Deism
buc...@exis.net
>:|"Robert L. Johnson" <b...@deism.com> wrote:
>:|> Deism, belief in God based on reason and nature, not on "holy" books,
>:|> is explored indepth at http://www.deism.com American founders such
>:|> as Tom Jefferson and Paine, Ben Franklin, Washington, etc were Deists.
>:|> Hope you like it!
>:|
>:|If General WASHINGTON was a Deist, he had his own daughter fooled:
>:|
>:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/nelly.html
>:|
>:|(buckeye has been in the habit of reposting an old post from a fellow who
>:|questions nelly's existence: I imagine he will repost it in response to
>:|this. Prepare to be entertained)
What is really telling is that fact that the above poster knows full well
how his implied information has been so completely refuted, by a number of
sources.
One has to seriously question the motives of one who repeatedly posts
information that is not accurate, even after it has been shown to be
inaccurate.
The above poster claims an interest in history, but does one who
deliberately tries to mislead others really showing an interest in actual
history and truth?
It is also interesting that the above posed knows that his URL and claims
have been effectively refuted numerous times in the past so he tries to
"poison the well" against that information even before it is posted again
in rebuttal.
He has to do that though, because the information is so damaging to his
claims.
=======================================================
In Late Feb or very early March (1999) Robert Johnson got Gardiner to admit
the following:
[Johnson]
> The prayer you attribute to Washington is at best suspect.
[Gardiner]
Granted.
[Johnson]
> John Adams believed along Unitarian Universalist lines.
[Gardiner]
Perhaps.
================================================================
Before moving on to the Nelly rebuttal, I will toss in this:
FEBRUARY 1, 1800
Doctor Rush tells me that he has it from Asa Green, that when the clergy
addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was
observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a
word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and
they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to
declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However,
he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every
article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over
without notice. Rush observes, he never did say a word on the subject in
any of his public papers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors
of the States, when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he
speaks of "the benign influence of the Christian religion."
I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets
and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington
believed no more of that system than he himself did.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Entry by Thomas Jefferson in his Anas. February 1
1800, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Selected and Edited by Saul K.
Padover , The Easton press. (1967) pp 217-218)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW MOVING ON:
----------------------------------------------------
[Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:]
>:|> > >:| Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
>:|> > >:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
>:|>
[Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:]
>:|> Readers, dear readers, I
>:|> ask you whether Nellie Custis' (George
>:|> Washington's daughter) is a slightly more reliable
>:|> source than Mr. Alison, or Paul Boller, whom
>:|> Alison is sure to quote as a rebuttal?
>:|>
>:|> Nellie's evidence is not tired, nor countered.
["B. Hill" <bh...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:]
>:|As almost everybody knows, George Washington did NOT have a daughter! He had no children at
>:|all. I have visited the above cited website, which refers to Nelly Custis as George
>:|Washington's ADOPTED daughter. That, too, is too much of a stretch! Nelly was in fact George
>:|Washington's step-granddaughter. To take this letter (which I strongly suspect is a fake!!)
>:|and first of all translate her relationship to George Washington into that of an adopted
>:|daughter, so that you can then call her his "daughter," is tantamount to TELLING A LIE -
>:|something a good God-fearing Christian should never do!
>:|
>:|Eleanor (Nelly) Parke Custis was born on March 31, 1779, at Abingdon, Virginia. On February
>:|22, 1799, she married Lawrence Lewis (1767-1839) as his second wife. Nelly died on July 15,
>:|1852 at Audley, Clarke County, Virginia. She appears to have had eight children, three of
>:|whom grew to adulthood and left descendants.
>:|
>:|Nelly's parents were John ("Jack") Parke CUSTIS (son of Martha Washington, stepson of George
>:|Washington) who was born November 1754 and died November 5, 1781; he married Eleanor (Nelly) CALVERT (1757-1811) on Feb. 3, 1774.
>:|
>:|I would like to know the exact whereabouts of the ORIGINAL copy of Nelly's supposed "letter."
>:|I would also like to know where the text of this "letter" was published for the very first
>:|time. There is something about it that just doesn't ring true, and I am strongly disinclined
>:|to believe a word of it.
>:|
===============================================================
HERE IS SOME INFO GARDINER DOES NOT TELL YOU ABOUT
==================================================================
===============================================================
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
[Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:]
> Nelly Custis lived at Mt. Vernon with Washington until the day of his death.
> This is what Nelly had to say about the "changes" in Washington's Christian beliefs:
>
> "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... 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."
[Napoleon Bean <bim...@boom.com> wrote:]
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.
[Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:]
> If you allege that Washington rarely ever prayed as well (a subject you
> probably don't want to touch), the evidence is overwhelming that Washington
> was a fervent prayor.
[Napoleon Bean <bim...@boom.com> wrote:]
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.
[Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:]
> His wife knew. And when he died his wife "resigned him without a
> murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his
> eternal felicity."
[Napoleon Bean <bim...@boom.com> wrote:]
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?
=========================================================
From: "Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history,alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism
,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:56:58 GMT
[Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com> wrote:]
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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From me:]
For Washington:
Well the book I have been citing:
George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern
Methodist University Press: Dallas TX (1962)
Then:
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin
S. Gaustad, Harper & Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material
And don't forget this:
"Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
convictions, but never Washington."
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad,
Harper & Row, (1987) pp 77
=====================================================
From: jal...@pilot.infi.net
Newsgroups:
alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism
Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:12:50 GMT
>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|Nelly Custis lived at Mt. Vernon with Washington until the day of his death.
>:|This is what Nelly had to say about the "changes" in Washington's Christian beliefs:
[From me:]
Glad you bought this up:
The book that I have referred to time and time again regarding Washington
mentions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
On May 24, 1774, the Virginia Assembly, whose sessions Washington was
attending in Williamsburg, voted to observe a day of fasting, humiliation,
and prayer on the first day of June to demonstrate its sympathy with
Massachusetts on the day that the Boston Port Bill went into effect.
Washington, accordingly, noted in his diary on June 1: "Went to Church and
fasted all day.""' Here, as elsewhere, there have been attempts to read
profound spiritual significance into Washington's notation. "Will the
reader mark especially die latter clause of this note," exclaimed one
writer.
He went to church in conformity with the order passed by the
house of burgesses. But not only so-he did that also which,
perhaps, was not known to any mortal; which was known only
to Cod,-he faded all day. Who is not struck with the sincerity
and piety of this account?
And another writer referred to the seven words in Washington's diary as
"seven lights, the seven golden candles so to speak, that throw a most
penetrating light into the deeper and spiritual life of this great man."
But Washington's action on that day, like that of other Virginians, was
of course politically, not religiously, motivated. As to Washington's
behavior in church, Eleanor Parke ("Nelly") Custis, Martha Washington's
granddaughter, who resided at Mount Vernon for many years and attended
church with the Washingtons, declared: "No one in church attended to the
services with more reverential respect."
William White, who officiated at Christ Church in Philadelphia during
and after the Revolution and who was one of the chaplains in Congress
during Washington's presidency, made a similar comment. Washington, he
assured an inquirer in 1832, was "always serious and attentive" in church.
But he added that he never saw Washington kneeling during the services."'
Nelly Custis also declared that Washington "always stood during the
devotional parts of the service."
Regarding the Lord's Supper, we have the firsthand testimony of three
witnesses in a position to know what they were talking about-Nelly Custis,
Bishop White, and Dr. James Abercrombie, assistant rector of Christ Church
in Philadelphia--that Washington was not in the habit of partaking of the
sacrament. "On communion Sundays," according to Mrs. Custis, "he left the
church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the
carriage back for my grandmother.'"" In 1835, Bishop White, in answer to
Colonel Hugh Mercer's question as to "whether General Washington was a
regular communicant in the Episcopal Church in Philadelphia," replied: "In
regard to tile subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say, that
General Washington never received the communion, in tile churches of which
I am parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant."" And
Dr. Abercrombie had an even more interesting story to tell about Washington
and the sacrament. It appeared in his letter to Origen Bacheler in 1831 and
Bacheler, for obvious reasons, chose not to make it public:
. . . observing that on Sacrament Sundays, Genl Washington immediately
after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the
congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she
invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public
Worship, to state tile unhappy tendency of example, particularly those in
elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration
of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the
President, as such, he received it. A few days later, in conversation with,
I believe, a Senator of the U.S., he told me he had dined the day before
with the President, who in the course of the conversation at the table,
said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof
from the pulpit, for always leaving the church before the administration of
the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour;
that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would
never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he
had never been a communicant, were he to become one of them, it would be
imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether
from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the
morning of Sacrament Sunday, the' at other times, a constant attendant in
the morning."
Abercrombie's report that Washington "had never been a communicant,"
together with the statements of Mrs. Custis and Bishop White, surely must
be regarded as conclusive. It is reluctant testimony and as such carries a
high degree of credibility. Neither White nor Abercrombie had anything to
gain by their revelations; -Abercrombie, indeed, was admittedly displeased
by Washington's behavior. But like Bird Wilson, they seem to have believed
(as Wilson told Robert Dale Owen) that "truth..s truth, whether it makes
for or against us" and one can only respect them-and Washington-for their
candor." By contrast, the various stories collected by the pietists to
Prove that Washington received the sacrament at Morristown and elsewhere
are based on mere hearsay statements made many years after washington's
death.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.
Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 32-35
==========================================================
He (Washington) did not, as Jared Sparks and many other writers after him
have asserted--as an instance of his "lively interest in church
affairs"--serve in two parishes at the same time.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.
Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 27
===============================================================
Washington transacted business on Sundays, visited friends and relatives,
traveled [in fact, he was once detained --by the "Sabbath police" for
traveling on Sunday when he was President] and sometimes went fox-hunting
instead of going to church.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.
Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 29
=============================================================
Washington's earliest biographers-even those who refused to place any
credence in Parson Weems's imaginative little improvisations about
Washington's piety-assumed, without laboring the point, that Washington was
a Christian. Aaron Bancroft (1807) declared simply Washington was Christian
in "principle and Practice," and John Marshall (1804-7) said briefly:
"Without making ostentatious profess ions of religion, he was a sincere
believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man." ,The doubts
raised by Robert Dale Owen Frances Wright in the
1830's seem to have had little immediate effect on biographers. Jared
Sparks (1837) and Washington Irving (1855-59), while making no use of
Weems's sentimentalities as source material for describing Washington's
religious life, also regarded his Christianity as unquestioned.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.
Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 67
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
buc...@exis.net
>:|FRANKLIN's opinion of Paine's book on Deism was anything but
>:|complimentary:
>:|
>:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklintopaine.html
rgar...@my-deja.com
and uninformed rebuttal to Nelly Custis' evaluation of her father's
(Washington) religious life.
Buckeye's source claims:
1) George Washington had no daughter, when in fact he did adopt Nelly
Custis as his daughter.
2) To say that George Washington adopted Nelly Custis is a stretch, when
in fact it is just a matter of historical accuracy
3) That the letter Nelly wrote to Jared Sparks is "a fake," when in fact
the manuscript of the letter remains extant and has never been suspected
by any scholar whatsoever as being a fake.
I guess this is what is to be expected of an ideologue like Buckeye who
cares little about accuracy, but rather prefers to rebut facts with
unsupportable opinions.
He's a joke.
Well, for your entertainment, here is what buckeye reposted for the tenth
time--
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> ["B. Hill" <bh...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:]
> >As almost everybody knows, George Washington did NOT have a
> >daughter! He had no children at all. I have visited the above cited
> >website, which refers to Nelly Custis as George Washington's ADOPTED
> >daughter. That, too, is too much of a stretch! Nelly was in fact
> >George Washington's step-granddaughter. To take this letter (which I
> >strongly suspect is a fake!!) and first of all translate her
> >relationship to George Washington into that of an adopted
> >daughter, so that you can then call her his "daughter," is tantamount
> >to TELLING A LIE -
> >something a good God-fearing Christian should never do!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Crow
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8o94eb$5g4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Well, true to the expectation, Buckeye has reposted this terribly stupid
> and uninformed rebuttal to Nelly Custis' evaluation of her father's
> (Washington) religious life.
>
> Buckeye's source claims:
>
> 1) George Washington had no daughter, when in fact he did adopt Nelly
> Custis as his daughter.
This is from Martha custis biography: It indicates a granddaughter named
Nellie, but, no daughter named Nellie.
http://www.history.org/people/bios/biomwash.htm
Martha and Daniel Custis had four children: Daniel, born in 1751; Frances,
born in 1753; John (Jacky) born in 1755; and Martha (Patsy), born in 1756 or
1757. Unfortunately, Daniel only lived three years and Frances four. On July
26, 1757, when Martha Custis was only 26 years old, her husband died
suddenly...
...Martha and George Washington raised two of their grandchildren, Eleanor
Parke Custis (Nelly) and George Washington Parke Custis (called Wash or Tub)
at Mount Vernon. Martha's son John Parke Custis died of "camp fever"
(probably typhoid fever) on November 5, 1781. When his widow remarried Dr.
David Stuart in 1783, she and her two eldest daughters lived at the Stuart
home in Abingdon, while the two youngest children continued to live at Mount
Vernon. In 1784, Martha's niece Frances Basset, age 15, came to live at
Mount Vernon. She married George's nephew, Major George Augustine
Washington, in 1785.
> 2) To say that George Washington adopted Nelly Custis is a stretch, when
> in fact it is just a matter of historical accuracy
>
> 3) That the letter Nelly wrote to Jared Sparks is "a fake," when in fact
> the manuscript of the letter remains extant and has never been suspected
> by any scholar whatsoever as being a fake.
>
> I guess this is what is to be expected of an ideologue like Buckeye who
> cares little about accuracy, but rather prefers to rebut facts with
> unsupportable opinions.
>
> He's a joke.
>
> Well, for your entertainment, here is what buckeye reposted for the tenth
> time--
>
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >
> > ["B. Hill" <bh...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:]
> > >As almost everybody knows, George Washington did NOT have a
> > >daughter! He had no children at all. I have visited the above cited
> > >website, which refers to Nelly Custis as George Washington's ADOPTED
> > >daughter. That, too, is too much of a stretch! Nelly was in fact
> > >George Washington's step-granddaughter. To take this letter (which I
> > >strongly suspect is a fake!!) and first of all translate her
> > >relationship to George Washington into that of an adopted
> > >daughter, so that you can then call her his "daughter," is tantamount
> > >to TELLING A LIE -
> > >something a good God-fearing Christian should never do!
>
>
Rev Peter
"Robert L. Johnson" <b...@deism.com> wrote:
> Deism, belief in God based on reason and nature, not on "holy" books,
is
> explored indepth at http://www.deism.com American founders such as
> Tom Jefferson and Paine, Ben Franklin, Washington, etc were Deists.
> Hope you like it!
RevP
Hello Bob. Christians are fast to claim Washington on the grounds that
he did not outright publicly state he was a Deist. But he never said he
was a Christian. The library of congress has the washington papers, and
a key word search can be made at this link:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html
Now, some 65,000 documents are involved. Some by washington, some from
him. So I did a few checks and here are the results, results where
Washington is the author of the document, or directly sourced in it:
Jesus: zero
Christ: zero. He only makes reference to Christ Church.
Deism: zero.
Deity: one.
For a supposed christian, Washington had suprising little to say about
Jesus or Christ, actually, he had nothing to say in thousands of
documents; as for his use of the term 'christianity' he could have been
simply polite. For in the documents, it only comes up when he was
approached by christian deligations; therefore he was probably just
being polite. Also, christian has different meanings to different
people; a Roman Catholic and a Calvinist both use the word, but it means
very different things. Washington, like Jefferson, may have seen
Christianity as seperate from the silly miracle stories that it is built
upon.
"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed
with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter."
-- Thomas Jefferson [CALVIN AND COSMOLOGY To John Adams Monticello,
April 11, 1823] This can be found at the following link:
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-singleauthor?specfile=/web/data/
jefferson/texts/jefall.o2w&grouping=match&docs=TEI2&query=CALVIN+AND+COS
MOLOGY&sample=1-100&id=JefLett
peace
Rev Peter
ps: there may be little evidence for Washington being a Deist, but there
is zero evidence for his being a christian.
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> This is from Martha custis biography: It indicates a granddaughter
> named Nellie, but, no daughter named Nellie.
According to the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, the official curators
of the Washington estate, Martha's granddaughter, Nelly, was adopted by
Geo. Washington:
see "Mount Vernon Ladies Association Collections, Eleanor Parke Custis
Lewis Papers, Mount Vernon, Virginia: Personal and family correspondence
(1794-1851) of Martha Washington's granddaughter, who was also the
adopted daughter of George Washington."
also mentioned at firstladies.org
Apparently Buckeye and Hill don't think that the scholars who manage the
Mt. Vernon Estate know enough about the history of Washington's family!
Rick G.
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
rbbo...@my-deja.com
"Michael Crow" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> <rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o94eb$5g4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Well, true to the expectation, Buckeye has reposted this terribly
stupid
> > and uninformed rebuttal to Nelly Custis' evaluation of her father's
> > (Washington) religious life.
> >
> > Buckeye's source claims:
> >
> > 1) George Washington had no daughter, when in fact he did adopt
Nelly
> > Custis as his daughter.
>
named
> Nellie, but, no daughter named Nellie.
>
> > > >As almost everybody knows, George Washington did NOT have a
> > > >daughter! He had no children at all. I have visited the above
cited
> > > >website, which refers to Nelly Custis as George Washington's
ADOPTED
> > > >daughter. That, too, is too much of a stretch! Nelly was in
fact
> > > >George Washington's step-granddaughter. To take this letter
(which I
> > > >strongly suspect is a fake!!) and first of all translate her
> > > >relationship to George Washington into that of an adopted
> > > >daughter, so that you can then call her his "daughter," is
tantamount
> > > >to TELLING A LIE -
> > > >something a good God-fearing Christian should never do!
> >
> >
On the issue of George Washington's adoption of Jacky Custis'
daughter Eleanor, what formalities did the Commonwealth of Virginia then
require for an adoption to be lawful, so as to confer rights upon the
adoptee? Almost certainly there was a customary requirement for
publication of some kind. Anybody in the newsgroup know of a record?
On the issue of Washington's religious faith, would that not be his
own business? I have a vague recollection of reading that the young
George Washington was a vestryman in his local Anglican church, and that
President Washington owned a pew in Christ Church, Philadelphia. Did
either of his actions require an avowal of particular faith? And should
there not be records?
--Russ Bomberger
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> Gentlemen,
> On the issue of George Washington's adoption of Jacky Custis'
> daughter Eleanor, what formalities did the Commonwealth of Virginia
> then require for an adoption to be lawful, so as to confer rights upon
> the adoptee? Almost certainly there was a customary requirement for
> publication of some kind. Anybody in the newsgroup know of a record?
That is an excellent point. There is actually an extant bond signed by
Washington prior to his marriage of Martha, pledging that he would adopt
her offspring upon their marriage. I don't know the exact archive in
which the bond is now located, but I will track it down.
Further proof that Nelly and her brother, G.W.P Custis, were adopted by
the Washingtons is evidenced by the following two facts:
1) in 1859, a book by G.W.P. Custis was published with the following
title: RECOLLECTIONS AND PRIVATE MEMOIRS OF WASHINGTON BY HIS ADOPTED SON
(Philadelphia, Englewood publishing Company, 1859).
You would think that if the claim was a false one, neither G.W.P. nor the
publisher would have been able to get away with the title.
2) The National Gallery of Art states "In 1781 the couple [George and
Martha] adopted her orphaned grandchildren, Eleanor [Nelly] and George."
See http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg62/gg62-564.0.html
I would think that a government organization such as the National Gallery
of Art has some degree of credibility, wouldn't you?
The bottom line is that Nelly was Washington's adopted daughter.
Furthermore, it is not common to refer to one's adopted child as one's
adopted child, or for the child to refer to the parent as the adopted
parent. It is far more common for them to say father and daughter.
President Clinton, for example speaks of his "daddy," Roger Clinton, who
was technically only his adopted parent.
The real issue regarding the letter from Nelly to Sparks, however, is
whether as a familial resident of Mt. Vernon for 20 years, Nelly would be
in an excellent position to assess the religious behavior of her adopted
father. The answer to that seems self-evident.
> On the issue of Washington's religious faith, would that not be his
> own business? I have a vague recollection of reading that the young
> George Washington was a vestryman in his local Anglican church, and
> that President Washington owned a pew in Christ Church, Philadelphia.
> Did either of his actions require an avowal of particular faith? And
> should there not be records?
> --Russ Bomberger
Again, great points. Yes, there are records, and yes, they required vows:
In the Early Court Records of Fairfax we find:
"At a Court held for the County of Fairfax, 15th February, 1763,--George
Washington, Esq. took the **oaths according to Law**, repeated and
subscribed the **Test** and **subscribed to the Doctrine and Discipline
of the Church of England** in order to qualify him to act as a Vestryman
of Truro Parish."
(Source: W.M. Clark, Colonial churches; a series of sketches of churches
in the original colony of Virginia; Richmond, Va., Southern Churchman
Co., 1907, p. 113).
The Doctrine and Discipline of the Church Of England is also known as the
Thirty-Nine Articles, available at
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~kohfly/articles.html
The "TEST" that Washington repeated and subscribed was an orthodox creed
very similar to that which he took at confirmation.
Washington was a confirmed Episcopalian, who, according to the rites of
the church had to swear and affirmative answer the following question:
"Do ye here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renew the
solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your Baptism;
ratifying and confirming the same in your own person, and acknowledging
yourself bound to believe, and to do, all those things, which your
Godfathers and Godmothers then undertook for you?"
--the things which the Godfathers and Godmothers pledged were the
following--
"DOST thou, in the name of this Child, renounce the devil and all his
works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of
the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not
follow, nor be led by them?
Answer. I renounce them all.
DOST thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?
And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was
conceived by the Holy Ghost; born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered
under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down
into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into
heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and
from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick
and the dead? And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick
Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection
of the flesh; and everlasting life after death?
I do."
(Source: Book of Common Prayer, 1750)
But what will follow this post is any number of responses from buckeye
and friends saying things like "So what? Washington lied when he swore to
and subscribed to those doctrines; he was a politician and it was
politically shrewd for him to never be honest about the fact that he was
really an infidel."
In other words, they aren't interested in the evidence you have wisely
invoked, but would rather prefer to speculate that Washington was
insincere in his oath-taking.
On down that speculative road they will also eventually say that
Washington slept with his slaves and his neighbor's wife, sold marijuana,
and had a secret homosexual affair with Alexander Hamilton.
Thank you for sending us in a evidentiary direction.
Rick Gardiner
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> Hello Bob. Christians are fast to claim Washington on the grounds that
> he did not outright publicly state he was a Deist. But he never said he
> was a Christian. The library of congress has the washington papers, and
> a key word search can be made at this link:
>
> http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html
>
> Now, some 65,000 documents are involved. Some by washington, some from
> him. So I did a few checks and here are the results, results where
> Washington is the author of the document, or directly sourced in it:
>
> Jesus: zero
>
> Christ: zero. He only makes reference to Christ Church.
Your search was very flawed.
1) If you read the information concerning the search available at the LOC
site, you would know that it is very limited.
2) For example, your search has clearly missed the following letter of
Washington:
"Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your
principal Chiefs to be educated with us...My ears hear with pleasure the
other matters you mention...You do well to learn our arts and ways of
life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a
greater and a happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing
they can to assist you in this wise intention.."
Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C.
Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offce,
1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.
You also will save yourself some further embarassment by consulting--
Maxims of George Washington: political, military, social, moral, and
religious / collected and arranged by John Frederick Schroeder; with an
introduction by Gerald R. Ford (Mt. Vernon, Va.: Mount Vernon Ladies'
Association, 1989).
This book records and documents DOZENS of citations in Washington's
writings where Christianity is explicitly mentioned and endorsed.
> Deism: zero.
I believe that.
> Deity: one.
Again, your search was VERY incomplete. Without much effort I can give
you at least three more documented times when Washington used that word--
http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=197&parent=60
http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=198&parent=60
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Quote/gw.html
> ps: there may be little evidence for Washington being a Deist, but
> there is zero evidence for his being a christian.
Only if you overlook the fact that the person who lived with him for 20
years swore to it vigorously:
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/nelly.html
Rick
buc...@exis.net
>:|"Robert L. Johnson" <b...@deism.com> wrote:
>:|> Deism, belief in God based on reason and nature, not on "holy" books,
>:|> is explored indepth at http://www.deism.com American founders such
>:|> as Tom Jefferson and Paine, Ben Franklin, Washington, etc were Deists.
>:|> Hope you like it!
>:|
>:|JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
>:|
>:|(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press, 1987)
I see Gardiner is back at practicing deception in his efforts to sell his
theories.
Let's look at some of what is said in the book cited by Gardiner
The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford. University
of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, (1984 --third paperback printing, 1992)
------- ------- ------- --------
PREFACE
"Even scholars who are familiar with Jefferson's deism, Unitarianism, and
enthusiasm for Bible study do not seem to appreciate the importance of his
religious beliefs to his political philosophy and career."
PAGE 5 [What follows is the "conservative Unitarian," comment including
the part about who actually made the comment which Gardiner "forgot" to
include.]
" His great-grandson described Jefferson's religion as that of a
"conservative Unitarian . . . "
PAGE 14
"In summary, we may conclude that Jefferson, in his college years, began an
involvement with Enlightenment and deistic writers which deeply influenced
him toward a liberal, intellectual, moralistic, personal, and humanitarian
view of government, society, and religion. This study continued all of his
life and is reflected in his choice of favorite quotations and the books in
his extensive library."
PAGE 20
"In private, deists like Jefferson and Paine had some reservations about
the Old Testament and did not hesitate to correct the biblical account of
creation in the light of Newtonian science and emerging anthropology."
PAGE 48
"Daniel Boorstin is closer to the truth than Trainer when he emphasizes
that Jefferson and the American deists took man's relation to nature rather
than to god as their starting point."
PAGES 85 -92 beginning with the sub heading "JEFFERSON WAS DEIST"
and including sub headings, "GOD, SEEN IN THE CREATION." "GOD, THE CREATOR
OF MAN," "ONE GOD, NOT THREE," "JEFFERSON WAS A THEIST."
PAGE 92
"He followed and promulgated the ideas of the English deists, particularly
their belief in a creator of the universe, known by reason, in opposition
to orthodox Christian theism based on revelation, theology, and mysticism."
PAGE 92
"Jefferson may thus well be called a deist."
PAGE 105
"Privately discussing religion with interested friends, though, he was just
as vehement as Paine or Rousseau in separating what he called 'the grain
from the chaff," "the gold from the dross," and 'the diamond from the
dunghill' in biblical passages."
PAGE 130
"Another of the important teachings of christ about God, according to
Jefferson, was the belief in one God. The phrase frequently used by
Jefferson was the 'Deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth,' which he used in
contrast to 'atheism,' meaning belief in no god, and 'theism,' by which he
meant orthodox Trinitarianism. Jefferson argued that the belief of deism in
the 'unity of the creator was the pure doctrine of Jesus also.'"
PAGE 155
""I have often wondered for what good end the sensations of grief cou8ld be
intended. All of our other passions, within proper bounds, have a useful
object, but what is the use of grief in the economy [of life]?'"
"That question came from the deistic faith, which Jefferson and
Adams shared, that everything in nature and human experience had a good
purpose, since everything came from the good design of the perfect Creator,
God."
PAGE 173-177 (Just a small sampling here, be sure to read the all five
pages to put it in proper context.)
FROM PAGES 173-174
Conclusions about Jefferson's Religion
Was Jefferson really as radical in his religion as his opponents declared
or as some modern scholars indicate? In answer to the charge that he was an
"atheist, deist, or devil," he was not an atheist, he was a deist, and
personal morality and honor were important elements in his character. He
was strongly influenced by the liberal religious ideas of the
tĀ·ighteenth-century Enlightenment, particularly the deism of Scottish
philosophers, beginning with the stimulation he received from his favorite
college professor, William Small, and continuing through a lifetime of
study of the books he acquired for his library."
An evaluation of Jefferson's deism indicates that his beliefs about
God were not as radical as those of many of his contemporaries.
Jefferson defended his French philosopher friends who were atheists
as being honorable men, hut he did not share their views that the
universe could have always existed without a Creator. Jefferson
believed in God as the planner, architect, first cause, and master
builder of the universe. He went further and believed that God continued
to guide, modify, and sustain his creation.
=====================================================
Now one might ask themselves why Gardiner only said:
>:|JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
>:|
>:|(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press, 1987)
When all the above I provided was there, in the same book and more that I
haven't provided.
On several occasions, Gardiner has spoken highly of this book. Apparently
he didn't read it so closely, not realizing that while he can find some
support for his theories in this book, he will also run into a lot that
doesn't, and even some that contradicts his theories.
But time and time again Gardiner has been caught citing something and when
one goes to read what he cited they discover that it isn't at all what he
was claiming about it.That he left much out, or took what he claimed out of
context, or in some cases altered what he quoted to make it appear to
support him, when in fact the original didn't, etc. He does have this
pattern.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Your beef is with Robert L. Johnson who routinely starts new threads with
>:|erroneous claims about deism.
>:|
>:|If he would cease and desist, that would be the end.
>:|
Your beef is also with Gardiner who then follows up the posts from Johnson
with erroneous claims about various founders.
Of course, Gardiner has been in Usenet since March 1999 posting erroneous
claims.
buc...@exis.net
>:|
I would recommend that anyone really interested check out the cites that
Gardiner provides for yourself.
Gardiner has a pattern of seriously misrepresenting things. I don't know
if he thinks that most readers will not bother to check out the information
for themselves or not, but time after time when someone one did check out
most of his cites they find the information there does not go along with
Gardiner's portrayal of it.
Just in this thread alone are three sterling examples of that. His
(1)
JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press, 1987)
(2)
If General WASHINGTON was a Deist, he had his own daughter fooled:
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/nelly.html
(3)
Only if you overlook the fact that the person who lived with him for 20
years swore to it vigorously:
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/nelly.html
All three have been addressed in this thread as well.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Only if you overlook the fact that the person who lived with him for 20
>:|years swore to it vigorously:
>:|
>:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/nelly.html
>:|
From: buc...@exis.net
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.deism,alt.religion.deism,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Deism
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:27:55 -0400
***********************************
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:|"Robert L. Johnson" <b...@deism.com> wrote:
>:|> Deism, belief in God based on reason and nature, not on "holy" books,
>:|> is explored indepth at http://www.deism.com American founders such
>:|> as Tom Jefferson and Paine, Ben Franklin, Washington, etc were Deists.
>:|> Hope you like it!
>:|
>:|If General WASHINGTON was a Deist, he had his own daughter fooled:
>:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/nelly.html
>:|
>:|(buckeye has been in the habit of reposting an old post from a fellow who
>:|questions nelly's existence: I imagine he will repost it in response to
>:|this. Prepare to be entertained)
What is really telling is that fact that the above poster knows full well
how his implied information has been so completely refuted, by a number of
sources.
One has to seriously question the motives of one who repeatedly posts
information that is not accurate, even after it has been shown to be
inaccurate.
The above poster claims an interest in history, but does one who
deliberately tries to mislead others really showing an interest in actual
history and truth?
It is also interesting that the above posed knows that his URL and claims
have been effectively refuted numerous times in the past so he tries to
"poison the well" against that information even before it is posted again
in rebuttal.
He has to do that though, because the information is so damaging to his
claims.
=======================================================
LET'S BEGIN:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Late Feb or very early March (1999) Robert Johnson got Gardiner to admit
the following:
[Johnson]
> The prayer you attribute to Washington is at best suspect.
[Gardiner]
Granted.
[Johnson]
> John Adams believed along Unitarian Universalist lines.
[Gardiner]
Perhaps.
================================================================
Before moving on to the Nelly rebuttal, I will toss in this:
---------------------------------
FEBRUARY 1, 1800
Doctor Rush tells me that he has it from Asa Green, that when the clergy
addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was
observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a
word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and
they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to
declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However,
he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every
article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over
without notice. Rush observes, he never did say a word on the subject in
any of his public papers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors
of the States, when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he
speaks of "the benign influence of the Christian religion."
I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets
and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington
believed no more of that system than he himself did.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Entry by Thomas Jefferson in his Anas. February 1
1800, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Selected and Edited by Saul K.
Padover , The Easton press. (1967) pp 217-218)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW MOVING ON:
----------------------------------------------------
[Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> Had earlier written]
>:|> > >:| Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
>:|> > >:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
--------------
Ed. note from Buckeye -- 8/26/00:
The above Url is no longer valid -- the new URL is
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/nelly.html
-------------
>:|>
[Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> Had earlier written]
>:|> Readers, dear readers, I
>:|> ask you whether Nellie Custis' (George
>:|> Washington's daughter) is a slightly more reliable
>:|> source than Mr. Alison, or Paul Boller, whom
>:|> Alison is sure to quote as a rebuttal?
>:|>
>:|> Nellie's evidence is not tired, nor countered.
["B. Hill" <bh...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> had earlier written]
>:|As almost everybody knows, George Washington did NOT have a daughter! He had no >:|children at all. I have visited the above cited website, which refers to Nelly Custis as George
>:|Washington's ADOPTED daughter. That, too, is too much of a stretch! Nelly was in fact >:|George Washington's step-granddaughter. To take this letter (which I strongly suspect is a >:|fake!!) and first of all translate her relationship to George Washington into that of an adopted
>:|daughter, so that you can then call her his "daughter," is tantamount to TELLING A LIE -
>:|something a good God-fearing Christian should never do!
>:|
>:|Eleanor (Nelly) Parke Custis was born on March 31, 1779, at Abingdon, Virginia. On >:|February 22, 1799, she married Lawrence Lewis (1767-1839) as his second wife. Nelly died >:|on July 15, 1852 at Audley, Clarke County, Virginia. She appears to have had eight children, >:|three of whom grew to adulthood and left descendants.
>:|
>:|Nelly's parents were John ("Jack") Parke CUSTIS (son of Martha Washington, stepson of >:|George Washington) who was born November 1754 and died November 5, 1781; he married >:|Eleanor (Nelly) CALVERT (1757-1811) on Feb. 3, 1774.
>:|I would like to know the exact whereabouts of the ORIGINAL copy of Nelly's supposed >:|"letter."
>:|I would also like to know where the text of this "letter" was published for the very first
>:|time. There is something about it that just doesn't ring true, and I am strongly disinclined
>:|to believe a word of it.
>:|
===============================================================
HERE IS SOME INFO GARDINER DOES NOT TELL YOU ABOUT (first the letter that
constitutes his proof: )
==================================================================
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/nelly.html
http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html -- invalid
George Washington's Adopted Daughter Discusses
Washington's
Religious Character
Woodlawn, 26 February, 1833.
Sir,
I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hasten to give
you the
information, which you desire.
Truro Parish is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church, and Woodlawn
are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District
was
ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had
a
pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very
instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed
largely. His
pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there,
before his
election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother. It was a beautiful
church, and had a large, respectable, and wealthy congregation, who were
regular
attendants.
He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a
ride
of ten miles. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at
church
in the morning, unless detained by indisposition. 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. 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 sunand
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." He communed with his God in secret.
My mother resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage 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 died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before
they could realize the event, he knelt by her and prayed most fervently,
most
affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge 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. I have often seen
him
perfectly abstracted, his lips moving, but no sound was perceptible. I have
sometimes made him laugh most heartily from sympathy with my joyous and
extravagant spirits. I was, probably, one of the last persons on earth to
whom he
would have addressed serious conversation, particularly when he knew that I
had
the most perfect model of female excellence ever with me as my monitress,
who
acted the part of a tender and devoted parent, loving me as only a mother
can love,
and never extenuating or approving in me what she disapproved of others.
She
never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her
husband
were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian. She
had no
doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and
uninterrupted
happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior
and his
God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity. 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
==========================================
NOW THE VARIOUS REBUTTALS
For Washington:
Then:
>:|Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
==========================================================
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
`1
Michael Crow
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8o99vd$bfh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Michael Crow" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is from Martha custis biography: It indicates a granddaughter
> > named Nellie, but, no daughter named Nellie.
>
> of the Washington estate, Martha's granddaughter, Nelly, was adopted by
> Geo. Washington:
>
> see "Mount Vernon Ladies Association Collections, Eleanor Parke Custis
> Lewis Papers, Mount Vernon, Virginia: Personal and family correspondence
> (1794-1851) of Martha Washington's granddaughter, who was also the
> adopted daughter of George Washington."
>
> also mentioned at firstladies.org
>
> Apparently Buckeye and Hill don't think that the scholars who manage the
This site also doesn't mention an adoption. Simply states she was raised at
Mt. Vernon.
Nellie was born in 1779. Washington died in 1799. I would question her
validity as a source for the intensity and devotion of Washington's
religious or non-religious preferences. She was a child for most of the
time both he and she were alive.
What year did she right of his religious beliefs? After 1840? Human
experience tells us that with age our memories of people tend to make them
into something they were not.
http://home.xnet.com/~karens/Bryan/Goodge/MarthaWashington.html
Martha Dandridge(21 Jun 1731-1802 ) - (1)Colonel Daniel Parke Custis
(1711-1757)(2) George Washington
1. Daniel Curtis (1751-1754/5)
2. Frances Curtis (1753-1757/8)
3. John (Jacky) Curtis (1755-1781) - Eleanor "Nelly" Calvert (1758-1811)
1. Eliza or Elizabeth Parke Curtis (1776-1832) - Thomas Law
2. Martha Parke Curtis (1777-after 1800)
3. Eleanor "Nelly"Parke Custis (1779-1852)(raised at Mt. Vernon)-
Lawrence Lewis (George's nephew)
4. Frances Parke Lewis
5. Twin - died in infancy
6. Twin - died in infancy
>
> Rick G.
> http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
Rev Peter
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Rev Peter <gadfl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Bob. Christians are fast to claim Washington on the grounds
that
> > he did not outright publicly state he was a Deist. But he never said
he
> > was a Christian. The library of congress has the washington papers,
and
> > a key word search can be made at this link:
> >
> > http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html
> >
> > Now, some 65,000 documents are involved. Some by washington, some
from
> > him. So I did a few checks and here are the results, results where
> > Washington is the author of the document, or directly sourced in it:
> >
> > Jesus: zero
> >
> > Christ: zero. He only makes reference to Christ Church.
rgardiner
>
> Your search was very flawed.
>
> 1) If you read the information concerning the search available at the
LOC
> site, you would know that it is very limited.
RevP
Why? Because you say so. Not good enough, the Library of congress has
collected everything which is verified. Unlike your pseudoevidence.
rgardiner
>
> 2) For example, your search has clearly missed the following letter of
> Washington:
>
> "Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your
> principal Chiefs to be educated with us...My ears hear with pleasure
the
> other matters you mention...You do well to learn our arts and ways of
> life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you
a
> greater and a happier people than you are. Congress will do every
thing
> they can to assist you in this wise intention.."
>
> Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C.
> Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Offce,
> 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.
RevP
Again, this is besides the point. To washington, christianity was
probably better than what the Indians were presently practicing. Also,
he is being polite, for as I pointed out, this was an issue raised by
OTHERS, not washington. IN addition, there is zero evidence of
washington identifying himself as a christian, and he never used the
word Jesus in thousands of documents.
He probably would have said the same thing to a Jewish deligation.
rgardiner
>
> You also will save yourself some further embarassment by consulting--
>
> Maxims of George Washington: political, military, social, moral, and
> religious / collected and arranged by John Frederick Schroeder; with
an
> introduction by Gerald R. Ford (Mt. Vernon, Va.: Mount Vernon Ladies'
> Association, 1989).
>
> This book records and documents DOZENS of citations in Washington's
> writings where Christianity is explicitly mentioned and endorsed.
RevP
Rubbish. The LOC holds the REAL documents. The LOC has the primary
sources. Your fantasy doesn't hold. Like it or not, the LOC has 65,000
documents and the word "Jesus", never appears once. As for the Mt.
Vernon's Ladies Association, you failed to mention that they are
composed of a bunch of rabid christian fundamentalists; who would not
hesitate to twist and invent quotes to suit their own purposes.
Not unlike you mistaking Washington's polite treatment of a christian
missionary enterprise as his whole hearted agreement with that
enterprise. You ignored the fact that in one of his letters, he gave a
warm response to a deligation of Roman Catholics -- does that mean that
he was pro Roman Catholic?
A LOC search is very interesting. The word "protestant" appears in 9
Washington documents; BUT the word "catholic" appears in 39 Washington
documents. So let' translate that to a percentage. We have 48 documents
where catholic or protestant are used, what is the result
References to protestants: 9/48 = 19%
References to catholics: 39/48 = 81%
I suppose that one could argue that Washington was proRoman Catholic by
these statistics.
Try reading what is written in the texts, than reading your small-minded
religious views INTO the text.
rgardiner
>
> > Deism: zero.
rgardiner
>
> I believe that.
RevP
Deists rarely go public, but to claim a man who never used the word
"jesus" in a single LOC document, is like claiming a Jewish Rabbis as
being an ardent Jesus worshipper. Protestants claiming Washington as one
of theirs ignores the FACT that the vast majority of HIS documents are
to Roman Catholics. By your reasoning, or lack of, Roman Catholics
should claim him as one of theirs.
>
> > Deity: one.
>
rgardiner
> Again, your search was VERY incomplete. Without much effort I can give
> you at least three more documented times when Washington used that
word--
>
> http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=197&parent=60
> http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=198&parent=60
> http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Quote/gw.html
RevP
Untrue. the word "Deity" is only used in two sources, and one of them is
by John Connolly; in case you are too stunned to realize it, John
Connolly is NOT George Washington. Which doesn't count towards proving
your point. As for your last site, IT ISN'T AT THE LOC; if you had even
the basics of good reading, you would have realized that I LIMITED my
seach to LOC documents -- which are verifiable.
I am not interested in fake quotes, sites like that abound in the net.
Your deception is exposed; you attempted to pass a letter by John
Connolly to Washington as the view of Washington himself; and you
attempted to decieve us by INSERTING a nonLOC site as a LOC site. I said
only one, and I was proven correctly; anyone can visit the site and type
in the word "deity" and check the sources. Only 1 document in the LOC
has washington use the term "deity"; and Washington never said he was a
Christain, never even used the word "Jesus". Unlike your second rate
quotes and pseudohistorical books, the LOC is verifiable!
>
> > ps: there may be little evidence for Washington being a Deist, but
> > there is zero evidence for his being a christian.
rgardiner
>
> Only if you overlook the fact that the person who lived with him for
20
> years swore to it vigorously:
RevP
Can you prove that person told the truth? Can you prove that the "sworn"
testimony was truly contemporary, and not a pseudoepigraphy work?
Christians are very good at distorting what others say and making up
pure fictions. It goes back to NT times; here is an example of a
christian invention:
The ACTUAL prophecy:
Malachi 4: 5-6, NASB "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet
before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. 6 And he
will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts
of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a
curse."
verses the FALSE PROPHECY
Luke 1: 17, NASB "17 And it is he who will go as a forerunner before
Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS
BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the
righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
Look at the fundamental differences:
Luke pretends to be repeating the actual prophecy, but the wording is
very different.
- Luke says he is the "spirit and power of Elijah"; Mal. says it IS
Elijah RETURNED in person -- a second coming no less.
- Luke says sE. was to turn the hearts of the fathers back to their
children; Mal. says rE is to turn fathers to their sons, and sons to
their fathers.
- Luke says that sE. will turn the disobedient to the attitude of the
righteous; Mal. says no such thing.
- Luke says NOTHING about the threatened curse; Mal. clearly states it.
sE = spiritual Elijah. rE = real Elijah.
And what does John the Baptist have to say about Luke cliaming he is
spiritual Elijah.
John 1: 21, NASB "21 And they asked him, 'What then? ARe you Elijah?'
And he said, 'I am not.' 'Are you the Prophet?' And he answered, 'No.'"
In short, John was neither, e or r, Elijah; and he wasn't even a
prophet.
Your religion is based on distortions, and anything a christian says is
suspect for that reason. Try proving George Washington was a Christian
using the LOC. It is easy to see why Washington wasn't a Christian; he
was too honourable to be one.
"No one is fanatically devoted to something they know to be true. No one
is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They
*know* it's going to rise tomorrow. Whenever someone is fanatically
devoted to a set of beliefs or dogmas or goals, it is because those
beliefs or goals are in doubt." --Robert M. Pirsig
peace
Rev Peter
--
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
"In revealed religions, you have blasphemy and heresy.
In Deism, you have questions and free speech."
-- Ladyhank.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> rgardiner
> >
> > Your search was very flawed.
> >
> > 1) If you read the information concerning the search available at the
> > LOC site, you would know that it is very limited.
>
> RevP
>
> Why? Because you say so. Not good enough, the Library of congress has
> collected everything which is verified. Unlike your pseudoevidence.
Uh, no. Because, as I said, the Library of Congress says so.
If you go to the search engine of the Washington Papers at the library of
congress,
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/mgwquery.html
you find the following disclaimer:
"NOTE: The FULL TEXT of parts of the following Series will be searched:
Series 2 Letterbooks; Series 3 Letterbooks; and Series 5 Financial
Papers."
You probably know that those limited series is hardly all of the 65,000
documents of Washington's available in the LOC.
> rgardiner
> >
> > 2) For example, your search has clearly missed the following letter
> > of Washington:
> >
> > "Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your
> > principal Chiefs to be educated with us...My ears hear with pleasure
> > the other matters you mention...You do well to learn our arts and
> > ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will
> > make you a
> > greater and a happier people than you are. Congress will do every
> > thing they can to assist you in this wise intention.."
> >
> > Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C.
> > Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
> > Offce,
> > 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.
>
> RevP
>
> Again, this is besides the point.
It is entirely to the point you made. You claimed that Washington never
mentioned Jesus or Christ in his writing. I proved you wrong on both
scores.
So you say "it's besides the point." LOL.
> Like it or not, the LOC has 65,000
> documents and the word "Jesus", never appears once.
Apparently you don't get it. Read the disclaimer on the LOC site.
> A LOC search is very interesting. The word "protestant" appears in 9
> Washington documents; BUT the word "catholic" appears in 39 Washington
> documents. So let' translate that to a percentage. We have 48 documents
> where catholic or protestant are used, what is the result
>
> References to protestants: 9/48 = 19%
>
> References to catholics: 39/48 = 81%
>
> I suppose that one could argue that Washington was proRoman Catholic by
> these statistics.
Perhaps you should read the disclaimer at the LOC site.
RG
rgar...@my-deja.com
> > Custis Lewis Papers, Mount Vernon, Virginia: Personal and family
> > was also the adopted daughter of George Washington."
> >
> > also mentioned at firstladies.org
> >
> > Apparently Buckeye and Hill don't think that the scholars who manage
> > the Mt. Vernon Estate know enough about the history of Washington's
>
> This site also doesn't mention an adoption.
Sure does. The title of the Papers of Nelly is mentioned at their site,
and the phrase "adopted daughter of George Washington" is used.
see http://firstladies.org/MARTHA_WASHINGTON/MC.HTML
There is actually an extant bond signed by Washington prior to his
marriage of Martha, pledging that he would adopt her offspring upon their
marriage. I don't know the exact archive in which the bond is now
located, but I will track it down.
Further proof that Nelly and her brother, G.W.P Custis, were adopted by
the Washingtons is evidenced by the following two facts:
1) in 1859, a book by G.W.P. Custis was published with the following
title: RECOLLECTIONS AND PRIVATE MEMOIRS OF WASHINGTON BY HIS ADOPTED SON
(Philadelphia, Englewood publishing Company, 1859).
You would think that if the claim was a false one, neither G.W.P. nor the
publisher would have been able to get away with the title.
2) The National Gallery of Art states "In 1781 the couple [George and
Martha] adopted her orphaned grandchildren, Eleanor [Nelly] and George."
See http://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg62/gg62-564.0.html
I would think that a government organization such as the National Gallery
of Art has some degree of credibility, wouldn't you?
RG
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
buc...@exis.net
>:|FRANKLIN's opinion of Paine's book on Deism was anything but
>:|complimentary:
>:|
>:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklintopaine.html
Is there anything to be found at the above URL that refutes that Paine was
a deist or that Franklin was not exactly a "orthodox Christian?"
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Ken Smith
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >:|FRANKLIN's opinion of Paine's book on Deism was anything but
> >:|complimentary:
> >:|
> >:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklintopaine.html
>
> Is there anything to be found at the above URL that refutes that Paine was
> a deist or that Franklin was not exactly a "orthodox Christian?"
Franklin's point was in a sense the same as Marx's -- that
religion was the opiate of the people, and fear of the Chris-
tian sky-daddy's wrath keeps the 'little people' in line.
Deism doesn't lend itself to proselytization for this reason.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
> >
> >(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press,
> >1987)
>
> I see Gardiner is back at practicing deception in his efforts to sell
> his theories.
>
> Let's look at some of what is said in the book cited by Gardiner
> The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford.
>
> "His great-grandson described Jefferson's religion as that of a
> "conservative Unitarian . . . "
Your little sound bites aren't really in context, are they, buckeye?
Let's give the readers Sanford's assessment of the great-grandson's
view:
"Jefferson's religion does not seem more radical than the ideas held by
many other Americans. The abuse he received does not seem deserved. He
was intellectual in his approach to religion and distrusted emotion,
mysticism, and a religion based on faith, but so have many other
intellectual persons. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, THE JUDGMENT OF
JEFFERSON'S GREAT-GRANDSON THAT HE WAS A 'CONSERVATIVE UNITARIAN' SEEMS
ACCURATE."
Rick G.
shang...@my-deja.com
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >
> > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
> > >
> > >(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press,
> > >1987)
> >
> > I see Gardiner is back at practicing deception in his efforts to
sell
> > his theories.
> >
> > Let's look at some of what is said in the book cited by Gardiner
> > The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford.
> >
> > "His great-grandson described Jefferson's religion as that of a
> > "conservative Unitarian . . . "
>
>
> Let's give the readers Sanford's assessment of the great-grandson's
> view:
>
> "Jefferson's religion does not seem more radical than the ideas held
by
> many other Americans. The abuse he received does not seem deserved. He
> was intellectual in his approach to religion and distrusted emotion,
> mysticism, and a religion based on faith, but so have many other
> intellectual persons. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, THE JUDGMENT OF
> JEFFERSON'S GREAT-GRANDSON THAT HE WAS A 'CONSERVATIVE UNITARIAN'
SEEMS
> ACCURATE."
>
> Rick G.
Least anyone forget, what follows was offered as some sort of proof that
Jefferson wasn't a deist:
> > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
> > >
> > >(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press,
> > >1987)
What follows was offered as a response to the very weak deism rebuttal:
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
the tęghteenth-century Enlightenment, particularly the deism of
Scottish philosophers, beginning with the stimulation he received from
his favorite college professor, William Small, and continuing through a
lifetime of study of the books he acquired for his library."
An evaluation of Jefferson's deism indicates that his beliefs about
God were not as radical as those of many of his contemporaries.
Jefferson defended his French philosopher friends who were atheists
as being honorable men, hut he did not share their views that the
universe could have always existed without a Creator. Jefferson
believed in God as the planner, architect, first cause, and master
builder of the universe. He went further and believed that God continued
to guide, modify, and sustain his creation.
=====================================================
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
>:|> >
>:|> >(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press,
>:|> >1987)
>:|>
>:|> I see Gardiner is back at practicing deception in his efforts to sell
>:|> his theories.
>:|>
>:|> Let's look at some of what is said in the book cited by Gardiner
>:|> The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford.
>:|> University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, [...]
>:|>
>:|> "His great-grandson described Jefferson's religion as that of a
>:|> "conservative Unitarian . . . "
>:|
>:|Your little sound bites aren't really in context, are they, buckeye?
>:|
Sound bites? LOL, not quite.
>:|Let's give the readers Sanford's assessment of the great-grandson's
>:|view:
>:|
>:|"Jefferson's religion does not seem more radical than the ideas held by
>:|many other Americans. The abuse he received does not seem deserved. He
>:|was intellectual in his approach to religion and distrusted emotion,
>:|mysticism, and a religion based on faith, but so have many other
>:|intellectual persons. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, THE JUDGMENT OF
>:|JEFFERSON'S GREAT-GRANDSON THAT HE WAS A 'CONSERVATIVE UNITARIAN' >:|SEEMSACCURATE."
Hmmmmmm. Now, I wonder why you "forgot" to properly cite the above?
Now, are you trying to say that the above some how trumps all the
following, huh?
(I don't think so)
Or maybe you are trying to say Sanford is confused and mixed up, huh?
=======================================================
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:|For a balanced and scholarly understanding of Jefferson's view of the
>:|Bible, try Charles Sanford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON
>:|(University of VA Press, 1987).
>:|
I am so glad you speak so highly of this book.
---------------------------------------------------------
rgar...@my-deja.com
The citation was there for those who are moderately educated.
I suppose you have never heard of "op. cit." It is a Latin abbreviation
for the phrase opere citato, which in essence means "the same work as was
previously cited." It is a standard scholarly form of proper citation.
See Chicago Manual of Style or Kate Turabian.
You will note that my quote came right after the quote that you had just
cited. So if you claim that my op. cit. was improper, you are essentially
saying that your own citation was incorrect.
I guess this is all to be expected from an uninformed and apparently
uneducated chap such as yourself.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> >:|FRANKLIN's opinion of Paine's book on Deism was anything but
> >:|complimentary:
> >:|
> >:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklintopaine.html
>
> Is there anything to be found at the above URL that refutes that Paine
> was a deist or that Franklin was not exactly a "orthodox Christian?"
The claim made in this thread is that Franklin was a deist. Although at
an early point in his life, he did associate himself with deists, by the
time of the constitutional convention, Franklin was a strong advocate of
a God who answers prayers and intervenes in the affairs of men:
BEN FRANKLIN--
"How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of
humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?
In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of
danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. ā Our
prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who
were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a
superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe
this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of
establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that
powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truth ā that God Governs in the affairs
of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is
it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been
assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the
House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I
also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this
political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be
divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be
confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to
future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this
unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom
and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move ā that henceforth prayers imploring the
assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in
this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one
or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that
Service ā
Mr. SHERMAN seconded the motion."
(Madison's Records of the Constitional Convention, June 28, 1787
at http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0628.htm)
Compare Franklin's belief with the theology of Deists:
"the Deists argued that after God's initial work of creation, He withdrew
into detached transcendence, leaving the world to operate according to
rational natural rules." (Encyclopedia Britannica)
> Franklin's point was in a sense the same as Marx's -- that
> religion was the opiate of the people, and fear of the Chris-
> tian sky-daddy's wrath keeps the 'little people' in line.
Franklin took the moral views of Jesus Christ quite seriously, and truly
believed that there was an eternal reward or punishment. For when he laid
out his point in a private and sincere letter to Ezra Stiles, he stated a
sincere belief that the "sky-daddy's wrath" was something truly to be
feared:
"the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another
life respecting its conduct in this"
(See Franklin to Stiles, 9 Mar 1790)
> Deism doesn't lend itself to proselytization for this reason.
Granted; and Franklin's perpetual efforts to spread and financially
support orthodox churches betrays the idea that he was the kind of person
you think.
Rick Gardiner
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
Captain KLutz
build the
> House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I
> also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this
> political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be
> divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be
> confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to
Gardner)
Are we starting to see the beginings of this today or what?
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8oelu8$72m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >
> > >:|FRANKLIN's opinion of Paine's book on Deism was anything but
> > >:|complimentary:
> > >:|
> > >:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklintopaine.html
> >
> > Is there anything to be found at the above URL that refutes that Paine
> > was a deist or that Franklin was not exactly a "orthodox Christian?"
>
> The claim made in this thread is that Franklin was a deist. Although at
> an early point in his life, he did associate himself with deists, by the
> time of the constitutional convention, Franklin was a strong advocate of
> a God who answers prayers and intervenes in the affairs of men:
>
> BEN FRANKLIN--
> "How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of
> humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?
> In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of
> danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. - Our
> prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who
> were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a
> superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe
> this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of
> establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that
> powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?
> I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more
> convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God Governs in the affairs
> of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is
> it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been
> assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the
> House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I
> also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this
> political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be
> divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be
> confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to
> future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this
> unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom
> and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
>
> I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the
> assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in
> this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one
> or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that
> Service -
mod...@my-deja.com
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I suppose you have never heard of "op. cit." It is a Latin
abbreviation
> for the phrase opere citato, which in essence means "the same work as
was
> previously cited." It is a standard scholarly form of proper citation.
> See Chicago Manual of Style or Kate Turabian.
>
> You will note that my quote came right after the quote that you had
just
> cited. So if you claim that my op. cit. was improper, you are
essentially
> saying that your own citation was incorrect.
>
> I guess this is all to be expected from an uninformed and apparently
> uneducated chap such as yourself.
Mr. Gardiner, it appears you have been caught with your pants down and
there is nothing I want to see there.
--
modacc
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I suppose you have never heard of "op. cit." It is a Latin
> > abbreviation for the phrase opere citato, which in essence means
> > "the same work
> > as was previously cited." It is a standard scholarly form of proper
> > citation. See Chicago Manual of Style or Kate Turabian.
> >
> > You will note that my quote came right after the quote that you had
> > just cited. So if you claim that my op. cit. was improper, you are
> > essentially saying that your own citation was incorrect.
> >
> > I guess this is all to be expected from an uninformed and apparently
> > uneducated chap such as yourself.
>
> Mr. Gardiner, it appears you have been caught with your pants down and
> there is nothing I want to see there.
>
> --
> modacc
I see the old "Abigail Adams was a suffragette" friend has returned for
more schooling.
Your comment above implies that you too are unaware of the standard
convention "op. cit."
I recommend you go down to your local community college and see if they
might have a adult ed. night course for you. An English course such as
"Introduction to Writing" would help you learn the simple Latin
abbreviations for writers such as op. cit., e.g., etc., and ibid.
They really are important to know for those who would be interested in
reading scholarly literature.
A thank you will do. I'm not charging you for this advice.
Rick Gardiner
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
mod...@my-deja.com
I wouldn't pay you for your useless advice and knowledge.
--
modacc
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|FRANKLIN's opinion of Paine's book on Deism was anything but
>:|> >:|complimentary:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklintopaine.html
>:|>
>:|> Is there anything to be found at the above URL that refutes that Paine
>:|> was a deist or that Franklin was not exactly a "orthodox Christian?"
>:|
>:|The claim made in this thread is that Franklin was a deist. Although at
>:|an early point in his life, he did associate himself with deists, by the
>:|time of the constitutional convention, Franklin was a strong advocate of
>:|a God who answers prayers and intervenes in the affairs of men:
So, you are arguing that Franklin became a "orthodox Christian"is that what
you are trying to say?
In addition, I suggest you go back and read the various definitions and
comparisons that Sanford wrote in his book regarding Deism, theism, etc
found at pages
PAGES 85 -92 beginning with the sub heading "JEFFERSON WAS DEIST"
and including sub headings, "GOD, SEEN IN THE CREATION." "GOD, THE CREATOR
OF MAN," "ONE GOD, NOT THREE," "JEFFERSON WAS A THEIST."
The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford. University
of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, (1984 --third paperback printing, 1992)
I think he defines the terms fairly well and points out that there were
European versions of deism which was more radical then its American
counterpart.
Just some food for thought.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Hmmmmmm. Now, I wonder why you "forgot" to properly cite the above?
>:|
>:|The citation was there for those who are moderately educated.
>:|
>:|I suppose you have never heard of "op. cit." It is a Latin abbreviation
>:|for the phrase opere citato, which in essence means "the same work as was
>:|previously cited." It is a standard scholarly form of proper citation.
>:|See Chicago Manual of Style or Kate Turabian.
>:|
>:|You will note that my quote came right after the quote that you had just
>:|cited. So if you claim that my op. cit. was improper, you are essentially
>:|saying that your own citation was incorrect.
>:|
>:|I guess this is all to be expected from an uninformed and apparently
>:|uneducated chap such as yourself.
>:|
LOL, its always enjoyable getting a rise out of you.
Really isn't hard to do, now would you like to address the issue?
===================================================
---------------------------------------------------------
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
tęghteenth-century Enlightenment, particularly the deism of Scottish
rgar...@my-deja.com
> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >
> > >Hmmmmmm. Now, I wonder why you "forgot" to properly cite the above?
> >
> >The citation was there for those who are moderately educated.
So, you bring up a red herring, and then when you get schooled on it you
complain that it is off-topic, saying--
> now would you like to address the issue?
claiming that the whole "op cit" matter is not the issue.
You are a mess.
RG
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> So, you are arguing that Franklin became a "orthodox Christian"is
> that what you are trying to say?
Franklin's religious creed was detailed to Ezra Stiles in the last year
of Franklin's life:
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html
Richard A. Schulman
wrote:
>Franklin's religious creed was detailed to Ezra Stiles in the last year
>of Franklin's life:
>
>http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html
This is most interesting. It would seem that BF died a
Unitarian but certainly not a deist.
---
Richard Schulman
To email me, remove the "XYZ"
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|FRANKLIN's opinion of Paine's book on Deism was anything but
>:|> >:|complimentary:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklintopaine.html
>:|>
>:|> Is there anything to be found at the above URL that refutes that Paine
>:|> was a deist or that Franklin was not exactly a "orthodox Christian?"
>:|
>:|The claim made in this thread is that Franklin was a deist. Although at
>:|an early point in his life, he did associate himself with deists, by the
>:|time of the constitutional convention, Franklin was a strong advocate of
>:|a God who answers prayers and intervenes in the affairs of men:
>:|
Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the
Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I
think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various
corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in
England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not
dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy
myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth
with less trouble."
He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great
Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by
Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF
to Exra Stiles March 9, 1790.
====================================================
Before I enter upon my public appearance in business, it may be well to
let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and
morals, that you may see how far those influenc'd the future events of my
life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me
through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce
fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them
disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation
itself.
Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be
the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that
they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them;
for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared
to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a
thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins
and Ralph; but, each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without
the least compunction, and recollecting
Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker), and my
own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I
began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very
useful. My London pamphlet, which had for its motto these lines of Dryden:
"Whatever is, is right.
Though purblind man
Sees but a part o' the chain, the nearest
link:
His eyes not carrying to the equal beam,
That poises all above;"
and from the attributes of God, his infinite wisdom, goodness and power,
concluded that nothing could possibly be wrong in the world, and that vice
and virtue were empty distinctions, no such things existing, appear'd now
not so clever a performance as I once thought it; and I doubted whether
some error had not insinuated itself unperceiv'd into my argument, so as to
infect all that follow'd, as is common in metaphysical reasonings.
I grew convinc'd that truth, sincerity and integrity in
dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance to the felicity
of life; and I form'd written resolutions, which still remain in my journal
book, to practice them ever while I lived.
Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I
entertain'd an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad
because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded
them, yet probably these actions might be forbidded because they were bad
for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own
natures, all the circumstances of things considered.
And this persuasion, with the kind hand of Providence, or
some guardian angel, or accidental favorable circumstances and situations,
or all together, preserved me, thro' this dangerous time of youth, and the
hazardous situations I was sometimes in among strangers, remote from the
eye and advice of my father, without any willful gross immorality or
injustice, that might have been expected from my want of religion.
I say willful, because the instances I have mentioned
had something of necessity in them, from my youth, inexperience, and the
knavery of others. I had therefore a tolerable character to begin the world
with; I valued it properly, and determin'd to preserve it.
END OF CHAPTER SIX. CONTINUE TO
The Autobiography of Ben Franklin - CHAPTER 6
http://earlyamerica.com/cgi-local/AT-testsearch.cgi
>:|BEN FRANKLIN--
>:|"How has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of
>:|humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?
>:|In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of
>:|danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. ā Our
>:|prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who
>:|were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a
>:|superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe
>:|this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of
>:|establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that
>:|powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?
>:|I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more
>:|convincing proofs I see of this truth ā that God Governs in the affairs
>:|of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is
>:|it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been
>:|assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the
>:|House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I
>:|also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this
>:|political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be
>:|divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be
>:|confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to
>:|future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this
>:|unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom
>:|and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
>:|
>:|I therefore beg leave to move ā that henceforth prayers imploring the
>:|assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in
>:|this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one
>:|or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that
>:|Service ā
>:|
>:|Mr. SHERMAN seconded the motion."
>:|
>:|(Madison's Records of the Constitional Convention, June 28, 1787
>:|at http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0628.htm)
>:|
>:|Compare Franklin's belief with the theology of Deists:
>:|
>:|"the Deists argued that after God's initial work of creation, He withdrew
>:|into detached transcendence, leaving the world to operate according to
>:|rational natural rules." (Encyclopedia Britannica)
>:|
>:|> Franklin's point was in a sense the same as Marx's -- that
>:|> religion was the opiate of the people, and fear of the Chris-
>:|> tian sky-daddy's wrath keeps the 'little people' in line.
>:|
>:|Franklin took the moral views of Jesus Christ quite seriously, and truly
>:|believed that there was an eternal reward or punishment. For when he laid
>:|out his point in a private and sincere letter to Ezra Stiles, he stated a
>:|sincere belief that the "sky-daddy's wrath" was something truly to be
>:|feared:
>:|
>:|"the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another
>:|life respecting its conduct in this"
>:|
>:|(See Franklin to Stiles, 9 Mar 1790)
>:|
>:|> Deism doesn't lend itself to proselytization for this reason.
>:|
>:|Granted; and Franklin's perpetual efforts to spread and financially
>:|support orthodox churches betrays the idea that he was the kind of person
>:|you think.
>:|
>:|Rick Gardiner
>:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources
>:|
>:|
>:|Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>:|Before you buy.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> So, you are arguing that Franklin became a "orthodox Christian"is
>:|> that what you are trying to say?
>:|
>:|Franklin's religious creed was detailed to Ezra Stiles in the last year
>:|of Franklin's life:
>:|
>:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html
>:|
I have that letter. BTW, I wonder why you only placed part of that letter
on your web page?
Don't forget, deists were not atheists, Deist's believed in God.
SDome felt he took no active role in the affairs of men, others didn't
beleive that.
You didn't answer my question, are you claiming he was a orthodox
Christian?
That letter does not make him out to be such.
There are other comments he made about religion as well, are they on your
web page too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a short version of the above, along with a comment:
Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the
Constitutional Convention, said:
"I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his
Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service
we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man
is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting
its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all
sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with
them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I
think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various
corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in
England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not
dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy
myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth
with less trouble."
He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great
Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by
Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF
to Exra Stiles March 9, 1790.
======================================================
WHAT FOLLOWS ARE SOME THINGS SHOWING HOW HE WAS
VIEWED IN 1800 BY SOME
=======================================================
APRIL 22, 1800
THE GAZETTE
PHILADELPHIA
TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 22.
In the year 1774, when the infamous David Williams of Deistical
memory resided at Chelsea in the vicinity of London, Dr, Franklin, with
whom he was intimate, took refuge in his house from the storm he
apprehended would follow Mr. Wedderburne's attack on him at the council
board. Here the Philosopher of Pennsylvania concocted with his pious friend
the plan of a deistical and philosophical lecture. The scheme was carried
into practice and Williams opened a chapel in Margeret Street, Carendish
Square. But the complexion of his discourses was relished neither by
churchman nor dissenters.
The above paragraph is extracted from a democratical publication; and it is
curious and may suggest matter for much reflection that even in such a
book we find a candid statement of the daring and wicked schemes of that
old man, whom it has been so fashionable in America to praise. The record
is honorable to the new philosophy. Franklin instigates an arch villain to
open a school of vive and irreligion. Its doctrines were so detestable, so
flagrantly bad, that they should not be tolerated by the listeners of any
sect.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: THE GAZETTE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 22, 1800
JAN 1, 1800 TO DEC 31, 1800 MFILM N.S. 10953 AP2.05
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE 28, 1800
THE GAZETTE
PHILADELPHIA
SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 28.
ORIGINAL LETTER FROM DR. FRANKLIN
[The following is an original. It will excite, it is presumed, no
ordinary degree of attention. It will be read by some with eagerness,
because it is frm the pen of Dr. FRANKLIN; and, in the opinion if his
disciples, it is no superstition to venerate every thing from him, as a
precious relique. It will be read by others as a curious specimen of the
Doctor's Liberality of sentiment on religious subjects. May will be
captivated and deceived, by the blandishments of a plausible and affected
benevolence; and the few will discern at once the germ of deism, the embryo
of rancour against the church establishments, the feverish symptoms of a
malcontent; and those daring doctrines "at which both the priest and
philosopher may tremble."]
Philad.
June 6:b, 1753.
Sir,
"I received your kind letter of the 2nd inst. And am glad that you
increase in strength; I hope that you will continue mending till you
recover your former health and firmness. Let me know whether you still use
the cold bath, and the effect it has.
"As to the kindness you mention, I wish it could have been of more
service to you. But if it had, the only thinks I should desire is, that you
would always be equally ready to serve any other person that may need you
assistance, and so let good offices go round, for mankind all of a family.
"For my part, when I am employed in serving others, I do not look
upon myself as conferring favors, but as paying debts. In my travels, and
since my settlement I have received much kindness from men to whom I shall
never have the opportunity of making the least direct return. And
numberless mercies from God, who is infinitely above being benefitted by
our services. These kindnesses from men I can therefore only return on
their fellow-men and I can only shew my gratitude for those mercies from
God, by a readiness to help his other children and my brethren. For I do
not think that thanks and compliments, though repeated weekly, can
discharge our real obligations to each other, and much less to our Creator.
You will see in this my notion of good works, that I am far from expecting,
as you suppose to merit heaven by the. By Heaven we understand a state of
happiness, infinite in degree, and eternal in duration: I can do nothing to
deserve such rewards. He that for giving a draught of water to a thirsty
person should expect to be paid with a good plantation, would be modest in
his demands compared with those who think they deserve Heaven for the
little good they do on earth. Even the mix'd imperfect pleasures we enjoy
in this world are rather from God's goodness than our merit; how much more
hapiness of heaven. For my part, I have not vanity to think I deserve it,
the folly to expect it, nor the ambition to define it; but content myself
in submitting to the will and disposal of that God who made me, who has
hirtheto preserved and blessed me, and in whose fatherly goodness I may
well confide, that he will neber make me miserable, and that even the
afflictions I may at times suffer shall tend to my benefit.
"The faith you mention has doubtless it's use in the world. I do
not desire to see it diminished, nor would I endeavour to lessen it in any
man. But I wish it were more productive of good works than I have generally
seen it: I mean real good works: works of kindness, charity, mercy, and
public spirit; not holiday keeping, sermon reading or hearing, performing
church ceremonies, or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and
compliments, despised even by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing
the Deity. The worship of God is a duty, the hearing and reading of sermons
may be useful, but if men rest in hearing and praying, as too many do, it
is as if a tree should value itself on being watered and putting forth
forth leaves, tho' it never produced any fruit. Your great Master thought
much less of these outward appearances and professions than many of his
modern disciples. He prefer'd the Doers of the word to meer hearers, the
Son that seemingly refused to obey his father, and yet performed his
commands, to him that profes'd his readiness but neglected the work; the
heretical but charitable Samaritan, to the uncharitable tho' orthodox
priest and fancified Levite; and those who gave food to the hungry, drink
to the thirsty, raiment to the naked, entertainment to the stranger, and
relief to the sick, tho' they never heard his name, he declares they shall
in the last day be accepted, when thos who cry Lord, Lord, who value
themselves on their faith tho' great enough to perform miracles, but have
neglected good works, shall be rejected. He professed he came not to call
the righteous but sinners to repentance; which implied his modest opinion
that there were some in his time so good that they need not hear him even
for improvement; but now a days we have scarce a little parson that does
not think it the duty of every man within his reach to set under his petty
ministration; and that whoever [?] them offends God. I wish to such more
humility, and to you health and happiness being
Your Friend & Servant;
Signed B. FRANKLIN
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: THE GAZETTE OF THE UNITED STATES, June 28, 1800
JAN 1, 1800 TO DEC 31, 1800 MFILM N.S. 10953 AP2.05
==========================================================
OCTOBER 9, 1780
I am fully of your opinion respecting religious tests; but, though
the people of
Massachusetts have not in their new constitution kept quite clear of them,
yet, if we consider what that people were one hundred years ago, we must
allow they have gone great lengths in liberality of sentiment on religious
subjects; and we may hope for greater degrees of perfection, when their
constitution, some years hence, shall be revised. If Christian preachers
had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without salaries,
and as the Quakers now do, I imagine tests would never have existed; for I
think they were invented, not so much to secure religion itself, as the
emoluments of it. When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support
itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to
support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the
civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. . . .
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter written by Benjamin Franklin to
Dr. Richard Price, October 9, 1780. Works of Benjamin Franklin (Sparks
ed.), VIII 505-506, in Bigelow ed, VII, 139, 140. Church and State in the
United States, Volume I, Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D., Harper &
Brothers (1950) pp 298)
=============================================================
Michael Crow
Library of Congress, from whom I can find no reference to Nellie being
adopted. Living at Mt. Vernon yes, adoption not supported.
<rgar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8od0lg$8u9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Richard A. Schulman
>>:|Franklin's religious creed was detailed to Ezra Stiles in the last year
>>:|of Franklin's life:
>>:|
>>:|http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html
Jim Alison, using the pseudonym "Buckeye":
>Don't forget, deists were not atheists, Deist's [sic]
>believed in God.
That's a run-on sentence above, along with an elementary
confusion of plural and possessive. Also, why do you use the
past tense? There are still deists, as this newsgroup has
learned to its cost. Once a month we get spammed by a
one-man deist publicist, Robert Johnson. Mr. Johnson's
mating call invariably brings you and a few other
co-thinkers out from under their moist rocks as well.
>SDome [sic] felt he took no active role in the affairs of
>men, others didn't beleive [sic] that.
That's another run-on sentence with two spelling errors to
boot. Doesn't any spelling checker handle your eternally
overlong posts?
>======================================================
>WHAT FOLLOWS ARE SOME THINGS SHOWING HOW HE WAS
>VIEWED IN 1800 BY SOME
>=======================================================
[snip]
Who cares "HOW HE WAS VIEWED IN 1800 BY SOME" in the face of
his own direct testimony? How many times do you need to be
reminded about the superiority of primary sources to
secondary sources? When is your spelling and grammar going
to attain the level of someone who managed to complete a
high school equivalency course?
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> You didn't answer my question, are you claiming he was a orthodox
> Christian?
That's really not the issue that makes a difference to the subject
matter you claim to be interested in dealing with in your signature
file.
The fact of the matter is that Franklin believed in the necessity of a
biblical foundation for government, didn't he?:
"We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the
Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly
believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we
shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of
Babel"
(Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787)
Your insistance that Franklin was a liar, didn't mean this, etc., ad
nauseum, is historical speculation, not historical scholarship.
What other red herring do you want to throw in next? Maybe you'd better
return to John Quincy Adams... he's your old standby, isn't he?
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> >
>:|> > >Hmmmmmm. Now, I wonder why you "forgot" to properly cite the above?
>:|> >
>:|> >The citation was there for those who are moderately educated.
>:|
>:|So, you bring up a red herring, and then when you get schooled on it you
>:|complain that it is off-topic, saying--
>:|
>:|> now would you like to address the issue?
>:|
>:|claiming that the whole "op cit" matter is not the issue.
>:|
>:|You are a mess.
>:|
=============================================
I see you still are dancing away from the issue.
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ADDED
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
PAGE 85
"While Jefferson and the French atheists shared some of the same
ideas, study of Jefferson's religious beliefs and their sources supports
his contention that he was not an atheist and was relatively little
influenced by the French radicals. The influence was rather the other way,
for Jefferson was held in high esteem by French reformers. Similar elements
in Jefferson's religion and that of the French revolutionaries came,
instead, from the common source of the English deists."
PAGES 85 -92 beginning with the sub heading "JEFFERSON WAS DEIST"
and including sub headings, "GOD, SEEN IN THE CREATION." "GOD, THE CREATOR
OF MAN," "ONE GOD, NOT THREE," "JEFFERSON WAS A THEIST."
PAGE 85
"To most religious people includiiig Jefferson's enemies, there was little
difference between being atheist, deist, or infidel. AIl were suspected of'
being nonblievers, opponents of Christianity, and dangerous to society.
Jefferson vigorously defended himself against the charge of being atheist
or deist in this derogatory sense. . ."
"But in the intellectual sense of one who believed in tne Deity, as
opposed to the atheist who did not, Jefferson was a staunch
deist.; His religious thought is steeped in the ideas of the English
deists, . . . "
" Jefferson adopted and adapted these main tenets of English deism
in the light of his own experiences and used them as the framework upon
which he built his own ideas of God, his: nature, and his purpose for man
and the world."
PAGE 89
Jefferson engaged in considerable researcyh into early Christianity from
his extensive library. he mentioned William Enfield's summary of religion
and philosophy as being useful and said that he had read Priestley's
CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY over and over. These readings strengthened his
belief in deism and Unitarianism.
rgar...@my-deja.com
>
> The National Gallery of Art certainly not the Smithsonian Institute and
> the Library of Congress, from whom I can find no reference to Nellie
> being adopted. Living at Mt. Vernon yes, adoption not supported.
When the G.W.P. Custis identifies himself as Washington's adopted son,
and you don't accept it, then it's stubbornness rather than scholarship
which is the motive for your response.
http://seacoastnh.com/tobiaslear/ph7.html
Rick Gardiner
buc...@exis.net
>:|"Michael Crow" <mwr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> The National Gallery of Art certainly not the Smithsonian Institute and
>:|> the Library of Congress, from whom I can find no reference to Nellie
>:|> being adopted. Living at Mt. Vernon yes, adoption not supported.
>:|
>:|When the G.W.P. Custis identifies himself as Washington's adopted son,
>:|and you don't accept it, then it's stubbornness rather than scholarship
>:|which is the motive for your response.
When the evidence goes against your claims, and you don't accept it, you
continue to make the same claims, then its stubbornest and propaganda
rather than scholarship which is the motive for your actions and posting.
buc...@exis.net
and this one
In the time frame 1760 to, oh say, 1840, in the colonies and then this
country, if a person was religious but was not "orthodox Christian," was
not Jewish, Hindoo, Mahometan, Buddhist or any of the other religions of
Japan, China, India, etc. Was not Catholic or Quaker, though many didn't
consider either of these to be valid religions.
What would one most likely be called or thought to be, in the language and
mind sets of the day?
One scholar has this to say about it:
The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford. University
of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, (1984 --third paperback printing, 1992)
PAGE 85
"To most religious people including Jefferson's enemies, there was little
difference between being atheist, deist, or infidel. AIl were suspected of'
being nonbelievers, opponents of Christianity, and dangerous to society."
"But in the intellectual sense of one who believed in tne Deity, as
opposed to the atheist who did not, Jefferson was a staunch
deist.; His religious thought is steeped in the ideas of the English
deists, . . . "
PAGE 91
It is a moot question whether Jefferson was a deist or a theist in his
belief about God. He has been called both. Part of the confusion comes from
the fact that the terms deist and theist are often used interchangeably,
though they had distinct, if varying, meanings.
Early in the Enlightenment, the term theism was used to denote the
ideas of those who believed in God as the Creative Power behind the
universe, in contrast in atheism, which denoted the ideas of those who did
not. The term is derived from the Greek word for God, theos. Jefferson,
accordingly, used theist to describe one who believed in a "first cause"
behind the creation, in contrast to the atheist who instead believed in the
"unceasing motion of matter." Later in the movement, the term deism came to
describe the ideas of those who believed in a great, unknown Power behind
the creation, and the term theism was left for the thoughts of the medieval
theologians and those: who believed in orthodox, revealed religion.
Jefferson, thus, employed the term deism for the belief in one God, Creator
of man and the universe, in contrast to orthodox, Christian, Trinitarian
theism. He even went so far as to characterize Jesus' teachings as "pure:
deism," and the teachings of the Jews as "degraded deism," though both
might more properly be termed theistic.
To be theologically accurate, the distinction between dpi.st and
theist, as it finally developed in philosophy, was based on whether
man could know the attributes of God, and whether God continued
to be active in His creation. The deist believed in a Creator of the
universe who had determined the scientific laws by which it operated but
did not interfere in the operation of those laws. The deist also held that,
although something could be sensed about the greatness, intelligence and
wonder of the Creator from the creation, there was much that was beyond the
comprehension of man, particularly about the characteristics and final
purposes of the Creator. The theist believed that man could know God and
His nature and purposes not only by reasoning from the creation but by
faith, devotion, and mysticism as well and that the Creator continued to
guide and direct his creation. Immanuel Kant made the distinction,
'The deist believes that there is a God; the theist believes that there
is a living God.'
=======================================================
To complicate matters even more, there were some very real similarities
between such thought generally labeled as deist, Unitarian, and even some
connections to some of the Quaker thinking.
At various times throughout the time frame given all three of the above
were condemned by the "orthodox Christians."
To add to the fun, various Christian denominations viewed each others as
nonbelievers as well at various times. :o)
Bottom line is, there were a number of men of those times, including
founders, who did not fit or qualify as "orthodox Christians" yet were
religious, in their own minds, in their own ways.
They might accurately be called deists, or Quakers, or Unitarian, some
would call them atheists, or infidels.
Food for thought.
buc...@exis.net
You forget this one:
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:|The fact that Buckeye thinks that the scholars at the library of congress responsible for the Religion >:|and the Founding exhibit
>:| http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
>:|are all right-wing cronies of Pat Robertson, is clear evidence that Buckeye is far more of a
>:|political hothead than a sober-minded historian interested in the facts of history.
[Mike Curtis comment to Gardiner's comments above:]
I've been to the exhibit in person and found a great many errors. As
with most things in Washington, D.C., there usually is an interest
group behind any display.
====================================================
[My previous encounter with this topic and Gardiner]
3/13/99
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>The Library of Congress has been exhibiting a similar claim
>:|(see http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) Does that mean that
>:|all of the curators at the Library of Congress must be fundamentalist Christians?
[I responded]
I have seen the online presentation of the library of Congress, I also have
a copy of the companion book that goes with that exhibit and I can say that
it is extremely one sided and biased. The book and apparently the research
and planning of the of the exhibit was primarily under the head of James H.
Huston and from what I have seen thus far and read thus far I would say he
did or does have an agenda that is not neutral.
Now if you want to check out some other opinions on this subject I suggest
you check out:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Copyright William Edelen
http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/edelin-lib-congrs.html
and
Tearing Down Jefferson's Oath, John Patrick Michael Murphy
Copyright 1998
http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/murphy-jeffersons-oath.html
They are short articles but gives you an alternative viewpoint, not that I
think you really want one.
[Gardiner wrote:]
>:|
>:|I think the following critics are simply not willing to face the facts of
>:|history. Their aversion to Christianity has caused them to deny historical
>:|data which is overwhelmingly evident.
>:|
[I replied]
You dost protest too much.
===================================================
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Provided by
Glen P.Goffin
Lt.Col. USAF (Ret)
------------------------------------------------------------
First Amendment Scholars Challenge Library of Congress
Claims on Jefferson Letter Regarding "Wall"
http://www.infidels.org/wire/stories/loc_jeffWall.html
(The above URL also has the letter the scholars wrote to the LOC, and the
list of scholars who signed off on it---Buckeye)
==========================
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/public.html
Public Programs on
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
The exhibition and related programs are made possible by generous grants
from The Pew Charitable Trusts, Mr. and Mrs. Henry J. (Bud) Smith, and the
Lilly Endowment Inc.
------ ------- ------- ------ ---------
The Pew Charitable Trusts,
Religion and the Public Square: Religious Grantmaking at The Pew Charitable
Trusts
http://www.pewtrusts.com/Frame.cfm?Framesource=programs/philly.cfm
One of the three Exhibit sponsors has a primary aim in the field of
religion, "...to deepen and enrich the religious lives of American
Christians..." (Not exactly the most unifying aim in a pluralistic,
democratic, republic containing numerous non-Christian religions and many
with no religious faith beliefs at all.)
-------- -------- ------- --------
Mr. and Mrs. Henry J. (Bud) Smith,
http://www.ncpa.org/about/bsmith.html
Henry J. Smith, is Chairman Emeritus for Clark/Bardes, Inc. Dallas,
Texas. Clark/Bardes is an executive compensation firm with offices in most
major cities throughout the country. Clark/Bardes has client relationships
with over 150 major U.S. and international companies.
Smith graduated from University of New Mexico. He served in world
War II and the Korean War. Smith, has been committed to various civic,
religious and political activities. They are as follows:
Founding and Board Member of the Trinity Forum
(The Trinity Forum is a leadership academy that helps leaders engage the
key issues of their personal and public lives in the context of faith.
http://www.ttf.org/ ---- Buckeye)
Member of the James Madison National Council (Library of
Congress)
Board Member of the National Center for Policy Analysis
(NCPA)
Founding and Current Member of the International Forum
Vice Chairman and Board Member of the International
Linguistics Society
Member of the Dallas Roundtable for CSIS
Mr. Smith resides in Dallas, Texas. He has been married to the
former Jane Munns of Winnetka, Illinois since 1952.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The second of the three sponsors is also the founder and board
member of an organization "that helps leaders engage the key issues of
their personal and public lives in the context of faith." (It does not say
what that faith must be. Hardly non-discriminatory.) Additionally, this
nonprofit, nontaxed, organization "fosters strategic programs and
publications that further its mission: to contribute to the transformation
and renewal of society through the transformation and renewal of national
leaders." (But apparently only leaders of faith. And whose faith belief
might that be?) It was interesting to note that this same individual is
also a Member of the James Madison National Council-LOC
-------------------------------------------------
the Lilly Endowment Inc.
http://www.indepsec.org/pathfinder/resources/foundations/lil_end.html
(The Lilly Endowment Inc. Created in 1937, Lilly Endowment Inc. is a
private philanthropic foundation based in Indianapolis, IN. It supports the
causes of religion, education, and community development, and it is
interested in initiatives that benefit youth, foster leadership education
among nonprofit institutions, and promote the causes of
philanthropy and volunteerism.
While the Endowment's grantmaking focuses primarily on
Indiana, it also provides funding for programs that are national
in scope. -- Buckeye)
================================================
In March, 1998, the Religious Freedom Amendment cleared the House
Judiciary Committee in a 16-11 vote, and was marked up for action by the
full House. It was a high water point in the efforts to overturn years of
state-church separation decisions, many of which continually cited
Jefferson's "wall of separation" reference in the Danbury letter. The
proposal would have eviscerated the First Amendment, particularly the
establishment clause, by legalizing a wide range of religious expression in
public schools, government meetings and other secular venues. It also would
have taken the giant step of qualifying faith-based groups for public
funding, by making it illegal to deny churches, mosques, temples and other
religious organizations a "benefit." The Religious Freedom Amendment was
soon scheduled for quick debate and a vote on or about June 4, 1998.
With the vote on the RFA looming, why was an academic curiosity
suddenly ignited into a national controversy, one linking Jefferson's
letter with the upcoming ballot on the Religious Freedom Amendment? Media
such as the "New York Times" and the "Washington Times" printed public
statements by Dr. James H. Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division at the
Library of Congress concerning the Danbury letter. Hutson noted that an
early draft of Jefferson's letter had sections crossed out with ink. What
was under the cross outs? Hutson wondered. After consulting with James
Billington, the Librarian of Congress, Hutson sent the draft over to the
FBI Forensics Laboratory, which had developed techniques of highlighting
inked-over sections on manuscripts. The technique had been employed
successfully earlier in examining diaries penned by President Theodore
Roosevelt.
The results of the FBI examination were interesting. An inked-over
portion revealed that Jefferson had made reference to a " wall of eternal
separation" between government and religion. The Library of Congress report
on this development, though, written by Hutson claimed that Jefferson
invented the "wall" analogy as a means of fending off political attacks by
his opponents. The news was gleefully reported in the "Washington Times,"
which quoted Hutson as claiming that two days after penning the Danbury
Baptist letter, Jefferson supposedly began attending weekly worship inside
the House of Representatives. "That phrase about the wall doesn't mean much
in light of his behavior, does it,?" Hutson remarked.
Coincident with the revelations about the Danbury letter, the
Library of Congress also opened an exhibit entitled "Religion and the
Founding of the American Republican."
Enter Pat Robertson & Co.
The revelations about the Danbury letter, and the questionable spin
reportedly made by Hutson, quickly attracted the interest of religious
right groups which were in the midst of a last-minute pitch to build
support for the Religious Freedom Amendment. Within 72 hours of the RFA
vote, Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition swung into action; executive
director Randy Tate issued a media statement claiming that the Library of
Congress had "skewered (sic) the wall of separation" reference made by
Jefferson. Tate also urged people to visit the Library's new exhibit on the
role played by religion in American history. In an interview with AANEWS,
Hutson expressed dismay that the Coalition was trying to capitalize on the
Jefferson letter finds for political gain, and denied any agenda to use the
Library of Congress in supporting the Religious Freedom Amendment. He also
noted that it was odd that Mr. Tate could be endorsing and describing the
exhibit, since it opened AFTER the Coalition press release was sent out.
But the RFA fared well in the House, gaining a majority of votes -- thought
still short of the necessary 2/3 margin for passage as a constitutional
amendment.
====================================================
Many thanks to
Glen P.Goffin
Lt.Col. USAF (Ret)
for providing the above information and URLs.
Ken Smith
> To complicate matters even more, there were some very real similarities
> between such thought generally labeled as deist, Unitarian, and even some
> connections to some of the Quaker thinking.
>
> At various times throughout the time frame given all three of the above
> were condemned by the "orthodox Christians."
>
> To add to the fun, various Christian denominations viewed each others as
> nonbelievers as well at various times. :o)
They still do. :)