Tim LaHaye: G. Washington would be xian fundy. Fact: LaHaye is a ass.

[BurtWorm]

http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2006/05/07/books/1125006797792.html?8tpw=&emc=tpw&pagewanted=print


May 7, 2006
Books by David L. Holmes, Peter R. Henriques and Jon Meacham

Keeping the Faith at Arm's Length

Review by ALAN WOLFE
Like most of his colleagues on the religious right, Tim LaHaye, a co-author of the best-selling "Left Behind" series, insists that "those who founded this nation" were "citizens who had a personal and abiding faith in the God of the Bible." If LaHaye means only to say that religion has played an important role in American history, he is surely correct. But if he is taken literally (as a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible should be), he is decidedly wrong. It is one of the oddities of our history that this very religious country was created by men who, for one brief but significant moment, had serious reservations about religion in general and Christianity in particular.

According to David L. Holmes's "Faiths of the Founding Fathers," none of the first five presidents were conventional Christians. All were influenced to one degree or another by Deism, the once-popular view that God set the world in motion and then abstained from human affairs. John Adams, a Unitarian, did not accept such Christian basics as "the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, total depravity and predestination." Thomas Jefferson cut and pasted his own Bible. Before he became president, James Madison wrote the "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," a classic text in the history of religious liberty. Our fifth president, James Monroe, gave his name to a doctrine, but it had nothing to do with faith; in fact, Monroe may have been the least religious of all our early presidents.

And then there was the first one. "Were George Washington living today," LaHaye has said, "he would freely identify with the Bible-believing branch of evangelical Christianity that is having such a positive influence on our nation." Yet as Peter R. Henriques documents in "Realistic Visionary," Washington never referred to Jesus in any of his letters. Not once during his death ordeal did he call for a minister, ask for forgiveness or express belief in an afterlife. Washington "is better understood as a man of honor than as a man of religion," Henriques concludes.

[MikeNearMcChord]

1. Problem with LaHaye also, historically

the US has not been to tolerant when it comes to religion, (ask the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses among others) There is a reason to seperate church and state. I think the if George Washington was alive today he would be condemmed by the likes of LaHaye as anti-christian and no doubt blast John Adams as a Unitarian Liberal Pony-Tailed Pinko.

[Reverend_Smitty]

2. Those fundies are so dellusional...

there is almost no point in arguing with them anymore. Anyone with a 4th grade understanding of US history knows that the founding fathers were not Christian fundamentalists...they were enlightenment thinkers with a distrust of organized religion who brought us such classics like " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." only the first 16 words of our most important document.

[Initech]

3. Didnt Washington himself say that...

America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if that's true then this guy is completely delusional.

[grytpype]

5. Actually it was John Adams, in a treaty.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

[Zebedeo]

7. Nope

He said this:

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

"Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ..."

[catbert836]

8. Source?

n/t

[BurtWorm]

9. Here's one place you can find the claim that Washington "said" that.

http://www.eadshome.com/GeorgeWashington.htm

Turns out the claim is that it was "from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752," with no further explanation. We have to take the ministries word for it that it's "authentic" and assume that means the "hand" it was "written" in was Washington's. :eyes:

[BurtWorm]

10. Here's another site with that claim

http://www.freerepublic.com/~johnk/

:rofl:

[catbert836]

12. Yeah, I thought so.

Funny how it's impossible to make a case he ever said anything of the sort.

[Zebedeo]

13. Sources

Johnson, William J.

Berkeley

Falls Church

[charlie]

14. Debunked

in published works twice -- in 1926 and 1936. Also, as noted below, it was offered to and rejected by the Smithsonian as inauthentic.

Some 30 years ago it was proclaimed that in his youth he composed a prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer for five days, beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday. The manuscript of this prayer book was said to have been found among the contents of an old trunk. It was printed and facsimiles published. Clergymen read it from the altar, one of them saying it contained so much "spirituality" that he had to stop, as he could not control his emotions while reading it.

Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have been written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he ever had anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him. A little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford, who had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man except Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that of washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives facsimile specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by side with known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer book was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that they are not by the same hand.

Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller. But the greatest blow it received was when the Smithsonian Institute refused to accept it as a genuine Washington relic. That Washington did not compose it was proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a newspaper correspondent of the Capital, who traced the source of some of the prayers to an old prayer brook in the Congressional Library printed, in the reign of James the First.

Even the Rev. W. Herbert Burk, rector of the Episcopal Church of Valley Forge, although a firm believer in Washington's religiosity, thus speaks of these prayers: "At present, the question is an open one, and its settlement will depend on the discovery of the originals, or upon the demonstration that they are the work of Washington."

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html

Fortunately, there are available photos of excerpts from the document, juxtaposed with other samples of Washington's handwriting, so anyone can judge for themselves. Scroll to the bottom of this page:

http://s93614334.onlinehome.us/religion/George_Washington/index.html

[Zebedeo]

15. Axes to grind

Citation to a source with an obvious agenda, such as infidels.org, is less than convincing.

Also, I looked at the handwriting samples. They sure look to me like they were written by the same hand.

In any event, there are many, many quotes from Washington regarding religious issues, and the notion that he was a Deist is contradicted by his many references in speeches, letters and other writings to "divine Providence." He, for example, credited divine Providence with saving him from being killed when he observed 4 bulletholes in his coat.

This is in stark contrast to Deists, who, according to www.religioustolerance.org, believe thus:

"Most Deists believe that God created the universe, "wound it up" and then disassociated himself from his creation. Some refer to Deists as believing in a God who acts as an absentee landlord or a blind watchmaker." This is sometimes referred to as the Clockmaker hypothesis

Since Washington believed in the intervention of divine Providence, he obviously was not a Deist as thus described.

Here's a quote from a letter dated August 20, 1778 from Washington to Brigadier General Thomas Nelson:

"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations."

The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XII (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 343 (John C. Fitzpatrick, ed.)

[charlie]

16. Didn't follow the link, did you?

I used infidels because they reproduce the first 5 chapters of Steiner's book without intervening commentary. I thought you'd like to see the excerpt in context, instead of just the relevant fragment. I can provide a link to the same text from a more amenable site if you like, there's others. Here's one:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/steiner.htm

Speaking of axe grinding, how about a link that proclaims the Prayer Journal's authenticity that isn't an apologetics site? Much harder to find.

The handwriting looks the same, because it's intended to, but look closely, it's a forgery.

Thanks for the info, I'm familiar with much of the controversy regarding GW's beliefs. I'm not interested in arguing whether the founding fathers were Deist/Christian because it's a largely fruitless pursuit. Both sides have amassed evidence that satifies themselves but won't convince the other. However, you're wrong about GW's non-Deism being "obvious" -- look at your own cite -- "Most Deists believe that God created the universe, "wound it up"...etc". There are Deists who think God intervenes occasionally. From your source:

Most Deists believe that God created the universe, "wound it up" and then disassociated himself from his creation. Some refer to Deists as believing in a God who acts as an absentee landlord or a blind watchmaker. A few Deists believe that God still intervenes in human affairs from time to time.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

[Orrex]

17. Self-delete for being unfairly antagonistic.

Shame on me, and thanks to Charlie for calling me on it!

[charlie]

18. Hey now, Zeb's alright

He brings plenty of evidence and documentation too. He's wrong as can be of course, but so am I, viewed from where he's sitting :)

We're just doing a little wheel-spinning, it passes the time.

[Zebedeo]

19. Thanks for the kind words

Unfortunately I missed Orrex's self-deleted post. I have a pretty thick skin, so I can't imagine that it would have offended me too much.

Anyway, I enjoyed our discussion, and agree with you that there seem to be two "sides" out there who have amassed evidence and arguments supporting their version regarding the founding fathers. I also agree that it doesn't make a huge difference today what religious beliefs they had or didn't have.

I just think it is a little lame that the main quote that the one side uses is from a treaty with a Muslim country - a line in the treaty that says that since the U.S. is not expressly founded on Christianity, it's OK for the U.S. to have a treaty with a country of "Musselmen." If that is the best that they can come up with to try to prove that the founders' PERSONAL beliefs were not Christian, that's pretty weak, IMHO.

Anyway, thanks again for the discussion and for having my back. Have a great evening!

[charlie]

22. I'll probably regret this...

I said I wouldn't argue because it's pointless, but...

Keep in mind that the contention was never (okay, almost never) that the founding fathers weren't Men of God, it's that most weren't Christian, in the sense that their notion of the Christ's divinity and status as Redeemer was more closely allied with Deism than common Christianity. The Treaty of Tripoli is hardly the prime evidence for that idea, it's just the most explicit.

The best evidence, their letters and writings, are maddeningly circumspect, emphatically pious in one instance and detached and cerebral in the next, likely because these men lived in an age where the taint of heresy could get your ass in BIG trouble. Their thoughts had to be guarded and tailored for whomever they were speaking to. All the early presidents were vexed to distraction by sectarian Christian strife, and some, like Jefferson, were constantly fighting a rearguard action against charges of atheism and heresy. Given their circumstances, it's not hard to see how the Deist and Christian camps can both find rich lodes to bolster their claims.

Anyway, since we're talking about Washington, you notice something about his religious writings? He speaks of "divine Providence" and "God" often, as in the examples you provided above. That's not out of character for a Deist or a Christian. But he almost never refers to Jesus or Christ. Kind of odd for a Christian, don't you think? You don't have to take my or anyone's word for it, just do a search at the largest repository of GW's papers:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mgwquery.html

"Jesus" returns 1 hit.
"Jesus Christ" returns 2.
"Christ" returns 30. But, I couldn't find a single one that refers to The Christ, only surnames and place names.

I'm not the first or only one who's noticed this.

Okay here's some uneducated speculation, unleavened by verifiable fact.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Washington was Deist, Christian (or non-Deist), and a mix of both, depending on time and circumstance. A believer's allegiance to a creed is often fluid, convictions changing with experience. You've seen it often enough, maybe he'll have a period of dispassionate musing over his beliefs, and then BAM, some incident will leave him convinced of the RIGHTNESS of a certain doctrine, then as the memory of the experience softens he drifts again... Orthodox Jew to Reform Jew to Orthodox Jew to new-age Judeo-Buddhist and so on. Washington could have been shocked into believing in the intercessory Hand of God at times, with reflective periods inbetween where he convinced himself otherwise.

[Zebedeo]

25. Could be

that Washington's views changed over time. It seems that we will probably never know for sure, because the issue has become a religio-political football, with "sides" competing to "prove" their version. Under these circumstances, a genuine search for the truth, if it occurs, would be hard to distinguish from the ideologically-driven polemics.

[BurtWorm]

26. It's difficult to see how the two sides could have an equal chance

of being right about this. The preponderance of evidence is against Washington's being a traditional sort of Christian. If you base your conclusions on physical evidence, Washington was very unorthodox in his Christianity, as so many other Founders were. Maybe if you base your conclusions on faith, it's a different matter. Then the odds would be about even.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=66647&mesg_id=66717

[BurtWorm]

21. Here are the samples of manuscript to compare

The prayer journal (allegedly from 1752), which GW was alleged to have piously scribbled:



Now here's a sample from George Washington's actual 1752 diary:





Dead ringers, aren't they. :eyes:

[trotsky]

23. To someone who is desperate to believe that this country...

just HAD to be founded by god-fearing, bible-thumping, Jesus-loving Christians...

those samples are IDENTICAL. ;-)

[BurtWorm]

24. Gotta love George's small "d"

Look at the way he curls it around with such abandon!

He probably kept his "d's" plain in the prayer journal out of respect to the Lord Jesus. ;)

[grytpype]

4. George Washington was a very lukewarm Episcopalian.

And a Freemason.

[ozone_man]

27. He was a deist.

Sure he attended the Episcopalian church, but he was a deist.

"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife, to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E. Remsberg, Six Historic Americans

"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Please stop insulting George Washington. He was a man of intelligence

and would never had been an evangelical Christian.

[Inland]

11. Oh, if GW had only been made aware of Christ and his gospel

he would have been a right wing theocrat!

If only he had read the first thirty volumes of "taken away".....

Oh, and Washington also wanted tax cuts. So there.

[nemo137]

20. It's lovely how the right's created it's own cult of saints, isn't it?

With hagiography and iconography and all the stuff. They couldn't keep the old ones, and no one would get it it they stole from Fox's Martyrology, so they made their own.