BREAKING NEWS

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 15, 2005, 4:52:42 AM2/15/05

to

BREAKING HISTORIC NEWS

With about 97% of the research completed it can be said that the story that
George Washington said "So help me God," when he was sworn in as President
of the U S, April 30, 1789 is a myth. It never happned.

What is really sad about this is, this isn't something new to certain
people at the Library of Congress, for example, and other such places.
Certain people have known this for a very long time, but these same people
felt no need to correct the historical record. They were perfectly content
to allow that myth to remain intact.

That truly is sad.

Ty

unread,

Feb 15, 2005, 1:42:27 PM2/15/05

to

<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vfh311limd9at4guc...@4ax.com...

What's said is your myopic obsession with this topic. What happened -- did a
religious person take your lunch money or something?

--Ty

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 15, 2005, 2:04:47 PM2/15/05

to

"Ty" <tylawy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message

>:|

Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical facts.
Accuracy, facts, truth has no place in your life, huh? What a pity.
Abe Lincoln didn't say "So helpme God" either. As we find out about the
others we will be sure to let you know.

King George John

unread,

Feb 15, 2005, 2:58:39 PM2/15/05

to

> Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical facts.
> Accuracy, facts, truth has no place in your life, huh? What a pity.
> Abe Lincoln didn't say "So helpme God" either. As we find out about the
> others we will be sure to let you know.

OK, sport.

When did the "myth" begin.

For example, did "W" say "So Help" in 2001?

Did JFK in 1961?

Did Lincoln in 1861?

IOW: Who was the FIRST POTUS to do so and WHY?

(That's ASSuming that, indeed, GW didn't. It's very hard to prove a
negation. Is there a source who reported at the time the "W" the first,
DIDN'T saying anything after the oath?

EMWTK
>
>

Cary Kittrell

unread,

Feb 15, 2005, 3:07:12 PM2/15/05

to

In article <37f2lnF...@individual.net> "King George John" <KingGeo...@wmconnect.com> writes:
>
> > Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical facts.
> > Accuracy, facts, truth has no place in your life, huh? What a pity.
> > Abe Lincoln didn't say "So helpme God" either. As we find out about the
> > others we will be sure to let you know.
>
> OK, sport.
>
> When did the "myth" begin.
>
> For example, did "W" say "So Help" in 2001?
>
> Did JFK in 1961?
>
> Did Lincoln in 1861?
>
> IOW: Who was the FIRST POTUS to do so and WHY?
>
> (That's ASSuming that, indeed, GW didn't. It's very hard to prove a
> negation.

It is, isn't it? For example, did you know that Washington
also said that "...the great scourge and most grievous impediment
to this nation has been the Christian religion?"

At least no as yet has come forth saying that he did not.

Is there a source who reported at the time the "W" the first,
> DIDN'T saying anything after the oath?
>
> EMWTK

-- cary

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 15, 2005, 5:05:24 PM2/15/05

to

"King George John" <KingGeo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

>:|
>:|> Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical facts.

>:|

Sport? ahhhhh well. Another got in a bit of a tiff.

>:|When did the "myth" begin.

April 30, 1789 is the time period was to have happened. It was first
published in 1854 or 56. I say 54 or 56 because we have only located the 56
revised publication and it is in it. But the original publication was
published in 1854, not sure if it was in there or not..

Now if you can read the above even with the typo (running together of
helpme) you will see the following:

"As we find out about the others we will be sure to let you know."

and to that I will add this from a early reply of mine to another:

"We know for a fact that Lincoln did not say "So help me God." We are still
looking for primary source reports of the Oath taking by other Presidents
There are tons of primary source documentation on inauguration speeches but
the cupboard is pretty bare with regards to publishing the actual wording
of what was said with regards to the oaths."

>:|
>:|For example, did "W" say "So Help" in 2001?

>:|
>:|Did JFK in 1961?
>:|
>:|Did Lincoln in 1861?

No Lincoln didn't

>:|
>:|IOW: Who was the FIRST POTUS to do so and WHY?

>:|
>:|(That's ASSuming that, indeed, GW didn't. It's very hard to prove a
>:|negation. Is there a source who reported at the time the "W" the first,
>:|DIDN'T saying anything after the oath?

Actually this wasn't hard to show it to be a myth at all. Collecting and
personally checking the various documents can be a bit time consuming .
You being with very little a cite for one item or someone from The First
Federal Congress Project says something. You ask for information and
documentation. You check with the LOC and get a affirmative that is there
is no contemporary documentation supporting he ever said that and get
steered to another source.

That source has 20 or so cites which have to be found and personally
checked out while you wait on the documentation fro the First Federal
Congress Project to Arrive.
Meanwhile you are thinking about this ands begin to wonder about location
of the various parties involved, who could reasonably be thought to be in a
positon to see and hear and who wouldn't be? So you go off looking for
maps and pictures or sketches of the various places mentioned.

Time, some expense etc. but one the ball got rolling it was very easy to
disprove

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 15, 2005, 5:15:38 PM2/15/05

to

"King George John" <KingGeo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

>:|(That's ASSuming that, indeed, GW didn't. It's very hard to prove a

>:|negation. Is there a source who reported at the time the "W" the first,
>:|DIDN'T saying anything after the oath?

>:|

In this particular case there was a whole bunch of people there

Heere is a summation of things

There are no contemporary reports that Washington said "So help me God."
What the evidence shows is the first reports of his uttering those words
appeared in a book that was published in 1854 originally with a revised
edition coming out in 1856.

The information in the book on those particular words is suppose to have
been based on a story told to the author of the book by Washington Irving.
The author of the book wasn't born until 1815. The impression is that
Washington Irving told his troy to the author sometime near the time the
author was working on the book probably in the early 1850s

At any rate the Irving version was that he (Irving) was present at the
inauguration of Washington in 1789, thus seeing and hearing the events he
was telling the events he was telling the author.

The problem is Washington Irving was only a couple weeks past turning 6
years of age at the time of the inauguration and was standing, by his own
admission, about a block away from the second floor balcony where the
inauguration was taking place. In addition, people on the same balcony as
Washington reported no such words being uttered by Washington. newspaper
accounts of the day reported no such words being spoken. Others observers,
while, not on the balcony, were on rooftops just across the street of the
balcony never mentioned any such words being spoken

Every site given pertaining to those words, whenever there is a actual
cite given, which is seldom, cite this book, published in 1854 and again in
1856

The book in question is
=======================================================
The republican court; or, American society in the days of Washington. By
Rufus Wilmot Griswold.
Author: Griswold, Rufus Wilmot, 1815-1857.

New & revised ed. With twenty-one portraits of distinguished women,
engraved from original pictures by Wollaston, Copley, Gainsborough, Stuart,
Trumbull, Pine, Malbone, and other contemporary painters.: iv p., 2 L.,
408 p. front., ports. 29 cm.
New York [etc.]
D. Appleton and company,
1856.
=============================================================

No primary contemporary source is ever cited simply because none exist.

The inforamtion in that book is as follows:

140
on each side of the way, through which the President, with his attendants,
was conducted to the chamber of the Senate, where the members of the House
of Representatives had a few minutes before assembled, and at the door the
Vice President received him and waited upon him to the chair.

The Vice President then said, "Sir, the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States are ready to attend you to
take the oath required by the Constitution, which will be administered by
the Chancellor of the State of New York."
The President answered, "I am ready to proceed."
The Vice President and the Senators led the way, and, accompanied
by the Chancellor, and followed by the Representatives, and other public
characters present, he then walked to the outside gallery, from which Broad
street and Wall street, each way, were perceived to be filled, as with a
sea of upturned faces, but as silent as if the immense concourse had been
of statues instead of living men.
The spectacle must have been in the highest degree interesting
and serious. In the centre, between two pillars, was seen the commanding
figure of Washington, in a coat, waistcoat, and breeches, of fine dark
brown cloth, and white silk stockings, all of American manufacture, plain
silver buckles in his shoes, his head uncovered, and his hair dressed in
the prevailing fashion of the time. On one side stood the Chancellor, in a
full suit of black cloth, and on the other the Vice President, dressed more
showily, but like the President entirely in American fabrics. Between the
President and the Chancellor was Mr. Otis, Secretary of the Senate, a small
short man, holding an open Bible upon a rich crimson cushion, and
conspicuous in the group were Roger Sherman, General Knox, General St.
Clair, Baron Steuben, and others whose names were equally dear and familiar
to the people.
A gesture of the Chancellor arrested the attention of the im

Page 141
mense assembly, and he pronounced slowly and distinctly the words
of the oath. The Bible was raised, and as the President bowed to
kiss its sacred pages, he said audibly, " I swear," and added, with
fervor, his eyes closed, that his whole soul might be absorbed in
the supplication, "So help me God!"
Then the Chancellor said, "It is done," and, turning to the
multitude, waved his hand, and with a loud voice exclaimed, "Long
live George Washington, President of the United States!"
Immediately the air was filled with acclamations and the roar
of cannon; the President bowed, and again and again the welkin
rung with the plaudits of happy and grateful citizens, who felt that
Heaven had granted all their reasonable petitions, and that the New Era
dreamed of by sages and celebrated by orators and bards was now completely
inaugurated.
"The scene," writes one who was present to his correspondent
in Philadelphia, "was solemn and awful beyond description. It
would seem extraordinary that the administration of an oath, a
ceremony so very common and familiar, should in so great a degree excite
the public curiosity; but the circumstances of the President's election,
the impression of his past services, the concourse of spectators, the
devout fervency with which he repeated the oath, and the reverential manner
in which he bowed down and kissed the sacred volume, all these conspired to
render it one of the most august and interesting spectacles ever
exhibited..... It seemed, from the number of witnesses, to be a solemn
appeal to Heaven and earth at once. In regard to this great and good man I
may perhaps be an enthusiast, but I confess that I was under an awful and
religious persuasion, that the gracious Ruler of the Universe was looking
down at that moment with peculiar complacency on an act which
to a part of his creatures was so very important." Under this impression,
he proceeds to say that when the Chancellor proclaimed

Page 142

Washington President, his sensibility was so excited that he could do no
more than wave his hat with the rest, without the power of joining in the
repeated acclamations which rent the air.
Few persons are now living who witnessed the induction of the
first President of the United States into his office; but walking, not many
months ago, near the middle of a night of unusual beauty, through Broadway
- at that hour scarcely disturbed by any voices or footfalls except our own
- Washington Irving related to Dr. Francis and myself his recollections of
these scenes, with that graceful conversational eloquence of which he is
one of the greatest of living masters. He had watched the procession till
the President entered Federal Hall, and from the corner of New street and
Wall street had observed the subsequent proceedings in the balcony.

III.

THIE President, members of the Congress, and other dignitaries
and distinguished characters, having returned to the Senate chamber and
taken their seats, Washington arose and delivered a short inaugural speech,
alike remarkable as a display of modesty, dignity, and wisdom. Among the
vicissitudes of his life, he said, none could have filled him with greater
anxieties than his election to the Presidency.
==========================================================

Now there is a map in the file section of this yahoo group

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

that shows NYC as it looked in 1789, it's a section that has been isolated
and can be enlarged in place there. it shows Federal Hall (5) and also
shows the corner of Wall street and New Street where a just barely 6 year
old Washington Irving said he was standing

Two things come to mind real quick (1) the angle for seeing anything is
impossible and (2) its a block away and even if the crowd was pin drop
silent it would have been impossible to hear what was being said on that
balcony.
Even most so when others closer, including actually on the balcony never
mention those words being spoken.

BTW Washington Irving was born in early April 1783 thus making him 67 in
1850 and he might have been a couple years older when he told his story to
Griswold.

There is another problem. Griswold was a minister earlier in his life. In
addition, if you look him up on the internet you will find comments about
him making things up and entering them in his writings. Not speculation he
did such but factually that he did such things.

ALONG WITH THIS:

Analyst <post....@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:

Most of the research was done by Mike Newdow. he had run across this as he
was doing research for his Inaugurational prayer suit he filed. he had
told me awhile back that he had heard from The First Federal Congress
Project with regards to another question and they had told him then that
there was no contemporary source for the "So help me God" comment and that
it was probably false.

When I met with mike on February 5, 2005 here in Virginia Beach he set me
and two friends to work in the law library at Pat Robertson's Regent U
looking for more info.

Following up on that after he left Virginia Beach Early feb 6, 2005 I
enlisted a friend who lives in Fla, a USAF Lt Col (Ret) who had far more
patience with online research than I do. I am quite at home with real books
and in real libraries, and while I am getting better with online research I
still get frustrated when I look for something it shows me 5000
possibilities. if it ain't in the first screen screw it . hehehehehe

Anyways, we proceeded to look for things to fill in some of the gaps in
Mike's data, things he hadn't found yet, or hadn't thought of yet, etc

We have filled in all the gaps except for a item we have to gets our hands
on just to double check if Washington Irving was the real source or if
Griswold invented it.

As it stands right now we have newspaper articles of the day from several
newspapers, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Hartford, etc.

We have a book that was recommended by Marvin Kranz at the LOC as being
the definitive book on the topic. We have gatnered the documents that were
cited in the portion of that book deaing with that day to personally check
them out.

We have copies of the essential pages from the Griswold book as well as a
map of NY and drawings of the the federal Hall etc

We have a copy of the report sent back to France written by the French
Minister who was on the Balcony. We have what was written by a women who
was on a roof top directly across from the Federal Hall.

>:|What about his successors?

We know for a fact that Lincoln did not say "So help me God." We are still
looking for primary source reports of the Oath taking by other Presidents

There are tons of primary source documentation on inauguration speeches but
the cupboard is pretty bare with regards to publishing the actual wording

of what was said with regads to the oaths.

>:|At what point did
>:|this ad hoc addition to the Constitutionally mandated oath become a part
>:|of the Innaugaral (I know I probably mispelled that :p ) tradition? The
>:|apocraphyl story of Washington is still cited as the beginnings of this,
>:|but your research raises doubts about that. Good work. I never even
>:|considered the issue until I saw your post. Thanks.
***************************************************************************

Ty

unread,

Feb 15, 2005, 5:40:52 PM2/15/05

to

<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:omh411luarp0bq2l8...@4ax.com...
> "Ty" <tylawy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >:|> That truly is sad.

> >:|What's said is your myopic obsession with this topic. What happened --
did a
> >:|religious person take your lunch money or something?

> Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical facts.

<shrug> Passing myths off as facts doesn't seem to bother most of the
lefties that I've met.

I find it interesting that someone would waste *so* much energy your little
quixotic crusade.

--Ty

Michael S. Morris

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 9:53:00 AM2/16/05

to

Wednesday, the 16th of February, 2005

bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
Actually this wasn't hard to show it to be a

myth at all. [snip]

Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

Look, I'm not Christian, though I homeschool my
children and hang out on a newsgroup with many
homeschoolers who are Christian. I have zero vested
interest in the question of whether George Washington
did say "so help me God" or no at the time of the
First Inauguration.

However, you started out by asserting you were demolishing
some myth. That is, you were asserting that people
(out there, somewhere) widely believe that Washington
said this, even though historians long have known he didn't.
OK, well, your lack of citation and specific reference to
historical documentation that Washington did or did not say it
doesn't exactly get me all shot up about your veracity, but
I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to grant that Washington
in fact did not say the words "so help me God" at the first
inauguration. (Or rather, to be more specific, I am quite willing
to believe there is no comtemporary evidence that he did say
that.) I mean, even if I swallow my natural reaction to this
("So what?"), the *other part* of what you said remains to
be established---namely, that people widely believe Washington
said that. Which people? Where? Where are these people who
widely believe that? Can you give examples of texts that
claim that Washington said it? Maybe it's one of these things
that gets xeroxed from high-school history text to high-school
history text? Or maybe you think it's something the Christian
right believes---can you cite some tracts by Jerry Falwell or
somesuch showing that such believe it? Anyway, what is your
source for the claim in the first place that this it is
a myth (i.e. something lots of people actually believe) that
George Washington said those words? You *did say*, after all,
that historians have long known otherwise. Wouldn't the burden
of proof then be on you to show that there was any widespread
belief about it at all?

If you want a historical myth to debunk, I'll give you one:
<www.law.ou.edu/hist/iroquois.html>
<www.ku.edu/carrie/docs/texts/iroquois-const.html>
<tuscaroras.com/pages/constEX.html>
These are just a few of many websites displaying "The
Iroquois Constitution". If you google on that, you'll find
lots. You can compare texts and you'll find it's always the
same English version. The third link above will tell you who wrote
that English version and roughly when it was written. But it
also makes claims like "But I DID find sufficient data and
evidence to convince me that the Iroquois most certainly did
have a considerable influence on the drafting of our own
Constitution, and we present-day Americans owe them a very
large debt." And that claim gets repeated in various
Collections of "Great Documents in American History"
you'll find. The only problem is that not only was the Iroquois
Constitution in its present form in English not published until
1916 (and hence it would have been unavailable to any of the
members of the Federal Convention of 1787), but also, by the
time of that Convention in 1787, the Iroquois Confederacy would
have been yet another example to them of a *failed
confederation*---an historical example of the weakness of
that form of government and how foreign powers
may exploit that weakness to tear such a union apart.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

Gray Shockley

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 9:55:58 AM2/16/05

to

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:40, Ty wrote:

> <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:omh411luarp0bq2l8...@4ax.com...
>> "Ty" <tylawy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> That truly is sad.
>
>>>>> What's said is your myopic obsession with this topic. What happened --
> did a
>>>>> religious person take your lunch money or something?
>
>> Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical facts.
>
> <shrug> Passing myths off as facts doesn't seem to bother most of the
> lefties that I've met.
>

Quite possibly, you label as a "leftie" someone - anyone -
with whom you disagree.

First cousin to a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

> I find it interesting that someone would waste *so* much energy your little
> quixotic crusade.
>

Sad to say, I find you very uninteresting; were you born a
bore or were you designed by a government committee?

> --Ty

Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
- Jubal Harshaw (Channeled through RAH)

Ty

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 10:14:37 AM2/16/05

to

"Gray Shockley" <graysh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE38BB1E...@news.giganews.com...

> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:40, Ty wrote:
> > <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message

> >> "Ty" <tylawy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >> Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical
facts.

> > <shrug> Passing myths off as facts doesn't seem to bother most of the
> > lefties that I've met.

> Quite possibly, you label as a "leftie" someone - anyone -
> with whom you disagree.

Or quite possibly, I tend to disagree with lefties?

> > I find it interesting that someone would waste *so* much energy your
little
> > quixotic crusade.

> Sad to say, I find you very uninteresting; were you born a
> bore or were you designed by a government committee?

<yawn>

Oh, I'm sorry, were you saying something?

--Ty

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 11:48:58 AM2/16/05

to

"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:

>:|
>:|
>:| Wednesday, the 16th of February, 2005

Lame pieces of nonsense, huh?
Gee guy. There isn't anything lame about it nor is it in any manner lame.

>:|
>:|Look, I'm not Christian, though I homeschool my

Good for you. I feel sorry for your children. I say that for a very simple
reason. It appears that you have no interest in valid history. You would
prefer inaccurate or invalid history.

The fact of the matter is, the myth is bad history. It is also a item used
by the Radical religious right and yes, there is a radical religious right,
Ultra conservatives, ultra libertarians as "proof" that church state
separation was not intended by the founders.

Thus it does become important to point out that that particular item is not
historical fact.

>:|
>:|However, you started out by asserting you were demolishing

>:|some myth. That is, you were asserting that people
>:|(out there, somewhere) widely believe that Washington
>:|said this, even though historians long have known he didn't.

Well actually I didn't say historians knew this. I said that some at some
places such as the LOC and The First Federal Congress Project knew this.

That does not constitute a cross section of historians. Most publication
that mention the this at all fall in line saying Washington said "So help
me God."

There are even some articles written trying to explain why he would have
said it.

Not only that but there is a general belief that Washington set the
precedence by uttering those words and that as a result all other
presidents have said them as well.

In other words it is a accepted belief by most laypeople and probably a
good many historians and scholars that George Washington did in fact utter
"So help me God."

>:|>:|OK, well, your lack of citation and specific reference to

>:|historical documentation that Washington did or did not say it
>:|doesn't exactly get me all shot up about your veracity,

We have all that we need.

I have already posted a general summation of the documentation we have in a
couple places in this thread, but hey, I'll do it again.
****************************************************************************************

"King George John" <KingGeo...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

>:|(That's ASSuming that, indeed, GW didn't. It's very hard to prove a
>:|negation. Is there a source who reported at the time the "W" the first,
>:|DIDN'T saying anything after the oath?

>:|

In this particular case there was a whole bunch of people there

Here is a summation of things

There are no contemporary reports that Washington said "So help me God."
What the evidence shows is the first reports of his uttering those words
appeared in a book that was published in 1854 originally with a revised
edition coming out in 1856.

The information in the book on those particular words is suppose to have
been based on a story told to the author of the book by Washington Irving.
The author of the book wasn't born until 1815. The impression is that
Washington Irving told his troy to the author sometime near the time the
author was working on the book probably in the early 1850s

At any rate the Irving version was that he (Irving) was present at the
inauguration of Washington in 1789, thus seeing and hearing the events he
was telling the events he was telling the author.

The problem is Washington Irving was only a couple weeks past turning 6
years of age at the time of the inauguration and was standing, by his own
admission, about a block away from the second floor balcony where the
inauguration was taking place. In addition, people on the same balcony as
Washington reported no such words being uttered by Washington. newspaper
accounts of the day reported no such words being spoken. Others observers,
while, not on the balcony, were on rooftops just across the street of the
balcony never mentioned any such words being spoken

Every site given pertaining to those words, whenever there is a actual
cite given, which is seldom, cite this book, published in 1854 and again in
1856

No primary contemporary source is ever cited simply because none exist.

The information in that book is as follows:

Page 142

III.

THE President, members of the Congress, and other dignitaries

and distinguished characters, having returned to the Senate chamber and
taken their seats, Washington arose and delivered a short inaugural speech,
alike remarkable as a display of modesty, dignity, and wisdom. Among the
vicissitudes of his life, he said, none could have filled him with greater
anxieties than his election to the Presidency.
==========================================================

Now there is a map in the file section of this yahoo group

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

that shows NYC as it looked in 1789, it's a section that has been isolated
and can be enlarged in place there. it shows Federal Hall (5) and also
shows the corner of Wall street and New Street where a just barely 6 year
old Washington Irving said he was standing

Two things come to mind real quick (1) the angle for seeing anything is
impossible and (2) its a block away and even if the crowd was pin drop
silent it would have been impossible to hear what was being said on that
balcony.

Even more so when others closer, including actually on the balcony never

mention those words being spoken.

BTW Washington Irving was born in early April 1783 thus making him 67 in
1850 and he might have been a couple years older when he told his story to

to the author of the book.

There is another problem. The author of the book had been a minister
earlier in his life. Did that cause him to "color" things a bit? In

addition, if you look him up on the internet you will find comments about
him making things up and entering them in his writings. Not speculation he
did such but factually that he did such things.

ALONG WITH THIS:

Analyst <post....@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:

Most of the research was done by Mike Newdow. He had run across this as he
was doing research for his Inauguration prayer suit he filed. He had told
me awhile back that he had heard from The First Federal Congress Project

with regards to another question and they had told him then that there was
no contemporary source for the "So help me God" comment and that it was
probably false.

When I met with Mike, on February 5, 2005, here in Virginia Beach he set

me and two friends to work in the law library at Pat Robertson's Regent U
looking for more info.

Following up on, that after he left Virginia Beach early Feb 6, 2005, I

enlisted a friend who lives in Fla, a USAF Lt Col (Ret) who had far more
patience with online research than I do. I am quite at home with real books
and in real libraries, and while I am getting better with online research I
still get frustrated when I look for something it shows me 5000

possibilities. if it ain't in the first screen screw it. (grin)

Anyways, we proceeded to look for things to fill in some of the gaps in
Mike's data, things he hadn't found yet, or hadn't thought of yet, etc

We have filled in all the gaps except for one item we have to get our hands
on just to double check if Washington Irving was the real source or if the
author of that book invented it. .

As it stands right now we have newspaper articles of the day from several
newspapers, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Hartford, etc.

We have a book that was recommended by Marvin Kranz at the LOC as being

the definitive book on the topic. We have gathered the documents that were
cited in the portion of that book dealing with that day to personally check
them out.

We have copies of the essential pages from the original book making this
claim that was published in the 1850s as well as a map of NY and drawings
of the federal Hall etc

We have a copy of the report sent back to France written by the French
Minister who was on the Balcony. We have what was written by a women who
was on a roof top directly across from the Federal Hall.

>:|What about his successors?

We know for a fact that Lincoln did not say "So help me God." We are still

looking for primary source reports of the Oath taking by other Presidents

There are tons of primary source documentation on inauguration speeches but
the cupboard is pretty bare with regards to publishing the actual wording
of what was said with regards to the oaths.

>:|At what point did

>:|this ad hoc addition to the Constitutionally mandated oath become a part
>:|of the Innaugaral (I know I probably mispelled that :p ) tradition? The
>:|apocraphyl story of Washington is still cited as the beginnings of this,
>:|but your research raises doubts about that. Good work. I never even
>:|considered the issue until I saw your post. Thanks.
***************************************************************************

It is not being anymore detailed than this for Usenet consumption since it
is going to be written up by M. Newdow and submitted for publication in a
law or historical journal. In addition it will be, in time placed, on the
following two web sites that I run:

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[some material is already there]

and

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

>:|but

>:|I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to grant that Washington
>:|in fact did not say the words "so help me God" at the first
>:|inauguration. (Or rather, to be more specific, I am quite willing
>:|to believe there is no comtemporary evidence that he did say
>:|that.)

That is big of you.

>:| I mean, even if I swallow my natural reaction to this

Don't choke.

>:|("So what?"), the *other part* of what you said remains to

>:|be established---namely, that people widely believe Washington
>:|said that. Which people? Where? Where are these people who
>:|widely believe that? Can you give examples of texts that
>:|claim that Washington said it?

Yes I can
However:
It is not being anymore detailed than this for Usenet consumption since it
is going to be written up by M. Newdow and submitted for publication in a
law or historical journal. In addition it will be, in time placed, on the
following two web sites that I run:

>:| Maybe it's one of these things

>:|that gets xeroxed from high-school history text to high-school
>:|history text? Or maybe you think it's something the Christian
>:|right believes---can you cite some tracts by Jerry Falwell or
>:|somesuch showing that such believe it? Anyway, what is your
>:|source for the claim in the first place that this it is
>:|a myth (i.e. something lots of people actually believe) that
>:|George Washington said those words? You *did say*, after all,
>:|that historians have long known otherwise. Wouldn't the burden
>:|of proof then be on you to show that there was any widespread
>:|belief about it at all?

Are you really so improvised as far as knowledge of American History is
concerned, or are you just trying to be cute?
If so impoverished I sincerely hope that you have someone else teach your
children American History

So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites among those listed
below
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me god".
(0.42 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A

>:|If you want a historical myth to debunk, I'll give you one:

I specialize in one area

****************************************************************

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.

This site is a member of the following web rings:

Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

American History WebRing--&--The History Ring

Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring

Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring

****************************************************************

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 12:26:29 PM2/16/05

to

"Ty" <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message

>:|news:omh411luarp0bq2l8...@4ax.com...
>:|> "Ty" <tylawy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|> >:|> That truly is sad.
>:|
>:|> >:|What's said is your myopic obsession with this topic. What happened --
>:|did a
>:|> >:|religious person take your lunch money or something?
>:|
>:|> Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical facts.
>:|
>:|<shrug> Passing myths off as facts doesn't seem to bother most of the
>:|lefties that I've met.

Since you provide nothing to support those words above those words become
pretty irrelevant.

>:|I find it interesting that someone would waste *so* much energy your little
>:|quixotic crusade.

That doesn't surprise me at all.
Facts, truth, etc doesn't appear to interest you.

Ty

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 1:02:53 PM2/16/05

to

<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ua0711ldfged1ac8c...@4ax.com...

> Since you provide nothing to support those words above those words become
> pretty irrelevant.

>>:|I find it interesting that someone would waste *so* much energy your
>>little
>>:|quixotic crusade.

> That doesn't surprise me at all.
> Facts, truth, etc doesn't appear to interest you.

I see some other windmills in the distance. Better hurry!

--Ty

Mike Stone

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 3:02:44 PM2/16/05

to

King George John wrote:
> > Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical
facts.
> > Accuracy, facts, truth has no place in your life, huh? What a pity.
> > Abe Lincoln didn't say "So helpme God" either. As we find out about
the
> > others we will be sure to let you know.
>
> OK, sport.
>
> When did the "myth" begin.
>
> For example, did "W" say "So Help" in 2001?
>
> Did JFK in 1961?
>
> Did Lincoln in 1861?
>
> IOW: Who was the FIRST POTUS to do so and WHY?
>

I had understood (from an Arthur Schlesinger book iirc) that Presidents
before 1933 didn't usually repeat the oath at all. The Chief Justice
read it out, beginning "Do you [name] solemnly swear - -" and the
President simply replied "I do" or similar. FDR, he says, preferred the
repetition and so it has continued. Of course there may have been
exceptions even if that was the norm.

--

Mike Stone, Peterborough, England

"But it can't be true. The government hasn't denied it!"

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 4:00:52 PM2/16/05

to

"Ty" <tylawy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|news:ua0711ldfged1ac8c...@4ax.com...

>:|> "Ty" <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>:|>>:|<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>:|>>:|news:omh411luarp0bq2l8...@4ax.com...
>:|>>:|> "Ty" <tylawy...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|> >:|> That truly is sad.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|> >:|What's said is your myopic obsession with this topic. What
>:|>>happened --
>:|>>:|did a
>:|>>:|> >:|religious person take your lunch money or something?
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|> Oh so you have no problem with myths being passed off as historical
>:|>>facts.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|<shrug> Passing myths off as facts doesn't seem to bother most of the
>:|>>:|lefties that I've met.
>:|
>:|> Since you provide nothing to support those words above those words become
>:|> pretty irrelevant.
>:|
>:|<Irony meter explodes>

The irony is my post pushed a (I must say something) button of yours. Yet,
you haven't really said anything but bull crappy.

The fact of the matter is, those who know me on here know I don't post
historically bogus material. Except for those who harbor bad feeling
because of spankings I have given them in the past, or are trolls, I have a
very good reputation for accuracy, for personally verifying before I post,
etc.

In short, I do my homework and accept it or not I can fully document that
the "So Help me God" is a myth.

A myth, that because it is so incorporated by the religious right in their
propaganda, in their articles, books and other publications, even
mentioned in some court case dicta, has to be exposed as the myth it really
is.

I don't know where you are reading this and posting from the list of
newsgroups reflect history education and christian home-schooling.
if you are posting from a history newsgroup you evidently are totally
comfortable with false history. if from one of the two education groups you
must be ok with teaching false history.

That is a pity

J.Pascal

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 6:32:51 PM2/16/05

to

bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> "Ty" <tybea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(...)

Just as an aside... how did you choose your list of
cross-posts? I had to delete a bunch just so I could
get Google to post.

> >:|I find it interesting that someone would waste *so* much energy
your little
> >:|quixotic crusade.
>
> That doesn't surprise me at all.
> Facts, truth, etc doesn't appear to interest you.

For what it's worth, I read the initial post and thought,
"Hm, that's interesting." And it is interesting, in a
trivial pursuit sort of way. I never met anyone who made
a big deal about George Washington saying "So help me God"
just at that point, but I suppose there are people who do
think this is vitally important, after all, there's all
sorts of people I haven't met. So far (and I could have
missed it) I haven't noticed anyone in this thread who
responded with "Did so!" So what is the argument about?

Is it better to get the details right than to get them
wrong? Absolutely. So thanks much for that little factoid,
and should it ever come up while I am homeschooling my
children I'll be sure to use it to point out how sometimes
textbooks and other sources have errors in them so they
should always take that into account.

That said, I'm as boggled as anyone about the significance
of this particular issue. Something that I've noticed
lately is that one side of an issue will bring up a fact
and when the other side rejects the significance of it
they are accused of rejecting the fact. Or, as you
have done, claim that the other party simply isn't interested
in facts or truth.

The two issues *are* separable. Something can be true
without being significant. I dislike coconut. This is
true but *utterly* insignificant. Should someone think
that I like coconut I will probably take the time to
let them know the truth on the off chance that they might
want to feed me coconut in the future. If someone is
using the myth of "So help me God" to make a point, it's
worth letting them know this is a myth. In the grand
scheme of things it *matters* just about as much as my
food preferences.

-Julie

J.Pascal

unread,

Feb 16, 2005, 7:34:47 PM2/16/05

to

bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> "Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:
>
> >:|
> >:|
> >:| Wednesday, the 16th of February, 2005
> >:|
> >:|bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> >:| Actually this wasn't hard to show it to be a
> >:| myth at all. [snip]
> >:|
> >:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
> >:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.
>
>
> Lame pieces of nonsense, huh?
> Gee guy. There isn't anything lame about it nor is it
> in any manner lame.

I never write anything lame either. Never ever.

> >:|
> >:|Look, I'm not Christian, though I homeschool my
> >:|children and hang out on a newsgroup with many
> >:|homeschoolers who are Christian. I have zero vested
> >:|interest in the question of whether George Washington
> >:|did say "so help me God" or no at the time of the
> >:|First Inauguration.
>
> Good for you. I feel sorry for your children. I say that for a very
simple
> reason. It appears that you have no interest in valid history. You
would
> prefer inaccurate or invalid history.

How does this follow? Did he say he prefered to teach
"So help me God" and didn't care if it was true or not?
I'm sure he teaches as accurate history as possible, and
I have never ever known him to be lax about caring about
facts and what is true or not true. I certainly would
expect him to be on my case if I was making inaccurate
claims about something.

> The fact of the matter is, the myth is bad history. It is also a item
used
> by the Radical religious right and yes, there is a radical religious
right,
> Ultra conservatives, ultra libertarians as "proof" that church state
> separation was not intended by the founders.

Yes, this is what you said. Michael asked you to back up
this statement with citations. If you're trying to prove
this is a problem that he should be worried about you need
to prove this is a problem he should be worried about.

Otherwise the only response called for is, "Oh, thanks for
mentioning that, I'll keep it in mind." You seem to want
more than an acknowledgement that our presidents might not
have said "So help me God."

(An ultra-libertarian is borderline anarchist so why you
think they would promote Church/State *non*separation is,
at the very least,.. interesting.)

> Thus it does become important to point out that that
> particular item is not historical fact.

Only if you prove that your assertions about the threat
of ultra-conservatives and ultra-libertarians and the
radical right is an actual danger and not just your own
personal psychosis.

Truth for truth's sake? Yes. Truth for the sake of beating
back the barbarians at the gate? No. You've got to prove
the barbarians, and a couple of guys in hair-shirts don't
cut it.

-Julie

Michael S. Morris

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 9:20:23 AM2/17/05

to

Thursday, the 17th of February, 2005

bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
Actually this wasn't hard to show it to be a
myth at all. [snip]

I said:
Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

bucky:

Lame pieces of nonsense, huh?
Gee guy. There isn't anything lame
about it nor is it in any manner lame.

Lame, as in halts along to little or no purpose.

I said:
Look, I'm not Christian, though I homeschool my
children and hang out on a newsgroup with many
homeschoolers who are Christian. I have zero vested
interest in the question of whether George Washington
did say "so help me God" or no at the time of the
First Inauguration.

bucky:
Good for you.

Uh-huh.

bucky:

I feel sorry for your children.

You should. Their father is a physicist.

bucky:

I say that for a very simple
reason. It appears that you have no
interest in valid history.

Whoa, Nellie! You have no call to make such an
utterly unwarranted accusation. I have every
interest in accurate history. I have no interest,
however, in joining you with your expressions of
prejudice and political hatred. There is a difference.

bucky:

You would prefer inaccurate or
invalid history.

Let us recall the context here: *You* posted
to misc.education.home-school.christian a piece
claiming 1) it is widely believed that Washington
*did* say "so help me God" at his first inauguration,
and 2) you had debunked this myth. The issue of
vested interest here has nothing whatsoever to do
with accuracy or inaccuracy of history, and everything to
do with why this was posted to such an irrelevant newsgroup.

bucky:

The fact of the matter is, the myth is bad history.

The fact of the matter is, there was no myth here.

bucky:

It is also a item used
by the Radical religious right and
yes, there is a radical religious right,
Ultra conservatives, ultra libertarians
as "proof" that church state separation
was not intended by the founders.

I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble even
parsing that one. Anyway, you think *libertarians*
oppose church-state separation?

Which planet are you from?

bucky:

Thus it does become important to point out
that that particular item is not historical fact.

"Thus", as in "it follows", "it is important", "it is of
relevance to homeschooling", or "education", or "Christianity",
maybe? I don't get it. Seems a non sequitur to me. You utterly
and completely misidentify your political opposition and attribute
to a large number of people a belief shared by only a tiny few,
and even then you post as news something that simply isn't, and
broadcast to the winds of usenet, far beyond the wildest exaggerations
of your own paranoia, and you think you are the one to be
telling me about historical accuracy?

You aren't dealing in historical fact, you are dealing in the
use of an historical factoid as a blunt weapon of contemporary
political hatred.

I said:
However, you started out by asserting you were demolishing
some myth. That is, you were asserting that people
(out there, somewhere) widely believe that Washington
said this, even though historians long have known he didn't.

bucky:

Well actually I didn't say historians knew this. I said that
some at some places such as the LOC and The First Federal
Congress Project knew this.

That does not constitute a cross section of historians.

Fair enough. So, what you asserted is that *some* historians
know this. But you implied some nefarious purpose in their
not having come forward earlier to "debunk the myth". Seems
to me the fact of the case is simply that there is a myth
which to be debunked in the first place is *your bugbear* and not
theirs.

bucky:
Most publications that mention this at all

fall in line saying Washington said "So
help me God."

That seems a sweeping statement. I've seen one publication
so far on the subject---yours---and it says he didn't say it.

No, now make that two publications. I just walked upstairs
and pulled volume three of James Thomas Flexner's 4-volume
biography of Washington off the shelf (_George Washington
and the New Nation 1783-1793_). I turned to Chapter 15,
"The President is Inaugurated". Flexner speaks about the
composition of the inaugural address:
The most remarkable aspect of what Washington
wrote is the depth of its religious tone. He had often
in the past expressed gratitude for the assistance
of Providence to the American cause and had expressed
hope that the boon would be continued. But never before had
he devoted so much---more than a third---of a complicated
pronouncement to religious considerations. That he was
not just striking a popular attitude as a politician might
is revealed by the absence of the usual Christian terms:
he did not mention Christ or even use the word "God".
Following the phraseology of the philosophical Deism he
professed, he referred to "the invisible hand which conducts
the affairs of men," to "the benign parent of the human race."
[page 184]

There is a curious footnote to this paragraph at the bottom of the
page:
That Washington intentionally avoided the word "God"
is strongly indicated by his first Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Having quoted Congress's request that he establish a day
for thanking "Almighty God," in the part of the proclamation
he himself wrote he used other designations.

When we get to the actual swearing-in on page 187, there is no
mention in Flexner of anything about "so help me God".

So, make that two for two publications I have read---your post
and relevant passages of a standard biography dating from 1969---
which agree that Washington did not speak the words "so help
me God" at the swearing-in at the first inauguration.

Your claim that there was this myth in the first place is looking
altogether weaker at this point. As is your claim to be providing
"news" to anyone.

bucky:

There are even some articles written trying
to explain why he would have
said it.

Not only that but there is a general belief
that Washington set the precedence by uttering
those words and that as a result all other
presidents have said them as well.

Except I don't believe it, I didn't believe it,
and the standard biography of Washington first makes it
clear he wouldn't have said it and does not mention
such words at all at the actual swearing-in, which it
quotes in full. So, "general belief" of whom?

bucky:

In other words it is a accepted belief by most
laypeople

Codswallop.

bucky:

and probably a
good many historians and scholars that
George Washington did in fact utter
"So help me God."

Bullshit.

I said:
OK, well, your lack of citation and specific reference to
historical documentation that Washington did or did not say it
doesn't exactly get me all shot up about your veracity,

bucky:

We have all that we need.

I have already posted a general summation of the documentation we
have in a
couple places in this thread, but hey, I'll do it again.

OK, at this juncture, let me say it is fairly obvious to me
Washington did not say "so help me God" at his first inaugural
at the moment of swearing-in. The natural piety of the sentiment
(much like my own non-religious father's "Lord willing the creeks
don't rise") is shot through his First Inaugural Address, so I'm
still not understanding why it should be politically relevant today
whether Washington did or did not say those exact words at the
swearing-in. But, anyway, my point was you had not, at the point of
your first post on misc.education.home-school.christian, backed
up what you were claiming with cites to anything at all. There are
still quite sweeping generalizations you are making which have nothing
but your say-so behind them.

[sketch of citations and argument appreciated and acknowledged, snipped]

bucky:

It is not being anymore detailed than this for Usenet consumption
since it
is going to be written up by M. Newdow and submitted for publication
in a
law or historical journal.

I understand. But, at this point, I'm wondering why an historical
journal would be interested, since it looks to me like you are saying
nothing the standard biography doesn't already say.

I said:
but I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to grant that Washington
in fact did not say the words "so help me God" at the first
inauguration. (Or rather, to be more specific, I am quite willing
to believe there is no comtemporary evidence that he did say
that.)

bucky:

That is big of you.

You had provided no evidence of your claim, while at the same time
you were making or implying other claims that were patently false.
So, not arguing about this point (which I told you at the time
I had no vested interest in) was simply suspending judgment.

Having checked with Flexner, I'm happy with claim. I'm
also happy with my original suspicion that it isn't news
to almost anyone of any serious scholarship who might
have ever gotten interested in the question. Washington
Irving was a notorious mythologizer of matters historical
and biographical (cf. Justin Winsor's _Christopher Columbus_).

I said:
I mean, even if I swallow my natural reaction to this

bucky:
Don't choke.

You just don't get it, do you?

I said:
("So what?"),

It ain't some sort of disdain "for historical
accuaracy", it's disdain for the crusading use
you are trying to put it to. Those few people
who *do* think Washington said "so help me God"
and who wish to make something of it are exactly at
the level of "use of history" you are asking your
readers to descend to. No thanks.

I said:
the *other part* of what you said remains to
be established---namely, that people widely believe Washington
said that. Which people? Where? Where are these people who
widely believe that? Can you give examples of texts that
claim that Washington said it?

bucky:

Yes I can
However:
It is not being anymore detailed than this for Usenet consumption
since it
is going to be written up by M. Newdow and submitted for publication
in a
law or historical journal. In addition it will be, in time placed,
on the
following two web sites that I run:

Hmm. So, I pull off the standard biography of Washington
from my shelf. (Well, I wish I had a copy of Freeman's
as well, but Flexner is more recent.) And Flexner very clearly
militates against any such thing as "Washington said it".
Moreover, Flexner gives evidence that, at least in 1969,
there was no such thing as a myth or widespread belief
that Washington did say it, else Flexner would have been
at some pains to stress that Washington didn't say it.
I.e., it was a non-issue.

I said:
Maybe it's one of these things
that gets xeroxed from high-school history text to high-school
history text? Or maybe you think it's something the Christian
right believes---can you cite some tracts by Jerry Falwell or
somesuch showing that such believe it? Anyway, what is your
source for the claim in the first place that this it is
a myth (i.e. something lots of people actually believe) that
George Washington said those words? You *did say*, after all,
that historians have long known otherwise. Wouldn't the burden
of proof then be on you to show that there was any widespread
belief about it at all?

bucky:

Are you really so improvised as far as knowledge of
American History is concerned, or are you just trying to be cute?
If so impoverished I sincerely hope that you have someone
else teach your children American History

Flexner, bucky. Kind of substantiates my response to your
post, doesn't it? There is no "myth" as you claimed
there to be, never was. The standard biography on the
subject makes clear that your "news" is no news at all.
And the straw man you are arguing against is just some
unedited ravings by some lunatic fringe you can find
anywhere on usenet on any topic.

bucky:

So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites
among those listed below
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me
god".
(0.42 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A

My point exactly.

I said:
If you want a historical myth to debunk, I'll give you one:

bucky:
I specialize in one area [...]

Yep. "Specialize"? Well, at least you didn't try and
claim to me here that it's history you specialize in.

I probably would have skipped responding to you in
the first place had you merely said "I specialize in
setting up as a straw man any damn fool thing ever said
by any member of the religious right, ascribing it as
a widespread belief among the VWRC ("vast right-wing
conspiracy") and labeling it as "a myth" so I can
pretend to be doing original research when I recycle
standard scholarship on the subject."

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 10:11:45 AM2/17/05

to

"J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:

>:|bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>:|> "Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:| Wednesday, the 16th of February, 2005
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>:|> >:| Actually this wasn't hard to show it to be a
>:|> >:| myth at all. [snip]
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
>:|> >:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> Lame pieces of nonsense, huh?
>:|> Gee guy. There isn't anything lame about it nor is it
>:|> in any manner lame.
>:|
>:|I never write anything lame either. Never ever.
>:|
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Look, I'm not Christian, though I homeschool my
>:|> >:|children and hang out on a newsgroup with many
>:|> >:|homeschoolers who are Christian. I have zero vested
>:|> >:|interest in the question of whether George Washington
>:|> >:|did say "so help me God" or no at the time of the
>:|> >:|First Inauguration.
>:|>
>:|> Good for you. I feel sorry for your children. I say that for a very
>:|simple
>:|> reason. It appears that you have no interest in valid history. You
>:|would
>:|> prefer inaccurate or invalid history.
>:|
>:|How does this follow?

It follows by his opening.

I give what I get. This is what I received from a person who doesn't know
me, has at best a very short general summation of the facts and documented
evidence we have accumulated, and based on his own comments apparently
hasn't a clue just how much this incorrect story is part of the American
consciousness.

I was born at a time when the prime family entertainment was to sit around
the radio at night listening to "The Shadow," "The Lone Ranger,"
"Fibbermcgee and Molly," "Our Miss Brooks," "Amos and Andy," "Jack Benny,"
etc. FDR was in his third term as President and we were maybe half way
through a world war.

I recall being taught in American History in school that George Washington
said "So Help me God" thus setting a precedence that every President has
followed ever since then.

His opening was

>:|> >:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
>:|> >:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

That set the tone and I followed his tone as well.

>:| Did he say he prefered to teach

>:|"So help me God" and didn't care if it was true or not?

He said it was lame and nonsense.

>:|I'm sure he teaches as accurate history as possible, and

>:|I have never ever known him to be lax about caring about
>:|facts and what is true or not true.

Then I suggest you ask him why he put on a insulting attacking hat and said
the following:

>:|> >:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
>:|> >:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

I suggest you ask him what it was about the original post on this topic
that pushed his *** I have to reply and I have to do so in a insulting,
rude attack the messenger manner. ***

>:|I certainly would

>:|expect him to be on my case if I was making inaccurate
>:|claims about something.

I made no inaccurate claims in my original post or in my follow up post
that he was actually replying to.

You did note that he snipped all of that. There are reasons people snip
things. Ask him why he snipped it.
And just in case you didn't see it here is what he snipped:

Page 142

==========================================================

ALONG WITH THIS:

Analyst <post....@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:

>:|What about his successors?

and

*********************************************************************
The above elicited this from him

>:|> >:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
>:|> >:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

Does anything else really need to be said?

>:|
>:|> The fact of the matter is, the myth is bad history. It is also a item

What he actually said was this:

>:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
>:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

>:|However, you started out by asserting you were demolishing
>:|some myth. That is, you were asserting that people
>:|(out there, somewhere) widely believe that Washington
>:|said this, even though historians long have known he didn't.

>:|>:|OK, well, your lack of citation and specific reference to

>:|historical documentation that Washington did or did not say it
>:|doesn't exactly get me all shot up about your veracity,

>:|but

>:|I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to grant that Washington
>:|in fact did not say the words "so help me God" at the first
>:|inauguration. (Or rather, to be more specific, I am quite willing
>:|to believe there is no comtemporary evidence that he did say
>:|that.)

>:| I mean, even if I swallow my natural reaction to this

>:|("So what?"), the *other part* of what you said remains to
>:|be established---namely, that people widely believe Washington
>:|said that. Which people? Where? Where are these people who
>:|widely believe that? Can you give examples of texts that
>:|claim that Washington said it?

>:| Maybe it's one of these things

>:|that gets xeroxed from high-school history text to high-school
>:|history text? Or maybe you think it's something the Christian
>:|right believes---can you cite some tracts by Jerry Falwell or
>:|somesuch showing that such believe it? Anyway, what is your
>:|source for the claim in the first place that this it is
>:|a myth (i.e. something lots of people actually believe) that
>:|George Washington said those words? You *did say*, after all,
>:|that historians have long known otherwise. Wouldn't the burden
>:|of proof then be on you to show that there was any widespread
>:|belief about it at all?

>:|If you want a historical myth to debunk, I'll give you one:
********************************************************************
Rude crude patronizing, etc. Not a good way to approach another in order to
ask for additional information.

>:|
>:|Otherwise the only response called for is, "Oh, thanks for

>:|mentioning that, I'll keep it in mind." You seem to want
>:|more than an acknowledgement that our presidents might not
>:|have said "So help me God."

You're a mind reader or a psychic? How about a winning lottery number?

If he felt he needed to reply at all the above you suggested was just fine.
Remember, he replied to my reply to another where a general overview of the
data we had was given.

>:|(An ultra-libertarian is borderline anarchist so why you

>:|think they would promote Church/State *non*separation is,
>:|at the very least,.. interesting.)

>:|

Really well let me put it to you this way.
While there maybe be many who would be quite different in the 10 years I
have been on Usenet, those who identify themselves as strongly libertarian
seem for some rally odd reason to be very hard to tell apart from the
radical religious right and the ultra conservatives, and that included the
area of church state. now maybe they are misidentifying themselves. I have
no way nor any desire to check them out, or even know how to go about such.
In addition to that, there are a fair number of so called "militia" groups
who profess to be libertarians and also claim to be right wing as far as
religion is concerned.
Radicals, extreme, yep, representative of all, nope, which is why I added
the extra words radical and ultra, etc. That separated them from those that
do not fit into that "mold"

>:|> Thus it does become important to point out that that

>:|> particular item is not historical fact.
>:|

>:|Only if you prove that your assertions about the threat
>:|of ultra-conservatives and ultra-libertarians and the
>:|radical right is an actual danger and not just your own
>:|personal psychosis.

LOL, ahh it's not and your agreement to that isn't required in any manner
or form.

>:|Truth for truth's sake? Yes. Truth for the sake of beating

>:|back the barbarians at the gate? No. You've got to prove
>:|the barbarians, and a couple of guys in hair-shirts don't
>:|cut it.

Actually he didn't refer to those items at all. That appears to be the
horse you are riding.

However, I will offer you the following, not that it matters.

So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites among those listed
below
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me god".
(0.42 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A

along with this which I don't expect you to agree with at all but your
agreement isn't rebuttal.

Got to
Hampton Roads Separation of Church and State Yahoo Group
HRSepCnS - Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

MESSAGES THAT PERTAIN TO RECONSTRUCTIONIST/DOMINIONS OR THEOCRATS
IN GENERAL (With a few other interesting items )

Msg #5 Christian Nation or Medieval Coup to Overturn Our Constitution? Or
Both?

Mag #41 DOMINION SERIES: #1. The Despoiling of America
Msg #42 dominion series #2. A Review of The Despoiling of America
Msg #68 DOMINION SERIES #3 RECONSTRUCTIONISTS info about
Msg #76 Theocracy vs. Democracy in America
Msg #101 Re: Scalia says judges should look to tradition;
Msg #103 Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
Msg #105 Scalia's ideas/words
Msg #110 Re: Scalia's ideas/words
Msg #111 Re: Scalia's ideas/words
Msg #112 Religion on Trial: How Supreme Court Trends Threaten Freedom
of Conscience America
Msg #117 Justice Clarence Thomas with a score of 0 percent.
Msg #126 AU VA Chapter Reading Recommendation
Msg #128 NY Times: Battered Constitution
Msg #131 Sekulow v Newdow
Msg #132 Check Photo section
Msg #133 A day with Mike
Msg #138 The rapture index is one point below the critical threshold
Msg #139 "Our Godless Constitution" by Brooke Allen
Msg #147 Virginia House Passes Amendment Erasing Church-State Protections
Msg # 148 DOMINION SERIES: #4
Msg# 149 Dominion Series #5
Msg# 150 Dominion Series #6
Msg# 151 The 25 most influential Evangelicals in America

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 10:16:19 AM2/17/05

to

"Dave" <dl...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>:|And how is this "breaking news?" Care to elaborate on where you learned
>:|the truth?

Madison ave 101 get people's attention, however it can also be thought of
as breaking news when something as ingrained in the American consciousness
was is shown to be a myth.

Where?
it began with a question and answer by someone from the First Federal
Congress Project Then a question posed to a scholar at the LOC and his
answer along with his recommendation for a specific book.

Cites from that book led to other sources, books a few online sources. At
various points along this journey primary source documentation was
discovered such as journals and newspapers of the day,

Bottom line is this.
There is no contemporary evidence to support that Washington ever spoke
those words.

The first time such report of him saying such appeared, it appeared in a
book that was written and published in the 1850s
The book was written by someone who had a factual reputation for playing
loose with facts etc in some of his writings

The story is suppose to have been toold to that author by a eye witness to
the events of that day. However, that eyewitness was only a couple weeks
beyond his 6th birthday at the time of the events and from his own account
was a block or more away from the location of the swearing in and had a
angle of sight that would not have permitted him to see anything really let
along hear what was being said in a day before mics, loudspeakers even
megaphones or horns.

In addtion,,first hand accounts from people either on the very balcony the
swearing in was talking place or directly across the street from the second
floor balcony on rook tops do not mention any suck words being spoken. No
journal entries of the day or newspaper reports report any such words being
spoken.

Anytime any mention of him saying "So help me God" is given in history
books or other such places and there is ever a cite given for that it is
that book mentioned above written and published in the 1850s. No other
cites is ever given. So that book is considered to be the source for the
story of him saying those words (usually no cite is ever given).

That gives a pretty good general summation of the actual evidence.

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 11:32:15 AM2/17/05

to

"J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:

So trivial that you feel you need to reply twice. Guess What, actions
speak louder than words and your actions seem pretty odd for such a trivial
thing.

>:|I never met anyone who made

>:|a big deal about George Washington saying "So help me God"
>:|just at that point, but I suppose there are people who do
>:|think this is vitally important, after all, there's all
>:|sorts of people I haven't met.

Notice how trivial this is:

So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites among those listed
below
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me god".
(0.42 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A

Results 1 - 10 of about 259,000 for so help me god proves this is a
christian nation. (10.12 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=so+help+me+god+proves+this+is+a+christian+nation&spell=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680 for sekulow washington so help me god. (0.43
seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sekulow+washington+so+help+me+god&spell=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 86,800 for Pat Robertson washington so help me god.
(0.25 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Pat+Robertson++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 343,000 for James kennedy washington so help me
god. (0.35 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=James+kennedy++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 656,000 for US supreme court washington so help me
god. (0.26 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+supreme+court+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 472,000 for US federal courts washington so help me
god. (0.34 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=religious+right+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,880,000 for religious right washington so help me
god. (0.43 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+federal+courts++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,290,000 for history washington so help me god.
(0.57 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=history+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

***********************************************************************************************

>:| So far (and I could have

>:|missed it) I haven't noticed anyone in this thread who
>:|responded with "Did so!" So what is the argument about?

I replied to several people including you. They/you seemed to have a
problem with my original post. So I suggest you ask yourself and them what
the "argument" is about. After all you/they felt the need to reply.

I posted information. That is what I do. I don't care if anyone replies or
not. There were some people who replied. Some thanked me for the
information, some thought it was interesting, some were the usual trolls
that one runs into frequently.
The other fella felt compelled to reply to tell me it was lame and nonsense
and you both seem to feel compelled to reply to tell me how trivial it is,
yet your actions say the opposite.

As far as newsgroups I usually don't have a clue which particular
newsgroup, of the ones the messages was posted in, a person who might reply
might be replying from.

>:|Is it better to get the details right than to get them

>:|wrong? Absolutely. So thanks much for that little factoid,
>:|and should it ever come up while I am homeschooling my
>:|children I'll be sure to use it to point out how sometimes
>:|textbooks and other sources have errors in them so they
>:|should always take that into account.

Great.

>:|
>:|That said, I'm as boggled as anyone about the significance
>:|of this particular issue.

So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites among those listed

below
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me god".
(0.42 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A

Results 1 - 10 of about 259,000 for so help me god proves this is a
christian nation. (10.12 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=so+help+me+god+proves+this+is+a+christian+nation&spell=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680 for sekulow washington so help me god. (0.43
seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sekulow+washington+so+help+me+god&spell=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 86,800 for Pat Robertson washington so help me god.
(0.25 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Pat+Robertson++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 343,000 for James kennedy washington so help me
god. (0.35 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=James+kennedy++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 656,000 for US supreme court washington so help me
god. (0.26 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+supreme+court+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 472,000 for US federal courts washington so help me
god. (0.34 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=religious+right+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,880,000 for religious right washington so help me
god. (0.43 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+federal+courts++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,290,000 for history washington so help me god.
(0.57 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=history+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

***********************************************************************************************

I forgot one

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . On 23 April, for example, a committee made up of Richard Henry Lee,
Ralph Izard, and Tristram Dalton was appointed to work out the details for
inaugurating the new president.(27) This committee had apparently received
instructions concerning Washington's wishes about the ceremony.(28) Whether
these instructions included any mention of a church service is unclear. It
is clear, however, that Lee's committee decided to include divine service
as an official part of the inauguration exercises. . .
On the morning of the twenty-seventh Richard Henry Lee's committee
submitted the following report: "Resolved That after the oath shall have
been administered to the President, he, attended by the Vice-President, and
members of the Senate, and House of Representatives, proceed to St. Paul's
Chapel, to hear divine service, to be performed by the chaplain of Congress
already appointed."(29)
This resolution prompted considerable dissent on the Senate floor
and led Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania to note in his diary:
`Lee offered a motion to the Chair that after the President was sworn ...
the Congress should accompany him to Saint Paul's Church and attend divine
service. This had been agitated in Joint Committee. But Lee said expressly
that they would not agree to it. I opposed it as an improper business after
it had been in the hands of the Joint Committee and rejected, as I thought
this a certain method of creating a dissension between the Houses. Izard
got up in great wrath and stuttered that the far? was not so. He, however,
would say nothing more. I made an effort to rise. The Vice-President
hurried the question and it was put and carried by the churchman.'(30)
It is unclear whether Maclay meant "churchman," as he wrote,
or churchmen. The second choice is more probable in light of
Clarence Bowen's contention that the "question of holding services
on the day of the inauguration had been agitated by the clergymen
in town."(31) . . .
In spite of Senator Maclay's objections the Senate passed the
resolution concerning divine service and sent it to the House for
concurrence. On 29 April, one day before the inauguration, the House passed
the resolution, . . .
A Ceremonial Pattern. It was the ceremonial pattern of the English
coronation with which Lee and his committee members were most Familiar. The
coronation, however, was not really "a civil but an important religious
ceremony."(36) Indeed, it was none other than the archbishop of Canterbury
who placed the crown upon the head of King George III in 1761. Prayers were
an integral part of the coronation service in England.(37) It was only
natural that men who were familiar with English protocol should seek to
imitate, at least in part, this most impressive of ceremonials.(38)
Of course, not everyone in America was enamored with kingly
ceremony or other rituals which smelled of royalty. The well-known debate
over the proper title for the new leader demonstrated the strong
convictions which this issue engendered. Some congressmen, like Maclay of
Pennsylvania, not only objected to bestowing a special title on the leader
but also found ceremonies in general objectionable. Maclay recorded his
unreserved views on this subject in his diary. "I have had full opportunity
of observing the gentlemen of New England," he wrote, "and sorry indeed am
I to say it, but no people in the Union dwell more on trivial distinctions
and matters of mere form. They really seem to show a readiness to stand on
punctillio and ceremony."(39)
Compared to the coronation of King George in 1761, Washington's
first inauguration was anything but ceremonious. On the day of the
inauguration the joint committee appointed to escort the new leader to
Federal Hall arrived at Washington's place of residence more than an hour
late. While the escort was in route, Chancellor Robert Livingston
discovered that there was no Bible at Federal Hall. An aide ran to St.
John's Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons to secure a copy of the holy book.
When Washington arrived at Federal Hall there was more confusion. No one
had planned the last few steps leading up to the administering of the oath.
Finally, Washington took matters into his own hands and, along with
Samuel Otis and Robert Livingston, stepped out onto the balcony overlooking
the crowd.
Washington placed his hand on the Bible and repeated the oath of
office. "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of
the President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability:
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. As the
last word still lingered in the air, Washington added spontaneously, "I
swear, so help me God." The impromptu phrase did not, however, originate
with Washington. The new president borrowed this response, it seems, from
the English coronation service.(40) Following the administering of the oath
to the king, the newly-crowned sovereign would kneel at the altar and place
his hands upon the Bible. He would then say, "The things which I have
here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God."(41)
The sovereign of England would then kiss the Bible. This was exactly what
Washington did following his impromptu exclamation.
Inside St. Paul's Chapel. Following the administering of the oath,
Washington walked with the members of the House and Senate to St. Paul's
Chapel as the congressional resolution directed. Inside the church Bishop
Provoost, chaplain of the United States Senate, read prayers from the
"Proposed" Rook of Common Prayer. Whether it is true that Washington
listened to the same prayers which he "had heard since his boyhood days in
the church at Fredericksburg"(42) is unclear. The "Proposed" Book had been
formulated in 1786 and contained many changes from the English Book of
Common Prayer. . .
According to Douglas Freeman, "Doctor Provoost did not preach a
sermon,"(46) but simply read from the prayer book. . . After singing the Te
Deum, Washington entered his carriage and was driven to his residence. A
tradition of linking prayer and politics with pomp and pageantry had been
initiated, but its second birthday would not occur until nearly a century
and a half later.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: From Duche to Provoost: The birth of Inaugural
Prayer, by Martin J. Medhurst. Journal of Church and State, Volume 24,
Autumn 1982, Number 3, pp 573-588)

**********************************************
The author of the above even spent some time trying to offer a reason that
Washington would do that since it was so odd that he did that
************************************************************************************

A Ceremonial Pattern. It was the ceremonial pattern of the English
coronation with which Lee and his committee members were most familiar. The
coronation, however, was not really "a civil but an important religious
ceremony." 36 Indeed, it was none other than the archbishop of Canterbury
who placed the crown upon the head of King George III in 1761. Prayers were
an integral part of the coronation service in England. 37 It was only
natural that men who were familiar with English protocol should seek to
imitate, at least in part, this most impressive of ceremonials 38

Of course, not everyone in America was enamored with kingly
ceremony or other rituals which smelled of royalty. The well known debate
over the proper title for the new leader demonstrated the strong
convictions which this issue engendered. Some con-

34. Gale, The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress, 1:241.
35. The House did not select a chaplain until 1 May, the day after the
inauguration. They elected the Reverend William Linn.
36. W, J, Passingham, ! History of the Coronation (London: n.p., n.d.), p.
18.
37. At the coronation of King George III in 1761 no less than six prayers
were read as part of the service. For a detailed description of this
service as well as the complete texts of the prayers offered see Richard
Thomson, ed., A Faithful Account of the Processions and Ceremonies
Observed in the Coronation of the Kings and Queens of England (London:
n.p., 1820), pp. 48-62.
38. For other aspects of the English coronation see B. Wilkerson, The
Coronation in History (London: George Philip and Son, 1953); William Jones,
Crowns and Coronations (London: Chattoand Windus, 1883); Lewis Broad,
Queens, Crowns and Coronations (London: Hutchin-son and Co., 1952); the
Reverend Robert H. Murray, The King's Crowning (London: John Murray, 1936);
and E. C. Ratcliff, The English Coronation Service (London: Skeffington and
Son, 1937).

586
gressmen, like Maclay of Pennsylvania, not only objected to bestowing a
special title on the leader but also found ceremonies in general
objectionable. Maclay recorded his unreserved views on this subject in his
diary. "I have had full opportunity of observing the gentlemen of New
England," he wrote, "and sorry indeed am I to say it, but no people in the
Union dwell more on trivial distinctions and matters of mere form. They
ready seem to show a readiness to stand on punctillio and ceremony. 39

Compared to the coronation of King George in 1761, Washington's
first inauguration was anything but ceremonious. On the day, of the
inauguration the joint committee appointed to escort the new leader to
Federal Hall arrived at Washington's place of residence more than an hour
late. While the escort was in route, Chancellor Robert Livingston
discovered that there was no Bible at Federal Hall. An aide ran to St.
John's Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons to secure a copy of the holy book.
When Washington arrived at Federal Hall there was more confusion. No one
had planned the last few steps leading up to the administering of the oath.
Finally, Washington took matters into his own hands and, along with Samuel
Otis and Robert Livingston, stepped out onto the balcony overlooking the
crowd.

Washington placed his hand on the Bible and repeated the oath of
office. "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of
the President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." As
the last word still lingered in the air, Washington added spontaneously, "I
swear, so help me God." The impromptu phrase did not, however, originate
with Washington. The new president borrowed this response, it seems, from
the English coronation service. 40 Following the administering of the oath
to the king, the newly-crowned sovereign would kneel at the altar and place
his hands upon the Bible. He would then say, "The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God." 41

39. Maclay, Journal, p. 5.
40. Though "so help me God" was a common expression associated with the
taking of an oath, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the
antecedent rhetorical form was the coronation service. First, Washington
not only spoke the words used in the coronation, but he also followed the
words by kissing the Bible, just as George III did in 1761. These words
and actions had been associated with the coronation since the installation
of James I in 1603 (see Jones, Crownrand Coronations, chap. 8). Second, the
man most responsible for making the inaugural preparations, Richard Henry
Lee, was familiar with the coronation service and thus would have known the
correct procedure. Since Lee was at the center of the fight to include
divine service as part of the inauguration, it is not unreasonable to
hypothesize his influence on these "religious" elements which served as an
addendum to the oath.
41. See Thomson, ed., A Faithful Account, p. 55.

587

'I'he sovereign of England would then kiss the Bible. This was exactly what
Washington did following his impromptu exclamation.
SOURCE: From Duche' to Provost: The Birth of Inaugural Prayer. Martin J.
Medhurst pp. 573 -588 . Journal of Church and State Volume 24 Autumn
1982, Number 3
************************************************************************************
However the above is flawed in that there is no actual evidence that
Washington did utter those words.

Now just for general principles let me add this other small item:

To: me
Subject: Unbelievable!!!
From: Mike Newdow
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:25:05 EST

You're going to love this.

I just heard back from the First Federal Congress Project (do you know
them) regarding oaths. It turns out that the claims that Washington added
"... so help me God" to his first oath are uncorroborated, and probably
incorrect!

Were you aware of this?

I asked for some more documentation.

- Mike
***************************************************************************
To: Me
Subject: Re: Unbelievable!!!
From: Mike Newdow
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:12:10 EST

>I do believe I have some primary source data here that says otherwise

According to them, the only contemporary source is some Frenchman, who said
nothing about "so help me God." They say the first thing stating otherwise
is a secondhand report from someone who was eight years old in 1789. (I
asked for the material.) What do you have that says otherwise?

As I wrote to her:

I've always wondered about that. Here's this fellow who - by all accounts
I've read - was very deliberate and rarely (if ever) spontaneous, who had
just presided over the Constitutional Convention. He was the guy in charge
of the whole thing, who watched as they debated each and every clause. He
knows that 55 men agreed on the only oath in the document - the oath he
was taking - and must have been aware of the fact that it didn't include
"... so help me God." Now he's going to alter that? It doesn't make sense
at all.

- M
**********************************************************************************

**********************************************************
PRELIMINARY REPLY BY ME

OATHS
FOUNDERS AND CREATIVE PEOPLE LATER

1787
WHAT DID THE FOUNDERS WANT OR ESTABLISH?

CONGRESS REMOVED GOD -- A LESSON IN "ORIGINAL INTENT."

You run into people on here like the usual trolls that say things like the
founders would have approved of "under God" and "in God we trust," etc but
I say. NOT SO FAST

You never hear those folks ever mention this:

MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1789

DANIEL Carroll, from Maryland, appeared and took his seat.
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a hill to regulate the
taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by the sixth article of the
Constitution and that Messrs. White, Madison, Trumbull, Gilman, and
Cadwalader, do prepare and bring in the same.
On motion, General Government of the United States;
Resolved, That the form of the oath to he taken by the members of
this house, as required by the third clause of the sixth article of the
government of the United States be as followeth, to wit.
"I, A B, a Representative of the United States in the Congress
thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) in the presence
of Almighty GOD, that I will support the Constitution of the United
States. So help me God,"
SOURCE: Gales & Seaton's Annals of Congress, First Federal Congress, First
Sesson, House of Representatives, April 6, 1789, p. 101
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage

ARTICLE VI - CLAUSE III

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath
or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States.

(The very first statute passed by the United States Congress June 1, 1789)

STATUTE 1

CHAPTER I.- An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain
Oaths.

SEC. l . Be it enacted by the Senate and [House of] Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the oath or
affirmation required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United
States, shall be administered in the form following, to wit:

" I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I
will support the Constitution of the United States."

The said oath or affirmation shall be
administered within three days after the passing of this act, by any one
member of the Senate, to the President of the Senate, and by him to all the
members and to the secretary; and by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to all the members who have not taken a similar oath, by
virtue of a particular resolution of the said House, and to the clerk: and
in case of the absence of any member from the service of either House, at
the time prescribed for taking the said oath or affirmations, the same
shall be administered to such member, when he shall appear to take his
seat.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That at the first session of
Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath or
affirmation aforesaid, shall be administered by any one member of the House
of Representatives to the Speaker; and by him to all the members present,
and to the clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the
members who shall afterwards appear, previous to taking their seats. The
President of the Senate for the time being, shall also administer the said
oath or affirmation to each Senator who shall hereafter be elected,
previous to his taking his seat: and in any future case of a President of
the Senate, who shall not have taken the said oath or affirmation, the same
shall be administered to him by any one of the members of the Senate.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the members of the several
State legislatures, at the next sessions of the said legislatures;
respectively, and all executive and judicial officers of the several
States, who have been heretofore chosen or appointed, or who shall be
chosen or appointed before the first day of August next, and who shall then
be in. office, shall, within one month thereafter, take the same oath or
affirmation, except where they shall have taken it before; which may be
administered by any person authorized by the law of the State, in which
such office shall be holden, to administer oaths. And the members of the
several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the
several States, who. shall be chosen or appointed after the said first day
of August, shall; before they proceed to execute the duties of their
respective offices, take the foregoing oath or affirmation, which shall be
administered by the person or persons, who by the law of the State shall be
authorized to administer the oath of office; and the person or persons so
administering the oath hereby required to be taken, shall cause a record or
certificate thereof to be made, in the same manner, as, by the law of the
State, he or they shall be directed to record or certify the oath of
office.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That all officers appointed, or
hereafter to be appointed under the authority of the United States, shall,
before they act in their respective offices; take the same oath or
affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons who shall
be authorized by law to administer to such officers their respective. oaths
of office; and such officers shall incur the same penalties in case of
failure,as shall be imposed by law in case of failure in taking their
respective oaths of office.
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the secretary of the
Senate, and the clerk of the House of Representatives for the time being,
shall, at the time of taking the oath or affirmation aforesaid, each take
an oath or affirmation in the words following, to wit: °'
I, A. B. secretary of the Senate, or clerk of the House of
Representatives (as the case may be) of the United States of America, do
solemnly swear or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully discharge
the duties of my said office, to the best of my knowledge and abilities."
APPROVED, June 1, 1789.
SOURCE: The Laws of the United States, Acts of the First Congress of the
United States, The Public Statutes at Large, Vol I., Little and Brown
(1845) pp, 23-24.
=================================================
Now a side story to this that I will spend some time researching to find
out what there is in the historical record regarding any debates over this
matter if there were any. Who proposed the following wording if it can be
determined, etc.

Federal Judiciary Act (1789)
Page URL: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=12&page=transcript

Congress of the United States, begun and held at the City of New York on
Wednesday the fourth of March one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

CHAP. XX.–An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.

SEC. 7. And be it [further] enacted, That the Supreme Court, and the
district courts shall have power to appoint clerks for their respective
courts, and that the clerk for each district court shall be clerk also of
the circuit court in such district, and each of the said clerks shall,
before he enters upon the execution of his office, take the following oath
or affirmation, to wit:

"I, A. B., being appointed clerk of , do solemnly swear, or affirm,
that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees,
judgments and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office,
according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God."

[CAP EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME]
WHICH WORDS SO HELP ME GO, SHALL BE OMMITTED IN
ALL CASES WHERE AN AFFIRMATION IS ADMITTED INSTEAD
OF AN OATH. And the said clerks shall also severally give bond, with
sufficient sureties, (to be approved of by the Supreme and district courts
respectively) to the United States, in the sum of two thousand dollars,
faithfully to discharge the duties of his office, and seasonably to record
the decrees, judgments and determinations of the court of which he is
clerk.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court,
and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their
respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit:
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer
justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to
the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform
all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities
and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United
States. So help me God."

SEC. 27. And be it further enacted, That a marshal shall be appointed in
and for each district for the term of four years, but shall be removable
from office at pleasure, whose duty it shall be to attend the district and
circuit courts when sitting therein, and also the Supreme Court in the
District in which that court shall sit. And to execute throughout the
district, all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the
authority of the United States, and he shall have power to command all
necessary assistance in the execution of his duty, and to appoint as there
shall be occasion, one or more deputies, who shall be removable from office
by the judge of the district court, or the circuit court sitting within the
district, at the pleasure of either; and before he enters on the duties of
his office, he shall become bound for the faithful performance of the same,
by himself and by his deputies before the judge of the district court to
the United States, jointly and severally, with two good and sufficient
sureties, inhabitants and freeholders of such district, to be approved by
the district judge, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and shall take
before said judge, as shall also his deputies, before they enter on the
duties of their appointment, the following oath of office:

"I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will faithfully
execute all lawful precepts directed to the marshal of the district of
under the authority of the United States, and true returns make, and in all
things well and truly, and without malice or partiality, perform the duties
of the office of marshal (or marshal's deputy, as the case may be) of the
district of , during my continuance in said office, and take only my lawful
fees. So help me God."

WHAT HAVE CREATIVE POLITICIANS DONE SINCE THEN?

http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly48.asp
CONGRESS
What is the specific oath-of-office taken by Members of Congress? Do they
have to take it? Columbus, OH - 5/3/00

The Constitution requires that Senators and Representatives take an oath of
office to support the Constitution (Article VI, clause 3). The specific
language of the oath is set by statute enacted by Congress (5 U.S.C. 3331),
and has changed several times since 1789. It now reads:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I am about to enter. So help me God.

U.S. law requires that Members must be sworn before they can take their
seats (2 U.S.C. 21, 25). House rules prohibit a Member from voting or
introducing a bill until he/she has taken the oath.

The oath is administered to Members-elect on the opening day of each new
Congress. In the House, the Speaker administers the oath to all the Members
present in the chamber en-masse. Members absent on opening day take the
oath later from the Speaker, or another House officer or local justice
designated by the Speaker. In the Senate, the oath is administered by the
President of the Senate (the Vice-President of the U.S.), or a Senator is
designated to give the oath in his stead. Senators come forward to take the
oath in alphabetical order in groups of four.

CONCLUSIONS
Some members of the First Session of the First Federal Congress wanted the
oath for office to be as follows:

"I, A B, a Representative of the United States in the Congress
thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) in the presence
of Almighty GOD, that I will support the Constitution of the United
States. So help me God,"

However, the oath for office that was actually passed by those men of that
First Session of the First Federal Congress was as follows:

" I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I
will support the Constitution of the United States."

and

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the secretary of the
Senate, and the clerk of the House of Representatives for the time being,
shall, at the time of taking the oath or affirmation aforesaid, each take
an oath or affirmation in the words following, to wit: °'
I, A. B. secretary of the Senate, or clerk of the House of
Representatives (as the case may be) of the United States of America, do
solemnly swear or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully discharge the
duties of my said office, to the best of my knowledge and abilities."

and the oaths for

the Supreme Court, and the district courts clerks take the following oath
or affirmation, to wit:

"I, A. B., being appointed clerk of , do solemnly swear, or affirm,
that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees,
judgments and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office,
according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God."

[CAP EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME]
WHICH WORDS SO HELP ME GOD, SHALL BE OMITTED IN
ALL CASES WHERE AN AFFIRMATION IS ADMITTED INSTEAD
OF AN OATH.
.
The justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, shall take the
following oath or affirmation, to wit:
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer
justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to
the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform
all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities
and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United
States. So help me God."

That a marshal also his deputies, the following oath of office:

"I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will faithfully
execute all lawful precepts directed to the marshal of the district of
under the authority of the United States, and true returns make, and in all
things well and truly, and without malice or partiality, perform the duties
of the office of marshal (or marshal's deputy, as the case may be) of the
district of , during my continuance in said office, and take only my lawful
fees. So help me God."

The following would have to apply in each of the above cases and I am
willing to bet still applies to this very day otherwise there is a very
clear violation of the Constitution.

[CAP EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME]
WHICH WORDS SO HELP ME GOD, SHALL BE OMITTED IN
ALL CASES WHERE AN AFFIRMATION IS ADMITTED INSTEAD
OF AN OATH.
COMPARE CLOSELY
1787

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
Oath or Affirmation:--

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both
of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.

1789
PROPOSED
"I, A B, a Representative of the United States in the Congress
thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) in the presence
of Almighty GOD, that I will support the Constitution of the United
States. So help me God,"

PASSED
" I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I
will support the Constitution of the United States."
and
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the secretary of the
Senate, and the clerk of the House of Representatives for the time being,
shall, at the time of taking the oath or affirmation aforesaid, each take
an oath or affirmation in the words following, to wit: °'
I, A. B. secretary of the Senate, or clerk of the House of
Representatives (as the case may be) of the United States of America, do
solemnly swear or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully discharge
the duties of my said office, to the best of my knowledge and abilities."

and the oaths for

the Supreme Court, and the district courts clerks take the following oath
or affirmation, to wit:

"I, A. B., being appointed clerk of , do solemnly swear, or affirm,
that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees,
judgments and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office,
according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God."

[CAP EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME]
WHICH WORDS SO HELP ME GOD, SHALL BE OMITTED IN
ALL CASES WHERE AN AFFIRMATION IS ADMITTED INSTEAD
OF AN OATH.

The justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, shall take the
following oath or affirmation, to wit:
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer
justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to
the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform
all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities
and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United
States. So help me God."

That a marshal also his deputies, the following oath of office:

"I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will faithfully
execute all lawful precepts directed to the marshal of the district of
under the authority of the United States, and true returns make, and in all
things well and truly, and without malice or partiality, perform the duties
of the office of marshal (or marshal's deputy, as the case may be) of the
district of , during my continuance in said office, and take only my lawful
fees. So help me God."

The following would have to apply in each of the above cases and I am
willing to bet still applies to this very day otherwise there is a very
clear violation of the Constitution.

[CAP EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME]
WHICH WORDS SO HELP ME GOD, SHALL BE OMITTED IN
ALL CASES WHERE AN AFFIRMATION IS ADMITTED INSTEAD
OF AN OATH.

SOME FUTURE DATE
[I will have to do some research to find the chronology and circumstances
of the time and reason for the change. Time period, context and who was
behind it. A surface scan of things appears to indicate a major revision
took place in 1884 with regards to the oath for office holders but I
haven't got a lot of info on that yet.

NEW VERSION
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will
bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I am about to enter. So help me God.

BOTTOM LINE
The new version would have to in actual practice allow for the
affirming and omitting

"Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an
affirmation is admitted instead of an oath" or there is a very real
problem.

If actually enforced as written (cannot affirm, have to add "so help me
God" it is, in fact , requiring a religious test.

It would exclude people from holding public office, such as Quakers, and
any member of any religion who are not by the tenets of that religion
permitted to take Oaths.
It would any member of any religion that does not recognize a "God" as
such.
It would exclude any non-believer. or force them to lie
It would be forcing people to lie, pretend, or violate tenets of their
religion, all of which is Unconstitutional. This is something that couldn't
even be fit under the catch all cop-out of Ceremonial Deism. This, if
challenged, could be a winner at the USSC level.

FURTHER RESEARCH WILL HAVE TO BE DONE
Further research will have to be done of the historical documents to try
and determine if possible why there was originally a difference between the
office holders oath/affirmation and that of the Judiciary branch. Also when
the original office holders oath was revised by johnny come lately
politician/lawmakers and why. What was behind it, etc.

Michael S. Morris

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 2:39:52 PM2/17/05

to

Thursday, the 17th of February, 2005

Julie:

Did he say he prefered to teach
"So help me God" and didn't care

if it was true or not?

bucky:

He said it was lame and nonsense.

No, in point of accurate historical record, I did
not. What I said was lame nonsense was your post
to misc.education.home-schooling.christian.
I still think it pretty obvious that your original
post had nothing whatsoever to do with education
or homeschooling or Christianity, for that matter,
so it was nonsense insofar as having to do with
any of those things, and it was lame insofar as
you provided no initial cites either to your claim
itself or to there being any such thing as widespread
belief in its opposite, the thing you were calling a
myth.

Julie:

I'm sure he teaches as accurate history as possible, and
I have never ever known him to be lax about caring about
facts and what is true or not true.

bucky:

Then I suggest you ask him why he put on a

insulting attacking hat and said
the following:
Actually, your post strikes me as

one of the most lame pieces of nonsense

I've seen on usenet in awhile.

Hmm. I was unaware that calling your lame piece of nonsense
lame and nonsensical was going to be insulting to you. I thought
either I would be wrong in my assertion that your piece was lame
and nonsensical, in which case I would be told wherein I was
wrong and how it was in fact of relevance either to education
or homeschooling or Christianity I suppose, or that maybe I
was right about it, in either of which cases, one of
us might go away enlightened a bit.

bucky:

I suggest you ask him what it was about the original post on this topic
that pushed his *** I have to reply and I have to do so in a insulting,
rude attack the messenger manner. ***

I can answer that. Simple. *You cross-posted your original post to
misc.education.home-school.christian.* Your post had nothing to do with
education, homeschooling, or Christianity. (In point of fact, your post
had little to do with separation of church and state, which makes it
particularly lame, but that is entirely beside the present point.)

bucky:

I made no inaccurate claims in my original post or in my follow up post
that he was actually replying to.

Oh, but you most certainly did. You claimed Washington speaking those
words was a *myth*. It isn't a myth, because not many people at
all believe that he spoke them, and because the standard
modern biography of Washington---Flexner's---clearly makes no
reference at all to Washington saying any such thing.

bucky:

You did note that he snipped all of that. There are reasons people snip
things. Ask him why he snipped it.

I snipped your irrelevant stuff because, as I made clear,
I wasn't arguing with your claim that Washington never said the
words. I was arguing with your claim that many people at all
believe he did say them. *That claim* you had not supported when I
responded to you. I was also arguing with the self-inportant puffery
of calling your post "BREAKING NEWS" and cross-posting it all across
every newsgroup in sight, when you apparently say nothing
that any reader of the standard biography of Washington wouldn't
already have known.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 6:50:55 PM2/17/05

to

"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:

>bucky:
> The fact of the matter is, the myth is bad history.
>
>The fact of the matter is, there was no myth here.

>bucky:

> In other words it is a accepted belief by most
> laypeople
>
>Codswallop.

>bucky:
> and probably a
> good many historians and scholars that
> George Washington did in fact utter
> "So help me God."
>
>Bullshit.

Yes there is a myth, as only a few minutes on Google proved:

http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/sohelpme.html

<A: Colette,the practice is traditional, an historical hangover from
< our Holy Roman Empire and English past, even George Washington did
< it; but, that does not make it constitutional (especially in terms of
< its being a requirement), because use of a Bible and the words "so
< help me God" are not required by the Constitution.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york080201.shtml
<The senator looked into the history of the oath. The words so help me
< God were first added to the oath of office by George Washington and
< have been spoken by every president since.

http://constitution-first.org/the_oath.htm
<The tradition of making oath of affirmation to “God” can be traced
< back to first inauguration of George Washington, who took it upon
< himself to punctuate the constitutionally required presidential oath
< to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution …” with the
< salutation “so help me God.”

http://www.fcassociates.com/id27.htm (which by the way Jim should
check out since it gives more details than most that could be used to
find research sources)
<Immediately, Chancellor Livingston administered the Oath of Office to
< Washington. When the oath was completed, Washington added the phrase,
< "I swear, so help me God!" and, bending down, kissed the open Book.

http://members.aol.com/TestOath/21atheists.htm
<When President Washington completed his constitutional oath of office,
< his hand placed on a Masonic Bible, he added, spontaneously, "I
< swear, so help me God" and then kissed the Bible.[160]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/inauguration/history.html
They have a "panel of historians", but still said:
<George Washington added the phrase "so help me God" to the end of his
< oath, and almost every president has added it since.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20010823.shtml
<the reference to the almighty, a staple of the confirmation process
< since George Washington took office in 1789, was promptly tossed by
< the wayside.

http://www.greenbelt.com/news/97/073131.htm
<From the time that George Washington added the words "So help me God"
< to his presidential oath, American presidents have continued to pray
< publicly and to visit houses of worship.

http://www.whcoc.com/lads2leaders/washington.htm
<At the first inauguration, George Washington stated this oath as
< required by law, and then added the phrase “So Help Me God”. Every
< President since repeated those words, letting their countrymen know
< that they are President by the grace of God and that all power rests
< in Him.

Bill Clinton believed the myth too:
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/020493-speech-by-president-at-prayer-breakfast.htm
<Just two weeks and a day ago, I took the oath of office as President.
< You know the last four words, for those who choose to say it in this
< way, are "so help me God." And the Chief Justice was giving me the
< oath -- and I was trying to remember the words. And I said, you know,
< when I get to the end I'm going to think of the ringing voice of
< Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln and the Roosevelts and Kennedy
< and all the other great Presidents through the ages, and I will say,
< "so help me God" with all the strength at my command.

Is that enough cites to prove that a lot of people believe that
Washington said "so help me God"? That was from the first 32 hits of
"Washington 'so help me god'". And I saw NO statements in those
references that Washington did NOT say it.

Oh, for Jim's benefit, one of the above cites had a real reference
that he might want to check out:
160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God Bless the President": The Rhetoric
of Inaugural Prayer (1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Pennsylvania State University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State
University Library).] at 62.

> I have already posted a general summation of the documentation we
>have in a
> couple places in this thread, but hey, I'll do it again.
>
>OK, at this juncture, let me say it is fairly obvious to me
>Washington did not say "so help me God" at his first inaugural
>at the moment of swearing-in. The natural piety of the sentiment
>(much like my own non-religious father's "Lord willing the creeks
>don't rise") is shot through his First Inaugural Address, so I'm
>still not understanding why it should be politically relevant today
>whether Washington did or did not say those exact words at the
>swearing-in.

It is probably "relevant" because I have little doubt that Newdow is
going to challenge that little bit of Americana too. He seems to want
to have all mention of God removed from any sort of official
government business - a very strong separationist point of view, and
one that with enough ammunition could get somewhere in the courts. If
we don't allow valedictorians to pray at graduations, why should the
president be praying as part of his official constitutional ceremony?

You or I may or may not agree with Newdow, but we cannot claim that
the issues he raises are "irrelevant" because the result of his series
of lawsuits will likely have profound impact of the future of
church/state separation.

>Having checked with Flexner, I'm happy with claim. I'm
>also happy with my original suspicion that it isn't news
>to almost anyone of any serious scholarship who might
>have ever gotten interested in the question.

And yet a president and a senator believe it, and NPR broadcasts it.

>I said:
> I mean, even if I swallow my natural reaction to this
>bucky:
> Don't choke.
>
>You just don't get it, do you?
>
>I said:
> ("So what?"),
>
>It ain't some sort of disdain "for historical
>accuaracy", it's disdain for the crusading use
>you are trying to put it to.

Jim, or rather Newdow, is crusading against the crusaders who want to
institute a Christian theocracy. And there really are such people.

>I said:
> the *other part* of what you said remains to
> be established---namely, that people widely believe Washington
> said that. Which people? Where? Where are these people who
> widely believe that? Can you give examples of texts that
> claim that Washington said it?

See above.

>bucky:
> So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites
> among those listed below
> Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me
>god".
> (0.42 seconds)
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A
>
>My point exactly.

How so ???

lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 7:07:07 PM2/17/05

to

bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>We know for a fact that Lincoln did not say "So help me God." We are still
>looking for primary source reports of the Oath taking by other Presidents
>
>There are tons of primary source documentation on inauguration speeches but
>the cupboard is pretty bare with regards to publishing the actual wording
>of what was said with regards to the oaths.

The Phd thesis that I found in my answer to the other guy may have
some references:

160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God Bless the President": The Rhetoric
of Inaugural Prayer (1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Pennsylvania State University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State
University Library).] at 62.

lojbab

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 7:14:09 PM2/17/05

to

Jim It really is important to put "so help me God" in quotes in a
Google search of this sort. It cuts the 2.3 million in the last
instance down to 15,700 - still a lot, but they are more likely to be
"real" hits.

roach

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 8:39:55 PM2/17/05

to

"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote

> It is, isn't it? For example, did you know that Washington
> also said that "...the great scourge and most grievous impediment
> to this nation has been the Christian religion?"
>
> At least no as yet has come forth saying that he did not.

He didn't say that.

So there.

Bill Roccia
Philadelphia

Cary Kittrell

unread,

Feb 17, 2005, 8:47:20 PM2/17/05

to

And Big G ("Gorgeous", as we used to call him, back in
the day) didn't say "So help me God".

Pleasingly symmetrical, is it not?

-- cary

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 9:31:21 AM2/18/05

to

"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:

>:|
>:|
>:| Thursday, the 17th of February, 2005

>:|bucky:

Bucky. huh?

How very interesting
Buckeye does not really translate into bucky. One trying to do so would be
viewed as trying to be insulting, rude, crude and disrespectuf

Being a native of Ohio I am aware that buckeye is a common term that people
use with referecnes to themselves or others.

I don't rercall anyone using bucky in lieu of buckeye.

To do so would be be considered quite instulting.

Had you just wanted to identify who was saying what is was or just as easy
to cut and paste
bucke...@nospam.net wrote:

or even type buckeye as it was or is to type Bucky

but then you are also the same person who replied orignally with

>:| Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most

>:| lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

This is what I received from you a person who doesn't know

me, has at best a very short general summation of the facts and documented
evidence we have accumulated, and based on his own comments apparently
hasn't a clue just how much this incorrect story is part of the American
consciousness.

Simply amazing

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 10:20:23 AM2/18/05

to

Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

[snipped]

>:|>Results 1 - 10 of about 2,290,000 for history washington so help me god.

>:|>(0.57 seconds)
>:|>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=history+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search
>:|
>:|Jim It really is important to put "so help me God" in quotes in a
>:|Google search of this sort. It cuts the 2.3 million in the last
>:|instance down to 15,700 - still a lot, but they are more likely to be
>:|"real" hits.

But some of those others are valid hits as well. A TIP offered by Google
is to remove the quotation marks for better or more results.

In addition one could also do "Washington said so help me God"
or "Washington" so help me God etc

Point was I was not looking to spend a lot of time and energy with this
fella. he was reading and posting from a certain newsgroup and his along
with Julie Pascal replies from that newsgroup were similar in some
respects, similar theme, though she was polite. That doesn't surprise me
in the least. Odds are great that neither are going to change their opinion
one iota.

He dug a hole for himself when he stated things like the following:

>:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
>:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

>:|However, you started out by asserting you were demolishing
>:|some myth. That is, you were asserting that people
>:|(out there, somewhere) widely believe that Washington
>:|said this, even though historians long have known he didn't.

[The last part was a spin -misrepresentation of something I had said - on
his part. see below

Well actually I didn't say historians knew this. I said that some at some

places such as the LOC and The First Federal Congress Project knew this. ]

>:|("So what?"), the *other part* of what you said remains to

>:|be established---namely, that people widely believe Washington
>:|said that. Which people? Where? Where are these people who
>:|widely believe that? Can you give examples of texts that
>:|claim that Washington said it?

>:| Maybe it's one of these things

>:|that gets xeroxed from high-school history text to high-school
>:|history text? Or maybe you think it's something the Christian
>:|right believes---can you cite some tracts by Jerry Falwell or
>:|somesuch showing that such believe it? Anyway, what is your
>:|source for the claim in the first place that this it is
>:|a myth (i.e. something lots of people actually believe) that
>:|George Washington said those words? You *did say*, after all,
>:|that historians have long known otherwise. Wouldn't the burden
>:|of proof then be on you to show that there was any widespread
>:|belief about it at all?

While he didn't state his own personal familiarity with this accepted piece
of history, there was a implication that no such belief existed. Thus, to
waste time on such was lame and nonsense.

if he is as he claims to be, I know full well he is aware that this was and
is a widely accepted belief. Therefore it was game playing worthy of my
quick Google search and providing the results of such.

But I take took your advice and have done this with it

So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites among those listed
below

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me god".
(0.42 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A

********************************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 259,000 for so help me god proves this is a
christian nation. (10.12 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=so+help+me+god+proves+this+is+a+christian+nation&spell=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 993 for "so help me god" proves this is a christian
nation. (0.46 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22so+help+me+god%22++proves+this+is+a+christian+nation&btnG=Search

**********************************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680 for sekulow washington so help me god. (0.43
seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sekulow+washington+so+help+me+god&spell=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 123 for sekulow washington "so help me god". (0.45
seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=sekulow+washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

*******************************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 86,800 for Pat Robertson washington so help me god.
(0.25 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Pat+Robertson++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 458 for Pat Robertson washington "so help me god".
(0.30 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Pat+Robertson++washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

***********************************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 343,000 for James kennedy washington so help me
god. (0.35 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=James+kennedy++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 901 for James kennedy washington "so help me god".
(0.14 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=James+kennedy++washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

*************************************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 656,000 for US supreme court washington so help me
god. (0.26 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+supreme+court+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 9,800 for US supreme court washington "so help me
god". (0.52 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+supreme+court+washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

****************************************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 472,000 for US federal courts washington so help me
god. (0.34 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Federal+courts+Washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,930 for Federal courts Washington "so help me
god". (0.40 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Federal+courts+Washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

***************************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,880,000 for religious right washington so help me
god. (0.43 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+federal+courts++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,800 for religious right washington "so help me
god". (0.40 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=religious+right+washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

******************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,290,000 for history washington so help me god.
(0.57 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=history+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 15,700 for history washington "so help me god".
(0.23 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=history+washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

***********************************************************************************************

Michael S. Morris

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 10:36:10 AM2/18/05

to

Friday, the 18th of February, 2005

bucky:
So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites
among those listed below
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help
me god".
(0.42 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A
I said:
My point exactly.
Bob Le Chevalier:
How so ???

Demonstration that there is such a myth in the first place
relies upon dredging the web for the leavings of the lunatic
fringe of the religious right. That there are such people
I have never had any doubt, maybe even some of them who
would wish to establish the Republic of Gilead (cf.
Margaret Atwood's Canadian fantasy about "the American
religious right") here and now.

As I said, the *standard modern biography* of George
Washington in English---Flexner's four volumes dating from
the late 1960s---provides prima facie evidence that 1)
Washington never said it, and 2) that Flexner himself
didn't feel called upon in any way to refute anyone's claim
that Washington had said it. I.e., that there was no such
thing as a prevailing myth at least at that time. I.e., bucky's
"breaking news" is about as much news as that Washington
didn't chop down the cherry tree or that people in the time
of Columbus knew the world was round.

As for this time, the Year of Our Lord 2005, the issue
remains this claim about there being a "myth". A myth is
not just a lie, and not just an incorrect "fact", but something
that lots of people believe, and in its truest sense, a story
that lots of people believe because it expresses to them some
deep meaning that they feel is true or want to be true. "The
only good Indian is a dead Indian" is an example of a myth. It's
a myth because almost anybody---any man or woman on the street---
if questioned about it will be familiar with the phrase and will
understand that it *means* something like "the racist way white
people used to think about Native Americans". Very few, I'll
bet, would be able to identify Sherman as the source of the quote,
and that is about as far as it goes. Of course historically it's
much more complicated than that. Sherman was *reported* as having said
this, overheard in an exchange with a group of men standing around
at a fort. He was in the middle of fighting an Indian war, one
which he certainly considered himself to be fighting with justice
on his government's side, so such an expression on the part of
a combatant might well be excused as made "in the heat of the moment".
But, it gets better: Sherman in fact *denied* that he had ever said
any such thing when this was laid as an accusation against him in
the papers years afterwards. Now, he could well have been lying
when he made those denials, so he very well *could have* said
"The only good Indian [usw]", but the *interesting* thing is that
what the denial and the newspaper controversy shows is that
Sherman *felt* the accusation as the accusation of having said
something that was *shameful* and *execrable* for him to have
said. So, the historical reality, whether Sherman said those
words or not, is *exactly opposite* to what the mythic story is supposed
to be telling us about the past. *There wasn't* a
general anti-Native-American racism in U.S. society as a whole
in the post Civil-War era. Doesn't mean there weren't whole huge
segments of society---especially land-grabbing white settlers---who
wanted Indians removed out of the way. But it does mean
wishing Indians dead was not some widespread sentiment that
"they all" benightedly believed and "we all" have illuminatedly
outgrown.

My point is that there is no such thing as a myth that
Washington said "so help me God". There maybe lies to that
effect being told by a few zealots. But my bet is that if
you went to the man in the street and asked him whether or
not George Washington said that, it'd be a coin toss. And if
you went to historians, say, who didn't specialize in the
subject of GW, I'll bet they'd turn to Flexner or Douglass Southall
Freeman and quickly determine that, no, Washington probably
didn't say that.

Moreover, there's what I said about using history and
historical "facts" (i.e. whether valid or no) as blunt
instruments. I mean, for the sake of argument let us
suppose for a moment that Washington was the very image of
a modern Christian evangelical of the most politically
rabid stripe, who was just frothing at the mouth to
institute this Republic of Gilead at the earliest
possible opportunity. So what? I mean, we still have
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" as
the highest law of the land. So, what use exactly could
be made of such a "fact" as George Washington's Christian
rightism, were that remotely arguable? Or, for that matter,
so what that GW *didn't* say "so help me God"? What modern
political lesson am I supposed to draw from that? What's it
supposed to mean that he did or did not say it? It just
seems to me that all bucky is doing is descending to engage
in sound-bite history of exactly the same kind he thinks
his opponents are doing. I mean, again, we have GW's inaugural
speech, and it is *shot through* with GW's personal
religious (philosophical Deism) beliefs, which GW obviously
thought appropriate to share on the occasion. *The speech*
itself certainly expresses at length *exactly the natural piety*
that a stock phrase like "so help me God" is meant to express.
So, if the argument is really over whether GW held religious
beliefs, he obviously did (though not exactly *Christian* religious
beliefs, whether he said "so help me God" or no. I just do not
get the relevance of the claim by the people who claim he
did say it. Which is why I don't get the relevance/importance of
bucky's demonstration that he did not. It descends to the
same level.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

Michael S. Morris

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 1:18:59 PM2/18/05

to

Friday, the 18th of February, 2005

bucky:
Bucky. huh?

How very interesting
Buckeye does not really translate into bucky.

Yet another irrelevancy I perfectly well was already aware of.

bucky:

One trying to do so would be
viewed as trying to be insulting, rude,
crude and disrespectuf

He would. In particular, he would be legitimately
viewed as being disrespectful of all persons who spam
newsgroups with irrelevant posts and do so without
signing their posts with their own, real name.

bucky:

Being a native of Ohio I am aware that buckeye
is a common term that people use with referecnes
to themselves or others.

As is the term "Hoosiers" with natives of Indiana,
whence I post. Nevertheless, I do not sign myself
"Hoosier", but put "Michael S. Morris (msmo...@netdirect.net)"
at the bottom of each of my posts. I'll be happy to provide
address and phone number, as well, if you need them.

bucky:
I don't recall anyone using bucky in lieu of buckeye.

Good. Then I've made it up.

bucky:

To do so would be be considered quite instulting.

Why? Who would consider it so? And what do you
have to be ashamed of that they would so consider it?

bucky:

Had you just wanted to identify who was saying what
is was or just as easy to cut and paste
bucke...@nospam.net wrote:

or even type buckeye as it was or is to type Bucky

I don't think I ever typed "Bucky", as distinct from "bucky",
the idea being to use a diminuitive. And cutting and pasting is
not the manner in which I write through posts to which I am
responding.

But, if it really bothers you (why?), I could use some other
designation.

For instance: The chap who trolled misc.education.home-school.christian

with irrelevant puffery says:
but then you are also the same person who replied orignally with
Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

Yep, that's me. I said it. I backed it up, too, given that
your post to misc.education.home-school.christian had nothing
to do with homeschooling, and yet was titled "BREAKING NEWS".

The chap who trolled misc.education.home-school.christian

with irrelevant puffery says:
This is what I received from you a person who doesn't know
me,

You're right, I don't know you. I don't even know your name,
since you don't sign your usenet posts with it. But I do know
you posted a troll to the newsgroup misc.education.home-school.
christian, I really don't know why. I mean, has *anyone* from
that group argued with you that Washington really did say
"so help me God" at the inaugural swearing-in?

By the way, what *is* your agenda here? I mean, general
anti-religious-right cussedness or what? It seems to me
Jesus said "Swear not, lest ye be foresworn." Or at least
that's the translation. So, I would think a *real* follower
of the man might object to even the oath of office without
the putative added coda of "so help me God", since Jesus's
point---a pretty wise one, by the way---is not some
hocus-pocus about black magic latent in oaths, but
simple acknowledgment that we humans can intend all we
like, and the *fulfillment* of what we intend to do
is simply out of our hands. But, heck, who am I to
complain about the religious establishment (and bad
religious establishment at that) already inherent in
the oath (or affirmation) of office contained at the end
of the Constitution's Article II, Section 1.

(Oh heck, why don't I just call you "bucky" for short?)

bucky says:
has at best a very short general summation of the facts
and documented evidence we have accumulated,

Right, because you provided zero, zip, nada facts and documented
evidence for anything you said when you saw fit initially
to post "BREAKING NEWS" to a homeschooling newsgroup, umm, the
".christian" one and not the other one. I'm happy to applaud the fact
you backed up your claims afterwards, to some degree that is. But,
I'm not in agreement that rescues your original post from the objections
which I have leveled at it. Nor I am in agreement that you have
established in the slightest that there is a "myth" out there
of belief that Washington said "so help me God" at the first
inauguration.

bucky:

and based on his own comments apparently
hasn't a clue just how much this incorrect
story is part of the American
consciousness.

Darn right that I disagree with you about the
incorrect story being much in American consciousness
at all.

bucky:
Simply amazing

You can find a zillion websites out there with some hilarious
variations of the quote "All that is necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." And
you can find it attributed to Edmund Burke, as it was
for instance at the end of the action film, "Tears of the
Sun". And there's Martin Porter's lovely web study of
the quote and its various instantiations,
<http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html>.
(My personal favourite variation is "The only thing necessary
for the triumph of evil is that a few good men do nothing.")
But of course the punchline is that the quote can't
be found anywhere in Burke. So, does zillions of websites
add up to "a myth"? I don't think so. I suspect your average
joe might've heard of the quote, but probably would not
be able to come up with "Edmund Burke", and I doubt would be
able to say anything at all about who the fellow was or what
books he wrote. I suspect "Washington said 'so help me God'"
is rather *less* in the American consciousness than "Burke
said 'All that is necessary for evil to triumph...'".

I'll put it that way.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

J.Pascal

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 1:23:57 PM2/18/05

to

bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
(...)

>
> Point was I was not looking to spend a lot of time and energy with
this
> fella. he was reading and posting from a certain newsgroup and his
along
> with Julie Pascal replies from that newsgroup were similar in some
> respects, similar theme, though she was polite. That doesn't
surprise me
> in the least. Odds are great that neither are going to change their
opinion
> one iota.

Change it from what?

As for the responses from "that newsgroup", the responders
range from conservative to athiest to libertarian. Besides,
you're the one who put "that newsgroup" in the list. I have
to assume you were interested in what homeschoolers had to
say.

-Julie

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 2:40:07 PM2/18/05

to

"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:

>bucky:
> So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites
> among those listed below
> Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help
>me god".
> (0.42 seconds)
>
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A
>I said:
> My point exactly.
>Bob Le Chevalier:
> How so ???
>
>Demonstration that there is such a myth in the first place
>relies upon dredging the web for the leavings of the lunatic
>fringe of the religious right.

If the lunatic right has such a myth, then that alone means that there
are substantial numbers who believe the myth.

But in point of fact, the cites I provided were from a wide range of
sources and not just the lunatic religious right: from NPR, to a Bill
Clinton speech, historical sites, and even an atheist website that
screams offense at the myth even while buying into it.

>I have never had any doubt, maybe even some of them who
>would wish to establish the Republic of Gilead (cf.
>Margaret Atwood's Canadian fantasy about "the American
>religious right") here and now.

There are some non-fantasy sites written by members of the religious
reich who indeed want to establish a theocracy, but in fact those were
not the sites which I provided you.

Or didn't you look at them, simply dismissing them as being of a
category that they aren't?

>As I said, the *standard modern biography* of George
>Washington in English---Flexner's four volumes dating from
>the late 1960s---provides prima facie evidence that 1)
>Washington never said it, and 2) that Flexner himself
>didn't feel called upon in any way to refute anyone's claim
>that Washington had said it.

Who reads standard modern biographies in four volumes? Myths form
among the ignorant, who rarely read any books. But even I, an avid
reader, have never read a multivolume biography of anyone.

>I.e., that there was no such
>thing as a prevailing myth at least at that time. I.e., bucky's
>"breaking news" is about as much news as that Washington
>didn't chop down the cherry tree or that people in the time
>of Columbus knew the world was round.

There are still plenty of people who believe those myths, too, though
I think they've been receding since I was taught those myths as fact
40 years ago.

>As for this time, the Year of Our Lord 2005, the issue
>remains this claim about there being a "myth". A myth is
>not just a lie, and not just an incorrect "fact", but something
>that lots of people believe, and in its truest sense, a story
>that lots of people believe because it expresses to them some
>deep meaning that they feel is true or want to be true.

[distraction deleted]

>My point is that there is no such thing as a myth that
>Washington said "so help me God".

Sorry, but using the definition you provided, that is precisely what
it is. It is a lie that lots of people believe because they want the
meaning it symbolizes to be true - the Christian right, which is a
substantial minority in this country, wants to believe that this is
fundamentally a fundamentalist, Bible-thumping, god-fearing nation,
and thus they want to believe that its leaders were fundies.

>There maybe lies to that effect being told by a few zealots.

These particular lies are being told by presidents, senators, lawyers,
public radio stations, even some historians, none of whom are zealots,
but who apparently have been convinced of the truth of the myth simply
because it hasn't been questioned enough. Just as people believed the
cherry tree myth until the questioning became more well-known.

>But my bet is that if
>you went to the man in the street and asked him whether or
>not George Washington said that, it'd be a coin toss.

I'm not so sure.

>And if
>you went to historians, say, who didn't specialize in the
>subject of GW, I'll bet they'd turn to Flexner or Douglass Southall
>Freeman and quickly determine that, no, Washington probably
>didn't say that.

At least 3 of the sites that I listed yesterday showed evidence of at
least some consultation with historians, so apparently historians
aren't as error-free as you would wish.

>Moreover, there's what I said about using history and
>historical "facts" (i.e. whether valid or no) as blunt
>instruments. I mean, for the sake of argument let us
>suppose for a moment that Washington was the very image of
>a modern Christian evangelical of the most politically
>rabid stripe, who was just frothing at the mouth to
>institute this Republic of Gilead at the earliest
>possible opportunity. So what? I mean, we still have
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" as
>the highest law of the land.

But of course the issue was what the Founders meant by those words.
If they meant that there could be publicly sponsored prayers in
school, at graduations, at national ceremonies, so long as Congress
doesn't declare the national religion to be Episcopalianism (which is
what some people seem to think is all that they meant), then this
nation would be a lot less free than some of us want to believe it
should be.

>So, what use exactly could
>be made of such a "fact" as George Washington's Christian
>rightism, were that remotely arguable?

Every little tidbit is a grain in the sand for or against the
persistence of "ceremonial deism" where people are forced to mouth or
read or hear religious messages that are expressed out of tradition
instead of out of belief. When belief becomes ceremonial, it is dead,
so this is both harmful to freedom, and harmful to true religious
belief.

>Or, for that matter,
>so what that GW *didn't* say "so help me God"? What modern
>political lesson am I supposed to draw from that?

That may depend on what political lessons you already know. Maybe YOU
have nothing to learn from Jim's postings, in which case you can use a
killfile as well as anyone can.

Perhaps there is no political lesson. The elimination of false
information is a worthy end in itself. In Jim's case, he seems to be
researching the issue for Newdow, and Newdow has firsthand experience
in knowing just how thoroughly one has to have researched the issues
in order to get a serious hearing before the Supreme Court.

And I would contend that any issue that 4 USSC justices find important
enough to hear is by that fact alone more important than 99% of all
issues that appear on Usenet.

>What's it
>supposed to mean that he did or did not say it? It just
>seems to me that all bucky is doing is descending to engage
>in sound-bite history of exactly the same kind he thinks
>his opponents are doing.

He obviously feels that every bit of sound-bite history that can be
corrected, should be. If his correction is taken merely as another
sound-bite, then at least there are two conflicting sound-bites which
might prompt the curious into looking further.

>I mean, again, we have GW's inaugural
>speech, and it is *shot through* with GW's personal
>religious (philosophical Deism) beliefs, which GW obviously
>thought appropriate to share on the occasion. *The speech*
>itself certainly expresses at length *exactly the natural piety*
>that a stock phrase like "so help me God" is meant to express.
>So, if the argument is really over whether GW held religious
>beliefs,

It isn't, directly. The issue is what level and kinds of intrusion of
private religion into public life the founders believed appropriate,
and therefore what is permitted under our constitution.

>he obviously did (though not exactly *Christian* religious
>beliefs, whether he said "so help me God" or no.

Some people cannot conceive that anyone could have religious beliefs
other than Christian ones. You are either a Christian, or an pinko
communist liberal atheist.

This country values its heroes. Washington is one of them. To be
heroic to the fundies, Washington has to be not merely religious, but
a devout Christian, or he cannot be a hero and role-model, because
they can only accept devout Christians as proper role models.

>I just do not
>get the relevance of the claim by the people who claim he
>did say it.

Maybe you are too rational. Most of the country is irrational on
matters pertaining to religion. And the only ways to fight
irrationality is with more irrationality, or with persistent,
myth-destroying fact (and sometimes even factoid).

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 4:36:23 PM2/18/05

to

"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:

>:|
>:|
>:| Wednesday, the 16th of February, 2005

>:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most

>:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.

Well here for fun
And if you need ore I can give that as well.
What follows combines new and old.

#######################################################

So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites among those listed

below:

Let's begin with this one

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/supreme/022001/&invol=2021301_101
When George Washington took the first oath of office as president in 1789,
he recited the words prescribed in article II, section 1, of the United
States Constitution(FN11) and then added these words, which are not found
in the Constitution, "I swear, so help me God."(FN12) President
Washington's words showed a belief in God and a prayer for His help. The
first President's example has been followed by his successors.(FN13) In
addition to the oath of our first president and all of his successors, the
phrase "So help me God," and similar references to the Almighty, have been
a part of our courtroom oaths, our laws, and other public rituals. See
generally Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312-13 (1952); School Dist. of
Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214 (1963).(FN14)
SOURCE: Opinion -- Supreme Court of Missouri, Oliver v. State Tax
Commission of Missouri, Case Number: SC82412 Handdown Date: 02/13/2001
************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me god".
(0.42 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A

********************************************************************************************************************8

******************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,290,000 for history washington so help me god.
(0.57 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=history+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 15,700 for history washington "so help me god".
(0.23 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=history+washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

***********************************************************************************************
FROM BOB

http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/sohelpme.html

160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God Bless the President": The Rhetoric
of Inaugural Prayer (1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Pennsylvania State University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State
University Library).] at 62.

**********************************************************************************
http://www.paulagordon.com/shows/carter/
. . . But it's very different and a serious problem when the Chief Justice
of the United States adds "...so help me God" to the Presidential oath.
That's not optional and turns the oath into a religious test, prohibited by
the Constitution. George Washington said it, but the phrase should not be
there.

Stephen Carter . . . Professor of Law, Yale University, and an author. A
former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Mr. Carter is
among the nation's leading experts on constitutional law. Mr. Carter
confronts what he views as challenges to America's democracy in his several
books, including The Culture of Disbelief, Civility, Integrity and God's
Name in Vain.
******************************************************************************
Catholic Online - Cathcom - 'I swear': Last-minute availability ...
http://www.catholic.org/cathcom/national_story.php?id=12151
As he completed the oath written for the occasion, Washington added the
unscripted words, "I swear, so help me God," and bowed to kiss the Bible.

Thus was born a tradition followed by almost every one of the 42 presidents
inaugurated since then, including some who have used the very same Bible.
**************************************************************************************
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ma/state/law/const5.html

One week later, on Thursday, April 30, the inauguration took place at
Federal Hall, on the corner of Broad and Wall streets. At noon Washington,
accompanied by Livingston and Adams, stepped out on the balcony and stood
in the presence of a vast multitude that filled the streets, the housetops,
and the windows, and the cheers that arose were deafening. Just behind him
stood Hamilton, Roger Sherman, and three Revolutionary generals--Knox,
Steuben, and St. Clair,--and these were followed by both houses of
Congress. Livingston pronounced the oath of office; Washington bowed and
kissed the Bible, and said in a deeply solemn and scarcely audible voice,
"I swear, so help me God." His countenance was grave almost to sadness,
reported an eyewitness. Livingston turned to the crowd, waved his hand, and
shouted "Long live George Washington, President of the United States"; and
the voice of the multitude rose in cheer after cheer, the artilley roared
from the battery, and bells were rung all over the city. Thus was the
United States of America, under its first President, launched upon the
ocean of national life.
***********************************************************************************
Lodge, Henry Cabot (1850-1924)
Title George Washington, Volume II Published originally in 1899
GEORGE WASHINGTON vol. II
... the Bible, bowed, and said solemnly when the oath was concluded, "I
swear, so help me God," and, bending ... hand cried, "Long live George
Washington, President of ...
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/2/6/5/12653/12653-h/12653-h.htm -

****************************************************************************************

Al Klein

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 6:19:04 PM2/18/05

to

On 18 Feb 2005 10:23:57 -0800, "J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> said in
alt.atheism:

>As for the responses from "that newsgroup", the responders
>range from conservative to athiest to libertarian.

"Atheist" is political position?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

J.Pascal

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 6:59:18 PM2/18/05

to

Al Klein wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2005 10:23:57 -0800, "J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> said in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >As for the responses from "that newsgroup", the responders
> >range from conservative to athiest to libertarian.
>
> "Atheist" is political position?

LOL! No. I suppose I should have said, "from Christian
to athiest, and from conservative to libertarian." Not
that those pairings are necessarily points on a line
either.

-Julie

Carol Lee Smith

unread,

Feb 18, 2005, 8:55:38 PM2/18/05

to

On 18 Feb 2005, J.Pascal wrote:

> LOL! No. I suppose I should have said, "from Christian
> to athiest,

Or better you, you should have said: "from Christian to atheist ... "

Kanga Mom

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 3:51:54 AM2/19/05

to

"::

But aren't most of us praying that one day she can say "From atheist to
Christian?"

=)

Kanga

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 6:57:33 AM2/19/05

to

bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:

(1) I would bet that you spent a good deal of time carefully planning your
wording above so as to leave yourself springboards that will enable you to
spring into your usual game playing should anyone actually reply to you.

(2) I guess you never read the original ruling of the 9th Circuit

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW I (JUNE 28 2002)
[10] In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words
"under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policy and practice of
teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included,
violate the Establishment Clause. The judgment of dismissal is vacated with
respect to these two claims, and the cause is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs on
this appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS p. 9131
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf

( To explain that, ANY school district that has a policy ( i.e.
"recommends," the Pledge be said to fulfill any patriotic requirement) and
practice of teacher or student-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added
words included, violate the Est. Clause. For a child to recite such would
place that child in a position of believing or [pretending that there is a
God and that we as a nation are under that God. or place that child in a
position of talking the Lord's name in vain.
Either instance is unconstitutional )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nor any of the briefs (most are on line) that Mike filed in that case.
Nor any of the briefs filed in support of Mike's position prior to the USSC
oral arguments.

You should, you will find your answer in spades.

But then, you aren't really looking for answers. You would prefer an
opening to play your games again.

ALL THE BRIEFS FILED IN THIS CASE FROM BOTH SIDES CAN
BE FOUND HERE AS WELL AS SOME ARTICLES AND OTHER
Pledge related material

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
Pledge of Allegiance Resources
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/

NOT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE EQUAL. Some are very good,
some are good and some might be so so. One can click on the briefs opposing
Newdow themselves if they want to read those. Almost everyone of those
briefs are warmed over beans. Same points, not religious, its history, its
culture, etc Very little originality no real valid points made. Many of
the following briefs shoot that lame stuff down very nicely.

Respondent: Michael A. Newdow (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/BriefonMerits.pdf

Amicus Briefs in Support of Respondent
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/AmericanHumanist.pdf

American Atheists (PDF)
http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/PledgeBrief.pdf

American Humanist Association, et al. (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/AmericanHumanist.pdf

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/AmericansUnited.pdf

Anti-Defamation League (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/ADL.pdf

Associate Professor Barbara A. McGraw (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/McGraw.pdf

Associated Pantheist Groups (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/AssociatedPantheist.pdf

Atheist Law Center (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/AtheistLaw.pdf

Atheists and Other Freethinkers (PDF)
http://rthoughtsrfree.org/02-1624.pdf

Atheists for Human Rights (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/AtheistsHumanRights.pdf

Buddhist Temples, et al. (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/BuddhistTemples.pdf

Christopher L. Eisgruber and Lawrence G. Sager (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/Eisgruber.pdf

Church of Freethought (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/Freethought.pdf

Council for Secular Humanism (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/SecularHumanism.pdf

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. (PDF)
http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/newdow.ffrf.pdf

Historians and Law Scholars (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/HistoriansLaw.pdf

Mister Thorne (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/Thorne.pdf

Religious Scholars and Theologians (PDF)
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/newdow.irons.pdf

Rev. Dr. Betty Jane Bailey, et al. (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/Bailey.pdf

Rob Sherman Advocacy
http://www.robsherman.com/newdow1.htm

Seattle Atheists, et al. (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/SeattleAtheists.pdf

United Fathers of America, et al. (PDF)
http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/docs/UnitedFathers.pdf

====================================================
COMMENTS BY THOSE WHO FRAMED THE ACT OF 1954 (LEGISLATIVE INTENT)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=grt66vs1sn3mgod6fjfkmjaq7fec50401c%404ax.com&output=gplain
===========================================================

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 6:59:42 AM2/19/05

to

Analyst <post....@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:

>:|bucke...@nospam.net wrote in
>:|news:f4f411pnmn4dot228...@4ax.com:
>:|
>:|>
>:|>
>:|
>:|Cool! I didn't know about Abe not saying it. I'm rather amused that you
>:|used Pat Robertson's university for this research. Who says there isn't
>:|justice any more.

We/I have used it for years. It is a rather nice research place. Easy
parking even on weekdays unlike the other main University in this area
ODU. The law library is top notch. The general university library is not
that equipped But they started out, as a graduate school. Now they are
trying to attract more and more under graduate students so they are really
going to have to so something to equip their general library. it really is
pretty small and poorly stocked

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 7:00:23 AM2/19/05

to

"Kanga Mom" <kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>:|

Why, what is wrong with to each their own?

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 8:16:03 AM2/19/05

to

bond...@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:

Now really what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Well here we go anyways

Watch how the game plays out:

First the bait

>:|>> Name the"someone" whom is "forcing the individual to pretend that God is
>:|>> real".
>:|>> Else, it's but fallacious nonsense.

Then the developing game

>:|Evangelicals may express their desire just as their opponents may also express
>:|their desires. Neither is "forcing" anyone to pretend "God is (or is not) real".

>:|Name the (US) law currently enacted/implemented that currently "forcing the

>:|individual to pretend that God is real".

Note the above.

Note what he first said:
>:|>> Name the"someone" whom is "forcing the individual to pretend that God is
>:|>> real".

Note how that has evolved into this

>:|Name the (US) law currently enacted/implemented that currently "forcing the

>:|individual to pretend that God is real".

Typical game playing M O for this poster.

He knows full well that there was a "SOMEONE" whom is "forcing the

individual to pretend that God is real".

That someone was
[The] Elk Grove Unified School District (“EGUSD”) in California. In
accordance with state law and a school district rule, EGUSD teachers begin
each school day by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance (“the Pledge”). The California Education Code requires that
public schools begin each school day with “appropriate patriotic exercises”
and that “[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America shall satisfy” this requirement. Cal. Educ. Code §
52720 (1989) (hereinafter “California statute”).1 To implement the
California statute, the school district that Newdow’s daughter attends has
promulgated a policy that states, in pertinent part: “Each elementary
school class [shall] recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each
day.”2
**********************************************************************************
So in his second appearance on this particular topic he has altered that
which he originally asked for and is now ready to engage anyone and
everyone claiming no evidence that anyone will offer meets addresses or
answers his question. His original or bait question/comment will sort of be
forgotten about by him and he will stay the course on the new one

Of course he knew that there are no federal laws requiring recitation of
the pledge. He also knew or knows that a number os school districts in
several states have found loopholes and or ways around the such.

He will never admit his new "test" question is totally irrelevant to
anything.

He probably will never attempt to explain this:

or the fact this ended up in Federal courts anyways if it was really
nonsense.

Well below are the facts, etc.

9110 NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Newdow is an atheist whose daughter attends public elementary school in the
Elk Grove Unified School District (“EGUSD”) in California. In accordance
with state law and a school district rule, EGUSD teachers begin each school
day by leading their students in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance
(“the Pledge”). The California Education Code requires that public schools
begin each school day with “appropriate patriotic exercises” and that
“[t]he giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America shall satisfy” this requirement. Cal. Educ. Code § 52720 (1989)
(hereinafter “California statute”).1 To implement the California statute,
the school district that Newdow’s daughter attends has promulgated a policy
that states, in pertinent part: “Each elementary school class [shall]
recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.”2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1The relevant portion of California Education Code § 52720 reads:
In every public elementary school each day during the school
year at the beginning of the first regularly scheduled class or
activity period at which the majority of the pupils of the school
normally begin the schoolday, there shall be conducted appropriate
patriotic exercises. The giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements
of this section. 2 The SCUSD, the school district that Newdow claims his
daughter may in the future attend, has promulgated a similar rule: “Each
school shall conduct patriotic exercises daily . . . . The Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag will fulfill this requirement.” However, as
discussed infra, Newdow lacks standing to challenge the SCUSD’s rule
requiring recitation of the Pledge.

9111 NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS

The classmates of Newdow’s daughter in the EGUSD are led by their teacher
in reciting the Pledge codified in federal law. On June 22, 1942, Congress
first codified the Pledge as “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Pub. L. No. 623, Ch. 435, §
7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 1972). On June 14, 1954,
Congress amended Section 1972 to add the words “under God” after the word
“Nation.” Pub. L. No. 396, Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) (“1954 Act”). The
Pledge is currently codified as “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” 4 U.S.C.
§ 4 (1998) (Title 36 was revised and recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, §
2(a), 112 Stat. 1494 (1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the Pledge is
now found in Title 4.)

Newdow does not allege that his daughter’s teacher or school district
requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge.3 Rather, he
claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to “watch and
listen as her stateemployed teacher in her state-run school leads her
classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our’s
[sic] is ‘one nation under God.’ ”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 Compelling students to recite the Pledge was held to be a First Amendment
violation in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S.
624, 642 (1943) (“[T]he action of the local authorities in compelling the
flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power
and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of
the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official
control.”). Barnette was decided before the 1954 Act added the words
“under God” to the Pledge.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf
*************************************************************************************
Now of course, the above says there were and probably still are laws.
since Newdow has filed the case again on behave of several parents and
students

But the game will go on and a certain individual will work his game playing
M. O. so long as anyone is willing to reply to him.

Michael S. Morris

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 9:06:37 AM2/19/05

to

Saturday, the 19th of February, 2005

bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
Why, what is wrong with to each their own?

What is wrong with it is that your question presupposes
that there is a "their own"---that there is
some given personal "own" in matters of metaphysical
belief that maybe comes hardwired via a person's
genetic makeup as his "psychology" or comes
determined by impingements upon each person by
"society". To an orthodox Christian---or to a
classical (pre-Christian) Roman or Greek moral
philosopher, for that matter---there is no "their own"
in the sense that you mean. Rather, the "their own"
is the *thing proper to living life as a human being
the best that one can*, and it may well be, or in
large part be, the identical thing *for every human
being* (virtue, life of the polis, faith, usw).

Talk about *the great modern myth*, it is this
reduction of moral philosophy to sociology and/or
psychology---the reduction of human choice (and the
possibility therefore that there is right and wrong
in human choice) to determinism. I.e., modeling
human beings as though we were particles, or
planets, or billiard balls, wholly determined
in our beliefs, behaviours, sexual orientations,
etc, by buffet-forces not chooseable by us, and
our choices not judgeable by any objective external
standard.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

Michael S. Morris

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 9:18:20 AM2/19/05

to

Saturday, the 19th of February, 2005

bucky:

Is that enough cites to prove that a lot
of people believe that Washington said "so
help me God"?

Yes, that is enough cites. I could have wished you would
have made that case in your first post in the first place,
but, yes, that backs up the supposition inherent in what you
first wrote. Thank you. Except of course that imagining your
original post as including those cites *still* doesn't seem
to lend it any relevance to education, homeschooling, or
Christianity per se, and *still* strikes me as a post
appropriate, say, to soc.history and inappropriate (i.e.
a troll) to misc.education.home-school.christian.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

Kate

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 9:50:03 AM2/19/05

to

On 19 Feb 2005 00:51:54 -0800, "Kanga Mom"
<kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com> wrote:

LOL, mostly it goes the other way. You can only fool yourself so
long. The sad truth is, actually reading the bible makes more
atheists than any other activity.

Michael S. Morris

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 10:11:08 AM2/19/05

to

Thursday, the 19th of February, 2005

Kanga:

But aren't most of us praying that one day she
can say "From atheist to Christian?"

And I love you, too. But, I confess I was getting a
little worried from your so-long absence online that
maybe the rains or then the cold weather had caused
some stress up your way. I do hope that you are all well
and that your various endeavours are prospering
in good time.

Martha and I drove by your place and waved in your
direction towards the end of January. We were driving
up with another couple (Larry is a fellow tenor in choir
and is a friend and blues enthusiast) to see Buddy Guy perform in
Chicago at his club, "Buddy Guy's Legends". We stayed in the Hilton
there on Michigan Avenue a little south of the Art Institute
and the blues club was on the block just behind the hotel (on Wabash?).
We ate lunch at Gino's East, checked into the hotel, and
then wandered over to the club at 6:00pm on a Saturday
night (which is what our tickets said). We had been instructed
that we'd probably only get standing room, and it turns out
one would have had to have been there before 4:00pm to get a table,
also we were told that warm-up acts started at 7:00ish, with
main the warm-up band beginning at 9:00, and Buddy Guy not playing
until 11:00pm but going to 2:00am. So, after scoping it out,
we opted to go elsewhere for dinner, which ended
up being Fogo de Chao. I don't know if anybody has heard of this,
but it's a chain of "Brazilian Gaucho" restaurants which started
in Brazil, and I know there's now one in Houston, one in Dallas,
and one in Atlanta. Anyway, that turned out to be a
fabulous serendipity---the kind of thing, though, one would
only do for an anniversary or somesuch, since it's a fixed price
of $48.00 per head. Well, this whole trip was Larry and
Stephanie's anniversary, so we had exactly that excuse. Anyway,
the food started with the most spectacular salad
bar I've ever encountered (for example, prosciutto and
smoked salmon), then the main course was, well, one
helluva barbecue. It was all-you-can-eat, and these
gaucho-dressed waiters would bring around rotisseried
skewers of flame-grilled tenderloin, sirloin, t-bone,
bacon-wrapped filet mignon, lamb chops, pork, bacon-wrapped
chicken, and the like, and they carved off and you took
whatever you wanted, flipping a little coaster on the table
with a red side and a green side to signal to the waitstaff whether
you wanted more food brought or no. It was accompanied by
some lovely garlic-laced mashed potatoes (though I
think "lovely" and "garlic-laced" are approximately redundant)
and fired bananas. Anyway, we had an excellent dinner and we
got a taxi back to the blues club by 10:00pm, just in time,
it turns out, to catch the main warm-up band, which was fronted
by Buddy Guy's daughter. Buddy Guy came out and a final piece
with them, and then then there was a lengthy changeover from one
band to the next, and he and his band started up at 11:15.
The disappointing thing (from what we were told to expect) was
that he finished only a little over an hour later. But, what
we got to hear in that hour was wonderful. Martha later pointed
out from the liner notes on one of his CDs we had that he's
got to be 69 or 70 years old, so I think a shortened performance
might be forgiven. Also, though we were determined to stand for
the full 4 hours, I think we were all grateful that we didn't
have to. The place was a dive---just an nondescript old bar
with blues memorabilia all over the walls. Sort of the
perfect atmosphere for it. Buddy Guy himself had this
cordless guitar (or I should say, he had cord connecting
his guitar to a tramsmitter thingie hanging on his back) and
he ended up several times just wandering off the stage and
into the crowd, playing solo guitar the whole time. At one
point, after he came within about 5 feet of where we were
all standing, he continued on out a side door and into
the street, playing solo the whole time, and re-entering
the club through the front entrance about two minutes later.
We took it easy the next morning, getting out of Chicago and
hitting the Cracker Barrel at Merrillville sometime
before noon, and Martha and I got home about 4 o'clock
Sunday afternoon.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

Kanga Mom

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 10:42:42 AM2/19/05

to

bucke...@nospam.net wrote:

Julie said:
> >:|> LOL! No. I suppose I should have said, "from Christian
> >:|> to athiest,
> >:|

Kanga replied:

> >:|But aren't most of us praying that one day she can say "From
atheist to
> >:|Christian?"
> >:|
>

And then Buckeye asked:

> Why, what is wrong with to each their own?

Kanga:
>From where I sit, several things, but I'd rather not get into that.
Clearly though, you also are not averse to 'converting' people from one
point of view to another.

BUT- I should have deleted the crossposts, and I am very sorry that I
didn't. That was chuckleheaded of me.

Those of you outside of the homeschooling newsgroup do not know our
dynamics and back-story, so you could not have understood the remark as
it was intended to be received.

The Christian hsing group has a couple of regulars who are atheists. I
like to call them our 'token atheists.' I am very fond of them both,
and my family has spent some delightful time IRL with the family of one
of them, and they are some of our very favorite people.

My remark was affectionately directed at their dear selves, and I have
no doubt the rest of the hsing ng understood it as intended (ah, yes, I
see Mike replied back "I love you, too, " which is indeed a response in
kind ).

So my remark was entirely a personal, friend to friend comment, and I
*really* should have deleted the crossposting.

Kanga

P.S. Odd- last night I was able to just hit reply. Today Google won't
send it because there are too many crossposts. I hope I don't delete
the one where Buckeye posts from.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 11:24:28 AM2/19/05

to

"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:

>Talk about *the great modern myth*, it is this
>reduction of moral philosophy to sociology and/or
>psychology---the reduction of human choice (and the
>possibility therefore that there is right and wrong
>in human choice) to determinism. I.e., modeling
>human beings as though we were particles, or
>planets, or billiard balls, wholly determined
>in our beliefs, behaviours, sexual orientations,
>etc, by buffet-forces not chooseable by us, and
>our choices not judgeable by any objective external
>standard.

Moral pre-determinism is a product of Calvinism and not modern
science. God made His plans before the creation, and everything we do
was planned by Him and known to Him back then.

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 11:15:20 AM2/19/05

to

"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:424e514e....@news-west.newscene.com...

Well, another way to look at it is that those who pick up the Bible are
already atheists to begin with. It is the Power of the Word that changes
them from atheist to one of Gods people. Its by the Spirit that their eyes
are opened, not because of their action of reading. If the Spirit doesn't
quicken they dead heart, they were never more than atheist to begin with.
B.

Shadow Walker

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 11:43:06 AM2/19/05

to

Brian Oakley wrote:
> "Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
> news:424e514e....@news-west.newscene.com...
>
>>On 19 Feb 2005 00:51:54 -0800, "Kanga Mom"
>><kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 18 Feb 2005, J.Pascal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>LOL! No. I suppose I should have said, "from Christian
>>>>to athiest,
>>>
>>>
>>>Or better you, you should have said: "from Christian to atheist ...
>>>"::
>>>
>>>But aren't most of us praying that one day she can say "From atheist to
>>>Christian?"
>>>
>>>=)
>>>
>>>Kanga
>>
>>LOL, mostly it goes the other way. You can only fool yourself so
>>long. The sad truth is, actually reading the bible makes more
>>atheists than any other activity.
>
>
> Well, another way to look at it is that those who pick up the Bible are
> already atheists to begin with.

As are those who first pick up the Koran, and the Book of the Dead.

> It is the Power of the Word that changes
> them from atheist to one of Gods people.

Yes, and the word of Allah, and Bhudda, is a powerful force.

> Its by the Spirit that their eyes
> are opened, not because of their action of reading.

Yes, and the spirit of Bhudda guide and care for you,
until Hari Krishna accepts your soul into the higher
place it was meant to be.

> If the Spirit doesn't
> quicken they dead heart, they were never more than atheist to begin with.

Yes, and the light of Vishnu shine down upon you!

> B.
>
>
:P

Kate

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 12:55:04 PM2/19/05

to

Nice attempt at a put down. If you don't believe in my god, you are
dead in the heart.

Belief is simply a product of peer pressure as you have just
demonstrated nicely. There's nothing moral about it.

Reality is much more interesting and honest. You can't be moral by
starting with lying to yourself.

stoney

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 2:10:52 PM2/19/05

to

Observation of clerical and christian hypocracy is an invaluable aid.

--

Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.

Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.

America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP

Al Klein

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 2:09:19 PM2/19/05

to

On 18 Feb 2005 15:59:18 -0800, "J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> said in
alt.atheism:

>Al Klein wrote:
>> On 18 Feb 2005 10:23:57 -0800, "J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> said in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>> >As for the responses from "that newsgroup", the responders
>> >range from conservative to athiest to libertarian.
>>
>> "Atheist" is political position?
>
>LOL! No. I suppose I should have said, "from Christian
>to athiest, and from conservative to libertarian." Not
>that those pairings are necessarily points on a line
>either.

Try:

From fundamentalist theist to gnostic atheist and from
Neo-Conservative to flaming liberal.

--
rukbat at verizon dot net

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell

Analyst

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 2:57:09 PM2/19/05

to

bucke...@nospam.net wrote in
news:meae11htggekvj5b6...@4ax.com:

>
>

Cool. Thanks for the info. Odd to think that might be a good place to
try for a law degree if I read the situation there right. :S I'll keep
that in mind. I would love to be able to go do research there. My local
access other than online is pathetic. :(

Kate

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 3:52:03 PM2/19/05

to

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:10:52 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:

>On 19 Feb 2005 08:50:03 -0600, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>
>>On 19 Feb 2005 00:51:54 -0800, "Kanga Mom"
>><kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 18 Feb 2005, J.Pascal wrote:
>
>>>> LOL! No. I suppose I should have said, "from Christian
>>>> to athiest,
>
>>>Or better you, you should have said: "from Christian to atheist ...
>>>"::
>
>>>But aren't most of us praying that one day she can say "From atheist to
>>>Christian?"
>>>
>>>=)
>>>
>>>Kanga
>>
>>LOL, mostly it goes the other way. You can only fool yourself so
>>long. The sad truth is, actually reading the bible makes more
>>atheists than any other activity.
>
>Observation of clerical and christian hypocracy is an invaluable aid.

You know, that was a rathernasty little thing for her to say. Now
would she have said - aren't most of us praying that one day she can
say "From Jewish to Christian"? and if she had, wouldn't she have
gotten nailed for her bigotry?

It's rather sad how Christians think it's OK to disparage someone's
considered lack of belief.

J.Pascal

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 8:07:24 PM2/19/05

to

Christians do that? Well, I'm sure they do, but they aren't
unique in this.

So how is one person hoping that other people have their good
thing too, disparaging, and other people hoping that people have
their good thing, and saying that those who don't come to the same
conclusion are fooling themselves, *not* disparaging?

Get over it and get some tolerance, folks. The first couple
responses were actually in rather good humor until Kate decided
that "disparaging" was going on. I'm sure if I try hard enough
I could be offended by nearly anything at all, but I have
better things to do with my time.

-Julie

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 8:22:00 PM2/19/05

to

"Shadow Walker" <sha...@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:cv7qaq$dcm$2...@news.onecall.net...

> Brian Oakley wrote:
> > "Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
> > news:424e514e....@news-west.newscene.com...
> >
> >>On 19 Feb 2005 00:51:54 -0800, "Kanga Mom"
> >><kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 18 Feb 2005, J.Pascal wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>LOL! No. I suppose I should have said, "from Christian
> >>>>to athiest,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Or better you, you should have said: "from Christian to atheist ...
> >>>"::
> >>>
> >>>But aren't most of us praying that one day she can say "From atheist to
> >>>Christian?"
> >>>
> >>>=)
> >>>
> >>>Kanga
> >>
> >>LOL, mostly it goes the other way. You can only fool yourself so
> >>long. The sad truth is, actually reading the bible makes more
> >>atheists than any other activity.
> >
> >
> > Well, another way to look at it is that those who pick up the Bible are
> > already atheists to begin with.
>
> As are those who first pick up the Koran, and the Book of the Dead.

I agree.

> > It is the Power of the Word that changes
> > them from atheist to one of Gods people.

>
> Yes, and the word of Allah, and Bhudda, is a powerful force.

But the Power I speak of doesnt come from the words themselves, but by the
Spirit that causes the word that you read to be understood. Allah and Bhudda
dont have the Spirit. They may have converts but it is by a different
spirit. When one reads in the Koran that all infidels must be killed
(infidels are those that do not follow Mohamed), then the spirit of evil can
take over their heart because that is what is already there, a fleshly
spirit that lusts after things of the flesh for his own satisfaction.
Bhudda's spirit cannot influence anyone, for he was mearly a man. The Spirit
of the living God is not a spirit of hate, but is the Spirit of love, to the
point of being willing to lay down your life for your enemies (not just
those you care about). You wont find that espoused in the Koran or in
Bhudda's writings.

> > Its by the Spirit that their eyes
> > are opened, not because of their action of reading.
>
> Yes, and the spirit of Bhudda guide and care for you,
> until Hari Krishna accepts your soul into the higher
> place it was meant to be.

As Ive said before Bhudda's spirit wont guide anyone. He was a man.

>
> > If the Spirit doesn't
> > quicken they dead heart, they were never more than atheist to begin
with.
>
> Yes, and the light of Vishnu shine down upon you!

Well, that wont happen either, but the Light of the world does shine on me
every day.
>
>
B.

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 8:37:48 PM2/19/05

to

"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message

news:42517a87....@news-west.newscene.com...

Its not meant as a put down at all. The Bible teaches that ALL men are dead
spiritually until the Spirit of God awakens their heart. I was dead for
years. Its not a put down at all. If anything its meant to be a wake up
call.

>
> Belief is simply a product of peer pressure as you have just
> demonstrated nicely. There's nothing moral about it.

Actually, belief is what the Holy Spirit instills in us. It isnt anything I
can give you or sell you. If you mean by peer pressure that by watching my
life and seeing the joy I have and you want to have that same joy, then by
that defination, yes you might call it peer "longing" but not pressure. I
cant make anyone do anything. Its God that does that. All I can do is tell
you what Jesus did for you, and what Hes done for me.

>
> Reality is much more interesting and honest. You can't be moral by
> starting with lying to yourself.

Well, if reality is believing that you wont ever die and you will just live
forever without any accountability, then you need to rethink reality.
Statistics show that one out of ever one dies. Usually before they reach 100
years of age. Just because you or anyone else chooses not to believe
something (such as God), that wont make the fact of the truth go away. It
only blinds you from accepting the forgiveness that God has to offer you.
One cant be moral by ones own standard. That standard will change with EVERY
situation of life. The only moral standard that doesn't change is the one
God lays down. I don't make the standard, I cant change the standard, as
much as I sometimes don't like it myself. But I have to do my very best to
live by the standard. And I fail a lot. But I do have the Holy Spirit to
help me, and I do have Gods forgiveness through the shed blood of Christ, so
that when I fail, He will pick me back up, dust me off, show me where I went
wrong, and help me a little further down the path to Him. That's what
Christ and salvation is about. Its not about condemnation (even though there
are a lot of Christians that live their life to point condemning fingers).
Salvation is about forgiveness that we need from God, firstly to save us
from His wrath that He sill show to the unrepentant, but secondly to help us
to forgive ourselves and to forgive others for all the wrongs we've done and
they've done, and to help us to love each other as He would have us to. It
feels awesome to know that I'm forgiven for the awful, sleazy, lustful,
heinous things that I've done to myself and to other people, and it shows me
how much I should forgive others for such small things compared to what God
forgave me for.
I'm not here to beat anyone over the head with the Bible. But if you're
ever interested, I would be glad to tell you about the depths of depravity
that God graciously lifted me out of. All I can tell you is what he did for
you through Jesus, and what He's done for me.
B

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 8:41:16 PM2/19/05

to

"stoney" <sto...@the.net> wrote in message
news:lo3f11priinh8i165...@4ax.com...

> On 19 Feb 2005 08:50:03 -0600, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>
> >On 19 Feb 2005 00:51:54 -0800, "Kanga Mom"
> ><kangamaroodoes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 18 Feb 2005, J.Pascal wrote:
>
> >>> LOL! No. I suppose I should have said, "from Christian
> >>> to athiest,
>
> >>Or better you, you should have said: "from Christian to atheist ...
> >>"::
>
> >>But aren't most of us praying that one day she can say "From atheist to
> >>Christian?"
> >>
> >>=)
> >>
> >>Kanga
> >
> >LOL, mostly it goes the other way. You can only fool yourself so
> >long. The sad truth is, actually reading the bible makes more
> >atheists than any other activity.
>
> Observation of clerical and christian hypocracy is an invaluable aid.
>
>

If those that are so quick to accuse Christians of being hypocrites would
focus their eyes upon the EVERYDAY world as closely as they do Christians,
they would find more hypocrisy there than they would in the church. The
world is FULL of hypocrites. Yeah they are in the church too, just like
folks who go to church that have never ever been saved, picked up a bible,
or ever taken the time to get to know a real Christian and really examine
their life.
B

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 19, 2005, 8:50:04 PM2/19/05

to

"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message

news:4252a5af....@news-west.newscene.com...

Its not a matter of trying to disparage anything. Its a matter of truth vs
untruth. If Christianity is true, then nothing else can be. If Islam is
true, then nothing else can be. Those that like the smorgasbord form of
spirituality, that everyone can believe anything as long as they are sincere
do not understand Jesus or the Bible. If Jesus is right, then the rest are
wrong. There is no gray area, no matter how very much any of us wish there
to be. God made the rules, not us. Its a matter of what rules we choose to
follow, Gods or our own. If we follow Gods, then it is our DUTY to help you
understand the need that you have. If the Spirit doesn't open your eyes to
that fact, well, we've done our job frankly. But that doesn't mean God is
finished with that work. He may send someone else to try again. Why??
Because He knows the rules, and doesn't want you to be caught in the wrath
to come. He loves you, and tries over and over and over to get you to
listen to Him. But those that don't listen, eventually their hearts grow so
hard to what God and His people have to say, that He then does give up, and
it is hopeless. If you're at that point, its all over. And mind you, this is
not my teaching, or to my liking necessarily, but it is what God has to say
about the subject. So don't think its because Christians want to disparage
anyone when we talk about God. Its because we want you to be able to hear
what God is trying to say to you, many times over and over.
B

Kate

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 12:15:04 PM2/20/05

to

So your god tells you to be a jerk and put down others? How nice of
him.

It still doesn't excuse you from announcing everytime you hear someone
is an aetheist that you will pray that they stop thinking.

Kate

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 12:20:11 PM2/20/05

to

So why don't you publically announce that you will pray for someone to
stop being a Christian hypocrit everytime you hear them say they are
Christian?

It would certainly let the rest of us know that you don't accept
hypocracy as legitimate the way it always looks and it certainly would
do the world far more good than praying for atheists.

Michael S. Morris

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 12:54:33 PM2/20/05

to

Sunday, the 20th of February, 2005

bucky:
So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites
among those listed below
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help
me god".
(0.42 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A
I said:
My point exactly.
Bob LeChevalier:
How so ???
I said:
Demonstration that there is such a myth in the first place
relies upon dredging the web for the leavings of the lunatic
fringe of the religious right.
Bob LeChevalier:
If the lunatic right has such a myth, then that alone
means that there are substantial numbers who believe
the myth.

I don't think that there are substantial numbers on
the lunatic right. There exist some. But, my point is
there *are* substantial numbers of fundamentalist
Christians and evangelical Christians and conservatives,
paleo- and neo-, who are *not to be confused* with the
lunatic right.

Bob LeChevalier:
But in point of fact, the cites I provided were from a wide range of
sources and not just the lunatic religious right: from NPR, to a Bill
Clinton speech, historical sites, and even an atheist website that
screams offense at the myth even while buying into it.

Fair enough. The "myth", after all, *has* historical
basis in that report from Washington Irving by that
1854/56 author. And it clearly was repeated as so
by Henry Cabot Lodge in his 1899 biography of Washington.

(Plus, there is the consideration that saying "so help me God"
after an oath is common "pop" currency---right down to George Burns
in "Oh, God!" saying "So help me Me". Which means that people would
tend to assume it's what was said in the absence of evidence
otherwise. Plus, there is the consideration that Washington *did*
speak that which is functionally equivalent in his inaugural address.)

I said:
I have never had any doubt, maybe even some of them who
would wish to establish the Republic of Gilead (cf.
Margaret Atwood's Canadian fantasy about "the American
religious right") here and now.
Bob L:
There are some non-fantasy sites written by members of the religious
reich who indeed want to establish a theocracy, but in fact those were
not the sites which I provided you.

Or didn't you look at them, simply dismissing them as being of a
category that they aren't?

Guilty as charged, I was dismissing them. I still don't know
what to make of them, by the way, since every person I informally
poll has never heard of this "myth" one way or the other, and
has no opinion attached to it one way or the other as to its
importance. So, as a "myth" it seems to be a myth that has permeated
only a certain segment of the literate, but not literate-enough.

I said:
As I said, the *standard modern biography* of George
Washington in English---Flexner's four volumes dating from
the late 1960s---provides prima facie evidence that 1)
Washington never said it, and 2) that Flexner himself
didn't feel called upon in any way to refute anyone's claim
that Washington had said it.
Bob L:
Who reads standard modern biographies in four volumes?

I never have. But, I have read Dumas Malone's six-volume
standard modern biography of Thomas Jefferson, and I'd
count that read as a Wow!, among maybe twenty or thirty
Wow!s in my readerly adult life.

Bob L:
Myths form among the ignorant, who rarely
read any books.

I would say no. A myth can be a myth and still
be factually true, so there is no requirement of
ignorance. But, with the evidence you have pointed
to---Clinton, Supreme Court justices, Henry Cabot Lodge,
Washington Irving himself---these are not *ignorant
people who don't read books. Irving was famous and
notorious as a mythmaker, in the deliberate mode of
Herodotus and Livy and Plutarch (which involves a whole
argument about what history is for in the first place---I'm
leaving room there for the possibility that Irving
may have been right, and that history is an art form
devoted to human moral purpose and not mere chronology).

Bob L:
But even I, an avid
reader, have never read a multivolume biography of anyone.

OK, to respond to this sentence is probably why I launched
into responding to your post. I already told you above that I
have read a multivolume biography and that it was a wonderful
read. But, I haven't *read* Flexner. His four volumes are merely
on my list of "to read" books. See, I think you're missing
the point, here. I didn't *read* four volumes of Flexner in
order to argue that there was no such thing as a myth that
Wahsington said "so help me God", I went to the shelf and
*consulted* the relevant chapter. It took me a moment to
recall that the Inauguration would have been in 1789, and
then I had to look at the years of coverage in each volume,
and choose volume 3 as the relevant one, and then look
through the chapters to find the first inauguration. My point is
that I would think that would the first step of *anyone*
to whom it has occurred to question whether Washington really
said this or no. Granted, Flexner is a *secondary source*, and
cannot finally determine the question one way or another,
but, as I said, it is the recognized "standard" modern biography,
and would, presumably, lead one into the relevant primary
sources. I'd be interested in seeing what Douglass Southall
Freeman's GW bio does with this incident, since apparently
Henry Cabot Lodge's 1899 repeats the myth that GW said
"so help me God".

I said:
I.e., that there was no such
thing as a prevailing myth at least at that time. I.e., bucky's
"breaking news" is about as much news as that Washington
didn't chop down the cherry tree or that people in the time
of Columbus knew the world was round.
Bob L:
There are still plenty of people who believe those myths, too, though
I think they've been receding since I was taught those myths as fact
40 years ago.

I'm just puzzled by this. I mean, my public-school education
began with kindergarten 40 years ago. And it was remarkably *thin*
on any history, with "mythological stories" taught in the
elementary grades, in various layers of Indiana history,
US history, and world history. And then, I think that 8th grade
and 11th grade had required years of US history that were a little more
serious. But, I can't recall back to a time when I thought the
"cherry-tree" story was other than a story, and "people thought
the world is flat" seems to me an elementary-school belief that
I was disabused of fairly early on. Maybe it just depends on one's
teachers. The one I feel more aggrieved over is the Jefferson-Sally
Hemings story, which I was never "taught" per se, but which all
adults referred to as an established fact that everyone just knew about.
When I came to Dumas Malone, I discovered it was anything but
an established fact, and there were in fact strong arguments
against it. Since that time a new round of evidence
(including DNA testing) has tilted the balance towards
Jefferson having fathered Sally Hemings' children,
but the evidence and the arguments are much more complicated
(and interesting, in fact) than any adult "teller of the myth
to me when I was a child" appreciated.

I said:
As for this time, the Year of Our Lord 2005, the issue
remains this claim about there being a "myth". A myth is
not just a lie, and not just an incorrect "fact", but something
that lots of people believe, and in its truest sense, a story
that lots of people believe because it expresses to them some
deep meaning that they feel is true or want to be true.

[distraction deleted]

Umm, I disappreciate the characterization of my illustration
as a "distraction". I am, in the part you kept above, making
a general claim. In my profession as physicist, that is like
asserting, or deriving some equation of motion for a system.
*Then*, the important thing to do is look at that equation
in the limits of its parameters, to see if it makes
sense. That is what my story---of Sherman and the attribution
to Sherman of the quote "the only good Indian is a dead Indian"---
was meant to do: illustrate the general claim.

Note, Bob, I *am happy* to have the illustrative story
itself deleted---there was no need to discuss it, once
point were made and understood. I merely object to
its characterization here as a "distraction". I wanted
an example of something that is a myth where the factoid
upon which it is based may well be true, but the "mythic
content" is false. It should be obvious from that there
will be changes that can be rung on this illustration.
That is, there will be myths that are historically
accurate and whose mythic content is true, there will
be myths which are historically false whose mythic
content is nevertheless true, and there will of course
be myths which are historically inaccurate and whose mythic
content is also false.

Calling something a myth just means calling it a
significant story. It isn't the same thing as calling
it a lie. And if one debunks the historical accuracy of
some myth, then this does not amount to debunking or
undermining in the slightest the significance of the story.

I said:
My point is that there is no such thing as a myth that
Washington said "so help me God".
Bob L:
Sorry, but using the definition you provided, that is precisely what
it is. It is a lie that lots of people believe because they want the
meaning it symbolizes to be true - the Christian right, which is a
substantial minority in this country, wants to believe that this is
fundamentally a fundamentalist, Bible-thumping, god-fearing nation,
and thus they want to believe that its leaders were fundies.

So, we are talking now about less than 1% of the population
of the US? I mean, how people believe George Washington and Thomas
Jefferson and John Adams and James Madison and Ben Franklin
were "fundamentalists"? It would be only by dint of never having
read any of their writings or any biographies of them at all
that one would believe such a thing, regardless of whether they
said "So help me God" or no. Also, this "fundamentalists
who want to believe the Founders were Bible-thumping fundies"
label doesn't apply to Bill Clinton or those Supreme Court
justices or Henry Cabot Lodge or even Washington Irving.

I said:
There may be lies to that effect being told by a few zealots.
Bob L:
These particular lies are being told by presidents, senators, lawyers,
public radio stations, even some historians, none of whom are zealots,
but who apparently have been convinced of the truth of the myth simply
because it hasn't been questioned enough. Just as people believed the
cherry tree myth until the questioning became more well-known.

But, I don't think you can claim senators, lawyers,
public radio stations, and even some historians are
repeating these lies out any belief that George Washington
was a Bible thumping fundamentalist. Surely, insofar as
these people do happen to buy the historical claim of
Washington saying those words, they are not buying the
zealots' mythic content, but rather the natural piety of the man
(wholly demonstable, by the way, in his inaugural address)
and the almost phatic commonality of the phrase.

I said:
But my bet is that if
you went to the man in the street and asked him whether or
not George Washington said that, it'd be a coin toss.
Bob L:
I'm not so sure.

I guess I'm pretty sure at this point. I mean, I started with
my own reaction---I *am* a reader, I *do* read and am interested
in reading multivolume works about the American Founders and
Founding Period, and I had never heard of any such claim
as that Washington had started a tradition of saying "so help me God"
at his first inaugural swearing-in. My wife and mother-in-law
(77 year-old mother-in-law) had never heard of this. I went out
to dinner last evening with a choir friend between rehearsal and
performance and asked him about it, and he'd never heard about it,
and apparently wouldn't have attached any importance to it if he
had. My wife's response to the "BREAKING NEWS that Washington
didn't say 'so help me God' at the swearing in" was "I'll bet
he didn't say 'Please pass the salamanders' at dinner, either.
So what?"

I said:
And if you went to historians, say, who didn't specialize in the
subject of GW, I'll bet they'd turn to Flexner or Douglass Southall
Freeman and quickly determine that, no, Washington probably
didn't say that.
Bob L:
At least 3 of the sites that I listed yesterday showed evidence of at
least some consultation with historians, so apparently historians
aren't as error-free as you would wish.

Maybe these historians weren't particularly interested in the
question or in doing any research at all. I just don't get it,
though. I mean, if this were a question about something Louis XIV
is supposed to have said---wouldn't the first thing one would do is
find out what are *the* biographies of Louis and see what they
say on the subject, and then use them as an entree into the
primary sources?

I said:
Moreover, there's what I said about using history and
historical "facts" (i.e. whether valid or no) as blunt
instruments. I mean, for the sake of argument let us
suppose for a moment that Washington was the very image of
a modern Christian evangelical of the most politically
rabid stripe, who was just frothing at the mouth to
institute this Republic of Gilead at the earliest
possible opportunity. So what? I mean, we still have
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" as
the highest law of the land.
Bob L:
But of course the issue was what the Founders meant by those words.
If they meant that there could be publicly sponsored prayers in
school, at graduations, at national ceremonies, so long as Congress
doesn't declare the national religion to be Episcopalianism (which is
what some people seem to think is all that they meant), then this
nation would be a lot less free than some of us want to believe it
should be.

I think it pretty clear what the Founders meant by those
words is a lot closer to what *you say* here than to
an absolute prohibition on all forms of religious ceremony
or observence in public assemblies.

Religious establishment was the official recognition of
a church by a government, in which public tax monies went
to pay the ministers, and build the church buildings, of
that church and no other sect's church. The First Amendment
to the US Constitution was an add-on, an amendment, an amendment
that was enacted out of Antifederalist objections to the
Constitution as proposed from the Convention in 1787. That
means there obviously Founding Fathers, namely many Federalists,
who thought a Bill of Rights was utterly unnecessary to
the US Constitution. In part, this was because we were at
an historical nexus as to the *meaning of a Bill of Rights*.
You can see this if you read (umm, it's 2 volumes in the
Library of America) the debates on the Constitution. There
are Federalists who argue that these Antifederalists are simply
misguided since there is no need whatsoever for a Bill of
Rights, since the whole structure of the Constitution only
permits the federal government to do those things that
Congress---the People's representatives---vote government
to be able to do. And that, after all, is the meaning of
a Bill of Rights, such as the English Bill of Rights
from 1689---the English can't abridge these and those
rights unless Parliament votes to abridge them. Now,
Jefferson says in his letter to Madison on the new
proposed Constitution that he decries the fact that it
doesn't have a Bill of Rights, where he adds that every
People ought to have a Bill of Rights from every just government.
I.e., it's a new conception of Rights from what
Noah Webster and James Wilson and the Federalists were
arguing. Also, please note---at the point of
inception of the First Amendment, it was a limitation
on *the Federal Government*, certainly it did not cross
anyone's mind that this applied to local schools or
local or state government. In fact, *there were established
churches in many states* at the time, and religious
*disestablishment* didn't happen in the states until I
think finally the middle of the 19th century. So, Founding Fathers
were *used to living under state governments which had
established churches*. Jefferson's "wall of separation"
letter was a letter of agreement with a petition from
some Connecticut Baptists---i.e. a Dissenting sect---who
were complaining that the state of Connecticut taxed
*them* to pay for the established Congregational church.

It was only post-Civil-War 14th Amendment which extended
Rights we have from the Federal government's exercise of
power to Rights as well from state and local governments'
exercises of power.

Anyway, I think it's pretty darn clear whether or not
Washington said "so help me God" that no one meant
by the (later) First Amendment to expunge every
vestige of religious observance from public ceremony.

And I'm someone who is totally committed *against*
teacher-led prayer in the public schools and "faith-based
initiative" monies being used to further the evangelization
of prisoners and the teaching of biblical creationism
as some equal alternative to evolutionary biology.

I said:
So, what use exactly could
be made of such a "fact" as George Washington's Christian
rightism, were that remotely arguable?
Bob L:
Every little tidbit is a grain in the sand for or against the
persistence of "ceremonial deism" where people are forced to mouth or
read or hear religious messages that are expressed out of tradition
instead of out of belief. When belief becomes ceremonial, it is dead,
so this is both harmful to freedom, and harmful to true religious
belief.

I wholly agree with you on this assertion. That's the point about
the "wall of separation"---it's not to insulate government from
religion, but to insulate religion from the "lowest common
denominator" of government. It's that religious faith is too
important a thing to let government get its clutches in any manner
on it. I fully confess I find Bill Clinton the most nauseating
liar ever to find his way into public office. So, when he
writes about finding historical gravity in that "so help me God"
ceremonial moment, I roll my eyes at what I take to be yet another
stage pose from the master of all stage poseurs.

Well, anyway, I guess I can fantasy comfort in imagining
that, if *I* am ever elected President, I'll not say so
help me God.

I said:
Or, for that matter,
so what that GW *didn't* say "so help me God"? What modern
political lesson am I supposed to draw from that?
Bob L:
That may depend on what political lessons you already know. Maybe YOU
have nothing to learn from Jim's postings, in which case you can use a
killfile as well as anyone can.

I never have used a killfile, and don't intend to now. And, who
is "Jim"? buckeye hasn't signed himself as Jim, and I'll swear he
has spoken as those he is in conversation with a Jim, although his
attributions tend to be a little unclear to me.

Bob L:
Perhaps there is no political lesson.

I don't see one.

Bob L:
The elimination of false information is a worthy end in itself.

And I agree. I don't think that makes it appropriate to post to
a homeschooling newsgroup, however. Anymore than posting
some advance in physics would be appropriate.

Bob L:
In Jim's case, he seems to be
researching the issue for Newdow, and Newdow has firsthand experience
in knowing just how thoroughly one has to have researched the issues
in order to get a serious hearing before the Supreme Court.

And I would contend that any issue that 4 USSC justices find important
enough to hear is by that fact alone more important than 99% of all
issues that appear on Usenet.

What issue precisely is it that 4 USSC justices are finding
important enough to hear? Surely, no one is claiming a
GW Bush, say, shouldn't be permitted to say "so help me God"
if he wants to?

I said:
What's it
supposed to mean that he did or did not say it? It just
seems to me that all bucky is doing is descending to engage
in sound-bite history of exactly the same kind he thinks
his opponents are doing.
Bob L:
He obviously feels that every bit of sound-bite history that can be
corrected, should be.

If that were so, then I wouldn't have had any objection.
But then, if that were so, he wouldn't have crossposted it
to as many newsgroups as he did.

Bob L:
If his correction is taken merely as another
sound-bite, then at least there are two conflicting
sound-bites which might prompt the curious into
looking further.

The sound-bite aspect of his correction would be if one
took away any particular "lesson" from it about expunging
religious observances from public ceremony. History
is of course always complicateder than that.

I said:
I mean, again, we have GW's inaugural
speech, and it is *shot through* with GW's personal
religious (philosophical Deism) beliefs, which GW obviously
thought appropriate to share on the occasion. *The speech*
itself certainly expresses at length *exactly the natural piety*
that a stock phrase like "so help me God" is meant to express.
So, if the argument is really over whether GW held religious
beliefs,
Bob L:
It isn't, directly. The issue is what level and kinds of intrusion of
private religion into public life the founders believed appropriate,
and therefore what is permitted under our constitution.

It strikes me that plainly, given the content of Washington's
inaugural address, quite a large amount of intrusion of
private religion into public life was considered appropriate
by Washington.

As for what is permitted under our Constitution, I'd
say that Washington was Federalist and, I assume at least
initially opposed to the enactment of a Bill of Rights
over the new Constitution, though I understand he
came around to agree with it. I personally don't know
where he stood on that issue at the inauguration. (Certainly
a couple of states had ratified the new Constitution
*provisionally*, saying that a Bill of Rights had to be added,
so maybe Washington was simply resigned to the eventuality
by that point.)

I said:
he obviously did (though not exactly *Christian* religious
beliefs, whether he said "so help me God" or no.
Bob L:
Some people cannot conceive that anyone could have religious beliefs
other than Christian ones. You are either a Christian, or an pinko
communist liberal atheist.

Nevertheless, the point remains that Washington *did* intrude
private religious beliefs into that particular public ceremony.

Personally, since I call myself Liberal and approximately atheist,
I cannot begin to understand anyone who would link communism,
a doctrine of collective control of individuals, and liberalism,
the political doctrine which began from capitalism and free enterprise.

Bob L:
This country values its heroes. Washington is one of them. To be
heroic to the fundies, Washington has to be not merely religious, but
a devout Christian, or he cannot be a hero and role-model, because
they can only accept devout Christians as proper role models.

Well, it follows he isn't a hero or role-model to them, since
he wasn't "a devout Christian", but something rather different
than that. As anyone reading about him would quickly
determine.

I said:
I just do not
get the relevance of the claim by the people who claim he
did say it.
Bob L:
Maybe you are too rational. Most of the country is irrational on
matters pertaining to religion. And the only ways to fight
irrationality is with more irrationality, or with persistent,
myth-destroying fact (and sometimes even factoid).

But, this incorrect fact neither establishes the mythic content
in the first place nor does the correct fact disestablish the
mythic content. Washington wasn't a fundie, whether or not he said
"so help me God". Lots of people other than fundies say such a thing,
which is precisely why you were able to find corroboration of the
myth from Wahsington Irving, Henry Cabot Lodge, Bill Clinton, and
lawyers and justices. Anyway, I still don't get it.

Mike Morris
(msmo...@netdirect.net)

Carol Lee Smith

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 2:26:33 PM2/20/05

to

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Brian Oakley wrote:

> But the Power I speak of doesnt come from the words themselves, but by the
> Spirit that causes the word that you read to be understood. Allah and

> Bhudda [sic] dont have the Spirit. ...

http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funnymovies/fartingpreacher.html

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 2:40:07 PM2/20/05

to

"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message

news:4257c4c8....@news-west.newscene.com...

I have no idea what youre refering to because that has not come up in
anything Ive posted. Id be more inclined to respopnd if you would stop
grasping at something to fight about, especially since its not germain to
anything Ive said.

> It still doesn't excuse you from announcing everytime you hear someone
> is an aetheist that you will pray that they stop thinking.

Actually its more of a prayer that they START thinking and open their eyes
to something that is eternally significant to THEM.
B

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 3:02:43 PM2/20/05

to

"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message

news:4258c572....@news-west.newscene.com...

Kate, Im not having an easy time following you. Why should I publically
announce that I will pray for ANYONE? I dont go around doing that unless
they ask me to pray for them in a public setting, then I will respond to
THEM that I will pray for them, not to everyone publically. I do pray about
hypocracy in the church, starting with my own, and mainly for my own. I also
pray for people that dont know God that they will come to know him. But I
dont announce my pray for anyone publically. Have you had someone do this to
you? Id like to hear about your experience.

> It would certainly let the rest of us know that you don't accept
> hypocracy as legitimate the way it always looks and it certainly would
> do the world far more good than praying for atheists.

You may have a good point here in that praying for hypocrites in the church
( I think that's what you're referring to ) might help the world. But NOT
praying for atheists wont do the atheist any good will it? Think about that.
I get the feeling that you either just don't like what I'm saying or have
had a bad experience somewhere. If its the former, I really cant help you
there. The Gospel is indeed offensive to those that don't believe it. But if
you've had a bad experience somewhere, maybe we can talk about it.
B

stoney

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 3:30:14 PM2/20/05

to

Sheer jealousy on their part.

stoney

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 3:31:05 PM2/20/05

to

(laughing @ your pathetic ignorance)

>B.

stoney

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 3:33:55 PM2/20/05

to

Did you have to study to become this stupid or did it take years of
study?

>B

stoney

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 3:35:32 PM2/20/05

to

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:41:16 -0600, "Brian Oakley"
<brian...@ispwest.com> wrote:

Did you have to study to become this stupid or did it come naturally?

(sheesh! Blasted disruptions)

>B

Carol Lee Smith

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 3:57:01 PM2/20/05

to

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Brian Oakley wrote:

> > It still doesn't excuse you from announcing everytime you hear someone
> > is an aetheist that you will pray that they stop thinking.

> Actually its more of a prayer that they START thinking and open their eyes
> to something that is eternally significant to THEM.

I'd say it is the height of presumption for you to determine for others
what is or should be of importance to them.

"Nothing fails like prayer." A.Gaylor

http://www.jokaroo.com/ecards/funnymovies/fartingpreacher.html

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 4:01:19 PM2/20/05

to

[buckeye wrote:]
>:| In other words it is a accepted belief by most
>:| laypeople

"Michael S. Morris" replied
>:|Codswallop.
>:|

[buckeye wrote:]
>:| and probably a
>:| good many historians and scholars that
>:| George Washington did in fact utter
>:| "So help me God."

"Michael S. Morris" replied
>:|Bullshit.

Very expressive. Showing a very good command of language especially for a
physicist.

********************************************************************
THE ELECTION AND INAUGURATION OF WASHINGTON
(1789) BY WASHINGTON IRVING1

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/epochs/vol4/pg51.htm

The inauguration took place on the 30th of April. . . .

The chancellor advanced to administer the oath prescribed by the
Constitution, and Mr. Otis, the secretary of the Senate, held up the Bible
on its crimson cushion. The oath was read slowly and distinctly; Washington
at the same time laying his hand on the open Bible. When it was concluded,
he replied solemnly, "I swear—so help me God!" Mr. Otis would have raised
the Bible to his lips, but he bowed down reverently and kissed it.

The chancellor now stept forward, waved his hand and exclaimed: "Long live
George Washington, President of the United States!" . . .
##############################################################

###################################################################
http://www.oklahomahistory.net/newsletters/ttnews1003.html
[excerpt]
December 27, 2003 T&T Weekly Vol 7 Issue 349

Some of you will remember that last month (November 13th) the historic
George Washington Inaugural Bible was on display at the Southern Oklahoma
Museum of History. The bible was printed in London in 1767. Jonathan
Hampton was sworn in using this bible as the Master of the oldest Masonic
Lodge in New York on Number 28, 1770. On April 30, 1789 George Washington
was sworn in using this same bible. He put his right hand on the 49th and
50th chapter of Genesis. When the oath was completed, President Washington
added the phrase, "I swear, so help me God", and bending forward, kissed
the open book. Here are some photographs a T&T Reader took of this famous
piece of U.S. history. Here are a couple of those pics when it was on
display in Ardmore last month.
http://www.OklahomaHistory.net/ttphotos3b/GeorgeWashingtonBible03a.jpg
http://www.OklahomaHistory.net/ttphotos3b/GeorgeWashingtonBible03b.jpg
http://www.OklahomaHistory.net/ttphotos3b/GeorgeWashingtonBible03c.jpg
http://www.OklahomaHistory.net/ttphotos3b/GeorgeWashingtonBible03d.jpg

################################################
The United States Capitol Historical Society
http://www.uschs.org/04_history/subs_articles/04e_12.html
[excerpt]

1789: George Washington’s First Inauguration

The administration of the oath of office as a ritual of reaffirmation
combines the worlds of the sacred and the profane--or in other
terms--religion and ideology. The oath, as specified by the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," is
sworn as the President-elect lays his hand upon an open Bible.

Prior to 1937, Inauguration Day was set on March 4th (first by act of
Continental Congress, September 13, 1788, and then by act of Congress,
March 1, 1792; except when March 4th fell on a Sunday, public ceremony
Monday). The first inauguration, however, didn't take place on March 4,
1789, but nearly two months later on April 30th.

Because Congress met in Federal Hall in New York City, Washington went
there to take the oath of office on April 30th. He went to the Senate
Chamber on the second floor, where he was escorted out to the balcony to
take the oath. Because no Supreme Court justices had been appointed, the
oath was administered by Robert Livingston, Chancellor of the State of New
York. The Bible used in the ceremony had been borrowed from nearby St.
John's Masonic Lodge when none could be found in Federal Hall. After
repeating the 35-word oath, Washington added, "I swear, so help me God."
Livingston raised the Bible, Washington bent over and kissed it, and
Livingston turned to the crowd and said, "Long live George Washington,
President of the United States." The flag was raised, artillery fired, and
all the church bells rung. The President then went back into the building
and delivered his inaugural address in the Senate Chamber before both
Houses of Congress.

#######################################################
FC Associates
Museum Consulting, Appraisals and Legal Services
http://www.fcassociates.com/ntbible.htm
[excerpt]
April 30, 1789

Inauguration Day was clear and cool when it finally arrived. Foreign
ambassadors and statesmen alike jammed their way into Federal Hall.
Townspeople mingled with their neighbors from other states to crowd the
roads leading to Federal Hall and Wall Street itself. Historians tell us
that at precisely 11:00 a.m., the Senate door swung open and the House
Speaker, escorted by three Senators and Representatives from the House,
went downstairs to a waiting carriage. Suddenly, it is said that Washington
himself appeared at the door, exchanged nervous greetings with fellow
statesmen, paused only a moment to acknowledge the cheers from his
countrymen, and entered the Hall for the swearing in.

Once inside Federal Hall, we are told that the President-elect, standing
regally and tall, accepted the applause of the joint Congress. He glanced
around for his Vice President, John Adams, sat down on a beautiful crimson
chair and said simply, "I am ready to proceed." Tension wasn't in the air .
. . it was the air!

However, there was an awkward pause and then there was confusion! Though
reports are sketchy at best regarding how long of a period of time
confusion reigned, we know that the cause of the confusion was the missing
Bible. What a scene it must have been as members of the first Congress,
with ashen faces, searched through the building in consternation and
without success. Perhaps many of those present felt that without a Bible
the oath could not be administered nor Washington even proclaimed our first
President! Soon, however, New York State Chancellor, Robert R. Livingston,
a fellow Mason, remembered that his local meeting house, St. John's Lodge,
housed a beautiful altar Bible and, importantly, that Bible was a short few
hundred feet down the block. After a quick trip down the street, the
historic Bible was provided and, in fact, carefully placed upon a red
velvet cushion. Everyone relaxed, calm prevailed, and the stage was set.

Immediately, Chancellor Livingston administered the Oath of Office to
Washington. When the oath was completed, Washington added the phrase, "I
swear, so help me God!" and, bending down, kissed the open Book. While
Chancellor Livingston loudly and joyously proclaimed Washington our
nation's first President, one Joseph Morton, Master of St. John's Lodge,
stepped forward and carefully folded down a corner of the open page, thus
preserving a record of the random Bible opening where Washington had rested
his left hand. Interestingly, fate sometimes does funny things, for the
random selection fell open to Chapter 49 of the Book of Genesis, the book
that Biblical scholars remind us that literally means "the book of new
beginnings."

The scene that ensued was bedlam as the crowd broke into a storm of cheers.
Livingston reportedly said, "It is done." and then turned to the crowd and
shouted, "Long live George Washington, President of the United States!"
Grown men cried and shouted and joyous celebration was the order of the
day. Thursday, April 30, 1789, had been a great day, indeed, and a great
era was born. However, one must wonder whether or not the day would have
ended on such a high note had it not been discovered, at the very last
minute, that the ornate Bible -- now known as President George Washington's
inaugural Bible -- rested in a small room at St. John's Lodge, No. 1, a few
short yards from Federal Hall.

######################################################
Michael Newdow is at it Again
... lawsuit to prevent a prayer being said at George W ... On April 30,
1789, George Washington took the oath ... After the resolution's adoption,
Washington then issued a ...

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/01-12-05.asp
[excerpt]
On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the oath of office with his hand
on an open Bible. After taking the oath, he added, “I swear, so help me
God.” Following Washington's example, presidents still invoke God's name in
their swearing-in ceremony.2

2 Richard G. Hutcheson, Jr., God in the White House: How Religion Has
Changed the Modern Presidency (New York: Macmillan, 1988), 37.

##################################################
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ma/state/law/const5.html
[Excerpt]

One week later, on Thursday, April 30, the inauguration took place at
Federal Hall, on the corner of Broad and Wall streets. At noon Washington,
accompanied by Livingston and Adams, stepped out on the balcony and stood
in the presence of a vast multitude that filled the streets, the housetops,
and the windows, and the cheers that arose were deafening. Just behind him
stood Hamilton, Roger Sherman, and three Revolutionary generals--Knox,
Steuben, and St. Clair,--and these were followed by both houses of
Congress. Livingston pronounced the oath of office; Washington bowed and
kissed the Bible, and said in a deeply solemn and scarcely audible voice,
"I swear, so help me God." His countenance was grave almost to sadness,
reported an eyewitness. Livingston turned to the crowd, waved his hand, and
shouted "Long live George Washington, President of the United States"; and
the voice of the multitude rose in cheer after cheer, the artilley roared
from the battery, and bells were rung all over the city. Thus was the
United States of America, under its first President, launched upon the
ocean of national life.

#########################################################
GEORGE WASHINGTON vol. II
... the Bible, bowed, and said solemnly when the oath was concluded, "I
swear, so help me God," and, bending ... hand cried, "Long live George
Washington, President of ...
http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/1/2/6/5/12653/12653-h/12653-h.htm -

American Statesmen
GEORGE WASHINGTON
In Two Volumes
VOL. II.
By
HENRY CABOT LODGE
1899

[excerpt end of Chapter I ]

On April 30 he was inaugurated. He went in procession to the hall, was
received in the senate chamber, and thence proceeded to the balcony to take
the oath. He was dressed in dark brown cloth of American manufacture, with
a steel-hilted sword, and with his hair powdered and drawn back in the
fashion of the time. When he appeared, a shout went up from the great crowd
gathered beneath the balcony. Much overcome, he bowed in silence to the
people, and there was an instant hush over all. Then Chancellor Livingston
administered the oath. Washington laid his hand upon the Bible, bowed, and
said solemnly when the oath was concluded, "I swear, so help me God," and,
bending reverently, kissed the book. Livingston stepped forward, and
raising his hand cried, "Long live George Washington, President of the
United States!" Then the cheers broke forth again, the cannon roared, and
the bells rang out. Washington withdrew to the hall, where he read his
inaugural address to Congress, and the history of the United States of
America under the Constitution was begun.

#########################################################

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Five Sermons, by HB Whipple ...
... Rhode Island, met in the state house in Philadelphia, with George
Washington as
president ... Washington said solemnly, "I swear, so help me God," and then
...
http://www.outfo.org/literature/pg/etext05/5serm10.txt

FIVE SERMONS

BY THE RT. REV. H.B. WHIPPLE, D.D., LL.D. BISHOP OF MINNESOTA

1890

PREFACE

My only excuse for printing these sermons is the request of friends who
could not secure copies of them. They are printed as delivered, and the
repetition of incidents was a part of the historical statement. The
Third and Fifth Sermons were preached without notes and reported by a
stenographer. H.B.W.

II. SERMON AT THE FARIBAULT CELEBRATION OF THE CENTENNIAL
OF THE INAUGURATION OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1789-1889

It is the 30th of
April. In all the churches of New York there have been prayers for the
new government and its chosen head. The streets swarm with people as
the hour of noon approaches. Every house-top and porch and window near
to Federal Hall is packed with a dense mass. The president has been
presented to the two houses of Congress. The procession is formed.
Washington follows the senators and representatives to the balcony.
Around and behind him are his staff and distinguished patriots of the
Revolution. Every eye is fixed on the stately, majestic man. A little
over six feet high, his form perfect in outline and figure, a florid
complexion, dark blue eyes deeply set, his rich brown hair now tinged
with gray, firm jaws and broad nostrils, lighted by a benignant
expression. Such was the Father of his Country. The brave soldier
trembles with emotion as the chancellor of the State of New York reads
the oath; the hand of Washington is on the open Bible. Was it a
providence that they rested on the words, "His hands were made strong by
the mighty God of Israel?" The secretary would have raised the sacred
book to the president's lips. Washington said solemnly, "I swear, so
help me God," and then bowed reverently kissed the book. He went to the
senate chamber, and with stammering words, for his heart was almost too
full for utterance, he delivered his inaugural address, and then turning
to his friends said, "We will go to St. Paul's Church for prayers." It
had been the habit of his life. His pastor, Rev. Lee Massey, said, "No
company ever withheld him from church."' His secretary, Harrison, said,
"Whenever the general could be spared from the camp on the Sabbath, he
never failed to ride to some neighboring church to join in the worship
of God." He claimed no praise for his matchless victories, but
reverently gave all the glory to the blessing and protection of God. He
knew, in the words of my friend Robert C. Winthrop, that "There can be
no independence of God." The poet will sing and the orator describe
eloquently the pageant of that day, but no incident will so touch the
Christian's heart as the first act of the president of the United
States, kneeling reverently with his fellow-citizens in the public
worship of God. . . .
*********************************************************************************
IN CASE YOU HADN'T NOTICED THE CASE BELOW IS A USSC CASE

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/supreme/022001/&invol=2021301_101
When George Washington took the first oath of office as president in 1789,
he recited the words prescribed in article II, section 1, of the United
States Constitution(FN11) and then added these words, which are not found
in the Constitution, "I swear, so help me God."(FN12) President
Washington's words showed a belief in God and a prayer for His help. The
first President's example has been followed by his successors.(FN13) In
addition to the oath of our first president and all of his successors, the
phrase "So help me God," and similar references to the Almighty, have been
a part of our courtroom oaths, our laws, and other public rituals. See
generally Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312-13 (1952); School Dist. of
Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214 (1963).(FN14)
FN11. The President's oath, which is found in the last paragraph of
article II, section 1, states: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will,
to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States."
FN12. Steven B. Epstein, Rethinking the Constitutionality of Ceremonial
Deism, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 2083, 2110 (1996) (citing Martin J. Medhurst, "God
Bless the President": The Rhetoric of Inaugural Prayer 61 (1980)
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University)).
FN13. Epstein, supra note 12, at 2111.
SOURCE: Opinion -- Supreme Court of Missouri, Oliver v. State Tax
Commission of Missouri, Case Number: SC82412 Handdown Date: 02/13/2001
************************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************************

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me god".
(0.42 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A

********************************************************************************************************************8
Results 1 - 10 of about 259,000 for so help me god proves this is a
christian nation. (10.12 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=so+help+me+god+proves+this+is+a+christian+nation&spell=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 993 for "so help me god" proves this is a christian
nation. (0.46 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22so+help+me+god%22++proves+this+is+a+christian+nation&btnG=Search

**********************************************************************************************************************
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680 for sekulow washington so help me god. (0.43
seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sekulow+washington+so+help+me+god&spell=1

Results 1 - 10 of about 123 for sekulow washington "so help me god". (0.45
seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=sekulow+washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

*******************************************************************************************************************
Results 1 - 10 of about 86,800 for Pat Robertson washington so help me god.
(0.25 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Pat+Robertson++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 458 for Pat Robertson washington "so help me god".
(0.30 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Pat+Robertson++washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

***********************************************************************************************************************
Results 1 - 10 of about 343,000 for James kennedy washington so help me
god. (0.35 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=James+kennedy++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 901 for James kennedy washington "so help me god".
(0.14 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=James+kennedy++washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

*************************************************************************************************************************
Results 1 - 10 of about 656,000 for US supreme court washington so help me
god. (0.26 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+supreme+court+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 9,800 for US supreme court washington "so help me
god". (0.52 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+supreme+court+washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

****************************************************************************************************************************
Results 1 - 10 of about 472,000 for US federal courts washington so help me
god. (0.34 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Federal+courts+Washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,930 for Federal courts Washington "so help me
god". (0.40 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Federal+courts+Washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

***************************************************************************************************************
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,880,000 for religious right washington so help me
god. (0.43 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=US+federal+courts++washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,800 for religious right washington "so help me
god". (0.40 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=religious+right+washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

******************************************************************************************************
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,290,000 for history washington so help me god.
(0.57 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=history+washington+so+help+me+god&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 15,700 for history washington "so help me god".
(0.23 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=history+washington+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Search

***********************************************************************************************
FROM BOB

Yes there is a myth, as only a few minutes on Google proved:

http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/sohelpme.html

<A: Colette,the practice is traditional, an historical hangover from
< our Holy Roman Empire and English past, even George Washington did
< it; but, that does not make it constitutional (especially in terms of
< its being a requirement), because use of a Bible and the words "so
< help me God" are not required by the Constitution.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york080201.shtml
<The senator looked into the history of the oath. The words so help me
< God were first added to the oath of office by George Washington and
< have been spoken by every president since.

http://constitution-first.org/the_oath.htm
<The tradition of making oath of affirmation to “God” can be traced
< back to first inauguration of George Washington, who took it upon
< himself to punctuate the constitutionally required presidential oath
< to “preserve, protect, and defend the constitution …” with the
< salutation “so help me God.”

http://www.fcassociates.com/id27.htm (which by the way Jim should
check out since it gives more details than most that could be used to
find research sources)
<Immediately, Chancellor Livingston administered the Oath of Office to
< Washington. When the oath was completed, Washington added the phrase,
< "I swear, so help me God!" and, bending down, kissed the open Book.

http://members.aol.com/TestOath/21atheists.htm
<When President Washington completed his constitutional oath of office,
< his hand placed on a Masonic Bible, he added, spontaneously, "I
< swear, so help me God" and then kissed the Bible.[160]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/inauguration/history.html
They have a "panel of historians", but still said:
<George Washington added the phrase "so help me God" to the end of his
< oath, and almost every president has added it since.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20010823.shtml
<the reference to the almighty, a staple of the confirmation process
< since George Washington took office in 1789, was promptly tossed by
< the wayside.

http://www.greenbelt.com/news/97/073131.htm
<From the time that George Washington added the words "So help me God"
< to his presidential oath, American presidents have continued to pray
< publicly and to visit houses of worship.

http://www.whcoc.com/lads2leaders/washington.htm
<At the first inauguration, George Washington stated this oath as
< required by law, and then added the phrase “So Help Me God”. Every
< President since repeated those words, letting their countrymen know
< that they are President by the grace of God and that all power rests
< in Him.

Bill Clinton believed the myth too:
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/020493-speech-by-president-at-prayer-breakfast.htm
<Just two weeks and a day ago, I took the oath of office as President.
< You know the last four words, for those who choose to say it in this
< way, are "so help me God." And the Chief Justice was giving me the
< oath -- and I was trying to remember the words. And I said, you know,
< when I get to the end I'm going to think of the ringing voice of
< Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln and the Roosevelts and Kennedy
< and all the other great Presidents through the ages, and I will say,
< "so help me God" with all the strength at my command.

Is that enough cites to prove that a lot of people believe that
Washington said "so help me God"? That was from the first 32 hits of
"Washington 'so help me god'". And I saw NO statements in those
references that Washington did NOT say it.

Oh, for Jim's benefit, one of the above cites had a real reference
that he might want to check out:
160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God Bless the President": The Rhetoric
of Inaugural Prayer (1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Pennsylvania State University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State
University Library).] at 62.
**********************************************************************************
http://www.paulagordon.com/shows/carter/
. . . But it's very different and a serious problem when the Chief Justice
of the United States adds "...so help me God" to the Presidential oath.
That's not optional and turns the oath into a religious test, prohibited by
the Constitution. George Washington said it, but the phrase should not be
there.

Stephen Carter . . . Professor of Law, Yale University, and an author. A
former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Mr. Carter is
among the nation's leading experts on constitutional law. Mr. Carter
confronts what he views as challenges to America's democracy in his several
books, including The Culture of Disbelief, Civility, Integrity and God's
Name in Vain.
******************************************************************************
Catholic Online - Cathcom - 'I swear': Last-minute availability ...
http://www.catholic.org/cathcom/national_story.php?id=12151
As he completed the oath written for the occasion, Washington added the
unscripted words, "I swear, so help me God," and bowed to kiss the Bible.

Thus was born a tradition followed by almost every one of the 42 presidents
inaugurated since then, including some who have used the very same Bible.
**************************************************************************************

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 4:08:09 PM2/20/05

to

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:57:01 -0600, Carol Lee Smith
<hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Brian Oakley wrote:
>
>> > It still doesn't excuse you from announcing everytime you hear someone
>> > is an aetheist that you will pray that they stop thinking.
>
>> Actually its more of a prayer that they START thinking and open their eyes
>> to something that is eternally significant to THEM.
>
>I'd say it is the height of presumption for you to determine for others
>what is or should be of importance to them.

More like sheer arrogance.

They're not even sincere about it.

After all, anybody else trying to sell something pitches their message
to their audience. Using their audience's point of view, expectations
etc.

Which they'd do if they were sincere.

But these morons don't. They imagine their own POV, expectations,
presumptions, fears etc apply to everybody.

Kate

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 4:08:03 PM2/20/05

to

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 13:40:07 -0600, "Brian Oakley"
<brian...@ispwest.com> wrote:

This from the man who tells people if they don't believe in their god,
their heart is hard.

It was just a put down dear, and an attempt at pressure to make
someone joing your group so you will feel better about you believing
in your god.

>
>> It still doesn't excuse you from announcing everytime you hear someone
>> is an aetheist that you will pray that they stop thinking.
>
>Actually its more of a prayer that they START thinking and open their eyes
>to something that is eternally significant to THEM.
>B
>

It's rational thinking that makes theists atheist. Your external
stuff is without evidence, that's what make it external. Another word
for that is 'imaginary'. I don't need your imagination to help me
make decisions.

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 4:12:43 PM2/20/05

to

"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:

So you say. I'm not impressed.

It corrects history, It knocks a supporting pillar from under some of the
false history that certain groups, certain individuals use to try and
advance their agendas.

I bet that if one wanted to take the time to go over the briefs that the
various groups and individuals filed in opposition to M. Newdow's suit
before the USSC last March that one would find one or more of those briefs
offering George Washington said "so help me God" when he was sworn in as
Prez as justification, as precedence for "under God" remaining in the
Pledge.

You see, that is the damage that is done because of bogus history.

So when you say it serves no purpose you are either displaying your lack of
knowing or your bias.

Kate

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 4:15:03 PM2/20/05

to

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:02:43 -0600, "Brian Oakley"
<brian...@ispwest.com> wrote:

Uh, the lady in the thread up at the top. Didn't you read the whole
thing?

>
>> It would certainly let the rest of us know that you don't accept
>> hypocracy as legitimate the way it always looks and it certainly would
>> do the world far more good than praying for atheists.
>
>You may have a good point here in that praying for hypocrites in the church
>( I think that's what you're referring to ) might help the world. But NOT
>praying for atheists wont do the atheist any good will it? Think about that.

Pointing out hypocracy publically might do some good. Pretending that
the hypocrit is acting OK is not good. Your christian hypocrits
appear to have decided that once they announce they are christian, all
other christians will give them a pass on most every thing they do.
And you wonder why your religion has a reputation for hypocracy.

Don't bother with praying for atheists, they either don't care or
don't appreciate it, so all you may do is offend them, which
apparently you don't care about doing.

>I get the feeling that you either just don't like what I'm saying or have
>had a bad experience somewhere. If its the former, I really cant help you
>there. The Gospel is indeed offensive to those that don't believe it. But if
>you've had a bad experience somewhere, maybe we can talk about it.
>B
>

LOL, why do theists always decide there is a bad experience to get
over. It's more than a little presumptuous. Your religion by
definition is immoral and doesn't measure up to my ethical standards.
I don't do unethical, so I not only won't, I can't pretend with you.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 4:23:49 PM2/20/05

to

On 20 Feb 2005 15:15:03 -0600, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:

>Don't bother with praying for atheists, they either don't care or
>don't appreciate it, so all you may do is offend them, which
>apparently you don't care about doing.

We're the unsaved. We're sub-human. They don't have to show us any
courtesy or consideration.

Remember the fundy word for people is "Christian" in much the same
way the American word for people is "Americans".

>>I get the feeling that you either just don't like what I'm saying or have
>>had a bad experience somewhere. If its the former, I really cant help you
>>there. The Gospel is indeed offensive to those that don't believe it. But if
>>you've had a bad experience somewhere, maybe we can talk about it.
>>B

The gospel isn't offensive - it's merely the mythology of somebody
else's religion. What is really offensive, is the assholes who rub
their religion in our faces and lie about the negative reaction.
People like the person who wrote the above paragraph.

>LOL, why do theists always decide there is a bad experience to get
>over. It's more than a little presumptuous. Your religion by
>definition is immoral and doesn't measure up to my ethical standards.
>I don't do unethical, so I not only won't, I can't pretend with you.

Because they can't imagine people genuinely having zero reason to
believe as they do.

So they rationalise it and are too stupid to keep it to themselves.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 5:51:33 PM2/20/05

to

"Michael S. Morris" <msmo...@netdirect.net> wrote:

>My point is
>that I would think that would the first step of *anyone*
>to whom it has occurred to question whether Washington really
>said this or no.

But in fact, people don't do so, and in fact tend to assume the
plausible but incidental to be true because it isn't worth the effort
to check, which is why myths persist. Jim and Newdow need to more
than merely reference a standard biography because Newdow is going up
before a court, where lawyers produce canceling expert witnesses in
profusion - one expert who disagrees with Flexner, and the justices
won't know who to believe. Better to have evidence not merely that it
isn't true, but that it was a fabrication from a source like Irving
noted for creating fairy tales about Washington.

>I said:
> I.e., that there was no such
> thing as a prevailing myth at least at that time. I.e., bucky's
> "breaking news" is about as much news as that Washington
> didn't chop down the cherry tree or that people in the time
> of Columbus knew the world was round.
>Bob L:
> There are still plenty of people who believe those myths, too, though
> I think they've been receding since I was taught those myths as fact
> 40 years ago.
>
>I'm just puzzled by this. I mean, my public-school education
>began with kindergarten 40 years ago. And it was remarkably *thin*
>on any history, with "mythological stories" taught in the
>elementary grades, in various layers of Indiana history,
>US history, and world history. And then, I think that 8th grade
>and 11th grade had required years of US history that were a little more
>serious. But, I can't recall back to a time when I thought the
>"cherry-tree" story was other than a story, and "people thought
>the world is flat" seems to me an elementary-school belief that
>I was disabused of fairly early on.

You aren't the typical American, being a physicist and natural skeptic
at that. Yet you habituate a Christian newsgroup where most denizens
accept quite unlikely stories as being unquestionably true.

>Maybe it just depends on one's
>teachers. The one I feel more aggrieved over is the Jefferson-Sally
>Hemings story, which I was never "taught" per se, but which all
>adults referred to as an established fact that everyone just knew about.
>When I came to Dumas Malone, I discovered it was anything but
>an established fact, and there were in fact strong arguments
>against it.

The importance of Heming is not really whether it is true, but whether
it might be true. It knocks big holes in the concept of the Founders
as paragons of virtue. I'll stop, here. Jim has a whole raft of text
that he'll post if you persist in discussing Heming.

>I said:
> As for this time, the Year of Our Lord 2005, the issue
> remains this claim about there being a "myth". A myth is
> not just a lie, and not just an incorrect "fact", but something
> that lots of people believe, and in its truest sense, a story
> that lots of people believe because it expresses to them some
> deep meaning that they feel is true or want to be true.
>
> [distraction deleted]
>
>Umm, I disappreciate the characterization of my illustration
>as a "distraction".

I understand. It was a distraction because I thought I understood
your claim without the example, the example was lengthy and somewhat
diffuse and not relevant except as a example.

>I am, in the part you kept above, making a general claim.

Whereas I often use the words "myth" and "fairy tale" interchangeably
to mean something that is obviously fiction, requiring acceptance of
the supernatural in order to be true, and not solely in the symbolic
moral story sense.

In any case, my responding comment assumed that your general claim was
true.

>Note, Bob, I *am happy* to have the illustrative story
>itself deleted---there was no need to discuss it, once
>point were made and understood. I merely object to
>its characterization here as a "distraction". I wanted
>an example of something that is a myth where the factoid
>upon which it is based may well be true, but the "mythic
>content" is false.

I'm sure that other examples are possible, but that sort of story is
probably too complex for a courtroom unless it is the core of the
issue, and Jim tends to be focused on the legal and factual aspects of
history, and not on the moral lesson/art form of history you referred
to. The moment you get into interpretation of facts, you move beyond
"issues of fact". At worst, you get into postmodernist
any-interpretation goes, in ways that would make Sokol proud.

The issue for Jim and Newdow is whether Washington used the words.
Not whether his speech expressed religious feeling, because that isn't
the issue. The issue is why "so help me God" is considered an
integral part of the oath to a degree that a president (especially a
right winger like Bush) would be criticized for omitting it, when
Newdow feels that religion should be removed from all government
ceremony as respecting an establishment of religion. The
interpretation of a speech to be religiously expressive is
considerably less overt than the oath itself. The oath is the
constitutionally prescribed ceremony, whether the president gives a
speech and what he says during that speech is not the ceremony.
(Newdow might object to the speech being religious, but he has a much
weaker case against the President's free expression of religion that
is not prescribed by law or custom.)

>Calling something a myth just means calling it a
>significant story. It isn't the same thing as calling
>it a lie.

There are multiple meanings of the word "myth" and one of them is
essentially "lie that is accepted by the masses".

>And if one debunks the historical accuracy of
>some myth, then this does not amount to debunking or
>undermining in the slightest the significance of the story.

The significance is irrelevant in this case. It is the issue of fact
that is under question. Calling something a myth is the same as
calling it a lie, but accepts the possibility that most people who
spread the lie are not doing so to knowingly deceive, because they
believe the lie themselves.

>I said:
> My point is that there is no such thing as a myth that
> Washington said "so help me God".
>Bob L:
> Sorry, but using the definition you provided, that is precisely what
> it is. It is a lie that lots of people believe because they want the
> meaning it symbolizes to be true - the Christian right, which is a
> substantial minority in this country, wants to believe that this is
> fundamentally a fundamentalist, Bible-thumping, god-fearing nation,
> and thus they want to believe that its leaders were fundies.
>
>So, we are talking now about less than 1% of the population
>of the US?

No. The Christian right is somewhere between 25% and 50% of the
population, depending on how it is counted. I base this on the
percentage of people that accept the creationist myth over evolution
despite the massive evidence of biology.

>I mean, how people believe George Washington and Thomas
>Jefferson and John Adams and James Madison and Ben Franklin
>were "fundamentalists"?

Not exactly the issue. A better statement would be that they claim
that "America was founded on biblical principles". Here is the sort
of website that promotes this explicitly (I chose them carefully, so I
think they are worth a few seconds look), and there are a LOT of them:

http://wakeupamericainc.org/ministrymessage.html
http://www.gospelcom.net/faithfacts/cul_bible.html

Here is the statistical basis of the issue:

http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/content/issue13/features/americachristian.php
<Do Americans want a Christian nation? The polls are inconclusive. A
< March 2002 poll by the Pew Forum on Religious life found that 67% of
< respondents said that the United States was a Christian nation,
< although a Newsweek poll conducted in June 2002 put that figure at
< 29%. A recent survey by family.org pegged the number at 48%. A 1997
< survey conducted by the National Constitution Center revealed that
< one in six of those surveyed believed that the Constitution
< established America as a Christian nation.

(The article this is cited from is a good summary of why the issue is
"important", BTW.)

And even though I am a Christian, I find the following statistic
positively scary in light of the establishment clause:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/882/section/barna.poll.33.percent.of.adults.agree.with.declaring.america.a.%5C%22christian.nation%5C%22/1.htm
<Some 33 percent of Americans would support declaring Christianity as
< the official faith of the United States -- at least, according to a
< new research released on July 26, 2004. The Ventura based Barna
< Group, widely known for its studies on Christian America, “explored
< the boundaries of how far adults are willing to inject the Christian
< faith into the nation’s culture”. The results showed that an
< overwhelming majority of adults – including non-Christian adults –
< preferred maintaining the traditional Christian symbols and values in
< the American system.

[It scares me because if Christianity can be made official, then
sooner or later "Christianity" will be defined, and it will be defined
in a way which is exclusive of those who don't agree with the sect of
the definition-writers]

If 1 in 6 believes that the constitution made this a "Christian
nation", and 1 in 3 thinks that it should officially be a "Christian
nation", then we are NOT talking about 1%-2% fanatics. We're talking
about ignorance that will believe anything so long as it is consistent
with their worldview and told them by an authority they respect. That
1/6 didn't have to read a 4 volume biography; they had to have read
the Constitution that was hopefully required reading in civics class,
and the 1/3 that wants us declared officially "Christian" merely had
to read the first amendment.

>It would be only by dint of never having
>read any of their writings or any biographies of them at all
>that one would believe such a thing,

Plenty of people apparently qualify. In addition, certain
fundamentalist writers like Dave Barton have selectively mined quotes
from the Founders to make it appear that they were more religious than
they were. Barton has been forced to retract because of people like
Jim who proved that the in some cases his quotes were phony.

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/founding_fathers_religion.HTM
shows some of those quotes with rebuttals.

>I said:
> And if you went to historians, say, who didn't specialize in the
> subject of GW, I'll bet they'd turn to Flexner or Douglass Southall
> Freeman and quickly determine that, no, Washington probably
> didn't say that.
>Bob L:
> At least 3 of the sites that I listed yesterday showed evidence of at
> least some consultation with historians, so apparently historians
> aren't as error-free as you would wish.
>
>Maybe these historians weren't particularly interested in the
>question or in doing any research at all. I just don't get it,
>though. I mean, if this were a question about something Louis XIV
>is supposed to have said---wouldn't the first thing one would do is
>find out what are *the* biographies of Louis and see what they
>say on the subject, and then use them as an entree into the
>primary sources?

That's what people should do, but they don't.

Also, please note---at the point of
>inception of the First Amendment, it was a limitation
>on *the Federal Government*, certainly it did not cross
>anyone's mind that this applied to local schools or
>local or state government.

Actually, one of Madison's proposed amendments explicitly mentioned
restricting certain of these rights against state infringement, but it
was passed only by the House and not the Senate.

>In fact, *there were established
>churches in many states* at the time,

5 of the 13, though a couple were already in the process of
disestablishing. Massachusetts held on longest, until 1831.

and religious
>*disestablishment* didn't happen in the states until I
>think finally the middle of the 19th century. So, Founding Fathers
>were *used to living under state governments which had
>established churches*.

Depends on which Founder. Virginia, where Madison and Jefferson were
from went strongly against establishments in 1785, at their
instigation.

>Anyway, I think it's pretty darn clear whether or not
>Washington said "so help me God" that no one meant
>by the (later) First Amendment to expunge every
>vestige of religious observance from public ceremony.

There are some quotes from Madison that suggest that indeed that was
at least the ideal, albeit not necessarily an achievable one.

>Well, anyway, I guess I can fantasy comfort in imagining
>that, if *I* am ever elected President, I'll not say so
>help me God.
>
>I said:
> Or, for that matter,
> so what that GW *didn't* say "so help me God"? What modern
> political lesson am I supposed to draw from that?
>Bob L:
> That may depend on what political lessons you already know. Maybe YOU
> have nothing to learn from Jim's postings, in which case you can use a
> killfile as well as anyone can.
>
>I never have used a killfile, and don't intend to now. And, who
>is "Jim"? buckeye hasn't signed himself as Jim, and I'll swear he
>has spoken as those he is in conversation with a Jim, although his
>attributions tend to be a little unclear to me.

His name is Jim Allison, and he used to sign all his postings
explicitly. His website carried his name clearly.

>Bob L:
> The elimination of false information is a worthy end in itself.
>
>And I agree. I don't think that makes it appropriate to post to
>a homeschooling newsgroup, however. Anymore than posting
>some advance in physics would be appropriate.

I have often chastised Jim on how he chooses which groups to post in,
and he isn't about to change his crossposting habits. I'm convinced
that there is some justification in HIS mind for his choices, even if
others do not understand.

>Bob L:
> In Jim's case, he seems to be
> researching the issue for Newdow, and Newdow has firsthand experience
> in knowing just how thoroughly one has to have researched the issues
> in order to get a serious hearing before the Supreme Court.
>
> And I would contend that any issue that 4 USSC justices find important
> enough to hear is by that fact alone more important than 99% of all
> issues that appear on Usenet.
>
>What issue precisely is it that 4 USSC justices are finding
>important enough to hear?

The Pledge case was the one that Newdow got before the USSC, and is in
the process of bringing again without the tainted standing issue, and
there are many who thought that case was no more important than the
Presidential oath. But it was heard and that means that 4 justices
thought it was worth hearing, even if they ended up deciding it on
other grounds.

>Surely, no one is claiming a
>GW Bush, say, shouldn't be permitted to say "so help me God"
>if he wants to?

I think Newdow is indeed doing so, probably on the basis that the
swearing in ceremony is not for him to decide, but is a constitutional
prescription, that is for all the people including the non-religious
like Newdow who feel excluded. Newdow might go so far as to say that
he considers an oath before God to be less credible than one without
reference to God, so he wants an unaltered oath. Yes he is an
extremist, but he may need to bring an extreme case in order to get
the fundamental issue of how much religion is allowed in government
ceremony decided. He is also fighting congressional and I think
military chaplains as well as the pledge, and I suspect he will
tackle the motto as well, if he gets any leverage against the concept
of "ceremonial deism" out of one of the other decisions.

>I said:
> What's it
> supposed to mean that he did or did not say it? It just
> seems to me that all bucky is doing is descending to engage
> in sound-bite history of exactly the same kind he thinks
> his opponents are doing.
>Bob L:
> He obviously feels that every bit of sound-bite history that can be
> corrected, should be.
>
>If that were so, then I wouldn't have had any objection.
>But then, if that were so, he wouldn't have crossposted it
>to as many newsgroups as he did.

As I said, the logic of Jim's crossposting is sometimes unclear. I
think it has something to do with where some prior thread on a related
topic was posted to. In any event, he never removes a crosspost once
it is added, so until the thread dies, he'll be here.

>Bob L:
> If his correction is taken merely as another
> sound-bite, then at least there are two conflicting
> sound-bites which might prompt the curious into
> looking further.
>
>The sound-bite aspect of his correction would be if one
>took away any particular "lesson" from it about expunging
>religious observances from public ceremony. History
>is of course always complicateder than that.

Jim tries hard most of the time to separate the debates over what the
history is from debates as to what the history should mean in terms of
policy. The fact that the latter debates exist are reasons to ensure
that the history is accurate.

>Bob L:
> This country values its heroes. Washington is one of them. To be
> heroic to the fundies, Washington has to be not merely religious, but
> a devout Christian, or he cannot be a hero and role-model, because
> they can only accept devout Christians as proper role models.
>
>Well, it follows he isn't a hero or role-model to them, since
>he wasn't "a devout Christian", but something rather different
>than that. As anyone reading about him would quickly
>determine.

But they only read the right-wing publications that portray the myth,
not the reality. See the sound bite quotes from Washington in the
above cited web pages. In context you and I may realize he was not
saying what the fundies claim that he was saying, but the fundies read
the agenda-promoting books and not the context, so they become
uninformed.

>I said:
> I just do not
> get the relevance of the claim by the people who claim he
> did say it.
>Bob L:
> Maybe you are too rational. Most of the country is irrational on
> matters pertaining to religion. And the only ways to fight
> irrationality is with more irrationality, or with persistent,
> myth-destroying fact (and sometimes even factoid).
>
>But, this incorrect fact neither establishes the mythic content
>in the first place nor does the correct fact disestablish the
>mythic content.

For many people, once a myth is shown to be non-factual, it is
effectively destroyed. Knowing that Washington did not in fact chop
down a cherry tree per the fairy tale, I have never so much as
presumed that Washington was necessarily any more honest than any
other politician in power, but instead exercise as much skepticism of
the motives for his words as I would those of Bush, Clinton or Nixon.

Washington wasn't a fundie, whether or not he said
>"so help me God". Lots of people other than fundies say such a thing,
>which is precisely why you were able to find corroboration of the
>myth from Wahsington Irving, Henry Cabot Lodge, Bill Clinton, and
>lawyers and justices. Anyway, I still don't get it.

The cited pages above, indicating why the debate about "Christian
nation" and "founded on Christian principles" is occurring may
enlighten you as to why some people find it important.

lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 10:07:19 PM2/20/05

to

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2huh119ec2bn726mb...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:57:01 -0600, Carol Lee Smith
> <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Brian Oakley wrote:
> >
> >> > It still doesn't excuse you from announcing everytime you hear
someone
> >> > is an aetheist that you will pray that they stop thinking.
> >
> >> Actually its more of a prayer that they START thinking and open their
eyes
> >> to something that is eternally significant to THEM.
> >
> >I'd say it is the height of presumption for you to determine for others
> >what is or should be of importance to them.
>
> More like sheer arrogance.
>
> They're not even sincere about it.
>
> After all, anybody else trying to sell something pitches their message
> to their audience. Using their audience's point of view, expectations
> etc.
>
> Which they'd do if they were sincere.
>
> But these morons don't. They imagine their own POV, expectations,
> presumptions, fears etc apply to everybody.

That's what you don't understand, its not about a point of view, about
anyone's preference. Its about truth, raw truth, like it or not. You can
call it arrogance, but if someone were to tell you that the bridge is out up
ahead and you blow them off as arrogant, then you run off the bridge, be
sure to call them arrogant on the way down, ok?
B

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 10:15:26 PM2/20/05

to

"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message

news:425bf959....@news-west.newscene.com...

I didnt say if you dont believe in God that your heart is hard. Im saying
that people who reject the Gospel over and over become hard hearted and God
gives up on them.

Not sure what youre refering to as a put down. Its hard to understand your
posts and what you mean by them.

>
> >
> >> It still doesn't excuse you from announcing everytime you hear someone
> >> is an aetheist that you will pray that they stop thinking.
> >
> >Actually its more of a prayer that they START thinking and open their
eyes
> >to something that is eternally significant to THEM.
> >B
> >
>
> It's rational thinking that makes theists atheist. Your external
> stuff is without evidence, that's what make it external. Another word
> for that is 'imaginary'. I don't need your imagination to help me
> make decisions.

Well, I can tell you that the Bible is verifiable. And if its true in what
can be verified, its also true in what cant be physically tested by science.
The Bible hasn't changed in over 2500 yrs that we can VERIFY. And there is
no reason to believe it will change any time soon. If your ability to detect
God with some sort of meter proves inadequate, you might try doing it Gods
way. But atheists don't want to do it because then they would have to give
up their sin, their comfort, and their lusts. I've been there. I know. Not
believing in something doesn't make it any less true. I could believe your
nothing more than a parrot that can type. In your world, that could be true,
but in the REAL world its not true because its not what you are. Just
because I believe you are not a person, doesn't mean you're not a person.
Same with God. Just because YOU don't believe in Him, doesn't mean He is not
there. You will find out soon enough I reckon.
B

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 10:20:36 PM2/20/05

to

"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message

news:425cfbd4....@news-west.newscene.com...

Yes I read it, and what you said makes no sense to her statement.

> >
> >> It would certainly let the rest of us know that you don't accept
> >> hypocracy as legitimate the way it always looks and it certainly would
> >> do the world far more good than praying for atheists.
> >
> >You may have a good point here in that praying for hypocrites in the
church
> >( I think that's what you're referring to ) might help the world. But NOT
> >praying for atheists wont do the atheist any good will it? Think about
that.
>
> Pointing out hypocracy publically might do some good. Pretending that
> the hypocrit is acting OK is not good. Your christian hypocrits
> appear to have decided that once they announce they are christian, all
> other christians will give them a pass on most every thing they do.
> And you wonder why your religion has a reputation for hypocracy.

No, thats something you really dont know about. There is such a thing as
church dicipline. Its clearly spelled out in the Bible. I really wish you
would read it before pretending to know what Christians do and dont do.

> Don't bother with praying for atheists, they either don't care or
> don't appreciate it, so all you may do is offend them, which
> apparently you don't care about doing.

Well, if we pray for them that is OUR business. They dont need to worry
about it.

> >I get the feeling that you either just don't like what I'm saying or have
> >had a bad experience somewhere. If its the former, I really cant help
you
> >there. The Gospel is indeed offensive to those that don't believe it. But
if
> >you've had a bad experience somewhere, maybe we can talk about it.
> >B
> >
>
> LOL, why do theists always decide there is a bad experience to get
> over. It's more than a little presumptuous. Your religion by
> definition is immoral and doesn't measure up to my ethical standards.
> I don't do unethical, so I not only won't, I can't pretend with you.

Do you understand what the word moral means? And by what ethical standards
do you live by? Your own personal ones? Where did you arrive at those from?
Someone else?
B

Brian Oakley

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 10:29:29 PM2/20/05

to

"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:pnvh11h6hhoj8m60d...@4ax.com...

> On 20 Feb 2005 15:15:03 -0600, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>
> >Don't bother with praying for atheists, they either don't care or
> >don't appreciate it, so all you may do is offend them, which
> >apparently you don't care about doing.
>
> We're the unsaved. We're sub-human. They don't have to show us any
> courtesy or consideration.
>
> Remember the fundy word for people is "Christian" in much the same
> way the American word for people is "Americans".

You have a very inaccurate knowledge of who Christians are and why we do
what we do.

> >>I get the feeling that you either just don't like what I'm saying or
have
> >>had a bad experience somewhere. If its the former, I really cant help
you
> >>there. The Gospel is indeed offensive to those that don't believe it.
But if
> >>you've had a bad experience somewhere, maybe we can talk about it.
> >>B
>
> The gospel isn't offensive - it's merely the mythology of somebody
> else's religion. What is really offensive, is the assholes who rub
> their religion in our faces and lie about the negative reaction.
> People like the person who wrote the above paragraph.

Well, you can call it myth if you like, but its one of the most verifiable
Books in the world. What is myth is what unbelievers say about it. If you
dont like the message, you dont have to read this thread. Change the
channel. No one is twisting your arm to read or respond to any of this. Lie?
Again, references to something very obscure thats not anywhere in this
thread. You can call me what you want to. Its ok.

> >LOL, why do theists always decide there is a bad experience to get
> >over. It's more than a little presumptuous. Your religion by
> >definition is immoral and doesn't measure up to my ethical standards.
> >I don't do unethical, so I not only won't, I can't pretend with you.
>
> Because they can't imagine people genuinely having zero reason to
> believe as they do.

Ever wonder why they believe that? Maybe because there were where you are
once upon a time? Christians arent born a Christian. They are born sinners..
Does any of this really sink in?

> So they rationalise it and are too stupid to keep it to themselves.

No, theyve lived it and realize that judgment is coming and don't want
others to have to face it. That's called Love. If you find it condescending,
then your view of love is rather warped. Love is not all peace and gooey
feelings and letting everyone do their own thing. Imagine if you let your
children do EVERYTHING they wanted to. They would be dead by 20. That's not
love, that's selfishness on the part of the parent. Love is instruction in
how to avoid hardship by setting standards, limits, telling them the truth
when they do something harmful to themselves or someone else. That's what
love is. Not saying "Its ok to do drugs, go find your true sexuality"
Brother.
B

J.Pascal

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 10:55:51 PM2/20/05

to

Hey, Brian. If you're having fun with this, go right
ahead, but feel free to drop it too. Bucky-dear cross-posted
this to alt.atheism (bless his heart). They likely didn't
ask for it either and while most people are fairly
reasonable there's always one or two with a sequoia sized
wood-chip on their shoulder. People who cross-post the
"christian" groups with the "atheist" groups know what they
are doing, and they do it on purpose. :-(

-Julie

Kate

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 10:49:37 PM2/20/05

to

More like if someone tells you that if you don't follow them, you are
a bad person. It's not truth, it can only be a subjective opinion and
it certainly is an act of arrogance.

I certainly don't see you thinking in all that. Just wanting and
pushing. Why is it so important that other people agree with you
about gods? Are you not sure and need others to shore up your
uncertainty? It certainly sounds that way.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 11:02:26 PM2/20/05

to

That's what you don't understand - It is only "truth" in the fantasies
of morons like you. People who are too stupid or dishonest to realise
that by pretending it is "truth" they force a truth/lie false
dichotomy which excludes what it actually is: what one of the hundreds
of different religions believe.

And you have to be particularly stupid to trot out such a dumb analogy
as your bridge: the bridge is invisible and undetectable, as is the
chasm you liars pretend it crosses.

Get a brain and start using it, moron.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 11:18:37 PM2/20/05

to

"Brian Oakley" <brian...@ispwest.com> wrote:
>> Pointing out hypocracy publically might do some good. Pretending that
>> the hypocrit is acting OK is not good. Your christian hypocrits
>> appear to have decided that once they announce they are christian, all
>> other christians will give them a pass on most every thing they do.
>> And you wonder why your religion has a reputation for hypocracy.
>
>No, thats something you really dont know about. There is such a thing as
>church dicipline. Its clearly spelled out in the Bible.

So what. A church tries to discipline me, and I discipline the church
- they don't get my offerings and I join another church. There are
hundreds of denominations of "Christian" and no matter what the issue,
there is some church that is happy to take your money and attendance.

>I really wish you
>would read it before pretending to know what Christians do and dont do.

The Bible doesn't say what Christians do, because almost none of them
obey the Bible.

How many Christians give away all their wealth to the poor? Christ
says to do that.

>> Don't bother with praying for atheists, they either don't care or
>> don't appreciate it, so all you may do is offend them, which
>> apparently you don't care about doing.
>
>Well, if we pray for them that is OUR business. They dont need to worry
>about it.

In general, however, Christians talk about who and what they pray for,
despite Christ saying that we should pray in secret.

>> LOL, why do theists always decide there is a bad experience to get
>> over. It's more than a little presumptuous. Your religion by
>> definition is immoral and doesn't measure up to my ethical standards.
>> I don't do unethical, so I not only won't, I can't pretend with you.
>
>Do you understand what the word moral means? And by what ethical standards
>do you live by? Your own personal ones? Where did you arrive at those from?
>Someone else?

Most people can derive perfectly satisfactory morals based on nothing
but the Golden Rule (which is not Christian but universal to almost
all moral systems).

J.Pascal

unread,

Feb 20, 2005, 11:35:51 PM2/20/05

to

Our friend buckeye cross-posted this thread to alt.atheism in a fit of
generosity after cross-posting to the homeschooling newsgroup and not
getting the response that he was looking for. Aparently we didn't get
mad and stomp our feet and holler loudly that "George Washington did
*so* say "So help me God" you slavering moron!"

Trolls dislike having their little cross-posted stink-bombs fizzle so
he added alt.atheism because it's a sure bet to get the name calling
going and so stroke buckeye's vanity, or at least punish the
homeschoolers by getting them embroiled in a debate about faith or the
lack of it.

I didn't notice the added newsgroup when I replied to him. I more or
less randomly removed enough of his cross-posts so that google would
let me post my reply... perhaps I accidentally removed the group he was
posting from since it looks as though he's disappeared. I apologize
for not paying better attention and noticing the addition of
alt.atheism... it was added some 50 posts into the thread.

My original statement in reply to him was simply to point out that the
people who were failing to be impressed by his personal crusade came
from a variety of political and religious persuasions. The christian
homeschooling group is a diverse group. We *try* to keep the topic on
homeschooling.

I do apologize for not noticing the addition immediately. Anyone who
wants to come by and talk about homeschooling is more than welcome to
do that.

-Julie

Al Klein

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 1:52:39 AM2/21/05

to

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:41:16 -0600, "Brian Oakley"

<brian...@ispwest.com> said in alt.atheism:

>If those that are so quick to accuse Christians of being hypocrites would
>focus their eyes upon the EVERYDAY world as closely as they do Christians,
>they would find more hypocrisy there than they would in the church. The
>world is FULL of hypocrites.

The fact that someone is doing worse than your religion makes what
your religion does "right"?

We don't have "every day people" coming into alt.atheism telling us
that we'll go to hell if we don't believe what they believe - we have
Christians doing that.

>Yeah they are in the church too, just like
>folks who go to church that have never ever been saved, picked up a bible,
>or ever taken the time to get to know a real Christian and really examine
>their life.

Well, let's see ...

Most Christians don't keep Sabbath.
Most Christians wear clothing of mixed fabric.
Most Christians have no compunction about mixing meat and milk.
Most Christians covet things.

Most Christians violate many other of the hundreds of things their
bible tells them to do or not do.

What was that you were saying about "get to know a real Christian and
really examine their life"? I don't think you'd want almost any
Christian's life examined too closely.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

Dave Thompson

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 1:04:29 AM2/21/05

to

"J.Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
news:1108960551.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Our friend buckeye cross-posted this thread to alt.atheism in a fit of
> generosity after cross-posting to the homeschooling newsgroup and not
> getting the response that he was looking for. Aparently we didn't get
> mad and stomp our feet and holler loudly that "George Washington did
> *so* say "So help me God" you slavering moron!"

I'm curious, Julie, what makes you think you speak for the group?

It appears that it's only you being a complete bitch, and no one else gives
a shit. And the amusing thing is you insist everyone dislike Buckeye.

That's not the case, which makes you an assumptive asshole and a liar.

>
> Trolls dislike having their little cross-posted stink-bombs fizzle so
> he added alt.atheism because it's a sure bet to get the name calling
> going and so stroke buckeye's vanity, or at least punish the
> homeschoolers by getting them embroiled in a debate about faith or the
> lack of it.

I'm glad I have found someone who can read minds. What do you think I am
thinking right now?

>
> I didn't notice the added newsgroup when I replied to him. I more or
> less randomly removed enough of his cross-posts so that google would
> let me post my reply... perhaps I accidentally removed the group he was
> posting from since it looks as though he's disappeared. I apologize
> for not paying better attention and noticing the addition of
> alt.atheism... it was added some 50 posts into the thread.

So you can be given the benefit of the doubt and he can't.

That's so Christian of you.

>
> My original statement in reply to him was simply to point out that the
> people who were failing to be impressed by his personal crusade came
> from a variety of political and religious persuasions. The christian
> homeschooling group is a diverse group. We *try* to keep the topic on
> homeschooling.

How is this subject not on topic, if you are teaching something that is
demonstrably a lie?

>
> I do apologize for not noticing the addition immediately. Anyone who
> wants to come by and talk about homeschooling is more than welcome to
> do that.

As long as they agree with you, right?

Sorry, this is why homeschooling doesn't work. Because it's an excuse to lie
to your children.

Hope everything works out for you, Julie.

--
---
My invisible friend thinks you have problems.

Al Klein

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 1:44:34 AM2/21/05

to

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:50:04 -0600, "Brian Oakley"
<brian...@ispwest.com> said in alt.atheism:

>"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
>news:4252a5af....@news-west.newscene.com...

>> It's rather sad how Christians think it's OK to disparage someone's
>> considered lack of belief.

>Its not a matter of trying to disparage anything. Its a matter of truth vs
>untruth. If Christianity is true, then nothing else can be. If Islam is
>true, then nothing else can be.

There are, and have been, tens of thousands of belief systems (there
are more than 10,000 sects of Christianity). At very most, only one
of them could possibly be the "true" one. Would you buy a car with
those odds of it running?

But assuming that your one system is the one true one is disparaging.
It's also the height of arrogance to believe that the creator of the
entire universe cares about you and a few thousand who think like you.
It's arrogant to even think that he cares whether this entire galaxy
exists or not. But theism is nothing if not institutionalized
arrogance.

--
rukbat at verizon dot net

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.

towelie

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 12:45:55 AM2/21/05

to

There's no reason to believe in it at all.

You claim you don't put anybody down, then post this:

> But atheists don't want to do it because then they would have to give
> up their sin, their comfort, and their lusts. I've been there. I know. Not
> believing in something doesn't make it any less true. I could believe your
> nothing more than a parrot that can type. In your world, that could be
true,
> but in the REAL world its not true because its not what you are. Just
> because I believe you are not a person, doesn't mean you're not a person.
> Same with God. Just because YOU don't believe in Him, doesn't mean He is
not
> there. You will find out soon enough I reckon.

--

Shake says that books are from the devil, and that TV is twice as fast -
Meatwad
Get off your fuckin' cross. We need the fuckin' space to nail the next fool
martyr - Tool, "Eulogy"
aa #2133
ap #19

Carol Lee Smith

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 12:20:52 AM2/21/05

to

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Brian Oakley wrote:

> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:pnvh11h6hhoj8m60d...@4ax.com...

> > The gospel isn't offensive - it's merely the mythology of somebody

> > else's religion. What is really offensive, is the assholes who rub
> > their religion in our faces and lie about the negative reaction.
> > People like the person who wrote the above paragraph.

> Well, you can call it myth if you like, but its one of the most verifiable
> Books in the world.

He spoke of gospels (four books, right?). You speak of "one of the most
verifiable Books." Do you mean the Bible?

How can you consider something which cannot even agree with itself as
verifiable?

> What is myth is what unbelievers say about it.

About the Bible? The book with a talking snake and a talking donkey?
That book?

> If you dont like the message, you dont have to read this thread.
> Change the channel.

Don't want your favorite book of fairy tales subjected to criticism? You
don't have to read this thread, either.

> No one is twisting your arm to read or respond to any of this.

Great advice.

> ... Christians arent born a Christian.

Of course not. All newborns are without religious opinions. They are
without beliefs in any deities. They are without theism.

Gee. Without theism.

a = without

theism = belief in god(s)

Guess that qualifies newborns as a-theists.

> They are born sinners..

Nonsense.

> Does any of this really sink in?

That anyone is born guilty of having sinned is ridiculous.

> > So they rationalise it and are too stupid to keep it to themselves.

> No, theyve lived it and realize that judgment is coming and don't want
> others to have to face it. That's called Love.

Poppycock.

> If you find it condescending,
> then your view of love is rather warped.

One needn't believe in deities in order to love or be loved.

> Love is not all peace and gooey
> feelings and letting everyone do their own thing.

Of course not. Part of love is teaching kids responsibility, kindness and
consideration. That can be done very well without belief in fairy tales
and/or mythological men and beasts.

<snip>

Kate

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 2:10:22 AM2/21/05

to

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:15:26 -0600, "Brian Oakley"
<brian...@ispwest.com> wrote:

I'm sure there are lots of people who think you are hard hearted
because you reject the torah or the koran or any other complilation of
religous doctrine.

It's still a put down and just pressure tactics no matter who does it.

>
>Not sure what youre refering to as a put down. Its hard to understand your
>posts and what you mean by them.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> It still doesn't excuse you from announcing everytime you hear someone
>> >> is an aetheist that you will pray that they stop thinking.
>> >
>> >Actually its more of a prayer that they START thinking and open their
>eyes
>> >to something that is eternally significant to THEM.
>> >B
>> >
>>
>> It's rational thinking that makes theists atheist. Your external
>> stuff is without evidence, that's what make it external. Another word
>> for that is 'imaginary'. I don't need your imagination to help me
>> make decisions.
>
>Well, I can tell you that the Bible is verifiable. And if its true in what
>can be verified, its also true in what cant be physically tested by science.
>The Bible hasn't changed in over 2500 yrs that we can VERIFY.

LOL, you think so eh? Even with thousands of different bibles
published and a verifyable account of King James rewriting it along
with Thomas Jefferson's anti christian verson.

Tell me, exactly which of all those bibles is the real one? And how
did it manage not to get changed when it was translated each time? If
you can verify that miracle, I'm sure the world is waiting for the
news.

> And there is
>no reason to believe it will change any time soon. If your ability to detect
>God with some sort of meter proves inadequate, you might try doing it Gods
>way. But atheists don't want to do it because then they would have to give
>up their sin, their comfort, and their lusts. I've been there. I know. Not
>believing in something doesn't make it any less true. I could believe your
>nothing more than a parrot that can type. In your world, that could be true,
>but in the REAL world its not true because its not what you are. Just
>because I believe you are not a person, doesn't mean you're not a person.
>Same with God. Just because YOU don't believe in Him, doesn't mean He is not
>there. You will find out soon enough I reckon.
>B
>

There is no such thing as sin. What you call a sin is just your
personal made up rule. Every single theist has a completely different
set of rules because absolutely none of you can agree on what is or
isn't a sin. You all break each others rules and your own every
single day millions of times. Your rules are complete inconsistent
and often hurt, often maim, often murder others just for the sake of
this imaginary and often completely arbitrary set of rules that none
of you can agree on.

And you base all your millions of sets of rules on a lie to yourself.
How can you possibly imagine you are sinless? I'll bet this years set
of rules is different than last years - perhaps than last weeks. Next
year you will decide that you were wrong and make more changes and
still you will sin.

And you still don't understand why you are doing it all. So you make
up a parent that is only concerned about you (how is that for
humility) and that will punish you when you die and anyone else that
violates your own personal set of rules - so convienent since there is
no objective evidence about what happens after you die.

Now I will keep my mind open and not pretend there are gods just so I
can join a group that worships together. I will stop and think it
through about why somethings are good to do and why some things are
bad. And I will do it because I care about other people and don't
want to hurt them. I guess you have other priorities - like whether
you hit pay dirt by getting to go to heaven when you die. Whatever it
is that you lie to yourself about me and other atheists doesn't have
much to do with the truth, I'm sorry, it's obvious you have little
self control about such things. I'm sure it's a comfortable thing to
do and something your religion encourages. That still doesn't make it
right.

You might say it's a sin.

Al Klein

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 1:46:06 AM2/21/05

to

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 13:40:07 -0600, "Brian Oakley"

<brian...@ispwest.com> said in alt.atheism:

>"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
>news:4257c4c8....@news-west.newscene.com...

>> It still doesn't excuse you from announcing everytime you hear someone

>> is an aetheist that you will pray that they stop thinking.

>Actually its more of a prayer that they START thinking and open their eyes
>to something that is eternally significant to THEM.

Accepting your religion would require them to STOP thinking. Thinking
is what caused most atheists to give up Christianity.

--
rukbat at verizon dot net

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken

Kate

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 2:26:03 AM2/21/05

to

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:20:36 -0600, "Brian Oakley"
<brian...@ispwest.com> wrote:

By the way - according to your religion, God isn't supposed to do
anything about that. People are supposed to come to him willingly.
What exactly do you think you are begging him to do? Break his own
word about that?

>But
>I
>> >dont announce my pray for anyone publically. Have you had someone do this
>to
>> >you? Id like to hear about your experience.
>>
>> Uh, the lady in the thread up at the top. Didn't you read the whole
>> thing?
>
>Yes I read it, and what you said makes no sense to her statement.

Seemed perfectly clear to me. Maybe you should ask her what she meant
by announcing that everyone would be praying that atheists become
Christians.

>
>> >
>> >> It would certainly let the rest of us know that you don't accept
>> >> hypocracy as legitimate the way it always looks and it certainly would
>> >> do the world far more good than praying for atheists.
>> >
>> >You may have a good point here in that praying for hypocrites in the
>church
>> >( I think that's what you're referring to ) might help the world. But NOT
>> >praying for atheists wont do the atheist any good will it? Think about
>that.
>>
>> Pointing out hypocracy publically might do some good. Pretending that
>> the hypocrit is acting OK is not good. Your christian hypocrits
>> appear to have decided that once they announce they are christian, all
>> other christians will give them a pass on most every thing they do.
>> And you wonder why your religion has a reputation for hypocracy.
>
>No, thats something you really dont know about. There is such a thing as
>church dicipline. Its clearly spelled out in the Bible. I really wish you
>would read it before pretending to know what Christians do and dont do.

Apparently that doesn't work in real life. Perhaps you should take it
up with your church.

>
>> Don't bother with praying for atheists, they either don't care or
>> don't appreciate it, so all you may do is offend them, which
>> apparently you don't care about doing.
>
>Well, if we pray for them that is OUR business. They dont need to worry
>about it.

Apparently the other Christians don't know that. They seem to think
that announcing it loudly as some kind of put down is appropriate.
Are you sure you are the same religion as them? The rules seem to be
different.

>
>> >I get the feeling that you either just don't like what I'm saying or have
>> >had a bad experience somewhere. If its the former, I really cant help
>you
>> >there. The Gospel is indeed offensive to those that don't believe it. But
>if
>> >you've had a bad experience somewhere, maybe we can talk about it.
>> >B
>> >
>>
>> LOL, why do theists always decide there is a bad experience to get
>> over. It's more than a little presumptuous. Your religion by
>> definition is immoral and doesn't measure up to my ethical standards.
>> I don't do unethical, so I not only won't, I can't pretend with you.
>
>Do you understand what the word moral means? And by what ethical standards
>do you live by? Your own personal ones? Where did you arrive at those from?
>Someone else?
>B
>

No dear. I have morals because I care about people as all sane humans
do. We are social animals and we naturally care about our social
groups. If you don't care about others and have to get all your
morals from a book, there's a word for that - it's called sociopathy.

Al Klein

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 1:30:45 AM2/21/05

to

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:22:00 -0600, "Brian Oakley"
<brian...@ispwest.com> said in alt.atheism:

>But the Power I speak of doesnt come from the words themselves, but by the
>Spirit that causes the word that you read to be understood.

The "spirit" that causes me to understand the bible is the atheistic
parents who taught me to read for comprehension. And to think for
myself. That's the same "spirit" that causes me to reject most of
what your bible claims.

--
rukbat at verizon dot net

"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill

Dave Thompson

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 12:51:37 AM2/21/05

to

"Brian Oakley" <brian...@ispwest.com> wrote in message
news:cvbjg...@enews2.newsguy.com...

>
>
> Well, I can tell you that the Bible is verifiable. And if its true in what
> can be verified, its also true in what cant be physically tested by
> science.
> The Bible hasn't changed in over 2500 yrs that we can VERIFY.

This is just too easy.

The bible has changed constantly over those years.

It has been editted and added to by Kings and the church.

Are you going to tell me you haven't heard the story of the King James
Bible?

Have you heard of the Apocrypha?

And there is
> no reason to believe it will change any time soon. If your ability to
> detect
> God with some sort of meter proves inadequate, you might try doing it Gods
> way.

Is god's way the way you do it? Through stupidity and denial?

But atheists don't want to do it because then they would have to give
> up their sin, their comfort, and their lusts.

Atheists have nothing to worry about from the bible or people who don't
understand it's history like you.

>I've been there. I know.

That's demonstrably not true.

Not
> believing in something doesn't make it any less true. I could believe your
> nothing more than a parrot that can type. In your world, that could be
> true,
> but in the REAL world its not true because its not what you are. Just
> because I believe you are not a person, doesn't mean you're not a person.
> Same with God. Just because YOU don't believe in Him, doesn't mean He is
> not
> there. You will find out soon enough I reckon.

Please god, save me from your your true believers.

Al Klein

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 1:40:05 AM2/21/05

to

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:37:48 -0600, "Brian Oakley"
<brian...@ispwest.com> said in alt.atheism:

>"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
>news:42517a87....@news-west.newscene.com...

>> >are opened, not because of their action of reading. If the Spirit
>doesn't
>> >quicken they dead heart, they were never more than atheist to begin with.

>> Nice attempt at a put down. If you don't believe in my god, you are
>> dead in the heart.

>Its not meant as a put down at all. The Bible teaches that ALL men are dead
>spiritually until the Spirit of God awakens their heart.

To anyone who doesn't already believe your nonsense, it's a put-down.
Your bible isn't valid outside the confines of your belief system.

> I was dead for
>years. Its not a put down at all. If anything its meant to be a wake up
>call.

Most atheists *did* wake up - that's when they gave up religion.

>> Belief is simply a product of peer pressure as you have just
>> demonstrated nicely. There's nothing moral about it.

>Actually, belief is what the Holy Spirit instills in us.

Again - that nonsense isn't valid outside your belief system.

>> Reality is much more interesting and honest. You can't be moral by
>> starting with lying to yourself.

>Well, if reality is believing that you wont ever die and you will just live
>forever without any accountability, then you need to rethink reality.

Not dying is a Christian belief. Atheists know that we're all going
to die.

>Statistics show that one out of ever one dies. Usually before they reach 100
>years of age. Just because you or anyone else chooses not to believe
>something (such as God), that wont make the fact of the truth go away.

Nor will your belief change anything. You'll die. You may live long
enough to realize that Christianity is totally wrong, you may not, but
you will die. And that doesn't mean die in the body but live on in
the spirit - it means die. Period. You will. I'm not guessing, I
know. Does the possibility frighten you? It should.

> I'm not here to beat anyone over the head with the Bible. But if you're
>ever interested, I would be glad to tell you about the depths of depravity
>that God graciously lifted me out of.

Only if you have objective evidence that it was your god that did it.
We've heard baseless assertions before, so we don't need to hear
yours.

--
rukbat at verizon dot net

"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)

Al Klein

unread,

Feb 21, 2005, 1:33:29 AM2/21/05

to

On 19 Feb 2005 11:55:04 -0600, cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) said in
alt.atheism:

>Reality is much more interesting and honest. You can't be moral by
>starting with lying to yourself.

And you can't be moral by looking to someone else for that morality,
even if you call that someone else a god.

--
rukbat at verizon dot net

"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei