Friday, October 14, 2005

Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles, part 2

Almost done. Kirk's Ninth Principle:

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.


While I have some young anarchist friends with whom I'm sympathetic, I nonetheless agree with Kirk here. I don't know that I have anything to add.

I will say only this: The way our system is designed and practiced, we have just the sort of aristocratic anarchy that Kirk fears here. The rich are more equal than others. Our capitalist democracy has been sold to the highest bidders and that currently is the military/industrial oiligarchy.

Bush and his people, for instance, get away with lies, cheating and murder. It doesn't seem to matter what they do, they remain in power. And you know what? This was true for Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton before War Bush.

To quote that famed socialist, Helen Keller (surprised?):

Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.


Wasp Jerky said...

"Bush and his people, for instance, get away with lies, cheating and murder. It doesn't seem to matter what they do, they remain in power. And you know what? This was true for Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton before War Bush."

I think you can also expand that to the international sphere. The United States is but a single country, yet it manages to impose its will on other countries all the time. Whether it be overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries, invading other nations unprovoked, or what have you, there's a very good reason that many other countries consider us to be bullies. Because we are bullies.

Dan Trabue said...

Bullying, or looking after our own self-interests as the capitalists would put it.

Stephanie said...

"oiligarchy" as in Texas oil? ha ha. i started visiting after the first few kirk posts. . . who is this kirk?

Dan Trabue said...

Russell Kirk, some conservative guru.

After engaging in conversation with many conservatives, it became evident to me that it's not so much that I disagree with their philosophies, but more that I don't think they fully buy in to them.

And since this Kirk guy was referred to as one with these Ten Essential principles, I thought I'd review them and see where I (and any visitors) do and don't disagree.

There you have it.

Thanks for visiting, y'all come back now.

Daniel Levesque said...

Hmmm . . . so by Kirk's reasoning on Tyrrany the following current events are ant-democratic. 2-3% of the population has been able to force their agenda on pulic schools and entertainment as well as on the general population by using the courts to circumvent the will of the people. I'm talking about homosexuals. 35-40% of teh population is trying to use the courts to overturn the popularly supported Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Over 90% of the country claims to be lieve in God or a god. 80-90% of the country claims to be Christian in particular. Yet every public expressionof faith is under attack by Atheists, who comprise no more than 5% of the population, and they keep winning.
I could go on, but I believe I have made my point.
This is why conservatives such as myself are so concerned about the judicial system, and why we worry about the possibility of a coming Judicial Tyrrany.

the Contrary Goddess said...

That comment is interesting Dan. I wouldn't consider myself a conservative or a liberal but if I had to choose, it would be conservative because I think people are responsible for themselves. But I haven't found your posted principles of Kirk's to particularly resonate either way with me.

Anyhoo, your observation about conservatives not really buying into their own conservatism resonates with me. Except I see it even more starkly in liberals, and even more in Liberals. They want everyone else to do what they want them to do, and they will do it too, right after they make everyone else do it.

Like using less gas. A tune-up, or only renting a car, while still buying into all sorts of fuel intensive things and activities and lifestyles, does not really "conserve". Adopting a third world lifestyle does though. Not too many liberals or conservatives willing to go that far for their "beliefs". That's all they are is "beliefs".

Reminds me of people who tout "diversity" and "tolerance" and then speak of Southerners or Christians or preachers or some such as scumbags. All is goodness and light except for "those people". It is just interesting to me.

Like the people who think they have more money because they have more debt. There are so many things like that these days.

the Contrary Goddess said...

hmmm, sounds like Daniel believes in mob rule instead of the rule of law.

Daniel Levesque said...

Goddess, if you define "Democracy" as "Mob Rule" the I am guilty as charged. Majority rule is the foundational concept of Democracy.

Dan Trabue said...

CG said:
"your observation about conservatives not really buying into their own conservatism resonates with me. Except I see it even more starkly in liberals, and even more in Liberals."

Fine observation. Most of us are hypocritical to some extent, I reckon.

In defense of liberals (capital L or no) is that their point (some of them) is that the system is corrupt or broke.

For instance, because we've built in a dependence on autos, it feels rather risky to become a cyclist or they're not able to rely upon mass transit, because a mass transit solution hasn't been built.

The point some of them would make is that we need to make changes to the larger system so that we can choose to live another way.

While I'm more of the mind to go ahead and "be the change we wish to see," (Gandhi) I think those advocating systemic changes have legitimate points.

Eleutheros said...


This country is emphatically not a democracy. We bandy about the term, use it in connection with the goings on in Iraq, but even there what is being set up is NOT a democracy. It is a representative constitutional republic. A pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. When a government is constitutional, if there is a way to accomodate the rights of a 98% majority and a 2% minority, we go with that way.

When we talk of "public" expressions of faith, what is most often being refered to is government expressions of faith, in courtrooms and government schools, for example. You can still have Christian radio stations, Christian billboards, Christian colleges, etc. so there is no attempt to quell 'public' expression of faith, only government expression of faith.
To this end expression of faith is like smoking. Most government places are becoming smoke-free even if 90% of the people who frequent them are smokers. We don't vote on it and decide that if 51% of the people want to be able to light up in the faces of people at the DMV or courtroom or county clerk's office, then they can and tough cookies to the other 49%. No one's right to (be so stupid as to) smoke is infringed. It's just that in those government places everyone's rights are preserved by just leaving smoking out of it. It's that way with religion too. Nobody is being stiffled as to their utter freedom to express their religion, just not right up in the faces of the rest of us who would really prefer, like tobacco smoke, that you'd just keep it to yourself.

Stephanie said...

that was an interesting metaphor of smoking. hmmmm. i find this discussion to be a good one for me to listen to.

Daniel Levesque said...

Your metaphor for smoking has gaping holes in it. Smoking in public buildings is being regulated due to the possible health effects of second-hand smoke on non-smokers who are exposed to it. They could die from it given enough time. I have yet to come across who died from exposure to expresions of faith in the public square. As far as some people simply preferring not to have to be exposed to other people's faith, because they find it either offensive or simply false, this also has a giant hole in it. Everything out there offends somebody. If we regulate exposure to everything based on if somebody gets offended by it then the inevitable consequence is the complete and total abridging of free speech. Only by forbidding public expression of any kind can we ensure that no one is offended. So forgive me if I don't care if a small minority of people are offended by public religious expression, in government controlled areas or not. I am greatly by pornography. It is something that has no place in a civilized society. Also, everybody engaging in sexual acys in this pornography is a prostitute, which is illegal almost everywhere, and therefore these so-called actors and actresses are committing a crime simply by making the stuff. The Supreme court decided that this foul stuff is proteced under the first amendment, he same amendment that guarantees the free expression of religion without abridgment, yet somehow doesn't cover public expressions of faith according to 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices. So, can you hthink of an argument that doesn't work against you?

the Contrary Goddess said...

Dan --

The system IS corrupt and broke. Which is why the system won't/can't reform itself.

Power corrupts, so decentralize power.

(I could have a whole essay on the evils of government schools and how they cannot be reformed because the problem is that they are *government schools* and until they aren't, there is not meaningful reform. But hey, just read Holt and Gatto.)

Daniel Levesque said...

Beat you to the government schools thing already over on my blog. I'm all for priavtizing them and switching to a voucher system. As far as the system being corrupt goes, it's still the best, least corrupt one in the world, and anarchy is always replaced by an oppressive tyrrany, which nobody, especially the anarchists wants.

Eleutheros said...

"I have yet to come across who died from exposure to expresions of faith in the public square."

We must be talking at cross purposes, more people have died of being exposed to someone else's religion than any other cause. And now even in the most suppressive areas, you can still say express your *personal* religious views in the public square. You just can't express them as the government's views. And the worst area of genocidal Jihad in the world began when the government first tagged 'Allah' onto the government's discourse.

If you can make feasible argument that government expression of faith does no one any real harm, then ommitting it does not real harm either. The government functions just as well if Jesus is left out of it. Therefor many of us have concluded that the only motivation of government expression of faith is to say "Hurray for ourside, we are better than you, God is on our side, although through our goodness we might tolerate you, never forget that you are inferior in the sight of God and the government (which to our thinking is the same thing)."

Daniel Levesque said...

I knew someone was going to make this claim. Pay attention now. It is not an expression of religion to murder someone in God's name. It is an act of hatred and oppression that is contrary to every religion, except maybe Islam. When I am referring to public expression of religion I am referring to display of icons, religious texts, prayer, preaching, ministering, and all the normal things normal religious people do.
The Constitution forbids Congress to establish a state religion. The wording it contains does not forbid things like the Ten Commandments being displayed in government buildings, crosses on city seals, or a statue of a pagan goddess in the Supreme Court compound (the statue of blind justice). Prior to 1950 every ruling the Supreme Court ever handed regarding this topic protected these religious displays on public property. The modern idea of what Seperation of Church and State means is actually a new idea.

Eleutheros said...

This might perhaps be so because prior to the 1950's the government was not mucking in our lives as it does now. Besides the ubiquitous government schools, which DID, alas, contain religious exposure, one could live one's life and hardly be aware the government existed. What little bit of government mucking in religion was mild, incidental, and was certainly no attempt to proselytize. The objections now of days are because so many are trying to use government to further their religious objectives, show that good, normal people are on their side and the rest of us are deviants.

The dearly held but baseless history proffered is that we were a very religious people from the beginning of the country until very recent times when we have turned from God. A cold examination of history shows that this country has had periods of religious revival and ferver and periods of secularism and large scale absence of religion all along. These times come and go. The 50's were a time when they were coming (and there was a reaction to them) and now is a time when they are going (with a corresponding reaction from religious circles.)

I once did a paper on the beginning of the Christian Church in the 1820's by Joseph Campbell, especially the occasion of the Cane Ridge Revival. Many southern Appalachian communities had not churches then and never had had them. By the late 1850's most of those original churches were gone and the area had very little religious expression. There was a religious revival in the late 1860's and, of course, as a result of it 'In God We Trust' got on the money then. Then by the 1890's there was a period of very little religious activity again. Etc. etc.

Daniel Levesque said...

Good point, but you are overlooking the fact that at our founding we were an extremem;y religious nation, and were Christian in particular, and out of those the largest group were the Baptists. All but 2 of the founding fathers were Christians, and those 2 still publicly acknowledged the value and importance of the Christian faith for reasons of moral instruction. Hence, despite our nation's fluctuations,, we were founded as a religious nation.

Eleutheros said...

I'm guessing Dan's blog isn't the place for this, Daniel, but I'd have to say you could not be more factually wrong about this if you tried. Very few of the founding fathers were Christians, you can make a case for two or maybe a few more, but for the most part the time of the founding of the country was at an extreme ebb in the religious tide.

The prevailing religion of the day was Deism, even among the common people. Deists refered to the supreme being as God, just as Christians did, and so here more than two centuries later we look back and say "See, they were Christians." They were not.

Just one example and I'll shut up, but I could go on for pages. George Washington was completely closed mouthed about his religious beliefs. He attended church to accompany his wife but never attended communion services. When the minister preached a sermon that any prominent persons in the congregation, such as presidents, should set a better example than come to church on communion Sunday but abstain from communion, Washington agreed that the minister was right and never attended church on communion Sunday again. A few years after Washington's death, two authors were writing a book on what a good Christian man Washington was in which they fabricated evidence such as the ficticious Washington's Farewell Address to the Troops. When they interviewed his own family minister, the letter is still extant, the minister stated flatly and curtly, "George Washington was a Diest."

Yet in such discussions I always hear, "Oh, Washington was a Christian."

The US was not founded by Christians in the main and it most certainly was not founded as a Christian nation.

Daniel Levesque said...

George Washington served as a Chaplain before he bacam e a General. Every day of his life he excused himself from everything, no matter what, to pray and study the Bible for one hour. Every day when he rose the first thing he did was pray and study the Bible. He kept a prayer jounal for his entire life. He collected sermons and in his house story time was when he would read a sermon from his collection. He was most certainly NOT close mouthed about his Christian faith, he wore it openly.
Our founding fathers were not mere "deists" and this entire concept is an invention of revisionist historians who want to hide the Christian foundation of our nation. Be sure you have the facts right before you make silly claims about the faith of our funders. What I have stated is factually correct in every way. If you bothered to check the writings of our forefathers yourself you would see this. If you read honest history books you would see this.
Here are the religious stats of the day as recorded by the census: 98% Protestant Christian. 1.8% Catholic. 0.2% other, primarily Jewish. Check it out. It's 100% correct.

Dan Trabue said...

Not being informed on the topic, I'll let Daniel and Eleutheros debate this all you want. Just play nice.

How about some references from y'all so some of us ignorant folk could make an informed decision?

Daniel Levesque said...

I'll have to dig them up. It's been awhile,so it could take awhile.

Wasp Jerky said...

This from Wikipedia on Washington's religious beliefs: "The religious views of George Washington are a matter of some controversy. There is strong evidence that he (like many of the Founding Fathers) was a Deist—believing in Divine Providence, but not believing in divine intervention in the world after the initial design. Before the revolution, when the Episcopal Church was still the state religion in Virginia, he served as a vestryman (lay officer) for his local church. He spoke often of the value of religion in general, and he sometimes accompanied his wife to Christian church services. However, there is no record of his ever becoming a communicant in any Christian church and he would regularly leave services before communion—with the other non-communicants. When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington ceased attending at all on communion Sundays. Long after Washington died, asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist." Various prayers said to have been composed by him in his later life are highly edited. He did not ask for any clergy on his deathbed, though one was available. His funeral services were those of the Freemasons."

Daniel Levesque said...

Wikipedia? I'm familiar with them. I don't trust them because I have come across debunked assertions on their site. Many people consider this site to be, and this is someone else's words, "A left-wing liberal pack of lies." In short, your source is dubious at best.
By the way, the Freemasons were very Christian at this time in history.

Daniel Levesque said...

I'm sorry, is there a second journal I didn't know about? I will fully acknowledge that history is chock full of fraudulent artifacts. The journal which I am referring to is one I only learned about a few months ago and has supposedly been proven to be authentic. But let's suppose we are referring to the same prayer journal, and let's suppose for a moment that it is fake. You have not addressed the remaining facts of my previous statement. The exact hours of George Washington's private devotional time were 5-6 am, and 9-10 pm. He spent the entire time on his knees in front of a chair with the Bible open on it. He did collect sermons. Story time in his household was sermon time, he would read one of his collected sermons. He did perform the duties of a chaplain, meaning preaching the word of God in the Continental Army prior to the Revolution. The religious makeup at the time was exactly as I wrote. Records of these facts can be found in the archives of the Library of Congress, where the originals of most of our founder's writings and records of their lives, comings, goings, and service records can be found. Most of the remainder are stored at the Smithsonian, and the rest have found their way into private collections or been lost to history.
There are myths about our founders that are factually, provably false. For example, George Washington and the Cherry Tree is a story made up by a reporter. Be careful when you tangle with me about history, I am an amateur historian with years of reading and study under my belt. While I have mixed up my facts in the past, usually dates, I'm bad with precise dates for some reason, must have something to do with the difference between letters and numbers, and have acknowledged my errors when someone caught them, I'm not too proud to do that, I have evreything exactly right this time. You are free not to believe me. I already know I will not convince you of the factuality of my assertions any more than you will convince me. We have both already made up our minds based on the information we have. The difference, I think, is that I am already thoroughly familiar with most of what you know, but what I am saying is new to you. Perhaps, when you do more research and read more materials from people other than me you will come around, perhaps not. It is my experience that facts have a remarkably difficult time penetrating sincerely held beliefs.

Dan Trabue said...

Very interesting thus far. I've not heard anything definitive yet, but very interesting.

I will agree with this, Daniel said:
"It is my experience that facts have a remarkably difficult time penetrating sincerely held beliefs."

That much is certainly true and it cuts both/all ways.

Eleutheros said...

"Be careful when you tangle with me about history, I am an amateur historian with years of reading and study under my belt."

I've studied at least as extensively as you have, Daniel, and I'm close to twice your age. I was having these same discussions when you were watching Barney.

" The difference, I think, is that I am already thoroughly familiar with most of what you know, but what I am saying is new to you."

You've mentioned nothing that I haven't heard a hundred times before, Christin Founding Father revisionists have been around for years. Everything you've mentioned has been proven a fabrication many times over. Notably one Parson Weems in 1800 was bound and determined to create a Christian George Washington and wrote to everyone who knew him for testimonials to that effect. He got none so he made up the stories which were refuted during his own time. Another source of the myths is Washington's adopted son who later in life (he died in 1857) became a mythologist and suddenly recalled all sorts of incidences of Washingtons beliefs. However he was a teenager when Washington died and none of his stories were backed up by anyone else who knew Washington. When his adopted daughter, older than the son, was asked by another mythologist (Sparks) to testify as to her father's Christian devotion, she wrote to him (the letter is still extant) that she never saw any evidence of the same.

Now if we are to contine the discussion, we will have to some criteria for evidence. You asserting that you are a historian of such mean that you are not to be tangled with doesn't cut it. So far you sound like a few pages out of David Barton's ridiculous book.

Several of the founding fathers were very vocal in their disbelief of the Christian religion and it's easy enough to establish their views from what they said.

Washington was closed mouthed about his views and several waves of revisionists left false statements in their wake to cast him into a Christian light. So it is easy for the modern revisionist, like yourself, to dig up the past unsubstantianted fabrications and toss them about. Yet every source can be traced (just like the journal) to it's source of fabrication or else to direct evidence contradicting the indirect evidence in support of it.

Washington kept personal journals which are all extant and have been published (ISBN 0-8139-1857-X). One accounts for 1851-1852 and another series of journals accounts for 1860-1875 - a total of a little under sixteen years of fairly detailed accounts of his daily activities and thoughs. It shows he attended church an average of six times a year.

You would have us believe that this man read the Bible daily and held personal devotions for hours a day, and yet in many years of journals he never once mentions Jesus or Christ. Not once. When he refers to the Diety, he uses the term Providence seven times more often than God. He never mentions prayer or devotionals or reading the Bible. A man of such devout Christian faith and yet not once in sixteen years of journals does he ever mention a word of it.

Also in his existing personal letters Jesus is refered to exactly
once and then in reference to someone else's beliefs.

This evidence is compared to known and proven forgeries such as the Valley Forge prayer and his farewell address to the troops.

The larger question, though, is this: Is the case to be made for Christianity so abysmally weak and implausible that the faithful have to resort to fabrications and flasehoods to have any case at all? Seems to be the case.

Eleutheros said...

"One accounts for 1851-1852 and another series of journals accounts for 1860-1875"

Ooops. Make that:

"One accounts for 1751-1752 and another series of journals accounts for 1760-1775"

Daniel Levesque said...

You still have not adresses my assertions with anything solid. You are merely restating your belief that everything pegging Geourge Washington, and many of our founding fathers is made up by Christian revisionists. I believe that most of the assertions made claiming that our founding fathers were mere "deists" are fabrications from anti-Christian revisionists and seperation of church and staters seeking to justify their actions. We seem to have a problem here.
While have acknowledged that some so-called "facts" about history have been fabrications, and am willing to examine anything new with a critical eye, you are devout in your belief that what you believe is completely true and is irrefutable. Thus we have hit a bit of a stonewall in our debate as I mentioned before. We are both very convinced based the evidence we have, but our evidence is considered to be unreliable by each other. The unfortunate thing is that the whole topic has been tangled and confused by people with an agenda on both sides of the argument. I think we just have to agree to disagree.

Eleutheros said...


The reason I haven't given you solid refutation of the Christian George Washington is because thus far there's nothing solid to refute.

When you mention such outlandish things as stating the hours of Washington's devotionals yet you don't disclose the source of that information, it puts your disputant at the disadvantage of stating where you got the information and then refute it. I can do that, of course, but it would be endlessly weary.

I can already tell you the source of the bulk of the misinformation. It is the 1918 book written by Mason Locke Weems and published by Lippincot. Not even the staunchist revisionist any longer accepts the cherry tree story as anything but a fabricated myth, and yet this very Weems is the source of it. The rest of the material in his book is likewise dependent on fabrication.

My criteria for evaluating the evidence is this:

1. Washington's own words written by him carry more weight than what is reported by others about him
2. What is reported by those who knew him is of more weight than third hand stories.
3. If ten or a score of those who knew him say one thing and one other says another thing, the testimony of the score is of more importance.

Using these criteria, none of the tales you tell about Washington stand up.

The revisionist's criterion is whether or not the evidence seems to be on "God's side."

So as of now, there's nothing to address. You say:

1. George Washington served as a Chaplain before he bacame a General.

What's the source of this.

2. Every day of his life he excused himself from everything, no matter what, to pray and study the Bible for one hour.

What's the source of this? Surely not the discredited Potts whom even his contemporaries said he lied.

3. Every day when he rose the first thing he did was pray and study the Bible.

What's the source of this?

4. He collected sermons and in his house story time was when he would read a sermon from his collection.

Who asserts that this is so?

5. He was most certainly NOT close mouthed about his Christian faith, he wore it openly.

What is the source of this and how do you reconcile it with the fact that in all his journals and writings and letters he never once said he was a Christian?

6. The exact hours of George Washington's private devotional time were 5-6 am, and 9-10 pm.

What is the source of this and why are those hours covered for weeks on end in his journals but there's not mention of journals.

Nothing to refute, Daniel. I might as well say that Jesus was a transvestite and defy you to disprove it. Just making up a list of groundless stories does not constitute having researched the topic.

Dan Trabue said...

Well, Jesus DID go around in a robe and with long hair...

swoosh! Ball's in your court, Daniel.

Eleutheros said...

This thread has got me dipping into one of pet topics, religious revisionism. Although revisionism doesn't really cover it, the same sort of love of a lie extends not only to revisionist American history and revisionist ancient history, but also to such fascinating self delusions such as creationism.

It is highly entertaining. My interest was piqued in the topic way back in the '60's when in aghast reaction to the Jesus People and Jesus Freaks, the staunch fundamentalists pronounced that historical evidence proved that Jesus had short hair and was clean shaven. A popular book of the time, and alas I can find no reference to it on the internet, was "Short Skirts and Hippie Hair."

The proof was this, and it is very instructive. The author showed a couple of ancient mosaics and frescoes of Jesus and they showed him clean shaven with short hair.

What the author didn't know, or chose to ignore, was that the depictions were Byzantine and from the 11th century. The interest in depicting people in authentic dress and coif is very recent. Even the westerns from the 50's, 60's, and 70's make no attempt research how people looked in the 1870's, all the cowboys have the haircuts and shirts and boots after the sytles that were common in the 50's, 60's, and 70's respectively.

Rembrandt's painting of Aristotle contemplating a bust of Homer shows him in the style of the 1650's.

So in the 12th century the Byzantine artists showed all Biblical characters dressed and shorn as was the custom of the 12th century and it is not proof at all about how Jesus actually looked.

I thought I'd throw that in because it illustrates what passes for 'proof' for the revisionist.

Daniel Levesque said...

For goodness sakes. You keep talking about these guys I've never heard of from a hundred years ago. Due to the innaccuracies in many old history books I stick to stuff written in the last 20 years, except when reviewing the original documents. Since I don't have the books on hand, I got them from the libray, I don't remember the author's names. I also watch a lot of documentaries and spend a lot of time listening to talk radio. I collect facts. I can spout them off on demand. But in order for me precisely name the source of an individual fact would require a lot research since I don't exactly keep notecards around with that information on them. But I do love the way you just assume that everything I know came from some discredited history from before 1920 that I have never heard of. You know what they say assuming . . .
Besides, you spend so much time trting to refute the greater argument that you offer no facts to counter my specific assertions. BUt here are some sources you check to verify to my assertions:
1 - Continental Army records in the Library of Congress
2 - Martha Washington's diaries.
3 - Why must you assume that diaries are for religious prostelization? My own diaries cantain nothing of religion, and I am a devout Christian.
4 - The only reason anyone knows about what he did duirng the hours I have mentioned, since he did excuse himself to a private room without ever offering an explanation, is that members of his household accidentally interrupted him a few times. He realy was very closed mouthed about his private devotional time. (see this part supports one of your assertions about him not being overt in displaying his religious faith.
5 - pretty much every original document regarding George Washington can be found, at least in duplicate form, at the Library of Congress in the historical archives.
I'll be happy to discuss theology with you as well, but I am out of time for the morning.
By the way, do you believe Abraham Lincoln was gay?

Daniel Levesque said...

Okay, I'm back for a few. The most interesting thing about this debate has been your steady reliance on discrediting supposed sources rather than going after the facts. I am a factual debater, and as such I have never bothered to memorize my sources along along with the facts. I believe facts can speak for themselves.
For example, you posed a theoretical situation where you would state that Jesus was a transvestite. Not caring where this silliness comes from I can demolish it with facts.
1 - Transvestites didn't exist among the Jews during Biblical times.
2 - Had he been a tranvestite he would not have been taken seriously by any Jews because it is a balatant violation of Jewish law to "dress as it pertains to" the opposite sex. (Levitucus)
3 - Had he been a tranvestite his accusers would have nailed him with that violation of the law rather than accusing him of blasphemy for claiming to be the son of God.
I could go on, but you get the point. Facts speak for themselves.

Wasp Jerky said...

Daniel, Eleutheros specifically pointed out six of the "facts" you named and asked you to back them up. That you can't seem to do so speaks volumes.

Dan Trabue said...

Yeah, I think I'd agree.

I've no dog in this race, no opinion whatsoever on the topic of washington's christianity, but I'd have to say it seems Eleutheros has made a better case thus far.

Daniel Levesque said...

He remembers the names of his sources, I do not. I have already acknowledged that.

Wasp Jerky said...

I don't have the time to address all your points, Daniel, but the Christian Church is a denomination, much like Baptist or Lutheran. It started in the early 1800s, an outgrowth of Presbyterianism. I would point you to some more information about them, but I wouldn't want to be accused of quoting from a single athiest revisionist. Of course, this does bring up the issue of your honesty and expertise.

Wasp Jerky said...


Eleutheros said...

Ah, Daniel, Daniel! Your quivver is embarassingly devoid of arrows.

1. The Christian Church is a denominaion, an offshoot of the Presbyterian Church, and founded in the 1820's by Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. It split in the 1950's into the Church of Christ and Christian Church.

2. While there was not standard spelling in Washington's day, 'good' spellers were those who spelled a word the same way all the time, which Washington didn't and the fake journal did.

3. While you've never read it, none the less it is the ultimate source of all the fabricated stories that appear in your sources and lectures. You are only parroting untruths that have been passed along by others.

4. I wouldn't have guessed it. Grasping at straws here, are we?

5. If he was so utterly private about it, then how is it we have determined that he was such a devout Christian even to knowing what time he held devotions.

6. The 1918 edition was what started the modern Christian ervisionist movement. The original book was published in 1800 and immediately fell into disrepute and obscurity. It doesn't matter that you haven't read it, it is still the only source of most of the ridiculous stories you tell, your "sources" are only copying from that book.

7. "Right now I wish I could remember the book I found this in"
What more could I possibly add to this?

8. "Please give the name of you book that states that the hours of 5-6 am and 9-10 pm (actually 10-11 pm, I will explain next paragraph) are covered for weeks on end in Washington's journals"
Actually this is one I did get from the original source. I already gave the ISBN for one edition of Washington's journals. When I was reading through them for information about 18th century farming practices, I noted that many of the entries are hour by hour.

"Finally, look for any history book that claims Washington was a deist that was written prior to 1960."

I've already cited letters written in the year 1800, written by two of the Washington family's ministers, that flat out state that he was a Deist. Washington Irving (who died in 1859, and is the author of Rip Van Winkle) wrote a five volume biography of George Washington in which he reproduces the letter from Abercrombie stating that Washington was a Deist.

By the bye, Daniel, I know you Christian revisionists like to think of the world of actual scholarship as a bunch of disgruntle athiests who have read one book out of which they are getting all their information, but you count of my secondary sources (which you number as one) is one too high. I am only citing original Washington artifacts, not secondary sources.

More in a moment.

Daniel Levesque said...

Kevin, you expose your ignorance by claiming the Christian Church began in the 1800's. I thought it was clear that Catholics, Lutherans, Epicopals, and Baptists are Christian Churches. The Church in its entirety has been known as Christians since the Apostle Paul first coined the term before 100 AD. This, obviously, is before 1800 AD. How anybody can claim that Christians are not Christians is beyond all reason.

Wasp Jerky said...

"Kevin, you expose your ignorance by claiming the Christian Church began in the 1800's"

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? From now on, I'll just accept whatever you say as the truth Daniel. It's much easier than being troubled by reality.

Dan Trabue said...


I don't mind this conversation as I'm finding it quite interesting, although I don't have anything significant to contribute.

I will add a point of clarification. I believe that Kevin and Eleutheros are referencing a specific denomination The Christian Church (there may be more than one denomination by that name, actually. I know currently of "The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)" denomination and seems like there are other variants.

So, when two of y'all were referring to the Christian Church beginning in the 1800s, that is the reference, not the generic Christian Church which I would contend began in the weeks after Jesus' death and resurrection (although Mr. Eleutheros may disagree with that - let's not go there for this debate for now...)

Daniel Levesque said...

I would like to add a real life situation in modern times that I have first-hand knowledge of.
My own Father is a devout Christian who prays every night before bed and reads the Bible several times a week. However:
1 - He has only gone to Church 3 times in the last 2 years.
2 - On those occasions he has gone to church he has refused communion because he thinks it's innappropriate for an only occasional church-goer to partake of that part of the service.
3 - There is no written record of his faith.
4 - He does not speak of his faith very much because he does not want to get caught up in debates like this one. However, he lives his life by Biblical principles.
5 - When he does speak about god he sually uses the generic sounding term "God" rather than "Jesus" or "Christ".
6 - Other people in my own family do not know his private Christian practices, and I only learned about some of them when I was 20. That means they cannot back up some of my claims.
According to E's arguments my father is deist rather than a Christian, and my own first-hand witness is unreliable because there are few other people who can back up any of my claims and my father has left no written record. Wow. Remember what my atheist said "Lack of proof is not proof in and of itself of anything." Of course, I'm sure you will find some ridiculous way to claim I don't know my own father.

Eleutheros said...

As to your last post, Daniel, the assertion is being made by the Christian revisionists that we know Washington was a Christian because he DID pray where people could see him, DID go to church, DID take communion, DID say he was a Christian, DID openly study the Bible.

As to the references, the hue and cry of the Christian revisionist who really doesn't know much of anything about American history or the methods of examining extant evidence will invariably say, "Ah, if you just went out there and read the same crap I've been reading then you'd know a thing or two." You say Weems is not the only source of the stories, then what ARE the sources? So far you've named none.

If all you can do is say, go out and read some fundamentalist crap, then you're not much of a historian after all, are you?

Daniel: "Be careful when you tangle with me about history, I am an amateur historian with years of reading and study under my belt."

After all those years of study you can't come up with even one historical reference and your whole portfolio consists of only, "I heard this somewhere but I don't remember where or what the sourse was .... and if you went out and read a dozen books by slack-jawed drooling fundamentalist you too would be as well informed as I am."

But as this discussion clearly shows, the fundamentalist true believer is amazing in that he can take five shots directly to the head and not flinch. The characteristic of the scholar is that his views are on the table to be proven or disproven, changed if necessary. Saying that you read some 'hurry for our side' books once doesn't constiture proving your point. Historical evidence and the source of it would prove it. No, the characteristic of the fundamentalist believer is that God's side will not be disproven, cannot be, I won't let it be. Even if it appears on the surface to be a lie, if it's on God's side (as the fundmentalist sees God'd side) it MUST be true, or at least justified.

The fundamentalist revisionist dare not put all the facts on the table and look at them coldly.

So that's why I say the central characteristic of Christianity is the love of a lie, being drawn to a lie like a moth to candle, holding onto falsehoods to keep them warm in their doubts ..... for Jesus, of course.

Daniel Levesque said...

Once again, you refuse to address any of the issues that were raised, and you still refuse to name your own source. Answer the questions man or quit trying to sound high and mighty.
1 - Name the book you are citing.
2 - Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln was a Homosexual?
3 - Other than your one revisionist text that you refuse to name have you bothered to read any other histories of George Washington's life. If so name them or you are having the same problem I am remembering the names of your sources.
4 - How do reconcile the fact that the lack of evidence for a particular view does not prove the other view if it itself lacks specific evidence as you claim to deism does. Your entire argument rests on these two assertions: A - You believe that everyone who made claims to George Washington being a Christian was a liar right down to his own adopted son. B - The lack of evidence resultant of this assertion proves that he was a Deist despite the lack of specific evidence declaring him to be such. Take note:
1 - You claim George Washington left no personal record declaring himself to be a Christian. He left no such record declaring himself to be a deist either.
2 - Private devotionals are just that, private. You take the fact that he didn't pray on the street corners like a Pharisee as evidence that he did not pray.
3 - He didn't prosteletize. Sure, but who needed to in a nation that was 98% practicing Chritian. Have you checked the census records from that time period yet like I suggested, or am I not naming the source of my information like you keep ranting about?
4 - Prejudice. You are discounting any record or history that does not agree with your prejudicial point of view without even bothering to read up and examine the evidence for yourself. At least I read dissenting books before discarding them as unreliable.

Like I keep saying, I know you will never be convinced of the truth of my statements. I am only interested in motivating the spectators to do some research on their own. You will never bother to study the subject further because you mistakenly believe there is nothing legitimate left for you to learn. Of course, if you ever do get over your misinformed prejudice you can find many references at the local library that support bothyour view and my own. But you won't find any prior to the Seperation of Church and State movement that beganin the sixties that support you. Fascinating timing don't you think?
By the way, you have yet to argue for anything this whole debate. You have only repeated yourself that based on your revisionist history that my assetions MUST be false without providing actual evidence. For example:
1 - Name one source who claims Washinton did not pray.
2 - You cannot refute the fact that Washington performed Chaplain's duties as a Colnel in the Continental Army.
3 - You cannot refute that Washington collected sermons.
Of course you're just going to repeat that anyone who makes these claims is lying without backing it up. Argue the facts and quit wasting your time obsessing about sources. Until you can do that I will never reveal them, remembered or not. This is not a debate about who you believe but what the facts are and what actual evidence may be contrary to them.

Daniel Levesque said...

You have been constantly going on and on about me not citing sources. Allow me to repeat every source I have cited.
1 - George Washington's journals. The 5-6 am and 10-11 pm time frames are empy (post revolution) because he was engaged in private devotionals. You can get copies from the Library of Congress. Anecdotal evidence of his devotional time is given by members of his household. The original records of this are at the Library of Congress.
2 - George Washington performed Chaplain's duties as a colonel in the Continental Army prior to the Revolution. This can be verified by checking his service records in the Library of Congress.
3 - He collected sermons. Recorded by members of his own household and told to historians. Original documents are founs in, surprise, sirprise, the Library of Congress.

You have been hemming and hawing about people I have neither read nor cited. I have given these resources rather than the history books I found them because: A - I don't remember the names of the books. B - I know what the original documents are and have already referred you to them.
You have ignored these arguments and pretended I have not listed these references because your revisionist "expert" or "experts" you continually cite, and still refuse to name by the way, did not bother to include them in his book(s). Why you ask? Because he wanted to portray this Christian man as a "deist" so he could lend support to the false idea that America was founded as a secular, rather than Christian nation. It's the most common form of boobery in history. Assault who you can, ignore honest evidence to the contrary, and present your agenda. Just like you keep assaulting people I neither know nor care about, but ignore the assertions I have made that I have given references to back up.
I keep asking you about whether you believe Abraham Lincoln was gay because your answer will reveal if you are fully into the revisionist movement, or just badly misinformed on this one topic. I must assume by your refusal to answer that simple that you know this is why I asked it, and your answer would be the one that fully discredits you personally.

So, I have named original sources to support my assertions. You have only listed ONE you refer people to George Washington's journals as well. You have ignored his service record, which proves his service as a chaplain. You have made a continuing stream of assumtions with no evidence to back them up. Specifically, you assume to know my sources, but they are not the ones I have cited. You make your arguments against my assertions by ignoring them and jumping to other sources you can attack, and credit them with the information I have given.

Let's see, I cite sources, you pretend I did not. I cite original documents, you atart attacking historians that have nothing to do with anything I said. I make an assertion, you ignore it and argue against some other claim you think you can attack. You have done this with every posting. You have nothing to offer regarding the FACTS I have put forth.

You lose.

Wasp Jerky said...

Somehow, Daniel, I have the feeling that you haven't actually read Washington's journals or looked up his service records either. You're just repeating something you supposedly read somewhere. At least Eleutheros knows where he got his information.

But I'm glad you put in the "you lose" at the end. That seems to be what it's all about for you. This isn't about truth. This is about winning and losing. That's what Christianity has become in this country. Pretty pathetic indeed.

Daniel Levesque said...

I left out one resource that backs up another assertion I made.
The Census information from the time period we have been discussing that I quoted when I stated the religious makeup of the Colonies/US was 98% Prtestant, 1.8% Catholic, and .2% other is also available in the Archives at the Library of Congress.

And Kevin, Eutheros has not named one book, research paper, trade journal, or otherwise that backs up his information. I have asked him to do so on multiple occasions and his response is to name a historian he considers discredited without naming one single book. He has no idea where he got his information. Like me, he simply has his favorite information memorized. Otherwise he would have named the source of his information that he claims discredits the historians he keeps pointlessly ranting about. I at least am pointing everyone to the original source of the information. That way you don't have to take my word for it. You can, like I keep telling everyone, get it and read it yourself. Or you can choose to blindly believe Eutheros even though he has offered no arguments contrary to the facts I have presented based on verifiable historical documents. Don't be a dummy. Read the documents I have pointed you to. And there you go assuming that I have never checked such important documents that back up my claims.

The Library of Congress has resources available online at
they have the best librarians in America. If you can't find the documents yourself just fire off a question to the help desk and a librarian will give you all the information you need to get you hands on exactly what you are looking for. That's how I got the complete archives of the Supreme Court, the decisions, majority, and dissenting opinions. From the very first case all the way up the year 2000.

Eleutheros said...


The sources I cited exist. Washington's journals and his correspondences. I've even given you the ISBN number to a published copy of them.

The sources you cite do not exist,
1. The supposed prayer journal is bogus, not even in his own handwriting. It's revisionist discoverer (Burk) admitted as much but tried to save face by saying that it must surely be a copy of the original journal. This was before another Washington scholar (Frank Grizzard) identified the so called 'journal' as just copies of prayers from an old Anglican book of prayer and not composed by Washington at all.

2. Sorry, Daniel, I'm going to have to call a spade a spade. This is a lie. Whoever you heard this from was lying.

3. Ditto, this is a lie. There is not record of Washington ever collecting sermons. Whoever you heard this from was lying.

(additional "source"): In colonial America under British law it was legal to assess a church tax. No one was exempt, no matter what their religion. So when the census was done, everyone had to choose among Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish for the purpose of distributing the church tax. It was to the benefit of the Protestants to consider Deists and atheists didn't have churches and had no means of benefiting from the taxes. So the Protestants considered, for the purpose of the census, that anyone who was not a Jew or Catholic was by default a protestant. How is it that a history scholar of your calibre didn't know this?

Daniel, making up wild stories and passing along revisionist mendacity does not qualify as "sources."

It's odd but revealing that when I cite to you concrete, existing documents, you don't consider it a 'source' because I didn't find it in some crackpot's paperback book. I'm saying your sources don't exist. They've just been made up, they are a lie. Are you saying you don't think the published editions of Washington's journals and letters don't exist?

And Kevin is right, you're not interested in finding out the truth.

Daniel Levesque said...

In other words, you think that the original records in the national archives are lies. That you could be so ideological in your belief in revisionist history that you would discount the National Census post Revolution, Washington's journals when they don't support you, Washinton's service record in the continental army, ect. is really quite sad. You insistence that naming people you disagree with as sources is bogus without naming the historian or original document that supports your assertions, but since these "sources" you still won't name have nothing to do with the facts I have presented. Are you making this stuff up? I at least have been naming documents and telling everyone where they can be found and checked. That you don't have the courage to actually check these facts is also sad.
I know, I know, you have read your revisionists history and swallowed it wholesale ans you just don't need to bother with facts anymore.
Like I said, I knew from the outset you were a lost cause. My only interest is in motivating the spectators to check the FACTS I have given for temselves, and compare them to your weak arguments. Evry original, recorded by people Eutheleros has not been busy assaulting is in the Library of Congress.

Daniel Levesque said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Daniel Levesque said...

You stated:
(additional "source"): In colonial America under British law it was legal to assess a church tax. No one was exempt, no matter what their religion. So when the census was done, everyone had to choose among Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish for the purpose of distributing the church tax. It was to the benefit of the Protestants to consider Deists and atheists didn't have churches and had no means of benefiting from the taxes. So the Protestants considered, for the purpose of the census, that anyone who was not a Jew or Catholic was by default a protestant. How is it that a history scholar of your calibre didn't know this?

Let’s put this through the common sense and reason test shall we?

With no evidence whatsoever the author of this statement claims that either all deists and atheists called themselves Protestants when the census was taken, or the Protestants were actively engaging in fraud. This, conveniently, allows the author to insert any number of deists into the Protestant population as he sees fit, again without proving anything. Alternatively, the author pushes an improvable conspiracy theory that Protestants were such a powerful force in an America that E. declares was primarily deist, NOT Protestant, that they were able to hijack the census and insert anyone they felt like into their segment of the population. The author does not bother to account for the people who are recorded as being other than a Protestant, Catholic, or Jew in the census (Yes they are there. Feel free to check the census). Since the Protestants were so busy hijacking everyone into their population there should be none, but there are some. All this without actually proving the existence of deists and atheists at all, and if there were (There were some, they were just a tiny minority) then it leaves the number up to pure speculation. This is a common tactic among revisionists. Find a situation where the desired outcome/event/ideology can be inserted, then place it in there and claim that the circumstances that make it possible prove it actually happened. Another example is the recent book claiming Abraham Lincoln was a homosexual. It states the fact that he was roommates with another man for 3 years as proof that they had a sexual relationship. By this logic everyone who ever had a same sex roommate was homosexual. Flawed, baseless, dishonest history.

E. that you would actually claim that this silly drivel makes enough sense to have any basis in fact proves that you are so ideological in your view of history that you either refuse to, or have been rendered incapable of applying critical thinking to any statement that supports your prejudiced view. It's amazing how nonsensical statements like this one get latched on to by people who desperately wish history were something other than what it is. But, of course, we are to believe that this is actually reliable "proof" while the information I have directed everyone to in the National Archive of the Library of Congress is "Lies! All lies!" and everyone who points out these proven documents is a liar.

I'll toss you a bone though. There is one nation that was founded to be secular. France's revolution was against both king and Church. The population wanted to throw off the shackles of all authority both mortal and divine. Interestingly enough it was also the bloodiest, most brutal uprising in history up until that time. France became the first country in the history of the world to be founded in secularism. Just a side note, you might want to consider how France has come along as a secular nation compared to how the US has come along as a primarily Christian nation. Is it any wonder people like me are so interesting in preserving our Christian heritage?

Daniel Levesque said...

I was just doing som efollow-up research on this debate and found the following, very interesting website.

Of course E. will instantly discount it because it is a Christian website. Also, they do use Sparks s a reference, yet the evidence in favor of the man's honesty and qualifications as a historian appear to be far more compelling than E's baseless assertion that the man was a "mythologist". In the end you will all have to decide which historians are more reliable for yourselves.

Daniel Levesque said...

oh yeah, and a quote from George Washington that obliterates E's entire argument.

While encamped on the banks of a river, Washington was approached by Delaware Indian chiefs who desired that their youth be trained in American schools. In Washington's response, he first told them that "Congress... will look on them as on their own children." [4] That is, we would train their children as if they were our own. He then commended the chiefs for their decision:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

According to George Washington, what students would learn in American schools "above all" was "the religion of Jesus Christ."

Sorry E. Like I said before. You are the revisionist.

Eleutheros said...

Daniel, I said I was out of here, and no good will come of my setting that aside, but there is always the slight hope something will get past that thick fundamentalist fog you have wrapped yourself in.

You are intelectually dishonest, or naive, or both. If you assert that something is so, the onus is on YOU to provide the source for it. Not to tell your readers, 'Go read the entire Library of Contgress and you'll see I'm right." You pull quotes out of the air (or some part of your anatomy) and claim they pass for proof.

The quote you threw out is from Jared Sparks. It is a lie. Jared Sparkes published his "Life and Writings of George Washington" in 1842 (the edition which contains your quote). Another historian, one Lord Mahon (Philip Henry Stanope, 5th Earl of Stanhope), published "History of England" and in the section covering the American colonies (sixth volume) he accuses Sparks of modifying and adulterating Washington's writings by, among other things, injecting religious phrases that did not exist. He gives several examples of Washington's actual writings and Sparks versions of them. Several other writers followed suit and pointed out places where Sparks had modified letters and documents to make his argument. Sparks wrote a piece in 1852 called "A Reply to the Strictures of Lord Mahon and Others" to "explain" his method of editing, where he said basically that although what he quoted wasn't verbatim what Washington actually said or wrote, but he was sure that's what Washington meant.

In 1853 the Boston Globe ran a series of articles publishing what Sparks quoted and the actual unmodified documents. Since that time Sparks has been viewed as an unreliable revisionist.

And, oh, the story about the speech to the Delaware Indians? Sparks found a note scribbled in the journal of George Washington's secretary expressing the secretary's own sentiments and Sparks reported that (ie lied) as if it were Washington saying it.

What if you had available to you, Daniel, absolutely every one of Wsahingtons known writings. Would you take the time to try to find the rubbish you report as Washinton having said and written?

Well, knock yourself out, here they are:

No half baked fundametalist "Lying for Jesus" this time. You assert that Washington said he was a Christian and prayed daily. Here ae ALL his known writings. Find your proof there and someone might listen to you. Otherwise you are just Lying for Jesus.

Eleutheros said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Eleutheros said...

Nah, gotta stop somewhere. Good luck, Daniel, I really do hope your inquiries get you somewhere someday. I may misdoubt it right now, but I hope it none the less.

Daniel Levesque said...

LIES! LIES! ALL LIES! Eloquent argument. anyone who says something contrary to your revisionist belief is a liar while anyon ewho says something agreeing with your revisionist belief is telling the truth.
I knew you would instantly degrade any resource given without bothering to actually PROVE anything. Even the specific documents in the Library of Congress I told people to check out. Oh well, there's no arguing with ignorant ideologues.

Eleutheros said...

No, not all lies, half of it is ignorance.

Washinton's inaugaral address is the clearest evidence we have, most say proof positive, that he was a Deist.

Do some reading on your own instead of being led around by the nose by the revisionist morons you are reading and you will find that in all the Deist literature of the day, those exact same terms were used.

Daniel, I'm going to have to start charging you tuition if this goes on much farther. Even you must know that Thomas Paine was a Deist. He clearly states in no uncertain terms that he disbelieves the Bible and Christianity. Yet when he refers to the Deith, he uses the EXACT SAME WORDS that Washington used and capitalized them the exact same way.

Check it out, here's the first chapters to 'Age of Reason'

Paine, sworn enemy of Christianity, refers to the Deity in which he belives as Almighty, Creator, Author, etc. all with capital letters, just like Washington.

Deism was so prevalent in the day that Christian writers sprinkled their writings liberally with Jesus and Christ to distance themselves from the Deists. The very few Christian Politicians did too.

Washington and Paine and the rest were not atheists, they believed in one Deity. It is the revisionists dishonesty that they usurp every word of expression of Deism and think that it must be refering to Jehovah.

Presisents who WERE Christian universally said so, for example, William Henry Harrison in the inaugural address specifically goes to the touble to say he's a Christian. Which see:

Washinton's inaugrual address pretty much proves he was a Deist.

Daniel Levesque said...

The problem with your argument is that Paine openly stated he was not a Christian and George did no such thing. I Like the way you avoided the whole issue of sworn Christians, Priests, and Pastors using the exact same terminology to describe God as Washington did. I also like the way you have no idea how seriously people back then, and even some to this day took the commandment "Thou shlat nt take the Name of thy Lord in vain". Throughout history many people have avoided using the word "God" in any casual sense or outside of prayer and Church because they belive that it is taking the Lord's name in vain, or the vain use of the Lord's name, and equatin git to blasphemy. Of course, you wouldn't know this since you are an atheist revisionist who reads atheist revisionist history. Like I said before, your people leave important historical details out of their writing to lend greater credence to their unsupported suppositions they wish to portray as fact.

Anonymous said...

If you would just take your time to know your way around, you could discover