This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
At the start of the secton entitled Scholars' views regarding Washington's beliefs the article states: "While some historians and biographers agree that Washington's beliefs mostly resembled that of common deists,{{Fact|date=March 2007}} others disagree. <ref>Novak, Michael, ''Washington's God'' (Basic Books, 2006)</ref> Many of those who argue that Washington was not a deist, focus on his attitude towards prayer which delineate{{Fact|date=April 2007}} a belief in a God who intervenes in human affairs regularly, due to the fact that deists believe that prayers for such intervention are futile." The citation requests have been there for several months... surely there are sources which backs these statements up. If not, I will remove them. Blueboar 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that is a theory I have never come across before! It certainly flys in the face of conventional wisdom, and raises some interesting questions (for example: if he converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, why did he have an Episcopal funeral service?).
I would be very interested to read the two cited articles from the Denver Register (which seems to be a newletter run by the Archdiocese of Denver) to see what evidence they cite and how they came to this conculsion. Unfortunetely the archives on the Archdiocese webpage only go back a few years. Perhaps someone can track the articles down and quote the relevant portions here?
While I seriously question the scholarship of the claim (I suspect it is based on very flimsy evidence)... I suppose we do have to say that the existance of claim is reliably sourced (ie there is a reliable source to show that the claim exists, which is what matters to WP guidelines and policy). Blueboar 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) my emphasis) It is not exactly a perfect source (though it is to be noted that the conference recorded in this passage took place under the auspices of Columbia University). However everything I have seen indicates that Washington was constantly attended for the duration of his fatal illness, and I have seen no other testimony for this. At this point I think we need to see the Denver Register article and find out what sources it used for this claim to be accepted.
Mangoe (
talk) 03:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)I've updated the article to move the death section to the end of the article and to include everything I've found. As of now the score is that I've not found a single version of the claim that has a source other than the Denver Register articles. The personal effect inventory is plainly not good enough. I've tracked down both eyewitness accounts, and neither acknowledges the incident. I've moved the accounts of his funeral to this section, both of which make it clear that he got an Episcopal/masonic funeral. At this point, unless we can get the actual DR articles and verify their sources, I'd have to say that the claim is unfounded; I would remind everyone that right now we have incomplete, second-hand claims of what those articles said, but no other evidence that the articles ever existed. I can barely find evidence that the Denver Register itself exists. I'm going to put in an inquiry with the archdiocese and see what they say and if they can provide copies, but without that this is well into urban legend territory. Mangoe ( talk) 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A claim that Washington was baptized as a Roman Catholic on his deathbed is contradicted by the eyewitness reports of Washington's secretary, Tobias Lear, and his step-grandson, George Washington Custis, neither of whom mentions the incident, nor for that matter any minister of religion whatsoever, nor any attempt to procure one.
User:Laurascudder graciously volunteered to check with University of Colorado library. Based on her report [1], it appears that the articles in question do not actually exist. I'm putting an inquiry in to the archdiocese, but in retrospect this finding is hardly surprising. Citation of this material violated the principle of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and every reference I could find was to an unreferenced tertiary source-- in other words, urban legend material. I'm going to wait another week, but if nothing comes up by then, I'm going to remove the claim entirely. Mangoe ( talk) 14:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed mention of the two cards because, while true, they don't mean anything without at lot of supposition. Heaven knows, considering all the paraphernalia in my house I could a member of anything from the Orthodox Church in America to the Order of the Golden Dawn, not to mention the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Denver Register article mentions it only to infer-- dubiously-- that owning a card showing the Virgin or St. John is evidence of being RC. It isn't, or else I would be Catholic too, on top of all the other things I've listed above. Mangoe ( talk) 00:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 08:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it not make the most sense to say that Washington was just a liberal Christian? Clearly, according to several of his speeches he believed in prayer (even if he was never seen personally engaging in it) and that the hand of God guided the affairs of mankind, so you can't say he was a Deist. He felt that religion had a beneficial moderating influence on society and was necessary for keeping people moral. Deists don't believe in any divine intervention, and see all organized religion as a form of control and have no use for clergy. But he also believed in separation between church and state, and did not discriminate against those of other faiths (and even once expressed no qualms about hiring muslims or atheists to work on his mansion in Mount Vernon). He preferred to leave theology to the theologians, and felt that a person's deeds were more important than his words or beliefs and that one should not make a big self-righteous show of one's faith. Washington was a simple believer who kept his religion a private matter, and was a secularist when it came to public matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.177.214 ( talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Calling him a "philosopher" suggests that he does professional work in philosophy. In fact, Novak does not publish in any major academic journals and failed to complete his PhD in philosophy. If some one is, say, an accountant but did a little graduate work in biology decades ago would we call that person a "biologist" or an "accountant". I think a better description for Novak, and one that does not mask his partisan perspective, would be "conservative author and American Enterprise Institute scholar". That way readers can judge for themselves whether his assessment is credible.
173.30.27.245 ( talk) 16:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you took out information about George Washington's relationship with the Catholic Church. I know that some of the allegations appear to be over-the-top, such as the story about the Jesuit at his deathbed, but I still think it is noteworthy to include some of the material that indicates that there was an existing relationship, at least on the political level. For instance, Washington is mentioned favourably by the 19th century Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Longinqua. He is also given credit for having assisted bishop John Carroll in setting up the earliest dioceses and Catholic schools in the United States. It is possible that as an Anglican, he was involved in the high Church branch of the Church of England, also known as anglo-Catholicism. This would explain his favourable inclination towards bishops, religious icons and sacred liturgies. ADM ( talk) 09:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading "References to religion in his writings and speech", there are four such references mentioned. Three of these conform to the WP standard for quotes, but one merely says "Washington made several official statements as General of the Army which were filled with references to religion. Sparks quotes orders given by General Washington to his Army requiring them to attend to their religious duties and 'to implore the blessing of Heaven' upon the American Army." The "quote" is actually a sentence fragment which is out of its context. I've removed it. If someone can provide the full quote, it may be appropriate to put it back in. The source listed was "The Writings of George Washington", Vol. III, p. 491, by Jared Sparks, published by Ferdinand Andrews, Boston 1838. Bricology ( talk) 22:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The use of honorific titles such as Sir, Right Hon., Prof., Dr. etc. are not normally allowed in WP articles, see WP:MOSBIO. An exception maybe if the title is part of e.g. a fictional name like Dr. Who or Dr. Seuss. -- Diamonddavej ( talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
In two sections, the views of Nelly Custis-Lewis are shewn first. If four of Washington's Pastors say he never took communion from them, it doesn't mean he never took it, but it certainly means that Nelly Custis-Lewis is lying when she says he always did. She's dead. I don't care why she is lying, but it is certainly not a viewpoint which should be presented first, since we all know it is not the truth. JoshNarins ( talk) 15:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You completely removed the deism section. I am willing to make it more neutral and reword or rewrite it but please be specific with any problems instead of wholesale deletion. Pass a Method talk 18:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Supporting someone else's proposal is not "insisting and making sure" -- JimWae ( talk) 08:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
OK... I have gutted the Deism section again for its clear misrepresentation of historical fact... Especially the paragraph which read:
Deism was an influential worldview during his lifetime. [4] Washington almost never referenced "Jesus" or "Christ" in private or public writings or speeches--there is one possible exception where he refers to the "religion of Jesus Christ". He sometimes used the word "God", but commonly used terms favored by deists, such as "Architect", "Providence", and "Almighty". [5]
I am specifically concerned by the last sentence of this paragraph. Yes, deists did use words like "Architect", "Providence" and "Almighty"... but so did everyone else. These terms were not exclusive to deists. They were in common usage by Christian writers and thinkers long before the deists adopted them. They were used in sermons and religious writing since the middle ages. I suggest everyone see our articles on Great Architect of the Universe, and Divine Providence... both of which discuss the explicitly Christian origins of these terms. Washington's choice of words does not mean he was a deist. These were words that all educated Christians of his social class used at the time... both deists and devout Christians. Blueboar ( talk) 15:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The main GW article says, way too far down in the 4th paragraph of the Religion section, says:
This, or something very much like it, is the sentence that should begin both that section and this article, as it is the organizing principle and main topic of both.-- JimWae ( talk) 21:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Tempest in teapot? GW clearly favoured "religion" over "non-religion" - which was a pragmatice and politically sensible position to take, and in line with the Westminster Confession. I am also unclear why Friends and Presbyterians seem to be treated on this article as substantially disparate groups - Quakers are quite in the tradition of congregational groups common in England during the interregnum. No substantial doctrinal differences are inherent between them and other congregational and presbyterian groups. As far as I can tell, GW was primarily determined to keep his religion separate from his position - in line with the Westminster Confession, which seeks to have religion not being headed by any king or political leader - and much of the "deism debate" is really rather unimportant as a result. Cheers - but the "deism" section is quite overstated per reliable sources. One person averring that he took communion is quite sufficient to void any which say he never did so <g>. Collect ( talk) 22:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
One editor wants to add quotes on GW discussing the millennium. The millennium (based on the Bible book of Revelations) was a frequent topic of Protestant sermons in America (GW attended many sermons) and also plays a role in English politics as it was espoused by the Fifth Monarchists who said that the overthrow of King Charles would usher in the return of Jesus. Washington is quoted three times on the subject, each time DENYING this aspect of Christian theology. He said there would be no millennium. That is evidence he denied Christian theology, not embraced it. Rjensen ( talk) 17:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The criterion for inclusion is that it be about GW's religious views & connections, not whether it supports a specific relgion.-- JimWae ( talk) 22:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I meant to say in my edit summary: quote does *NOT* entail "intervention" vs "according to plan" -- JimWae ( talk) 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Credible reports persist of Washington's deathbed conversion to Catholicism. 207.119.215.168 ( talk) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Either Chernow does not undersatnd deism or he is quoted out of context. Deists very much believe that God has a plan for the world, and that such a "Providence" as "where there's a sense of design and purpose, which sounds to me very much like religion". Several of the other quotes in that section seem to be oblivious to this too. -- JimWae ( talk) 08:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
We've had a edit here to characterize Peter Lillback as an "author" rather than as a "historian". Reducing him to the former is misleading, as he isn't just some random writer. He is the president of Westminster Theological Seminary, where he is also a professor of "historical theology" (per faculty profile). Westminster would be considered a conservative Presbyterian institution (it has a historical association with the Orthodox Presbyterians) but we're not talking a backwoods bible college here.
So he's not just an author. His qualifications to opine are, perhaps, going to depend upon what one thinks the relevance of "historical theology" is. I would say it would tend to give him a boost in understanding doctrinal differences, but might not help on the niceties of historical research. I'm thinking, though, that the best approach is to identify him specifically as the seminary president and leave it at that. It looks to me as though he has the potential to have his own article, which I'm going to look into. Mangoe ( talk) 12:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Under the section "Communion", the article states "...Washington completely stopped attending on communion Sundays..." and "...Washington, in recounting this incident, said he had never been a communicant." This is followed by the rather incongruous claim "Nonetheless, it was also not uncommon in those days for churchgoers to pass on participating in communion." The citation for this claim is from the book "Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country", whose premise is that Washington was, in fact, devoutly religious. That citation isn't to the relevant excerpt of text from the book, it is merely to the book's listing on Google. In lieu of an actual quote from the book that supports the claim, I don't think that we should include it since it makes a rather controversial assertion. For a contrary view, the book "A Brief History of the Episcopal Church" by David L. Holmes (Trinity Press, NY, 1993) suggests that absenting oneself from communion was actually fairly uncommon in late-Colonial America. And after all, if it had been common to absent ones self, why would Rev. Abecrombie, the Rector of Washington's wife's church, have bothered to mention Washington's absentation as noteworthy? However, in lieu of suggesting a battle of the "experts", I suggest that we strike the improperly-sourced claim. Bricology ( talk) 08:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Appears to have been a common and routine phrasing in British oaths from the 16th Century onward (possible earlier). The saying of it as a form would scarcely have been considered notable either by presence or absence at all. It appears to still be used in the UK and other English-speaking nations as a matter of form. No one would have remarked upon it in Washington's time, so the absence of it being noted is also of minimal value. In any case, the use of such a routine phrasing is of no real value in assessing the religious beliefs of anyone, as Washington doubtless had said the words many times before the revolution. (cites available for this side commentary <g>) In short, all the learned investigations are pretty much meaningless considering the absolute certainty that Washington was very familiar with that formula due to his military service. Collect ( talk) 23:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A helpful editor has added Mary Thompson's In the Hands of a Good Providence to the additional reading list. By all accounts this ought to be a useful source. I don't have it yet but if someone else does I invite them to at least add it in the scholar's section. Mangoe ( talk) 20:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
DocWatson42's use of "SIC" when "FREE MASON" (however capitalized/uppercased) is used appears inappropriate, since it appears to be based on a rewriting of the historical 2-word usage.
Even a website that uses the more modern freemason terminology, freemasonrymatters.co.uk, when referring to 1700s writings, uses "Ancient Charges of a Free Mason 1723" and "Regulations of a Free Mason 1723" (Capitalized/two words).
P.S. Thanks, DocWatson42 for fixing the 2017 inappropriate edit.
P.P.S. Thanks, Narky Blert, for fixing the Disambig for use of "Menorah" when "Menorah (Chanukkah)" is the correct WikiLink. Pi314m ( talk) 00:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Shneor Zalman Cheshin, Israel's first supreme Court president, [6] father of later Supreme Court justice Mishael Cheshin, taught in some NYC Jewish schools in the 1930s, while studying for his JD at NYU Law School. [6]
Since when he taught in Talmud Torah schools of that day, whose students attended public school until 3pm, then went for Jewish studies, he would have taught the story of George Washington and the Menorah, a version of which appears here, to his students.
Other versions of this story exist, but the basic story would have been told by Cheshin to the man who later was Israel’s third president (1963 to 1973), Zalman Shazar, who was born Shneur Zalman Rubashov, sometimes spelled Roboshov. Shneur Zalman was a known combination of names, and as a writer he seemed to have used just Zalman, with the initials "Z.R."
The initials "Z.R." were noted in a an article published in the Calgary Jewish Free Press December 16, 2011. Like similar articles, it mocks the story for technical flaws, factual mistakes, errors in timeline, etc.
Given the flow from Cheshin, a 1930s law school student teaching students who were sent by their parents after 6 hours in public school, to a writer (Rubashov/Shazar) years later in another country, what carries the day is that the present day English-language stories would have been written years later.
Precisely worded detailed history it may not be, but it definitely contains a story that happened, even the soldier's father didn't have a bear skin- many Portiz stories simply had the Jew wearing a brown costume, fighting another Jew, dressed in a yellow costume, supposedly a lion fighting a bear. That's another story that also has been "around" and is usually told as if their costumes looked real.
The point is: Geroge Washington did meet Jews in service and was inspired by followers of the Jewish Bible.
There is likewise a story about Napoleon walking past a synagogue on Tisha B'Av night, hearing the crying, asking, and then saying that a people that remembers will again see the Holy Temple renewed.
Versions and details may not have the accuracy of a live videoed report, but the story about Napoleon also is taught.
The above is the basis of the added "Geroge Washington and the Menorah" section Pi314m ( talk) 08:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
At the start of the secton entitled Scholars' views regarding Washington's beliefs the article states: "While some historians and biographers agree that Washington's beliefs mostly resembled that of common deists,{{Fact|date=March 2007}} others disagree. <ref>Novak, Michael, ''Washington's God'' (Basic Books, 2006)</ref> Many of those who argue that Washington was not a deist, focus on his attitude towards prayer which delineate{{Fact|date=April 2007}} a belief in a God who intervenes in human affairs regularly, due to the fact that deists believe that prayers for such intervention are futile." The citation requests have been there for several months... surely there are sources which backs these statements up. If not, I will remove them. Blueboar 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that is a theory I have never come across before! It certainly flys in the face of conventional wisdom, and raises some interesting questions (for example: if he converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, why did he have an Episcopal funeral service?).
I would be very interested to read the two cited articles from the Denver Register (which seems to be a newletter run by the Archdiocese of Denver) to see what evidence they cite and how they came to this conculsion. Unfortunetely the archives on the Archdiocese webpage only go back a few years. Perhaps someone can track the articles down and quote the relevant portions here?
While I seriously question the scholarship of the claim (I suspect it is based on very flimsy evidence)... I suppose we do have to say that the existance of claim is reliably sourced (ie there is a reliable source to show that the claim exists, which is what matters to WP guidelines and policy). Blueboar 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) my emphasis) It is not exactly a perfect source (though it is to be noted that the conference recorded in this passage took place under the auspices of Columbia University). However everything I have seen indicates that Washington was constantly attended for the duration of his fatal illness, and I have seen no other testimony for this. At this point I think we need to see the Denver Register article and find out what sources it used for this claim to be accepted.
Mangoe (
talk) 03:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)I've updated the article to move the death section to the end of the article and to include everything I've found. As of now the score is that I've not found a single version of the claim that has a source other than the Denver Register articles. The personal effect inventory is plainly not good enough. I've tracked down both eyewitness accounts, and neither acknowledges the incident. I've moved the accounts of his funeral to this section, both of which make it clear that he got an Episcopal/masonic funeral. At this point, unless we can get the actual DR articles and verify their sources, I'd have to say that the claim is unfounded; I would remind everyone that right now we have incomplete, second-hand claims of what those articles said, but no other evidence that the articles ever existed. I can barely find evidence that the Denver Register itself exists. I'm going to put in an inquiry with the archdiocese and see what they say and if they can provide copies, but without that this is well into urban legend territory. Mangoe ( talk) 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A claim that Washington was baptized as a Roman Catholic on his deathbed is contradicted by the eyewitness reports of Washington's secretary, Tobias Lear, and his step-grandson, George Washington Custis, neither of whom mentions the incident, nor for that matter any minister of religion whatsoever, nor any attempt to procure one.
User:Laurascudder graciously volunteered to check with University of Colorado library. Based on her report [1], it appears that the articles in question do not actually exist. I'm putting an inquiry in to the archdiocese, but in retrospect this finding is hardly surprising. Citation of this material violated the principle of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and every reference I could find was to an unreferenced tertiary source-- in other words, urban legend material. I'm going to wait another week, but if nothing comes up by then, I'm going to remove the claim entirely. Mangoe ( talk) 14:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed mention of the two cards because, while true, they don't mean anything without at lot of supposition. Heaven knows, considering all the paraphernalia in my house I could a member of anything from the Orthodox Church in America to the Order of the Golden Dawn, not to mention the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Denver Register article mentions it only to infer-- dubiously-- that owning a card showing the Virgin or St. John is evidence of being RC. It isn't, or else I would be Catholic too, on top of all the other things I've listed above. Mangoe ( talk) 00:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 08:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it not make the most sense to say that Washington was just a liberal Christian? Clearly, according to several of his speeches he believed in prayer (even if he was never seen personally engaging in it) and that the hand of God guided the affairs of mankind, so you can't say he was a Deist. He felt that religion had a beneficial moderating influence on society and was necessary for keeping people moral. Deists don't believe in any divine intervention, and see all organized religion as a form of control and have no use for clergy. But he also believed in separation between church and state, and did not discriminate against those of other faiths (and even once expressed no qualms about hiring muslims or atheists to work on his mansion in Mount Vernon). He preferred to leave theology to the theologians, and felt that a person's deeds were more important than his words or beliefs and that one should not make a big self-righteous show of one's faith. Washington was a simple believer who kept his religion a private matter, and was a secularist when it came to public matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.177.214 ( talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Calling him a "philosopher" suggests that he does professional work in philosophy. In fact, Novak does not publish in any major academic journals and failed to complete his PhD in philosophy. If some one is, say, an accountant but did a little graduate work in biology decades ago would we call that person a "biologist" or an "accountant". I think a better description for Novak, and one that does not mask his partisan perspective, would be "conservative author and American Enterprise Institute scholar". That way readers can judge for themselves whether his assessment is credible.
173.30.27.245 ( talk) 16:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you took out information about George Washington's relationship with the Catholic Church. I know that some of the allegations appear to be over-the-top, such as the story about the Jesuit at his deathbed, but I still think it is noteworthy to include some of the material that indicates that there was an existing relationship, at least on the political level. For instance, Washington is mentioned favourably by the 19th century Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Longinqua. He is also given credit for having assisted bishop John Carroll in setting up the earliest dioceses and Catholic schools in the United States. It is possible that as an Anglican, he was involved in the high Church branch of the Church of England, also known as anglo-Catholicism. This would explain his favourable inclination towards bishops, religious icons and sacred liturgies. ADM ( talk) 09:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Under the heading "References to religion in his writings and speech", there are four such references mentioned. Three of these conform to the WP standard for quotes, but one merely says "Washington made several official statements as General of the Army which were filled with references to religion. Sparks quotes orders given by General Washington to his Army requiring them to attend to their religious duties and 'to implore the blessing of Heaven' upon the American Army." The "quote" is actually a sentence fragment which is out of its context. I've removed it. If someone can provide the full quote, it may be appropriate to put it back in. The source listed was "The Writings of George Washington", Vol. III, p. 491, by Jared Sparks, published by Ferdinand Andrews, Boston 1838. Bricology ( talk) 22:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The use of honorific titles such as Sir, Right Hon., Prof., Dr. etc. are not normally allowed in WP articles, see WP:MOSBIO. An exception maybe if the title is part of e.g. a fictional name like Dr. Who or Dr. Seuss. -- Diamonddavej ( talk) 19:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
In two sections, the views of Nelly Custis-Lewis are shewn first. If four of Washington's Pastors say he never took communion from them, it doesn't mean he never took it, but it certainly means that Nelly Custis-Lewis is lying when she says he always did. She's dead. I don't care why she is lying, but it is certainly not a viewpoint which should be presented first, since we all know it is not the truth. JoshNarins ( talk) 15:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You completely removed the deism section. I am willing to make it more neutral and reword or rewrite it but please be specific with any problems instead of wholesale deletion. Pass a Method talk 18:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Supporting someone else's proposal is not "insisting and making sure" -- JimWae ( talk) 08:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
OK... I have gutted the Deism section again for its clear misrepresentation of historical fact... Especially the paragraph which read:
Deism was an influential worldview during his lifetime. [4] Washington almost never referenced "Jesus" or "Christ" in private or public writings or speeches--there is one possible exception where he refers to the "religion of Jesus Christ". He sometimes used the word "God", but commonly used terms favored by deists, such as "Architect", "Providence", and "Almighty". [5]
I am specifically concerned by the last sentence of this paragraph. Yes, deists did use words like "Architect", "Providence" and "Almighty"... but so did everyone else. These terms were not exclusive to deists. They were in common usage by Christian writers and thinkers long before the deists adopted them. They were used in sermons and religious writing since the middle ages. I suggest everyone see our articles on Great Architect of the Universe, and Divine Providence... both of which discuss the explicitly Christian origins of these terms. Washington's choice of words does not mean he was a deist. These were words that all educated Christians of his social class used at the time... both deists and devout Christians. Blueboar ( talk) 15:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The main GW article says, way too far down in the 4th paragraph of the Religion section, says:
This, or something very much like it, is the sentence that should begin both that section and this article, as it is the organizing principle and main topic of both.-- JimWae ( talk) 21:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Tempest in teapot? GW clearly favoured "religion" over "non-religion" - which was a pragmatice and politically sensible position to take, and in line with the Westminster Confession. I am also unclear why Friends and Presbyterians seem to be treated on this article as substantially disparate groups - Quakers are quite in the tradition of congregational groups common in England during the interregnum. No substantial doctrinal differences are inherent between them and other congregational and presbyterian groups. As far as I can tell, GW was primarily determined to keep his religion separate from his position - in line with the Westminster Confession, which seeks to have religion not being headed by any king or political leader - and much of the "deism debate" is really rather unimportant as a result. Cheers - but the "deism" section is quite overstated per reliable sources. One person averring that he took communion is quite sufficient to void any which say he never did so <g>. Collect ( talk) 22:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
One editor wants to add quotes on GW discussing the millennium. The millennium (based on the Bible book of Revelations) was a frequent topic of Protestant sermons in America (GW attended many sermons) and also plays a role in English politics as it was espoused by the Fifth Monarchists who said that the overthrow of King Charles would usher in the return of Jesus. Washington is quoted three times on the subject, each time DENYING this aspect of Christian theology. He said there would be no millennium. That is evidence he denied Christian theology, not embraced it. Rjensen ( talk) 17:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The criterion for inclusion is that it be about GW's religious views & connections, not whether it supports a specific relgion.-- JimWae ( talk) 22:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I meant to say in my edit summary: quote does *NOT* entail "intervention" vs "according to plan" -- JimWae ( talk) 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Credible reports persist of Washington's deathbed conversion to Catholicism. 207.119.215.168 ( talk) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Either Chernow does not undersatnd deism or he is quoted out of context. Deists very much believe that God has a plan for the world, and that such a "Providence" as "where there's a sense of design and purpose, which sounds to me very much like religion". Several of the other quotes in that section seem to be oblivious to this too. -- JimWae ( talk) 08:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
We've had a edit here to characterize Peter Lillback as an "author" rather than as a "historian". Reducing him to the former is misleading, as he isn't just some random writer. He is the president of Westminster Theological Seminary, where he is also a professor of "historical theology" (per faculty profile). Westminster would be considered a conservative Presbyterian institution (it has a historical association with the Orthodox Presbyterians) but we're not talking a backwoods bible college here.
So he's not just an author. His qualifications to opine are, perhaps, going to depend upon what one thinks the relevance of "historical theology" is. I would say it would tend to give him a boost in understanding doctrinal differences, but might not help on the niceties of historical research. I'm thinking, though, that the best approach is to identify him specifically as the seminary president and leave it at that. It looks to me as though he has the potential to have his own article, which I'm going to look into. Mangoe ( talk) 12:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Under the section "Communion", the article states "...Washington completely stopped attending on communion Sundays..." and "...Washington, in recounting this incident, said he had never been a communicant." This is followed by the rather incongruous claim "Nonetheless, it was also not uncommon in those days for churchgoers to pass on participating in communion." The citation for this claim is from the book "Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country", whose premise is that Washington was, in fact, devoutly religious. That citation isn't to the relevant excerpt of text from the book, it is merely to the book's listing on Google. In lieu of an actual quote from the book that supports the claim, I don't think that we should include it since it makes a rather controversial assertion. For a contrary view, the book "A Brief History of the Episcopal Church" by David L. Holmes (Trinity Press, NY, 1993) suggests that absenting oneself from communion was actually fairly uncommon in late-Colonial America. And after all, if it had been common to absent ones self, why would Rev. Abecrombie, the Rector of Washington's wife's church, have bothered to mention Washington's absentation as noteworthy? However, in lieu of suggesting a battle of the "experts", I suggest that we strike the improperly-sourced claim. Bricology ( talk) 08:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Appears to have been a common and routine phrasing in British oaths from the 16th Century onward (possible earlier). The saying of it as a form would scarcely have been considered notable either by presence or absence at all. It appears to still be used in the UK and other English-speaking nations as a matter of form. No one would have remarked upon it in Washington's time, so the absence of it being noted is also of minimal value. In any case, the use of such a routine phrasing is of no real value in assessing the religious beliefs of anyone, as Washington doubtless had said the words many times before the revolution. (cites available for this side commentary <g>) In short, all the learned investigations are pretty much meaningless considering the absolute certainty that Washington was very familiar with that formula due to his military service. Collect ( talk) 23:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A helpful editor has added Mary Thompson's In the Hands of a Good Providence to the additional reading list. By all accounts this ought to be a useful source. I don't have it yet but if someone else does I invite them to at least add it in the scholar's section. Mangoe ( talk) 20:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
DocWatson42's use of "SIC" when "FREE MASON" (however capitalized/uppercased) is used appears inappropriate, since it appears to be based on a rewriting of the historical 2-word usage.
Even a website that uses the more modern freemason terminology, freemasonrymatters.co.uk, when referring to 1700s writings, uses "Ancient Charges of a Free Mason 1723" and "Regulations of a Free Mason 1723" (Capitalized/two words).
P.S. Thanks, DocWatson42 for fixing the 2017 inappropriate edit.
P.P.S. Thanks, Narky Blert, for fixing the Disambig for use of "Menorah" when "Menorah (Chanukkah)" is the correct WikiLink. Pi314m ( talk) 00:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Shneor Zalman Cheshin, Israel's first supreme Court president, [6] father of later Supreme Court justice Mishael Cheshin, taught in some NYC Jewish schools in the 1930s, while studying for his JD at NYU Law School. [6]
Since when he taught in Talmud Torah schools of that day, whose students attended public school until 3pm, then went for Jewish studies, he would have taught the story of George Washington and the Menorah, a version of which appears here, to his students.
Other versions of this story exist, but the basic story would have been told by Cheshin to the man who later was Israel’s third president (1963 to 1973), Zalman Shazar, who was born Shneur Zalman Rubashov, sometimes spelled Roboshov. Shneur Zalman was a known combination of names, and as a writer he seemed to have used just Zalman, with the initials "Z.R."
The initials "Z.R." were noted in a an article published in the Calgary Jewish Free Press December 16, 2011. Like similar articles, it mocks the story for technical flaws, factual mistakes, errors in timeline, etc.
Given the flow from Cheshin, a 1930s law school student teaching students who were sent by their parents after 6 hours in public school, to a writer (Rubashov/Shazar) years later in another country, what carries the day is that the present day English-language stories would have been written years later.
Precisely worded detailed history it may not be, but it definitely contains a story that happened, even the soldier's father didn't have a bear skin- many Portiz stories simply had the Jew wearing a brown costume, fighting another Jew, dressed in a yellow costume, supposedly a lion fighting a bear. That's another story that also has been "around" and is usually told as if their costumes looked real.
The point is: Geroge Washington did meet Jews in service and was inspired by followers of the Jewish Bible.
There is likewise a story about Napoleon walking past a synagogue on Tisha B'Av night, hearing the crying, asking, and then saying that a people that remembers will again see the Holy Temple renewed.
Versions and details may not have the accuracy of a live videoed report, but the story about Napoleon also is taught.
The above is the basis of the added "Geroge Washington and the Menorah" section Pi314m ( talk) 08:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)