I hate Bush!! !! !

Post Reply New Topic

Your last name is Reindeau.

When speaking officially you are correct. George Washington was officially an Epicopalian, but his own personal spiritual beliefs were that of a Deist. Washington often went to church with his wife, but he never took communion. A person can be a part of a religion, while not really believing it at the same time.

For example, my mum is a member of the Catholic Church. She was raised Catholic (before Vatican II) and went to parochial school where she was taught by nuns. My mum is now agnostic. She is still 'technically' a member of the Church.

So, George Washington was Episcopalian the way my mum is Catholic. Does that make sense?

I consider myself Jewish, and I do beleive in God, but I don't care for all the customs and practices...but my parents are forcing them on me anyway.

Yes, I understand what you mean. I know many Catholics and Protestants like that. George Washington kept a journal of prayers that he read, one in the morning and one in the evening for every day of the week. This journal written in his own hand writing leaves no question as to what his beliefs were. Below is his prayer that he recited on Wednsday mornings:

"Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great creator of heaven & earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven, in pity and compassion upon me thy servant, who humbly prostrate myself before thee, sensible of thy mercy and my own misery; there is an infinite distance between thy glorious majesty and me, thy poor creature, the work of thy hand, between thy infinite power, and my weakness, thy wisdom, and my folly, thy eternal Being, and my mortal frame, but, O Lord, I have set myself at a greater distance from thee by my sin and wickedness, and humbly acknowledge the corruption of my nature and the many rebellions of my life. I have sinned against heaven and before thee, in thought, word & deed; I have contemned thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to done, and committing what i ought not. I have rebelled against light, despised thy mercies and judgments, and broken my vows and promises; I have neglected the means of Grace, and opportunities of becoming better; my iniquities are multiplies, and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing, and desire to be vile in my own eyes, as I have rendered myself vile in thine. I humbly bessech thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins, for the sake of thy dear Son, my only saviour, J. C., who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; be pleased to renew my nature and write thy laws upon my heart, and help me to live, righteously, soberly, and godly in this evil worlds; make me humble, meek, patient and contented, and work in me the grace of thy holy spirit. Prepare me for death and judgment, and let the thoughts thereof awaken me to a greater care and study to approve myself unto thee in well doing. bless our rulers in church & state. Help all in affliction or adversity--give them patience and a sanctified use of their affliction, and in thy good time deliverance from them; forgive my enemies, take me unto thy protection this day, keep me in perfect peace, which I ask in the name & for the sake of Jesus. Amen."

http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/george.html

There was also at least one witness to confirm his piety:

"I was riding with Mr. Potts near to the Valley Forge where the army lay during the war of ye Revolution, when Mr. Potts said, 'Do you see that woods & that plain? There laid the army of Washington. It was a most distressing time of ye war, and all were for giving up the Ship but that great and good man. In that woods (pointing to a close in view) I heard a plaintive sound as of a man at prayer. I tied my horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods. To my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world. Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I left him alone praying. I went home & told my wife. We never thought a man could be a soldier & a Christian, but if there is one in the world, it is Washington. We thought it was the cause of God & America could prevail."

Source: Eyewitness testimony of Isaac Potts, a Valley Forge resident who shared the following story with the Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden (1770-1851), who then recorded it in his "Diary and Remembrances."

This sound that this is motivated by revenge, rather than the good of society. Killing because they have killed, this is playing god!

In a just society everyone must believe in the worth of each citizen. They have make the biggest mistake it is possible to make, however they still deserve a second chance. The purpose of jail is to act a deterrent and allow them to be rehabilitated not revenge.



Sadam Hussein used the same logic; he murdered people ho did not conform to his idea of society. (George Bush liberated propel from this tyrant, my be some one needs to do the same to him)




Didn't Sadam Hussain do this?



From reading your posts I assume you are Christian. I had a Christian up bringing (I am now an atheist) and from what a remember of the bible it was quite explicit;

Is not one of the Ten Commandments not to kill people?
The story of the Good Samaritan helping his enemy?
Love you Neighbour (must have implied meaning as adultery is not allowed under Ten Commandments)?

I also felt that the general fell of the bible was about tolerance and forgiveness rather than revenge. May be I am mistaken?

People yes, those things no, they are not people. People don't continueally kill other people for pure pleasure and torture or abuse them before killing either.

Is it not wise to protect future victims? For if one is a constant repeat offender in very heinous crimes that person will most certainly continue on that course until their own death.

And thus by the same logic, they are committing a sin, by themselves killing, and they are obviously not sorry they did it since they torture as well and then kill some more.

Are you saying we should help them kill instead of stop them? (help his enemy). I would not consider myself the enemy of anyone, but if someone considered me their enemy and were committed to carrying out my death, I would not stand idley by while it was done.

Tolerence only goes so far. I have no tolerence for people whose sole goal in life is the suffering and destruction of others.

Assuming jail is a deterrent and its goal is too rehabilitate, how then would you deal with constant repeat offenders, simply hope they dont do it again when they are let out? Deterrents and rehabilitation dont always work. And sometimes, seeing as you are humanitarian. The suffering received in prisons are worse then death, then would that not make society the same as the criminals, to make them suffer before killing them. At least in the society, punishment is regulated, voted on, and attempts are made to avoid that, even though it happens, it is generally at least not intentional as in the criminal's cases. In an ideal world there are no crimes and criminals are trained, genetically improved, and so from birth. But that has not happened yet. We must use what we are limited to. Even if you dont like death penelties, it is unfornately, the best choice our society has in many circumstances. And id rather not have someone who is wholly dedicated to destructive behavior on others around anyway. As I said, id have a hard time even seeing them as human with such traits. As in childhood tales, sometimes monsters do exist.

A mistake, however, would be different, since mistakes are NOT intentional.

There are reasons to believe those have been changed to say those things. If you need more proof: George Washington and Religion

George Washington never really said exactly what he believed. It doesn't matter though, because he wasn't really involved in the Constitution. Sean, you said the Constitution was based on Christianity. How could it have been when Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were Deists?

Bec, you are being more tenacious about this than I anticipated. You don't lose very many arguments, do you? I enjoy political & religious debates and it's nice to have a civil and worthy challenger for a change.

I noticed the link in your last post didn't quote any souces. Would you know where to find the sources? Without them there isn't any evidence whether or not the author's claims are substantiated or libelous.

Yes, Gorge Washington didn't openly disclose his creed (or his opinions and feelings) like an evangelical preacher such as George Whitfield. But he did write them down in a small journal for his own personal use, which happens to provide far greater insight into his relationship with God than speaking to someone as reserved as he was.

When it comes to George Washington being influential in the drafting of the Constitution, he presided over the Constitutional Convention.
If you have never paricipated a convention or other form of meeting being conducted under Robert's Rules of Order, than I wouldn't expect you to fully realize how influential the acting president can have on the course of the dicussion, and George washington had to use every bit of that influence and his faith to keep the convention from outright failure.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison Was A firebrand orthodox Christian who was deeply concerned about peoples salvation to the point of trying to use his position to impose on people's free will. Furthermore James madison was one of 51 orthodox Christian delegates at the Constitutional convention (plus 3 Deists and 1 agnostic). If he did, in fact, lose his faith, it would have been around 1815.

Here is a list of the Delegates and their respective religion:

New Hampshire
John Langdon, Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman, Congregationalist

Massachusetts
Elbridge Gerry, Episcopalian
Rufus King, Episcopalian
Caleb Strong, Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist

Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Congregationalist
William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian
Oliver Ellsworth, Congregationalist

New York
Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian
John Lansing, Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates, Dutch Reformed

New Jersey
William Paterson, Presbyterian
William Livingston, Presbyterian
Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian
David Brearly, Episcopalian
William Churchill Houston, Presbyterian

Pennsylvania
Benjamin Franklin, Deist
Robert Morris, Episcopalian
James Wilson, Deist
Gouverneur Morris, Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin, Quaker/Lutheran
George Clymer, Quaker/Episcopalian
Thomas FitzSimmons, Roman Catholic
Jared Ingersoll, Presbyterian

Delaware
John Dickinson, Quaker/Episcopalian
George Read, Episcopalian
Richard Bassett, Methodist
Gunning Bedford, Presbyterian
Jacob Broom, Lutheran

Maryland
Luther Martin, Episcopalian
Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic
John Francis Mercer, Episcopalian
James McHenry, Presbyterian
Daniel of St Thomas Jennifer, Episcopalian

Virginia
George Washington, Episcopalian
James Madison, Episcopalian
George Mason, Episcopalian
Edmund Jennings Randolph, Episcopalian
James Blair, Jr., Episcopalian
James McClung, Agnostic
George Wythe, Episcopalian

North Carolina
William Richardson Davie, Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson, Deist
William Blount, Presbyterian
Alexander Martin, Presbyterian/Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Jr., Episcopalian

South Carolina
John Rutledge, Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Episcopalian
Pierce Butler, Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney, III, Episcopalian

Georgia
Abraham Baldwin, Congregationalist
William Leigh Pierce, Episcopalian
William Houstoun, Episcopalian
William Few, Methodist

I will concede that you were right about Benjamin Franklin being a Deist , though he did compromise in his beliefs by urging the delegation to pray for God's intervention on their behalf.

A city right next door to me was named after him!! !! !

Thank you, Sean.



I am, in fact, familiar with Robert's Rules. When I said George Washington wasn't really involved, I should have worded that better. Of course, he presided over the Convention, but what I meant was he wasn't as big an influence over the Constitution's content as other men. Though, he did have a big influence.



I never doubted that Christians were involved in forming the Constitution. However, when it came to politics, their views were based more on Deism. In other words, their churches and the Bible, did not (for the most part, there are always exceptions) affect their political stances.



Actually, Deists were not necessarily opposed to prayer. It is more of a personal choice. They don't believe prayer is required. Many Deists thought prayer did help. I don't know enough about Benjamin Franklin's personal beliefs to know whether or not he compromised them.

The basis of the Constitution comes from a mixture of ideas, religions, and backgrounds. That is part of democracy, after all.

Just so you know: It's a common misconception made by Christians (or people of other religious beliefs) that agnostics or Deists have no 'involvement' (sorry, couldn't think of a better word) with God or that they are immoral.

I liked the information about the delegates. It was interesting. You are a worthy opponent also. I actually had to think to form some of my arguments, I usually don't have to. Thank you.

It seems like nobody bothers to think for themselves anymore. They all just accept the typical partisan rhetoiric that can be refuted regrdless of what psition you argue, like the sheep from George Orwell's Animal Farm; "four legs good, two legs bad".



Yes, the Constitution did come from a mixture of ideas and backgrounds, but the 92.7% (51/55) of the delegates religious views were nearly identical because the Catholics and the various Protestant denominations had near identical duelistic, Judeo-Christian moral codes that they were raised with from childhood. The Deists were also well-versed in these moral standards because they were either raised this way as well or because the vast majority of their constituents were Christian (I don't have and exact statistic), and Deism did not gain widespread support until after 1800. Additionally, the deist would need to use a Judeo-Christian view because and most States would not have ratified a Constitution that espoused Deist theology/philosophy because most States elected a government that had banned Deists from holding public office.

A mixture of backgrounds, ideas and religions is not essential to democracy. There are many groups of people that use a democratic process for their various organizations, but are all very similar. Take the inventors of democracy, the ancient Athenians for example. They were all extremely rich citizens (only the elite were citizens), all worshiped the Greek gods, and they all believed in Plato's philosophy that "manual labor is unbecoming of a citizen". They were anything but diverse yet they invented the system. The notion of diversity being a necessity is just late-20th century multiculturalism.




Please elaborate. My experience with Deists is mostly limited to Unitarians. Their views on God and morality come accross as paradoxical to me.

From what you guys are describing, I am a Deist...I'm Jewish, and I do beleive in God, but I'd like to beleive in him in my own way rather than follow all these dumb customs.

God is who and what He is the same way you are who and what you are regardless of what anybody believes about you or Him. Therefore, I would strongly recommend that you do alot of research on the nature of God before you rush to any conclusions.

God makes people pray crappy hyms in Hebrew and celebrate dumb holidays like Shabbat and Passover...and you expect me to like him?

Well, I just mean that Christians often assume that Deists don't pray. Some do, some don't. It is also assumed that Deists can't have morals because they don't believe in the Bible not true. For example, killing people is wrong. I don't need a Bible to tell me that. I just have to use my own brain.

Lots of other people use their own intelligence to determine their morals and they come to various conclusions that are drastically, and frequently diametrically opposed to each other's in a manner that would be paradoxical to claim that they are both correct. Furthermore, people often rationalize away their violations of their own personal moral code when some aspect of it is inconvenient to them even though their rationalization conflicts with their own belief system. Such personal moral standars leave little to no standard by which to conduct oneself in public and may even condone or promote practices that are offensive to God.