#2

And to his son a few months later, Adams expressed  amazement that, after
all that had been written by samuel Clarke, Daniel Waterland, and Joseph
Priestly, John Quincy persisted in holding to the Athanasian creed.(18)
FOOTNOTE:
(18)   JA to John Quincy Adams, November 3, 1815; Adams Papers, reel 122 On
  January 3, 1817, John Quincy Adams wrote his father that all his "hopes
of a future life" were "founded upon the Gospel of Christ." Nor, he added,
  would he "cavil or quibble away" was seemed to him clear assertions by
Jesus  that he was God."You see my orthodoxy grows upon me." Adrienne Koch
and William Peden, eds., The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy
Adams (New  York, 1946), 291-92
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation,
Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper and Row, (1987) pp 90
==================================================
        A Ceremonial Pattern. It was the ceremonial pattern of the English
coronation with which Lee and his committee members were most familiar. The
coronation, however, was not really "a civil but an important religious
ceremony."(36) Indeed, it was none other than the archbishop of Canterbury
who placed the crown upon the head of King George III in 1761. Prayers were
an integral part of the coronation service in England.(37) It was only
natural that men who were familiar with English protocol should seek to
imitate, at least in part, this most impressive of ceremonials.(38)
        Of course, not everyone in America was enamored with kingly
ceremony or other rituals which smelled of royalty. The well known debate
over the proper title for the new leader demonstrated the strong
convictions which this issue engendered. Some congressmen, like Maclay of
Pennsylvania, not only objected to bestowing a special title on the leader
but also found ceremonies III general objectionable. Maclay recorded his
unreserved views on this subject in his diary. "I have had full opportunity
of observing the gentlemen of New England," he wrote, "and sorry indeed am
I to say it, but no people in the Union dwell more on trivial distinction
and matters of mere form. They really seem to show a readiness to stand on
punctillio and ceremony.(39)
        Compared to the coronation of King George in 1761, Washington's
first inauguration was anything but ceremonious. On the day of the
inauguration the joint committee appointed to escort the new leader to
Federal Hall arrived at Washington's place of residence more than an hour
late. While the escort was in route, Chancellor Robert Livingston
discovered that there was no Bible at Federal Hall. An aide ran to St.
John's Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons to secure a copy of the holy book.
When Washington arrived at Federal Hall there was more confusion. No one
had planned the last few steps leading up to the administering of the oath.
Finally, Washington took matters into his own hands and, along with Samuel
Otis and Robert Livingston, stepped out onto the balcony overlooking the
crowd.
        Washington placed his hand on the Bible and repeated the oath of
office. "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of
the President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." As
the last word still lingered in the air, Washington added spontaneously, "I
swear, so help me God." The impromptu phrase did not, however, originate
with Washington. The new president borrowed this response, it seems, from
the English coronation service.(40) Following the administering of the oath
to the king, the newly-crowned sovereign would kneel at the altar and place
his hands upon the Bible. He would then say, "The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God."(41)
The sovereign of England would then kiss the Bible. This was exactly what
Washington did following his impromptu exclamation.
FOOTNOTES:
36. W. J. Passingham, A History of the Coronation (London: n.p., n.d.), p.
18.

37. At the coronation of King George III in 1761 no less than six prayers
were read as part of the service. For a detailed description of this
service as well as the complete texts of the prayers offered see Richard
Thomson, ed., ll Faithful Account of the Processions and Ceremonies
Observed in the Coronation of the Kings and Queens of England (London: n.
p., 1820), pp. 48-62.

38. For other aspects of the English coronation see B. Wilkerson, The
Coronation in History (London: George Philip and Son, 1953); William Jones,
Crowns and Coronations (London: Chatto and Windus,1883); Lewis Broad,
Queens, Crowns and Coronations (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1952); the
Reverend Robert H. Murray, The King's Crowning (London: John Murray, 1936);
and E. C. Ratcliff, The English Coronation Service (London: Skeffington and
Son, 1937).

39. Maclay, Journal, p. 5.

40. Though "so help me God" was a common expression associated with the
taking of an oath, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the
antecedent rhetorical form was the coronation service. First, Washington
not only spoke the words used in the coronation, but he also followed the
words by kissing the Bible, just as George III did in 1761. These words and
actions had been associated with the coronation since the installation of
James I in 1603 (see Jones, Crowns and  Richard Henry Lee, was familiar
with the coronation service and thus would have known the correct
procedure. Since Lee was at the center of the fight to include divine
service as part of the inauguration, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize
his influence on these "religious" elements which served as an addendum to
the oath.

41. See Thomson, ed., A Faithful Account, p. 55.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: "From Duche to Provoost: The Birth Of Inaugural
Prayer", by Martin J. Medhurst. Journal Of Church And State, Vol. 24,
No. 3, Autumn 1982, pp 585-587)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history,alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.religion.christian,alt.deism,alt.athe
ism,alt.religion.deism
Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:56:58 GMT

Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist, not a Christian.

Unlike Thomas Jefferson--and Thomas Paine, for that matter--Washington
never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great
ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable.
Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence.
But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear
anywhere in his
many letters to friends and associates throughout his life. (Paul F.
Boller, George Washington &
Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)

... if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his
atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then Washington, on
the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be considered a Christian,
except in the most nominal sense. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington &
Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 90.)

As President, Washington regularly attended Christian services, and he was
friendly in his attitude toward Christian values. However, he repeatedly
declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his
wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary.... Even on his
deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and
expressed no wish to be attended by His representative. George Washington's
practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not
himself a Christian. In the enlightened tradition of his day, he was a
devout Deist--just as many of the clergymen who knew him suspected.
(Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New
York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)
Paul S. Browning Jr.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Path: From: Napoleon Bean <bim...@boom.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion .christian,alt.deism
Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:42:38 -0700

    Now for the reality check:
    (1)  One of the first laws passed in colonial Virginia was that anyone
who
came into the colony or found there who was not Christian was subject to
enslavement.
This naturally provided a potent incentive for anyone who was not Christian
to pretend to be one.
    (2)  The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
Everyone had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or
not.  Religious oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required
for anyone to hold any public office of any consequence.
    Source:  St. George Tucker's Annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)
Go to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html

    Tucker was chair of the school of law at William & Mary University in
1803. Although probably too young to have participated in the revolutionary
struggle, he was a contemporary of most of the founding generation.  He
probably was actually acquainted with many of the founders, since so many
of them were Virginians, their state being the most populous of those in
the new republic.  Tucker reflected revolutionary ideology in his
condemnation of religious oaths, observing that they were oftentimes
proforma rather than sincere, and they demeaned churches by holding out
worldly rewards for membership.  From that, IF Washington ever took any
Christian oath (no direct proof), it is reasonable to assume that it had as
much meaning in colonial
Virginia by 1765 as singing the national anthem does at an American sports
event today.
    In any event, a quarter century passed before Washington became the
first U.S. president.  It might be hard for a bible-thumper to understand,
but normal humans often do change their minds about their beliefs as they
go on in life. To reason otherwise would be to also suppose (for example),
that anyone who believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny never abandons
such convictions. Such reasoning would also support a contention that "born
again" Christians are all liars. What illogical humbug!
    (4) Any supposition Washington was Christian is at best supported by
only the most slender of reeds.  He attended Episcopal services in the
company of his wife, who was Episcopalian.  She took communion but he never
did.  He also attended the services of several other Christian sects,
starting a custom which continues through today by U.S. presidents to show
respect for (not affiliation with) the various faiths, including
non-Christian ones.  Inquiries early on were put
to the pastors of the various churches Washington had attended as to
whether he had ever took communion, all stated he never did, one
volunteered it was because Washington was a Deist.
Source:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic...

    Washington was acutely conscious of being the unifying figurehead of
his just-born nation and felt it his obligation to maintain strict public
neutrality.  Yet there is no evidence that he ever worshipped in a private
service, or for that matter even indicated to his closest acquaintances
(other than doubtless his wife) what his religious beliefs were if any
except possibly that one Episcopal pastor.  Unfortunately, it cannot be
determined whether Washington's Deism was something he himself disclosed to
the pastor, whether that was the pastor's conclusion, and if the latter
what factual support there was for it.

    Signs that point in opposite directions point nowhere.  One might as
well post that Washington had to be a Christian because he kept slaves,
which was perfectly permissible under biblical law.

*************************************************************
From: Napoleon Bean <bim...@boom.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion .christian,alt.deism
Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:19:44 -0700

    Well, if I was out to lunch on that one you must be there picking up
the tab.  There were
many Christians of differing persuasions in Virginia by Washington's time--
since when have
Anglicans ever had a monopoly claim on the title "Christian," as opposed to
a monopoly on some
governments such as colonial Virginia's?  Yeah, perhaps my mention of that
law was a bit
tenuous.  By the relevant time, there were plenty of Africans available for
enslavement, their
skin color was an easy mark of status, they could be born Christian and it
changed their status
not one whit.  No need to try to enslave native Americans (which never
worked out for a number
of reasons), conduct inquisitions of whites, or shanghai Jews or Moslems by
then. Although
Christians of sects other than the one in power were persecuted,
imprisoned, and killed in the
Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut in the 17th century, I am unaware of
anything on a comparable
scale occurring in colonial Virginia.

[my note, the Virginia Constitution of 1776 did not, in reality
disestablish the Anglican Church. Article 16 that Gardiner was referring to
here was in the Declaration of Rights was not part of the Virginia
Constitution of 1776. ]

    My speculation on this point in my previous post, which is reasonable
given the historical
evidence available, stands if nothing more is offered. The very reason the
revolutionaries
detested religious oaths was that they compromised the integrity of good
people or deterred
them from holding public office, while demeaning the purpose of belonging
to the particular
faith which the oaths were supposed to benefit.  Most of these
revolutionaries were in fact
Christians themselves. What is interesting is that you NOW identify
Washington's Christian oath
as having been made in 1763 (not 1765), which puts it closer to when
Washington began his
service in the colony's legislative house of burgesses.  I would like you
if you could to
provide identifiers as to where this oath paper is (a web source would be
dandy) so I might
determine myself how close a correlation there might be. By your new date,
Washington was still
in his early thirties. No reflection on you, but usenet does teach one to
be wary of
uncorroborated assertions, particular when inconsistencies appear. And do
you have evidence of
any earlier Christian oaths of his that cannot be plausibly related to his
decision to enter
Virginia politics?

    First, and perhaps a quibble, the closest equivalent today to a such
declaration under oath

would have "I, the undersigned..." not "I, A.B...."  The use of "John Doe"
as a generic
substitute for a real name had been in common use for quite some time by
then at least in
England in legal writings, according to Blackstone's Commentaries (which
went into its first
printing about this same time).  So too in those days there was a more
attention to phrasing
technicalities than substance in legal writings (the opposite is true
today).  So I can only
wonder if in fact this was an oath punishable as perjury under the law in
Virginia at that
time, or merely what had become by then an acceptable no-risk semblance of
one.  Whether there
were requirements imposed by the Crown in the colonial charter bearing on
this is something I
would like to check.
    But whatever the date of the "oath paper" and its content, which I will
grant you whatever
you think they are at this juncture only for discussion's sake, they do not
settle the primary
point.  If you interpret my previous observations as being an argument that
if Washington took
that oath he lied (a strawman, for reasons previously given), I could with
as much logic
construct a strawman of my own-- are you saying Washington violated this
oath to the Church of
England when he disaffiliated himself from it prior to 1776 or even up to
the day the Paris
Peace Treaty was inked?  For to rebel against England was also to reject
its particular
Anglican brand of Christianity, since its government and church were also
legally and
functionally intertwined.

    But I am curious as to why you seem to attach so much significance to
this oath-- is it
based on the charming notion that Washington never lied?  It can't be based
on the old cherry
tree saw, which has been determined to have never been more than an
invention.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/GW/moral.html
It can't be based on his generalship.  Washington proved himself to be so
adept at deception
that his British opposites charged more than once he was a man with no
honor.  It can't be
based on the fact that Washington was a human being, and as such could not
possibly have lived
a full life with a perfect track record for truth.  Is it because-- despite
its circumstances--
to entertain the idea that if he was anything less than completely sincere
and serious about
that oath it must mean he was either non-Christian or a sinner?  The moral
version of  the
"Hobson's Choice"-- the forced choice between evils-- has attracted much
study over the
centuries by ethicists of all religious stripes and (yes) even secular
humanists.  Even for
many Christians, the resolution of such a dilemma explains why, for
example, Samson's suicide
in bringing down the Philistine temple was no sin. A more modern and
verifiable example: Many
Christian Danes wore Stars of David during nazi occupation to impede the
roundup of Jews-- they deliberately lied about their religious beliefs, but
would anyone reasonable dispute that that
was among Christianity's finest moments? [I do not mean to suggest
Anglicans and nazis are
"soul mates," even if the former over the centuries have had a few of their
own murderous
rampages.]  What I do mean to state is that it would be wrong to suppose
Christians would be of
one mind about whether the moral issues posed by a government religion--
whose tenets are not
universally shared by the governed-- will invariably be clear-cut.  Would
you really think less
of Washington the man-- as opposed to the icon-- if (hypothetically
speaking) you knew he swore
an Anglican oath with no sincerity, but only after a principled analysis of
any moral dilemma
posed-- and even if you might have come to a different decision? If the
moral course is so
easily charted at all times in human affairs, one wonders why so many
religions-- Christianity
included-- have struggled as mightily as they have to chart it
consistently.

    Nelly, born 1779, was a probably a devout Episcopalian, she was a
grandchild of
Washington's spouse by a previous marriage, the Washingtons assumed a
parental role after her
parents died and she probably loved George and Martha as much as she would
parents.  There are, however several curious aspects to her quotes you
mention.  First (and I am SURE this was just inadvertence), you managed to
omit some significantly damaging parts to her statement, such as "I never
witnessed his private devotions.  I never inquired about them" and "He
communed with his God in secret."  She actually had nothing to offer in
terms of direct observation to settle
the question of whether his convictions were Christian or something else,
and what she did say
doesn't make much sense-- how could she personally "know" while disclaiming
any way of
acquiring such knowledge? And this is again remarkable since she lived with
the Washingtons for
so long.  This is one of these situations where the absence of evidence you
normally expect to
find is more significant than the evidence that turns up. And her bias,
however innocent and
well-intentioned, is also plain: "(S)he (Martha Washington) and her husband
were so perfectly
united and happy that he MUST have been a Christian."  Now, I am not versed
in Episcopal church history, but I would be surprised if its doctrine in
that century entertained for a moment that any non-Christian, however
otherwise eminently qualified, could ever reach heaven.  I do know the
Roman Catholic Church did not officially concede that until this century.
Thus if Nelly
believed her stepdad had to be in heaven, she had to believe he was
Christian-- did the times
and her faith allow any other option?  From what I've learned about Nelly
she was a decent,
likable person, hardly the sort to engage in any knowing mendacity. But her
account hardly
convinces, if anything it moves speculation in the opposite direction.  If
Washington conducted
himself as a devout Christian, the same conduct also can be said to
"demonstrate" his private
convictions were something different.  And of course, few on either side of
the question would
agree with Nelly's pronouncement that direct evidence of Washington's
Christian beliefs is
unnecessary-- on what other evidence is verifiable, it is. I am not playing
favorites here, you
have noted the reliability issues I identified with an Episcopal minister's
emphatic
pronouncement that Washington was a Deist.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic...

    Oh, really?  Please enlighten me.  I've only found one, at a web site
of a non-profit
organization which presumably has no psychic investment in either its truth
or falsity.
http://community.libertynet.org/~iha/valleyforge/youasked/060.htm
http://community.libertynet.org/~iha/valleyforge/washington/prayer.html
That one account, allegedly by a Presbyterian minister who witnessed it, is
highly dubious
employing usual tests of reliability.  This minister purportedly
recollected seeing Washington
receive communion in front of all his officers during the revolutionary
war.  With all those
people standing about witnessing this, it is decidedly strange that this
single eyewitness
account attributed to this minister did not surface until sometime after
1846 (about 60 years
later), the deification of Washington having commenced in earnest decades
before, questions of
his piety having been a subject of continuous public interest, and nobody
else in that supposed
crowd of witnesses seems to have ever mentioned it.  The most likely
explanation is that this
account was as much a well-meaning fabrication as the old cherry tree saw
was.
   At the sites referenced, there are also a couple of accounts of
Washington sneaking into the
woods alone on the eve of battle and talking to God out loud.  The
credibility problems with
these are multiple and at times amusing, but even what was purportedly
overheard of his side of
the conversations with God hardly carried any Christian earmarks ("God of
the Armies" indeed--
sounds more like General Patton at prayer). Perhaps too he developed some
kind of prayer
laryngitis between then and when Nelly entered the picture.  Suffice it to
say that in 1918 the
Valley Forge commission reviewed all available evidence purporting to
"prove" Washington prayed at Valley Forge upon petition of a patriotic
organization for a "prayer marker" and found there was nothing credible to
support the conclusion that Washington did.  And it seems there were other
rascals wandering around in early 19th century America claiming to have
special knowledge about Washington.  Mark Twain gives us an amusing account
of some more.
http://rowlf.cc.wwu.edu:8080/~stephan/webstuff/twain.html

    I have no problem with it one way or the other, but I hope you have
something other
than what I have previously mentioned.  I ran across an argument that
because Washington
showed no reluctance to invoke a generic God in public, it is unlikely that
he was
sneaking around praying privately.  There is sense to that observation.
Obviously Martha
and Nelly wouldn't have been upset if they had happened to come upon
Washington in
Christian prayer.  There is a difference between privacy and the total
secrecy he supposedly
engaged in to pray in his own household!  If he was a "closet praying," the
more plausible explanation is that Washington didn't want his wife or Nelly
to freak out about the substance of it.  Today, most folks would think the
"prayer behavior" Washington supposedly engaged in with espionage or drug
problems. But can you identify any "other" Christian contemporary of his
who went to the extremes Washington supposedly did to hide the "fact" he
was "praying" from other Christians?
    The subject of this thread was whether Washington was a Christian.  I
never alleged he was
an atheist, a Deist, or for that matter a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a
Taoist, a Hindu, a
pantheist, an ancestor worshipper, or a cargo cultist-- but do I have to go
on now and list
every set of convictions I never alleged he had? My position remains that
the inferences to be
drawn from equivocal evidence are simply too speculatory to resolve the
matter.  I do not know
whether Deists once adopted a prayer like posture to meditate (even if the
"lotus position" or
whatever is more popular today) or whether they too engage in "re-linking"
comparable to
Christian prayer.  But one of the most famous paintings of Washington
supposedly praying hardly
depicts a typically Christian prayer posture.
    Of course, usenet is structured such that hyperbolic assertions always
get the most
attention, so it is understandable if more balanced ones are tried to be
treated as such at
times.

    Why did you somehow neglect to mention that these were Nelly's words,
NOT Martha Washington's?  You weren't actually attempting such a tacky hat
trick were you?  Tsk, task. Nelly was NOT present when Washington died.
http://www.libertynet.org/iha/valleyforge/served/martha.html
    In any event, unless there has been a major revamping of Christian
doctrine that somehow
has eluded my notice, Joshua the Christened One (i.e., "Jesus Christ" as
known today) is the
Savior of all, not just those who have recognized it.  Sorry, no "smoking
gun" here, even if
Nelly could be her own corroboration.

    Got anything else?
    By the way, what "happened" to Washington's baptismal and/or
confirmation "records?"  Why
did he die without benefit of clergy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------