrick Henry statement part of the article is concerned with, "But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted," and "These sentences have been erased from our textbooks." You provided what you appear to believe is the missing/erased context. (i.e.: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death." )

You seem to be unaware that the above quote is cobbled together of lines from three of the five original paragraphs, and that two complete sentences shown in the quote above are missing 12 words in one, and 9 in another, to be accurate and complete. I can arrive at no other conclusion than it was knowingly done to deceive the reader. Obviously it has deceived quite a few folks. Once again, here is Patrick Henry's complete speech.

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

Buffman, I'm not arguing with what "should" or "should not" be quoted in textbooks. My point was simply to ask why the original excerpt is illegitimate to be quoted by the conservative Christian side of the debate.

Because it is deceitful to be quoted in the way that it has...by anyone. It is propaganda intentionally designed to rewrite history in order to advance one position over another. Then to argue that the context of Henry's words has been erased from textbooks is a galling display of hypocrisy for anyone claiming to be a moral/ethical Christian. It is a common ploy used by all propagandists. Using extracts out of context to make a person's words/thoughts other than what they really were or what they might accurately mean. (The Bible Quote War techniques used to manipulate history.) Please note the following.

http://www.monticello.org/resources/.../memorial.html

(It appears that I may have to answer you in several installments if I am going to provide you with the most accurate info I can find on each of your remarks. That could take some time. That's the problem with propaganda. A lie may only take one sentence. To expose and correct the lie can take a novel.)

(2) Thank you much for the website re Washington's status within the Episcopal Church. It was enlightening as to his status as a communicant, or rather noncommunicant. But it still doesn't address the original point of the importance he gave to religion and morality in his Farewell Address.

I know of no Founding/Framing Father, or any of today's politicians, that did/do not stress the importance that the masses be moral. A democracy is an invitation to anarchy. Religions do not teach or practice democracy. Stressing religiosity is a small concession to pay for the control and maintenance of the illiterate masses of free men ...though not women or slaves. And since the majority of early Americans were exposed the philosophies of moral and ethical behavior as expressed in the Holy Bible, it would be ludicrous to believe that these Founders would recommend any religious instruction other than the one most prevalent at that time in this budding federal republic...Protestant Christianity...whether they personally believed in the commensurate supernatural miracles or not. Besides, many of the state laws discriminated against those instructed, or not instructed, in any other religion. (Many states found Roman Catholic Christianity unacceptable. And in reality, it remained much like that until the election of JFK.)

(Here is an insight into the importance of the Constitutional Convention and Washington's participation in it that tends to receive little notice. It has little to do with religiosity and everything to do with secular equality, fairness and justice.)

http://www.calliope.org/shays/shays2.html

No, I'm not trying to argue whether he was a devout Christian, simply to make the point made.

Then why are others so extremist in their efforts to clasp our Founding/Framing Fathers to their Christian bosom? For what reason? To what end?

Ine more issue that should be evaluated in conjunction with Washington's attitude and statements about morality and religiosity. The impact of the following on the minds of those in power.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap10a.html

(Extract)
Burke's attack set off a firestorm of protest within Great Britain. His passing reference to the lower classes as "the swinish multitude" got him swift responses, with titles such as "Hog's Wash" and "Pig's Meat" and an "Address to the Hon. Edmund Burke from the Swinish Multitude." The most effective response was that of Thomas Paine, the English author of the famous defense of the American cause, Common Sense (1776). Paine's Rights of Man: Being an Answer to Mr. Burke's Attack on the French Revolution (1791 and 1792) laid out a cogent defense of the use of reason in remaking the forms of government. Paine insisted that good government depended on establishing a constitution that guaranteed the natural rights of all men. In his view, Great Britain did not have a constitution; it had only a long history of fraudulent monarchical and aristocratic claims guaranteed by force. By 1793 Paine's attack on the English social and political establishment had sold some 200,000 copies, more than any other political polemic in English history. Paine's prestige became so great that he was elected to the National Convention despite the fact that he did not speak French.
(End extract)

Washington was President from 1789 till 1797. He was well aware of what had occurred in France as he voluntarily ended his time in office. Please note these political machinations which also receive little fanfare in today's general ignorance concerning the history of the Washington years.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/pr...s/gwproc03.htm

http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/whiskey.html

http://www.whiskeyrebellion.org/concl.htm

Buffman

fromtheright
(Second installment)I'll check for typos and errors later. Going blind at the moment.

As to the (a), (b), (c) and (d), though they may have been included in the URL but aren't part of the question I was discussing, which was the quotes earlier noted.

Oh, I fully understand. My point was do you understand what that URL was all about? Citing it to support facts about George Washington is much like asking Bill Clinton to write an article citing the facts about the Monica Lewinsky Affair. Were the statements about Washington accurate? Were original source document cites provided? I most certainly do believe that they are part and parcel of an objective analysis of that sites contentions and purposes. More propaganda. "Wild-eyed" is hardly an objective description of Roger Williams. Do you disagree? Why would anyone accept their comments about GW unless they did so on blind faith? Did You? I certainly hope not. Yet you used their URL as a reference. What am I to conclude?

I was quite surprised by the statement that Washington was responsible for the French and Indian War. For all of the questions as to sources on the other points, I didn't see any references to sources for this, at least to me, extraordinary assertion.

Read these very closely. Then ask yourself if George Washington misunderstood the meaning of the French word "assassination."

http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica...urnaltext.html

http://www.nps.gov/fone/fonehist.htm

http://www.nps.gov/fone/capitulation.htm

http://www.nps.gov/fone/braddock.htm

http://digitalhistory.org/wolfe.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1500/fiw.html

(Additional notes)

1. George Washington - Washington began his career as a brash and careless diplomat and military leader. After being asked to resign after the Fort Necessity fiasco, he returns as a volunteer under British authority. The French and Indian War is where Washington learned how to be a leader.

2. A. Rivalry for the Ohio Valley
The Ohio company, an association of land speculators based in Virginia, encouraged the British excursions. The company had received a grant of 500,000 acres from the British king and wanted to move traders and settlers into this interior region. In 1753 Governor Robert Dinwiddie of Virginia, who was also a leading member of the Ohio Company, dispatched 21-year-old George Washington on his first military mission. Washington carried a message to the French, warning them to leave the region. In the following year Governor Dinwiddie ordered the construction of a fort at the forks of the Ohio (where the Monongahela and Allegheny rivers meet), later the site of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

These developments convinced the French governor-general of Canada of the need to dominate the Ohio Valley militarily in order to protect France's strategic interests in the American interior. The French immediately reinforced their existing forts south of Lake Erie and expelled the British from the forks of the Ohio. At that strategic site, they built a new military post, Fort Duquesne, and established firm title to the region. The French government realized that not only were the profits of the fur trade at stake, but also possession of the vast Ohio and Mississippi river valleys.
These rival territorial claims in the Ohio Valley quickly led to violence. An armed party of Virginians under the command of George Washington defeated a small French force east of the Ohio River and built a log stockade that became known as Fort Necessity. The French gathered more troops and quickly laid siege to this small fort, forcing Washington and his troops to surrender on July 4, 1754. The French then sent Washington and his troops back to Virginia. The French and Indian War had begun.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(Moving on because it's time for "beddy-bye.")


The response offered in (e) "that faith [as] primarily a matter between the individual and his Maker" was rather a Deist belief rather than a Protestant belief with the glib dismissal that "Protestants worship Jesus" instead. In fact, Protestants do believe that faith is a matter between the indiviudal and his Maker (whether Deists also believe it or not). Though not myself a theologian, I believe this is what is referred to in the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer.

Should I attempt to get into a discussion on this, it would be better in a different forum. Perhaps you might wish to find out exactly what a Deist is versus a Christian.

(4) My point was exactly yours, that neither the atheist websites, nor, unfortunately, many Christians, point to the historical context of many of the quotes offered. The atheist websites didn't seek to put the quotes into context but simply offered quick burst responses that Adams or whoever could not have believed what was stated and then went on to throw out their own quotes out of context.

And when did the atheists sites begin doing that? (Which came first? The chicken or the egg?) Who initiated the quote game? The Atheists or the fundamentalist Christians? Why would either group toss quotes at each other? To what end/goal? Why did David Barton manufacture quotes? To what end/goal? You don't seem to have any problem pointing to potential errors/misinterpretations in my statements, nor do I with yours. How many atheists published books back then? How many atheists were there back then? There were plenty of Reverends publishing biographies of the founders/framers. Would they disparage their religious faith beliefs? Did they often claim that Jefferson was an atheist? Why would they do that to someone of his patriotic background? For what reason? Agenda?---Well, when I started reading and seeing historical errors appearing on almost every single radical right, fundamentalist Christian web site, and heard them insisting that creationism should be taught in the public school science classrooms, and that the Ten Commandments should be posted in the public schools , and that the Judeo-Christian Bible was inerrant...I started paying very close attention to these self-proclaimed "Family Values" crusaders. What I began to see was very anti-Constitutional, intolerant and disturbing. It has gotten far more alarming since Bush was appointed President and he brought his right wing radical religionists with him.

Also, I'm just curious if anyone has seen Barton's Original Intent, which is supposedly a cleaned up version of The Myth of Separation after the misquotes were exposed? Though I do remain essentially on his side of this issue I am chagrined to have such a fraud in my corner. As you all probably know Barton takes his show on the road and I do look forward to the opportunity to challenge him on this. The last time I heard him I asked him about Robert Cord's Separation of Church and State, which, although on the conservative side of the debate, takes a more moderate position. Barton was dismissive without addressing what to me are some substantial differences.

Try asking him where he got his academic credentials. --- The list of URLs I sent to you covers most of the questions you ask about David Barton. You merely have to read the index page and do some reading. Should you have additional questions, please address them to information with which you disagree on those pages. They are all originally sourced and make it far easier for me to provide the most accurate information available. (I communicate with Jim Allison on a regular basis. I know to what lengths he goes for accuracy.)

I'm pooped! It's way past bedtime. I hope this has been stimulating and helpful. I must attend to other matters. Thanks for hanging in there with me. I do believe that I understand your Christian Conservative positions even though at times it may not seem so. I just wish that you and others could find a more honest and qualified messenger than David Barton.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]