Divining W : Inside the God that George Washington Worships ( Was he Deist or Christian ?)

Michael and Jana Novak, father and daughter, are authors of Washington's God, to be released early next month. Take a President's Day preview of the book here.

A: The Great God Jehovah who led the people of Israel long ago, the same benevolent Providence that led the way through many dark times to the independence of the United States. That is the God Washington described in his letter to the Synagogue in Savannah, after the war.

Washington was an active vestryman in his local Anglican parish; he came from a long line of Anglican worshipers and even ministers; and his children by marriage continued the tradition. He cherished the Book of Psalms and read from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Yet like many in the Anglican tradition, Washington leaned towards philosophical names for God, rather than confessional names. He almost always used names such as the "Supreme Author of all Good"; the "all wise disposer of Events"; a "Bountiful Providence" that watches over us, and "interposes" his actions in our favor. Almost never: "Savior" or "Redeemer," or "Holy Trinity."

Q: How does your account most differ from other biographers or general historians?

A: Religion is not a prominent theme in most of the biographies of the past hundred years. Three points about Washington's religion are usually made: Washington was at best a lukewarm Anglican. Two, on balance, he was a Deist, not a Christian. Three, though he spoke often of Providence, he seemed to mean something like the Greek or Roman fortune or fate, not the biblical God.

We found that a careful study of the evidence overturns all of these conventions. Some, more thoroughly than others.

A: Washington's names for God sometimes sounded deist, but the actions his prayers asked God to perform belong to the biblical God, not the god of the philosophers. Washington believed that God favored the cause of liberty, and should be beseeched to "interpose" his actions on behalf of the Americans- and he often called for public thanksgiving for the many ways in which Americans "experienced" God's hand in events. He believed God could inspire thoughts and courage in human hearts, and give men fortitude to persevere in extreme difficulties. He held that praying for favors imposed duties on him who prayed.

Washington's reflections on the workings of Providence were deep, and hardened by the crucible of experience. On these matters, he was a Christian, not a deist.

Q: Weren't many people at that time both Deists and Christians at the same time?

A: Yes. In Washington's time, many bishops, priests, and serious lay people had a Deist sensibility — they preferred philosophical language in religion. Actually, such a preference went back many centuries.

Deism in practice was not exactly a creed, with defined propositions you either accepted or rejected. It was more like a "movement" of feeling, a tendency, a style. The deist style reached across confessional lines, and seemed to link up to new discoveries in science. Partly, too, it had ancient precedents, in the tradition of "natural theology." The books Washington's mother gave him illustrated an Anglican version of this sensibility.

There is, though, a dividing line between Deist and Christian. Strict Deists cannot accept that God intervenes in history on one side or the other. Their God is more remote and impersonal than that. By contrast, Washington acted as though God can intervene. In this spirit Washington and his men implored God's aid, often experienced it, and thanked Him for it again and again. He acted as a Christian, not a Deist.

A: Not a Deist, certainly. Not a showy, belief-on-his-sleeves Christian, either. Yet he was in fact a pretty serious Christian, going a lot more to church than many of his contemporaries, and being seriously engaged with his time, money, and private devotions. Still, on many occasions, when asked directly, he avoided saying publicly that he was a Christian, or of which confession — perhaps determined not to let his private life become a political weapon. So the evidence on how specifically Christian he was is easy to find in his actions, but hard to find in his words.

One contrast may clarify: Jefferson refused to act as godfather to children, that is, watchful over their religious education, lest that give a false impression. Yet Washington, who was far more careful than Jefferson about such matters, agreed on at least eight occasions to become a godfather to new children of family or friends. He later followed up with gifts of prayer books, and the like.

Was he a Christian? On balance, the evidence says so. But not with verbal proof as solid as a scholar would like.

Q: But wasn't Washington a Freemason? Incompatible with being a Christian, isn't it?

A: In Europe Catholics found the two incompatible. In America, unlike Europe, virtually all Freemasons were also Christians. Many bishops, priests, and devout lay persons belonged to the Freemasons. Freemasonry was practiced as a benevolent association, almost like the charitable, community-serving arm of the Protestant churches. The Freemasons also gave vent to the philosophical impulse in human nature.

Washington did join the Freemasons as a young man, and was proud of his belonging, as a work of service to his fellow man, and part of a movement of human improvement.

Some years after Washington's death, at a masonic ceremony in New York City marking the fiftieth anniversary of Washington's entrance into the order, the opening prayer concluded with the words, "In the Name of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen." It was conducted virtually like a meeting of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, and many Irish names appeared among those attending.

Q: Was there anything specifically Christian about Washington's habits of living?

A: One of the virtues highly recommended in a book his mother bequeathed him was humility, presented as the virtue of having a realistic view of one's own gifts, and not least one's own weaknesses. Washington's public listing of his own deficiencies on accepting public service seem to flow from a habit of such reflection. It was evident that he did not wish to lord it over people, but to treat them humbly, kindly, and with courtesy. A great obstacle in his way was his torrential temper. He was famous as a young officer for his explosions of rage at fear, cowardice, or even poor order. Manfully, he tried to control these outbursts, and gradually gained control, until he became known for his equanimity and even temper. Once in his public remarks, he commended the humble and kindly example of "the Holy Author of our religion."

Washington was by no means over-scrupulous in observing the Sabbath, sometimes visiting friends for dinner or catching up on correspondence. But visitors to Mount Vernon observed a markedly more subdued round of activities, quieter manners at dinner, and earlier bedtime. Some find his observance deficient, but by historical standards it seems well above average.

A: Although his most personal letters back and forth with Martha were in the end burned by Martha at his request. Other family lore is available both at Mount Vernon and the Boston Athenaeum, which purchased Washington's personal library (numbering nearly a thousand books).

We are above all grateful to Mary Thompson, historian at the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, for the use of her extraordinary manuscript, "In the Hands of a Good Providence": Religion in the Family of George Washington (publication forthcoming), and in addition her files upon files of Washington on religion.

Several massive collections of the Papers, Diaries, Writings, and other documents of Washington's life have been published by the University of Virginia, and made available online. We found especially fruitful the 39 volumes of the Writings of George Washington edited by John Fitzpatrick, whose format allowed us to search Washington's correspondence, notes, and speeches. Most of our best material was found there.

For instance, and just to give a sample, in a public proclamation, Washington spoke of the "beneficent Author of all good," to whom we owe "sincere and humble thanks" for the "favorable interpositions of his providence." And in a letter to a friend he wrote, "Philosophy and our Religion hold out to us such hopes as will, upon proper reflection, enable us to bear with fortitude the most calamitous incidents of life." And to another: "As far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will, is what we are to aim [at]." Even during a life-threatening illness in the early days of the presidency, Washington assured his physician that he was "in the hands of a good Providence."

Q: It is far too easy to see Washington as nothing more than the product of legend — the unapproachable "Father of our Country." So, what draws ordinary people to love and respect him, even today?

A Everyone can see that Washington was sometimes in over his head. He had to learn by doing. He was flawed, he made mistakes, he overreacted. He was known through the army for his temper, which he constantly struggled to keep under control. His military tactics have been analyzed and, in some cases, mocked by modern strategists. After all, he had no advance training for maneuvering thousands of men across many miles of battlefield. He could be indecisive; he could be impulsive and reckless, such as the time he took off alone pursuing the retreating British at the Battle of Princeton, yelling "It's a fine fox chase, my boys!"

Yet, he was reserved, a family man, a farmer, who for many dark months and long years kept an ill-paid army in the field, held them together, and contrived to win a few victories with them in desperate times.

Jana At the end of the war, when the country seemed coming apart, some in the military command, disgusted with indecision in Congress, decided that America should have a strong ruler — a king. Who better than Washington? When Washington received the letter from one of his colonels, he was deeply ashamed, writing back, "I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country." He worried what he might have done to have given anyone the impression that he could possibly consider that offer.

Of course, down through history it was all too normal for victorious generals to seize power which makes his response all the more shocking.

After working in politics nearly a decade, I am especially struck by his self-restraint and longing for a quiet life. In the interest of his country, he resisted power.

Michael: Professor Morgan tells this probably apocryphal story: One evening during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Washington's friends were commenting on the reserved and remote manner Washington maintained, even among his closest friends. Gouverneur Morris countered that he could be as familiar with Washington as with any one else. Alexander Hamilton offered to provide a dinner if Morris would simply walk up to Washington, slap him on the back and greet him jovially. So, a few evenings later, Morris approached Washington, bowed, and placed his left hand on Washington's shoulder and said, "My dear General, I am very happy to see you look so well." Immediately, Washington reached up, removed Morris's hand, stared icily at him, and stepped back in silence until Morris retreated into the crowd.

I like this story, even if it is an invention, because it risks making Washington look petulant, even pretentious. Still, it dramatizes the sense of mystery the general wove round himself, the distance, the formality that he cultivated. In his post, he did not want to be "one of the guys." He wanted the office of commander-in-chief of the Continental Army to be taken as serious business, and the person of the American leader to be treated with deference. He had studied victorious generals and national leaders to learn how they generated the mystique people felt in their presence. I love this story because it walks us up to the thin line between growing in respect for Washington's method, and feeling dismay at its human cost. It helps us to understand the line in Morris's famous eulogy: "None was great in his presence."

Snowden did not know George Washington personally. He met him along with a group of others at a social gathering. His comment was refuted by Ashbel Green.

Perhaps you meant this comment for me, as I was the one who quoted Snowden. Does Ashbel Green's opinion about Washington's theology (perhaps what Green may have viewed as Washington's lack of Presbyterian orthodoxy, or possibly, his misapprehension of Washington's general reticence to speak about such matters) refute Snowden's assertion of fact that "When the army lay at Morristown, the Rev. Dr. Jones, administered the sacrament of ye Lord's supper. Washington came forward at ye head of all his officers and took his seat at ye 1st table, & took of ye bread and wine, the Symbols of Christ's broken body and shed blood, to do this in remembrance of ye L J C & thus professed himself a Christian & a disciple of the blessed Jesus."?

It is hard to imagine that Green, the Congressional Chaplain from 1792 to 1800 knew Washington any better than Nelly Custis-Lewis, Washington's adopted daughter, who lived with the Washingtons for twenty years, from the time of her birth in 1779 until 1799. She wrote:

He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.
It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].
My mother [Eleanor Calvert-Lewis] resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage [in 1774] with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis [Martha's daughter] died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event [before they understood she was dead], he [General Washington] knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge [Bushrod] Washington's mother and other witnesses.
He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war.
[snip]...
Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."
With sentiments of esteem,
I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis
-----------------------------------------------------

"...[The]first-ever compilation of the The Writings of George Washington, published in the 1830s... was prepared and published by Jared Sparks (1789-1866), a noted writer and historian. Sparks' Herculean historical productions included not only the writing of George Washington (12 volumes) but also Benjamin Franklin (10 volumes) and Constitution signer Gouverneur Morris (3 volumes). Additionally, Sparks compiled the Library of American Biography (25 volumes), The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution (12 volumes), and the Correspondence of the American Revolution (4 volumes). In all, Sparks was responsible for some 100 historical volumes. Additionally, Sparks was America's first professor of history--other than ecclesiastical history--to teach at the college level in the United States, and he was later chosen president of Harvard.

Jared Sparks' decision to compile George Washington's works is described by The Dictionary of American Biography. It details that Sparks began . . .

. . . what was destined to be his greatest lifework, the publication of the writings of George Washington. ... In January 1827, Sparks found himself alone at Mount Vernon with the manuscripts. An examination of them extending over three months showed that years would be required for the undertaking; and with the owner's consent, Sparks carried off the entire collection, eight large boxes, picking up on the way to Boston a box of diplomatic correspondence from the Department of State, and the [General Horatio] Gates manuscripts from the New York Historical Society. Not content with these, he searched or caused to be searched public and private archives for material, questioned survivors of the Revolution, visited and mapped historic sites. In 1830, for instance, he followed [Benedict] Arnold's [1775] route to Quebec. The first of the twelve volumes of The Writings of George Washington to be published (vol. II) appeared in 1834 and the last (vol. I, containing the biography) in 1837.
In Volume XII of these writings, Jared Sparks delved into the religious character of George Washington, and included numerous letters written by the friends, associates, and family of Washington which testified of his religious character. Based on that extensive evidence, Sparks concluded:

To say that he [George Washington] was not a Christian would be to impeach his sincerity and honesty. Of all men in the world, Washington was certainly the last whom any one would charge with dissimulation or indirectness [hypocrisies and evasiveness]; and if he was so scrupulous in avoiding even a shadow of these faults in every known act of his life, [regardless of] however unimportant, is it likely, is it credible, that in a matter of the highest and most serious importance [his religious faith, that] he should practice through a long series of years a deliberate deception upon his friends and the public? It is neither credible nor possible."
Was George Washington a Christian?

I think it is fair to say that Sparks "knew" Washington far better than Green did.

Cordially,

Every time I read one of these threads, I picture debates a few hundred years from now, in which devotees of literal Christianity post the staged pictures of Bill and Hillary walking up to the entrance of a Church... "See, they were Church-going, Bible-believing Christians!".

I doubt it. God forbid that any right thinking person would ever conflate the character of those two exemplars of narcissistic, repulsive, nauseating, reprobate human depravity (notwithstanding the 30 lb Bibles) with the character of George Washington. It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever write of Kwrinton,

"He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war."

Even Washington's enemies praised his character and virtue, something the Clintons' friends cannot even bring themselves to do of them:

When an American-authored poem dedicated to Washington was reprinted in London in 1780, the dissenting Whig Monthly Review and traditionally Tory Critical Review expressed a rare consensus.4 They agreed that the poem was poorly written, and they praised its subject. Although the Critical Review described Bostonians as a wretched people "used to tarring and feathering those who have been so unhappy as to offend them," it described the rebel leader's character as "very respectable" and proclaimed "we have a high opinion of his hero." The Monthly Review concurred, describing Washington as "this modern Fabius"--a reference to the then well-known paragon of Roman republican virtue, Fabius Maximus.5
link

Cordially,

Snowden's assertion of fact

Snowden was not at Morristown. He got the Rev. Dr. Jones story from Isaac Potts. The Potts story was repeated by many Christian publishers. There is a major problem with his story. Potts did not reside at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777 and 1778. How did he witness the Rev. Jones administer the sacrament?

In 1918, the Valley Forge Park Commission refused a request by a patriotic organization for permission to erect a monument or marker on the spot where it was claimed Washington was seen kneeling in prayer. The Commission's report reviewed its examination of the thousands of pages of correspondence and diaries of the Commander-in-Chief and his staff; generals of divisions and brigades; officers and privates of regiments; the Congressional Committee who were at the camp; manuscripts in the Library of Congress and other institutions where Revolutionary matter is preserved. It concluded by observing "in none of these were found a single paragraph that will substantiate the tradition of the 'Prayer at Valley Forge.'" There is no documentation that supports any of the prayer stories at Morristown.

It is hard to imagine that Green, the Congressional Chaplain from 1792 to 1800 knew Washington any better than Nelly Custis-Lewis

Ashbel Green was a close friend of Washington's long before Nelly was born. Washington left all of his papers and personal belongings to Bushrod Washington, his nephew. That he left nothing to Martha's children or Nelly speaks volumes.

He attended the church at Alexandria when the

Bishop White, the father of the Protestant Episcopal church of America, is one of the most eminent names in church history. During a large portion of the period covering nearly a quarter of a century, Washington, with his wife, attended the churches in which Bishop White officiated. In a letter dated Fredericksburg, Aug. 13, 1835, Colonel Mercer sent Bishop White the following inquiry relative to this question: "I have a desire, my dear Sir, to know whether Gen. Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all. ... No authority can be so authentic and complete as yours on this point."

To this inquiry Bishop White replied as follows:
"Philadelphia, Aug. 15, 1835.
"Dear Sir: In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant. ... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you. I am respectfully.
"Your humble servant,
"WILLIAM WHITE."

He sometimes accompanied his wife to Christian church services, however there is no record of his ever becoming a communicant in any Christian church, and he would regularly leave services before communion—with the other non-communicants. When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington ceased attending at all on communion Sundays. Long after Washington died, asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist!"

On the first Presidential inauguration, Washington took the oath as prescribed by the Constitution, but before taking his oath of office, a local Masonic Bible was hurriedly borrowed on which to take the oath. He would not swear the oath on the Christian Bible.

He did not ask for any clergy on his deathbed, though one was available. His funeral services were those of the Freemasons.

I think it is fair to say that Sparks "knew" Washington far better than Green did

Jared Sparks persuaded Bushrod Washington to let him take Washington's papers to Boston. Sparks excised Washington's signature from documents, and sent them to friends. He tore pages from Washington's diary and sent them to friends. He sent Washington letters to friends. He trashed anything he, Sparks, judged to be of no historical value.
It was Sparks who cut Washington's draft of his first inaugural address into small pieces and so thoroughly disseminated this document of more than sixty pages that the efforts of several collectors have failed to reassemble more than a third of it. Even after he had supposedly returned all the papers to the Washington family, Sparks retained a supply to distribute. He was still mailing out snippets in 1861.
It is because of Jared Sparks that we are having this debate today.

I think it is fair to say that Sparks "knew" Washington far better than Green did

I'll have to agree with Bushrod Washington...Jared Sparks is a scoundrel!
.

Potts did not reside at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777 and 1778. How did he witness the Rev. Jones administer the sacrament?

Other writers claim Isaac Potts was a widower at the time of the Encampment and others that he did not reside at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777 and 1778. These claims would seem to be in error as substantiated by "The Potts Memorial" a worthy genealogical-historical account of the Potts family compiled in 1874 by Mrs. Thomas Potts (Isabella) James, after eleven years of painstaking work. In Mrs. James' record Isaac Potts is shown as marrying Martha Bolton at Plymouth Meeting December 6, 1770, that she lived with Isaac at Valley Forge in 1777 and 1778 and died April 39, 1798 at Cheltenham, Montgomery County.
link

I'll have to agree with Bushrod Washington...Jared Sparks is a scoundrel!

In his efforts concerning the Washington papers, Sparks wrote significantly to Bushrod Washington (1762-1829), the President's nephew and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Although Justice Washington initially declined to give Sparks the help he requested, he eventually consented to allowing Sparks access to his uncle's materials. (Justice Washington had inherited from his uncle the Mt. Vernon estate along with all of the President's writings and personal property.)
The correspondence with Justice Washington represents Sparks's attempt to logically take his search to one of the relatives of the President. Justice Washington only consented to help after Sparks had already traveled throughout the original thirteen Colonies (and to Europe) collecting copies of the President's writings and had proven he was serious in his effort. Justice Washington also felt more comfortable with the project once John Marshall was involved. Over twenty years earlier Justice Washington had urged Marshall to write a biography shortly after the President's death and provided Marshall with considerable access to the President's writings. Marshall's five volumes became the first major biography written and a one volume abridgement, which went through twenty editions by 1849, is still in print and available through Eastern National.
Justice Washington may have felt that he and John Marshall had fulfilled the obligation to write the "definitive" biography, and therefore rejected Sparks' initial overture. Nonetheless, Justice Washington, as mentioned, did consent to assist Sparks and Sparks published his twelve volume Life and Writings of General Washington in 1834-37, after almost ten years of work. Justice Washington did not live to see the publication, which represented the first scholarly attempt at collecting a historical figures works for public consumption. Sparks went on to become a professor of ancient and modern history at Harvard (and a colleague of Henry W. Longfellow, a professor of modern languages) and ultimately president of Harvard from 1849-1853.
link

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You forgot to include this part of the manuscripts saga:

Upon Washington's death in 1799, most of his papers still in his hands became the property of his nephew Bushrod Washington, an associate justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. We shall have more to say about the fate of these invaluable documents in the Introduction to Volume I of The Papers of George Washington.

Editor Jared Sparks gave away this page from a Washington diary in 1832. (Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Dreer Collection).

Destruction and dispersal of the papers began very early when Mrs. Washington reportedly burned all the correspondence she had exchanged with Washington during his lifetime--overlooking only two letters, we believe. There followed long years of careless handling by Bushrod, biographer John Marshall, and editor Jared Sparks. Indeed, what is most important in the story of Washington's papers is not such natural processes as fire, flood, mildew, and the tendency of paper to fall into dust. Rather, there has been an overabundance of stewardship by misguided caretakers, persons who thought they knew what was important and what was trivial, what should be saved and what given away to friends and autograph collectors.
The editor who laments the disappearance of so many Washington diaries can only sink into despondency upon learning that Bushrod gave many away. To diplomat Christopher Hughes, in 1825, he gave the 1797 diary and a sheaf of Washington's notes on agriculture; Hughes dispersed these among his friends in the United States and Europe. Two years later, Bushrod gave the diaries for 1795 and 1798 to Margaret and Robert Adams, of Philadelphia. Then he presented the 1767 diary to Dr. James W. Wallace, of Warrenton. These and certain other diaries once in private hands have been preserved; others apparently have not.
Jared Sparks's turn to mishandle the papers came in 1827, when he persuaded Bushrod to let him take large quantities to Boston, where he was to prepare his twelve-volume edition, The Writings of George Washington (Boston, 1837). Sparks decided that carefully excising a Washington signature from a document, and sending it to a friend, did not really damage the manuscript as a piece of history; that a page torn from a Washington diary, or an entire Washington letter, could safely be given away if he, Sparks, judged it to be of no historical value. It was Sparks who cut Washington's draft of his first inaugural address into small pieces and so thoroughly disseminated this document of more than sixty pages that the efforts of several collectors have failed to reassemble more than a third of it. Even after he had supposedly returned all the papers to the Washington family, Sparks retained a supply to distribute. He was still mailing out snippets in 1861. link

Besides the fact that Bushrod was dead by the time Sparks' massive documentation was published, are John Marshall, Hughes, Adams and Wallace and all these others to whom Bushrod gave away the documents scoundrels, too?

Cordially,

There's a difference between hyprocrisy and accepting reality. The most famous and powerful leaders in a country are usually (not always, as certain 3rd World hellholes often demonstrate) a whole lot smarter, better educated, and better informed than the great masses they govern. A few centuries ago, in some countries, it was necessary for public figures to publicly agree with Catholic Church teaching that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Many of them, including many of the Church officials who promulgated it, knew better. But the clueless masses believed because the Church made such a big deal out of declaring it "heresy" to believe or say otherwise. And leaders who had more important objectives, weren't "hypocrites" for sidestepping the pointless debate with the corrupt Church and the clueless masses, and getting themselves overthrown or even tossed in prison. No, they were just dealing with reality, and accepting the things that they obviously weren't in a position to change.

Today, leaders of several Islamic countries are in the same position, e.g. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The leaders of those countries don't for a second believe all the literal Islamic nonsense, but they know what would happen if they came out and said so. So they keep making a show of practicing Islam themselves, and keep their open criticism limited to the most extreme expressions of Islamic fanaticism. They're not being hypocrites, they just know they'd get themselves killed and replaced with true-believing fanatics if they said what they really think, and that that would end up get a lot of other people killed.

The Clintons are certainly hypocrites on many counts. But a lot of fine non-hypocritical political leaders in our country's past and present have made the same show of practicing an "acceptable to the masses" religion, because it's simply impossible to get elected otherwise, and they correctly believe that their other objectives (fighting terrorism, trimming the bloated federal government, or whatever their chief policy objectives are) are more important than telling the masses what they really believe in the area of religion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.