Posted on 03/15/2002 11:03:09 AM PST by 2banana
In the political documents, correspondence, and other writings of Washington, few references to the prevailing religion of his day are found. In no instance has he expressed a disbelief in the Christian religion, neither can there be found in all his writings a single sentence that can with propriety be construed into an acknowledgment of its claims. Once or twice he refers to it in complimentary terms, but in these compliments there is nothing inconsistent with the conduct of a conscientious Deist. Religions, like their adherents, possess both good and bad qualities, and Christianity is no exception. While there is much in it deserving the strongest condemnation, there is also much that commands the respect and even challenges the admiration of Infidels. Occupying the position that Washington did, enjoying as he did the confidence and support of Christians, it was not unnatural that he should indulge in a few friendly allusions to their religious faith.
In his "Farewell Address," the last and best political paper he gave to the Christian religion is not once named. In this work he manifests the fondest solicitude for the future of his country. His sentences are crowded with words of warning and fatherly advice. But he does not seem to be impressed with the idea that the safety of the government or the happiness of the people depends upon Christianity. He recommends a cultivation of the religious sentiment, but evinces no partiality for the popular faith.
It would appear that we'll never know if Washington was a Christian or not. But, do you not find it somewhat strange that, if he was a Christian, he never declared so (even on his deathbed)? From my experience, people of faith tend not to be so secretive about their beliefs...<
BINGO!
While good generalities it would be equally true that the American Revolution and resulting independent nation sprang from preservation of The Rights of Englishmen, which to the overwhelming Whiggish tendancies of the colonists meant freedom from Arbitrary Power (as execised by the democratic instituion of Parliment) and the established Common Law (which dealt with Presciptive Law and not metaphysical rights).
Now I am not responding to you to claim that we are "a Christian Nation", but instead to share with you that my readings in history have lead me to believe that the assesment made by the article of this thread is not very far off the mark. The big question is, if we were so profoundly a nation brought into being by our Christian heritage, coupled with the Judeac underpinnings, what does that mean for us today in analyzing where our nation has had some obvious wrong turns in the march to the brink of world socialism?
One place to start to answer that question is in Michael Novak's recent book On Two Wings : Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding . Novak makes no belittlement of the Common Sense wing and does a fine job of showing the background of Madison defending the Baptists and the other things going on at the time that preserved the secular nature of our Constitution.
Kirk's first principle for Conservatism was the belief in an Enduring Moral Order. Sowell's belief (in A conflict of Visions) that the believers in the Constrained view of man hold the same issue central also affirms this. Conservatives want no Test Law....but we do want an shared understanding that without a common acceptance of a general Enduring Moral Order we are left standing defenseless against the onslaught of the Enlightenment Metaphysics right down through Marx and Choamsky of today.
In an age where every socialist talks more of various "rights" than any libertarian leaning conservative, we can only get Rights correctly confined back to 'individual rights' if the historical foundations of their value and there moral (and Christian) origination can be understood by all the citizenry.
Because someone who compiled a report claims that he can find no reference to GW declaring himself Christian is proof of nothing other than what this person could not find. Most Christians probably do openly declare their Christianity, but many don't, or don't do it so often that there would be references of it from his contemporaries or in correspondence, etc.
As I said earlier, the fact that Washington championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion is certainly not indicative that the man was not a Christian. In fact, many (probably most) Christians feel the same way.
When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment.
So? That doesn't mean that GW was not a Christian. Many Christians do believe in Hell, but believing or not believing in Hell is not what makes one a Christian, and certainly being tolerant of someone who does not believe that Hell exists does not make one non-Christian.
On his deathbed, Washington uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
Do you think that every Christian who ever lived has uttered words of a religious nature and/or called for a clergyman to be in attendance on their death beds?
And no, I don't find it strange. Some people are more introspective about their faith than others.
What I see is some people trying to make something out of nothing.
I agree with your statement. The rights as defined don't conflict with Christianity, they support it. But they are arguably moral without reference to religion.
You mention:
But they are arguably moral without reference to religion.
and I would agree if we are careful not to only underpin them with metaphysical construct but to also use virtue, order and good old common sense, a distinction Novak makes much better than I.
All branches of Conservatism from Libertarian to Paeleo share one simple group of goals, they just see them in a different order as Storm Orphan and I used to agree. Libertarians see Freedom ==> Order ==> Virtue, while traditionalists see Virtue ==> Order ==> Freedom. All the factions have those amongst them that see government far too much used in facilitating the Order part, when it really should be a product of each of us brought about by Freedom and Virtue.
Thanks again.
Beyond that it gets murky, because the Founders, whatever else they were, were also politicians. Many of them-- Jefferson is a great example, but it's also true to a degree of Washington, Adams, Madison, and most of the others-- acted very Christian when they were up for re-election, and vet skeptical when they were writing private letters and diaries. These debates often come down to selective quote-mining by both sides.
As was pointed out to me by an alert Freeper, the signers of the Declaration of Independence are NOT considered to be Founding Fathers. It's the signers of the Constitution that are considered to be Founding Fathers. (Look it up in a dictionary.) But you used the small "f" "founders"...and
This is a bit of an academic point...I have no doubt that most of the men who signed the Constitution were also Christian. But the fact that they were Christian does NOT necessarily mean that they intended to "found" the country on "Christian principles." (By the way, you'll have to define what you mean by "Christian principles" by the way. Jesus said very clearly that if one is struck on the cheek, that one should then turn the other cheek, to allow that also to be struck. Is that one of the "Christian principles" upon which the U.S. was "founded"? Or was the U.S. only founded upon the Christian principles that are acceptable to modern-day conservatives?)
Gouveneur Morris was the apparent author of the Constitution,...
Most history books accord James Madison the honor of "Father of the Constitution." (However, it was almost certainly a group effort.)
It is not just the founders who supported Christian principles.
There is a HUGE difference between saying that the United States was "FOUNDED" upon Christian principles, and saying that the founders "SUPPORTED" Christian principles.
Benjamin Franklin (one of 6 signers of both the Constitution AND Declaration of Independence) was most certainly NOT a Christian. Only one month before he died he questioned the divinity of Jesus--which is pretty central to Christianity!!
Thomas Jefferson (principal writer of the Declaration of Independence...invited to the Constitutional Convention, but in France at the time) throughout his life also denied the divinity of Jesus. In fact, he "edited" the Bible to remove ALL references to miracles, including the Resurrection. So Jefferson was a Christian ONLY if one who denies the Resurrection and the divinity of Jesus can be a Christian. Can a Christian deny the divinity of Jesus?
So these two very important men in the founding of our country weren't Christians (unless, again, one can be a Christian even if one questions or denies the divinity of Jesus).
But that's NOT important in deciding whether the U.S. was "founded on Christian principles." To answer that question, one might look at the Treaty of Friendship and Peace with Tripoli, UNAMIMOUSLY signed approved by Senate (in 1796...a mere 20 years after the Declaration of Independence, and a mere 9 years after the Constitution), and signed into law by John Adams (signer of the Declaration of Independence, and second President of the United States):
"As the government of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION (emphasis added :-)) - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (modern translation: Muslims)..."
U.S. not founded on the Christian religion, according to U.S. Congress of 1796
THAT makes it pretty clear--to me, at least--that the Congress of the United States, only approximately 9 years after the signing of the Constitution, was convinced that the U.S. was NOT "founded on the Christian religion."
Mark (personal opinion of Jesus--->good man, probably not divine)
We MUST not give up on this.... Keep the pressure on YOUR Senators to bring this vote to the FLOOR for a vote by the FULL senate !!!
DO NOT allow Sen. Leheay and his fellow LIBERALS on the Judiciary Committee to prevent this vote from going to the floor!!!
Advise and consent means 100 Senators not 10 !!!
I've debated many atheists/agnostics/objectivists/etc. on this forum - all of them asserting a foundation for morality without God, and all of them using religious principles as the foundation for their morality.
No doubt you're part of the same crowd, crowing about "rights", and "property" and the "rule of law", that violence is "wrong" .. and you build your system on these "axioms" that you've taken from religious systems. Without a god behind those "rules", they are merely the result of mob rule, and when the mob rules that your rape and robbery is "good", then it will be.
Morality without an authority higher than man is simply not workable.
"George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d dy of October, A.D. 1789.
(signed) G. Washington"
Does that sound like something written by other than a Christian? Really?
There isn't a single mention of Jesus Christ in that whole passage. This may come as a shock to you Christians...but not everyone who believes in God is a Christian.
However, Washington regularly attended Christian church services. His granddaughter (who was very close to him) wrote that she had no doubt he was a Christian.
To my knowledge, he never said anything that led to any thought that he questioned the devinity of Jesus (as both Jefferson and Franklin clearly did).
So it seems reasonable to accept that he was a Christian.
In his Proclamation (post #57) he refers specifically to both "Almighty God" and the "Lord and Ruler of nations." Only Christians understand the triune nature of God, and refer to both our "Lord" and our "God" interchangeably.
This may come as a shock to you Christians...but not everyone who believes in God is a Christian.
Actually, you might be surprised at how little shocks me any longer. Or any of "us Christians," for that matter. I am aware of deists and Bhuddists and Krishnas and Catholics and Wiccans, Muslims and Taoists and atheists. None of them surprise me, nor do I mistake them for Christians.
Really? Wow, I had no idea. I'd better quit volunteering and start raping, robbing and pillaging.
I guess we'll have to concede this point to you, lest you turn violent. :-) PLS don't hold it against the good ol' guv'neur, though; after all, Libertarianism hadn't been invented when he said this.
And remember, there aren't only us Conservatives and you Libertarians; there also those nasty Liberals who are after our property, and then there are those undecideds who may become servants of God and abstain from force & fraud--or may become servants of the thieving Liberals!
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.