tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post6326763677049958991..comments2024-03-28T21:32:05.688-06:00Comments on American Revolution Blog: Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-4392576062633876712022-06-20T06:24:28.910-06:002022-06-20T06:24:28.910-06:00vous pouvez les essayer meilleur designer de répl... vous pouvez les essayer <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/fr/collier-pour-chien-c-157_326_327/" rel="nofollow"><strong> meilleur designer de répliques </strong></a> son commentaire est ici <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/fr/empreinte-de-monogramme-c-157_158_162/meilleur-louis-vuitton-georges-mm-monogramme-empreinte-cuir-m53945-noir-p-958.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>sacs répliques hautes</strong></a> site utile <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/fr/portefeuilles-c-157_158_201/louis-vuitton-haute-qualit%C3%A9-brazza-portefeuille-monogramme-autre-en-marron-p-3830.html" rel="nofollow"><strong>designer répliques de bagages </strong></a>tysoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00074255875041424944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-31702162943393745962018-07-09T03:04:18.861-06:002018-07-09T03:04:18.861-06:00I agree. It is known that George Washington actual...I agree. It is known that George Washington actually had a daily prayer Journal so I think it would be fair to say that he was a man of Prayer. Of course he would pray during a battle at Valley Forge.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467803438710429166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-60016249946651245262018-02-24T09:49:40.455-07:002018-02-24T09:49:40.455-07:00You guys stink like ass I believe that Hercules Mu...You guys stink like ass I believe that Hercules Mulligan is correct.🎅🏿👍🎅🏻🎅Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-5956163968208622842016-08-28T13:34:48.613-06:002016-08-28T13:34:48.613-06:00Researching my own family I came across an e histo...Researching my own family I came across an e history of the daughters of the American Revolution edition where my ancestor Almira Foster retold stories her father Abel Foster shared with her siblings by the kitchen fire. These stories included the confusion and excitement of April 19th, 1775, her boyish uncle Benjamin Wood lost at Bunker Hill and the March to Virgina. The recollection also mentions the privations at Valley Forge, shaking the great Generai Washington's hand and hearing him pray many times at Valley Forge.<br /><br />Abel Foster was a minute man, who also fought at Saratoga and eventually became a scout for Washington.theoderichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178910019792116399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-11141711847040960192016-02-13T12:35:22.301-07:002016-02-13T12:35:22.301-07:00Just because Washington did not partake of the com...Just because Washington did not partake of the communion services dose not mean he was not religious or spiritual! Some believe the sacrament is just for the anointed. Partaking for the masses has become acceptable and not correct!<br /><br />As mentioned. Washington had his pride about not being seen on his knees. So he went far off where no one was supposed see him that way. <br /><br />The main point is that he was spiritual more than dogma of any one deity. As I am also non denominational. T believe God is more concerned about how you are, more than what religion you belong to! "Those that do right naturally are a law/religion unto themselves." Or similar to that!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425456447452118769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-78222580235308025692015-11-04T16:05:17.231-07:002015-11-04T16:05:17.231-07:00Very interesting discussion which leaves me sensin...Very interesting discussion which leaves me sensing that many observations are, to an important extent, self projections, because we all devoutly want GW to have thought they way we think. <br />Elad2008https://www.blogger.com/profile/00106794146195535725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-37420219657105124542015-10-05T12:34:52.069-06:002015-10-05T12:34:52.069-06:00You may want to check your Potts history.
http://w...You may want to check your Potts history.<br />http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/youasked/010.htmM.Pottsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-5545381713779522022014-12-16T13:37:27.258-07:002014-12-16T13:37:27.258-07:00And the house at Valley Forge that became the head...And the house at Valley Forge that became the headquarters of Washington was the home of Issac, who was the son of the Iron Master John Potts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-40775228082848188522014-12-16T13:33:58.530-07:002014-12-16T13:33:58.530-07:00"Family history records have proven that the ..."Family history records have proven that the Potts family did not move to the Valley Forge area until 1800" <br />What family history did you read? The Potts family WAS Valley Forge and were there as of 1757... http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/youasked/010.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-47052734453587093932009-07-16T04:27:23.412-06:002009-07-16T04:27:23.412-06:00really enjoyed this arts ,, thanks ,,
_________...really enjoyed this arts ,, thanks ,, <br /><br /><br />___________________<br />victor <br /><a href="http://www.directstartv.com/jump.html?referID=oa-0-173189" rel="nofollow">Get 28 movie channels for 3 months free</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-34247222310051990292008-11-19T14:42:00.000-07:002008-11-19T14:42:00.000-07:00Hi my name is Aaron. I know that it is not provabl...Hi my name is Aaron. I know that it is not provable to say that Washington prayed at Valley Forge. I do know this he was a mason and masons are taught to pray before any great undertaking you should first invoke the aid of God. So I do think he prayed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-57398675824314577792008-05-17T20:59:00.000-06:002008-05-17T20:59:00.000-06:00Thanks, Hercules. And, Jonathan, I commend you for...Thanks, Hercules. And, Jonathan, I commend you for engaging Lillback's work.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-84640227225267768032008-05-14T16:12:00.000-06:002008-05-14T16:12:00.000-06:00I think that Brian Tubbs is right in saying that t...I think that Brian Tubbs is right in saying that there is evidence for Washington's Christianity. The quote I presented earlier, as I have stated before, does not align with theistic rationalism. GW is not just saying that Christianity is true; he is saying that the Bible is the revealed (or inspired) word OF GOD. This quote is affirmative evidence that Washington was a Christian, whereas the only evidence that has hence far been shown to demonstrate his supposed theistic rationalism has been circumstantial and inconclusive, although I do not mean to say that this hasn't been a thought-provoking discussion.Hercules Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-77180713740549231892008-05-13T21:50:00.000-06:002008-05-13T21:50:00.000-06:00Thanks for chiming in Brian. I would also suggest...Thanks for chiming in Brian. I would also suggest those who are interested in countering the side that argues GW was an orthodox Christian to tackle Lillback's book (though at 1200 pages I'd imagine the overwhelming majority of folks who buy it don't finish it). If you do a google search, you'll see that I am probably the only source on the Internet that is reading and responding to it very carefully.<BR/><BR/>He does a great job digging into the primary sources and showing Washington wasn't a Deist as strictly defined. But he really doesn't convince me that GW was an orthodox Christian, because quite frankly, the historical record leaves a lot of doubt. His explanations on communion and GW's avoidance of Jesus' name I found especially unconvincing; I found his arguments in those sections to be very lawyer-like, defending GW from a charge of heresy in a Johnnie Cochranesq. manner.<BR/><BR/>On another day I'll tell you guys a story about how I was almost invited to debate Dr. Lillback at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia until they got a far more distinguished and qualified scholar -- Dr. Peter Henriques -- to argue for that side.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-59027397270282856492008-05-13T19:37:00.000-06:002008-05-13T19:37:00.000-06:00Hello everyone. Good article, Brad. Great discussi...Hello everyone. Good article, Brad. Great discussion.<BR/><BR/>Brad, I agree with your main point in the article. The painting itself is based on a legendary episode, but there's still a CORE truth to the painting - namely the principle that Washington prayed. I don't see how ANYONE can question the fact that George Washington prayed. The evidence that Washington was a man of prayer is overwhelming. Who cares if he knelt or stood????<BR/><BR/>I disagree with you and jonathan, however, that Washington wasn't an orthodox Christian. I also disagree with Joseph Ellis on this. Ellis got Washington's faith completely wrong in "His Excellency," by focusing on only PART of the evidence. <BR/><BR/>A much better and MUCH, MUCH more comprehensive treatment of George Washington's faith can be found in Peter Lillback's "George Washington's Sacred Fire." I dare anyone who questions Washington's Christianity to read that book with an open mind.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-82209273466216074782008-05-12T20:26:00.000-06:002008-05-12T20:26:00.000-06:00I don't have time to comment much now, but my quot...I don't have time to comment much now, but my quotation from Washington earlier (about the "blessed religion REVEALED in the word OF GOD") has not been dealt with. I don't think it can be reconciled with Jonathan's definition (which I thank him for; I think I have a clearer understanding of how it works) of theistic rationalism.Hercules Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-35162092959647960432008-05-12T19:45:00.000-06:002008-05-12T19:45:00.000-06:00Here are the two times Washington spoke as though ...Here are the two times Washington spoke as though the Native American's "Great Spirit" was the same God everyone worshipped. <A HREF="http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=44088206&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+35:+TALK+TO+THE+CHEROKEE+NATION&query=the+great+spirit&id=gw350154" REL="nofollow">First</A>, where he actually prays to the Great Spirit: "I now send my best wishes to the Cherokees, and pray the Great spirit to preserve them."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=44334425&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+35:+To+THE+CHIEFS+AND+WARRIORS,+REPRESENTATIVES+OF+THE+WYANDOTS,+DELAWARES,+SHAWANOES,+OTTAWAS,+CHIPPEWAS,+POTAWATIMES,+MIAMIS,+EEL+RIVER,+WEEAS,+KICKAPOOS,+PIANKASHAWS,+AND+KASKASKIAS&query=the+great+spirit&id=gw350211" REL="nofollow">And second</A>: "I now sincerely wish you a good Journey and hope you may find your [families and] Brothers well on your Return, and that [the Great Spirit above] may long preserve your Nations in peace with each other and with the United States."<BR/><BR/>The reason why that's in parenthesis is because one of his speech writers prepared the address using the generic term "God" and Washington purposefully crossed that out and wrote in "the Great Spirit above." <BR/><BR/>If you want to know a neat little trick that Herc. probably knows about. GW's entire writings are collected <A HREF="http://etext.virginia.edu/washington/fitzpatrick/" REL="nofollow">here</A> with a search engine. Just hit the search button, type in the phrase you want like "the great spirit" and the results pop up.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-88505887611195089062008-05-12T19:23:00.000-06:002008-05-12T19:23:00.000-06:00You said that you'll never see GW saying that the ...<I>You said that you'll never see GW saying that the religion of the Native Indians was wrong. Then why did he encourage the efforts of Christian missionaries to convert the Indians???</I><BR/><BR/>I already answered this in the above post but it also relates to your misunderstanding of theistic rationalism when you write: "Now he is saying that theistic rationalist believes all religions are equally valid."<BR/><BR/>No. Not EQUALLY valid, but simply VALID ways to God. Think of religion as a mountain with God at the top. The theistic rationalists believed most or all religions were valid ways to the top but Christianity was the shortest way to get there. And that's because of the superiority of Jesus' moral teachings. The content of "sound religion" was not orthodox doctrines like original sin, the trinity, incarnation and atonement (in which they didn't believe) but rather the teaching of an overriding Providence and future state of rewards and punishments. Christianity was the best religion (in a comparative sense) NOT because of Christ's exclusive claim to God as the second person in the Trinity (again, things in which they didn't believe) but because of the superiority of Jesus of Nazareth's moral teachings.<BR/><BR/>The purpose of religion was to make men moral and hence self-governable.<BR/><BR/>And this is why George Washington could at once believe the Native American's religion a valid way to God and STILL prefer they convert to Christianity because, as his very words you reproduce state, it made them more "civilized" and better assimilated them. Both religions were valid with Christianity better and preferable for its utilitarian effects. Not a word in what you reproduced that shows Washington thought the Native's religion false, Christianity true, and Indians should convert because their souls hung in the balance.<BR/><BR/>Re GW's relation to Adams, Jefferson and the other Founders. If it can be shown that he talked like them and his theological beliefs and God talk were consistent with theirs, it demonstrates that they likely believed in the same theological system. Peter Lillback does the same thing in his book where compares GW's God talk to Thomas Paine's and then to some orthodox clergymen's to show that Washington actually talked more like the orthodox clergy as opposed to Paine. What he OUGHT to have done is compare Washington's God talk to Jefferson's, J. Adams', Franklin's and Madison's and he would see that Washington's God-speak was closet to THEIRS, not Paine's or the orthodox clergymen's. <BR/><BR/>For instance, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, all three as President systematically spoke of God as "The Great Spirit" when addressing Native Americans suggesting this pagan Deity was the same God they (all religions) worshipped. See my next post for the primary sources Brad asked for.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-58213090896516023322008-05-12T18:47:00.000-06:002008-05-12T18:47:00.000-06:00OK, I am getting a little confused about this defi...OK, I am getting a little confused about this definition of theistic rationalism.<BR/><BR/>Jonathan and I have wrangled over this and similar issues, and it always comes down to this new term theistic rationalism (which, from what I've gathered, is just one of the many terms used for something in between a deist and Christian). <BR/><BR/>In our past (and numerous) discussions, theistic rationalism, at its core, believes in God, believes that He interacts with the world, but that the laws of nature and man's reason are superior to any revelation whatsoever. That is what I mean when I say that revelation is, for all practical purposes, non-existent and irrelevant in the theistic rationalistic view.<BR/><BR/>Now he is saying that theistic rationalist believes all religions are equally valid. But all religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) all rely on revelation (although religions like Christianity do not require a disposal of reason, but rather the use of it; but revelation of God trumps any so-called reason of man). All religions do not hold each other to be true. Islam requires the "jihad" of those who do not believe in it. Christianity does not allow those who profess it to compromise or adapt their beliefs to other religions, etc. etc. So how can theistic rationalists believe that reason is THE standard for measuring truth, and accept all religions as being valid? Where is the consistency in that definition?<BR/><BR/>Also, the claim that Washington believed that the animist religions of the Indians were as equally valid as Christianity is fallacious. I've addressed this in the end of my <A HREF="http://meetthefounders.blogspot.com/2008/01/response-concerning-washingtons-faith.html<br/>" REL="nofollow">latest post on George Washington's faith</A>.<BR/>And George Washington's addressing the Jews, using the word "Jehovah" to refer to God, does not mean that he thought that he was recognizing Judaism (i. e. rejection of Jesus as Messiah but still clinging to some of the Old Testament traditions) as equally valid as Christianity (that would be a logical contradiction, since you would have to believe that Jesus is and isn't the Messiah). Christians use the term "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" to refer to God, because that is His name. So Washington could still have been recognizing only Christianity as true, but addressing the Jews in their own terms.<BR/><BR/>Masonry in America, during the time of Washington, was really not a separate religion. It's language was Christian/trinitarian, until about the time of his death. His reference to the "Great Architect" is a true reference to God in the Christian sense, but speaking to a certain attribute of Him (His role as a Creator and Designer).<BR/><BR/>So none of these disprove his Christianity.<BR/><BR/>You said that you'll never see GW saying that the religion of the Native Indians was wrong. Then why did he encourage the efforts of Christian missionaries to convert the Indians??? Again, I would refer to the end of my above-mentioned post, where there are 3 excerpts from his own letters where he believes and supports the efforts of Christians to convert the Indians. He gave this explanation:<BR/> <BR/>"So far as I am capable of judging, <B>the principles upon which the society is founded and the rules laid down for its government, appear to be well calculated to promote so laudable and arduous an undertaking</B>, and you will permit me to add that if an event so long and so earnestly desired as that of converting the Indians to Christianity and consequently to civilization, can be effected, the Society of Bethlehem bids fair to bear a very considerable part in it. I am, Reverend Sir, with sentiments of esteem, &c." (To John Ettwein, May 2, 1778)<BR/><BR/>Concerning referring to Adams and Jefferson, and comparing them to Washington, is like comparing apples to oranges. I think even Jefferson and Adams would agree with that. Washington must be defined by Washington, not by Adams or Jefferson.<BR/><BR/>I'm pressed for time, and I will address some of the specifics of other things later, but these are my immediate thoughts.Hercules Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-24687453668257284242008-05-12T17:47:00.000-06:002008-05-12T17:47:00.000-06:00Thanks for the comments, Herc. and Jonathan. By t...Thanks for the comments, Herc. and Jonathan. By the way, Jonathan, do you have a reference to Washington's praying to a Native American "great spirit?" If so, I'd love to have it. Very interesting. <BR/><BR/>Herc. What Meacham was saying is that the Founding Fathers believed in a "public" religion," which was neutral in any argument of orthodoxy, and generally applied to any and all faith in a supreme being. Meacham states that the Founders were appealing to this "public religion" when they wrote the Dec. of Ind. as is evidenced by its language. <BR/><BR/>To be honest, I wasn't sure if it applied to Washington or not, which is why I brought it up. I think Jonathan has made some good points on this issue though. It would be hard to categorize Washington as a pious believer of orthodox Christianity. <BR/><BR/>With that said, I want to bring up something that might apply to the discussion. Just before the commencement of the American Revolution, the northern colonies were caught up in the millennial frenzy of the Great Awakening, which caused thousands of colonists to develop a general distrust for orthodox religion, but not for Christianity in general. Nicholas Guyatt discusses this at length in his new book, "Providence and the Invention of the United States, 1607-1875." Guyatt also brings up the fact that scores of American colonists and British citizens developed a "healthy distaste" for organized religion, which was primarily the result of fallout from the English Civil War. Guyatt also claims that this "fallout" lasted well into the era of the American Revolution. He's also quick to point out, however, that this "fallout" did not ignite a general distrust in Christianity as a whole, but only in orthodoxy. <BR/><BR/>What do you think?Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-60114908823095437012008-05-12T17:07:00.000-06:002008-05-12T17:07:00.000-06:00Finally -- a word on the document Herc. linked to,...Finally -- a word on the document Herc. linked to, so I can't be accused of ignoring it.<BR/><BR/>GW rarely invoked revelation as authority (he often spoke in biblical allusion as all of them including, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine did back then, and probably most of us, even I, do today). That Herc. would have to drag out a document -- a draft that he never finished, and one that got torn up so that it only exists in fragments -- speaks to the fact that GW's exact views on revelation are hard to pin down because he didn't do a lot of talking about them.<BR/><BR/>That said, it IS consistent with theistic rationalism which views the Bible as a partially inspired holy book, a partially inspired "Word of God." Deism, on the other hand, categorically rejects all revelation. <BR/><BR/>Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, likewise spoke as though they really believed in PARTS of the Bible -- because they did.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-23441984456182484802008-05-12T16:53:00.000-06:002008-05-12T16:53:00.000-06:00The way that Jefferson and Adams, by the way, hand...The way that Jefferson and Adams, by the way, handled their religious problem was by keeping the most heterodox elements of their religious views to themselves, in their private letters. That's how they could be elected! It's a greatly under appreciated historical irony that for all of the hubbub over religion during their election -- and conceded that Adams had a friendlier view on integration of Church & State -- the two were virtually agreed in their personal religious sentiments.<BR/><BR/>The same mistake many folks made back then, folks make today; Jefferson as more "deistic" (or even perhaps "atheistic") than he actually was and Adams as more conventionally religious. <BR/><BR/>Adams I'd be willing to convict of hypocrisy because HE claimed to have been an adult-lifelong Unitarian, since 1750. And he could attack the Trinity as bitterly as Jefferson could. Yet, he issued a Trinitarian sounding Thanksgiving Prayer (one he latter regretted giving). Far more Trinitarian sounding than anything George Washington ever uttered privately or publicly.<BR/><BR/>Another way in which these key Founders threaded the needle between their heterodox religion and the orthodoxy of many in the masses is generic God speak -- statements that didn't contradict EITHER their heterodox views OR the views of the orthodox.<BR/><BR/>Washington said nice things about the Christian religion, invoked a warm intervening Providence, and kept his mouth shut on his religious specifics and let people think whatever they wanted. He never claimed to be an orthodox Trinitarian Christian (out of hundreds of letters only one exists where he even claims to be Christian), never spoke in orthodox Trinitarian language, so he never falsely claimed to be something he wasn't. If he let others have an impression that he was more orthodox than he really was, I see this as neither hypocrisy, nor any different than what J. Adams, Jefferson or Madison did.<BR/><BR/>No one wants to be labeled an "infidel" and that's exactly how the orthodox viewed the religion of the key Founders. It's like a gay public figure in the 1950s letting letting folks think he's a heterosexual bachelor without even "clarifying" his sexual orientation. They did indeed hide in a religious closet. That's one key reason probably why Washington was so reticent to discuss what he personally believed in and why Nelly Custis angrily told critics to buzz off.<BR/><BR/>Finally, the reason for the disconnect between their views and those of many in the masses is because Founding era republican ideas didn't come from the masses or orthodox Christianity, but from elite educated circles, who disproportionately rejected orthodox Christianity.<BR/><BR/>It's the same as today. The policy makers and politicians, though anyone can be elected, tend to be disproportionately lawyers and well educated, the "cultural elite."<BR/><BR/>This is a point I'd think Herc. would have to concede: Personally I think the first 4 Presidents rejected all of the tenets of orthodox Christianity; but EVEN if we assumed Madison and Washington were conventional Christians, there's no question J. Adams and T. Jefferson did. That's 2 of the first 4 Presidents holding these heterodox, heretical religious views. 50% of the Churches were not Unitarian as Jefferson and Adams were.<BR/><BR/>Add Ben Franklin to the mix (whose religious views were identical to Jefferson's and J. Adams' and who was also an acting governor of a major state -- PA) and you've got the drafter of the Declaration of Independence and a majority (3 out of 5) of the drafting bd. of the document.<BR/><BR/>Hence a disconnect between the elite in government and the masses or Churches that were supposed to rule the masses' consciences. We shouldn't get the impression that virtually all of the masses were pious Christians, however; one notable study has shown the overwhelming majority of citizens of the Founding era to be un-churched, more likely to be found in taverns on Saturday nights than in churches on Sunday mornings.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-45822637590426530032008-05-12T16:22:00.000-06:002008-05-12T16:22:00.000-06:00One central tenet to theistic rationalism is that ...One central tenet to theistic rationalism is that it believes all religions are valid ways to God and that God comes to different peoples under different names.<BR/><BR/>As such they could talk -- sounding like Christians -- as though the Christian religion were true one minute and then turn around and talks as though some pagan religion were true. If they really did believe all of these competing religious systems were true, then it's not hypocrisy (thought I'd concede your point if you thought it were bad, heretical theology).<BR/><BR/>GW prayed to the pagan Indian Great Spirit God -- a God who unlike Allah, doesn't even claim to be the God of Abraham! -- by name; if he really didn't believe their "Great Spirit" were a valid God, then THAT'S hypocrisy.<BR/><BR/>GW often used names with which the addresses were comfortable with; the only time he said God was Jehovah was of course when addressing Jews. And when addressing his fellow Freemasons, he referred to God as The Great Architect of the Universe.<BR/><BR/>I'm certain if there were enough Muslims and GW could address them, he'd refer to God as Allah.<BR/><BR/>And re: the Natives you'll never see in his writings him saying he believes their religion false, Christianity true (how could he if he thought their Great Spirit was a valid way to God?) but rather it would be better for them to convert to civilize and better assimilate them.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-22847187483720436192008-05-12T15:19:00.000-06:002008-05-12T15:19:00.000-06:00OK, in case my first comment wasn't clear:I was wo...OK, in case my first comment wasn't clear:<BR/><BR/>I was wondering if Brad was saying that Meacham claimed (using words from Franklin) that Washington gave the public appearance of Christianity, even though he really did not believe in it. Again, I think that such a claim would imply gross hypocrisy on Washington's part, which was altogether inconsistent with his character. And I should add that it often cost him a high price to maintain his convictions publicly, and risk odds with the public.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if I am misunderstanding Brad and John Meacham or not; please correct me if I am.Hercules Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6931682382198278362.post-91284233688427381322008-05-12T15:14:00.000-06:002008-05-12T15:14:00.000-06:00Thanks for your thoughts and invitation Brad. I mu...Thanks for your thoughts and invitation Brad. I must confess I am not familiar with Meacham's work, however. <BR/><BR/>Tell me if I am wrong: You seem to be inferring that Washington's private religious convictions were substituted with a "religion" more acceptable to the American populous, or one with which they were more comfortable (i. e., a biblical one)?<BR/><BR/>To come to such a conclusion is to convict Washington, and other Founders of hypocrisy. I might be able to find such behavior consistent with the character of men like Jefferson, or even Franklin, but not Washington. I see no good reason to challenge his integrity and his honesty. There is every indication in his own writings that Washington was a man of conviction who didn't compromise what he truly believed to please the voters. His presidential administration is solid proof of that.<BR/><BR/>Also, if the majority of the American people regarded the Bible, why didn't the majority of our Founders? How did our Founding Fathers gain any support or status? Were they ALL convincing hypocrites? It would be a miracle if the most astounding bunch of hypocrites in the world founded the greatest nation in the world. Just something to think about. ;)Hercules Mulliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.com