Talk:Religious views of George Washington/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citation Requests

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)

GW a deathbed Catholic?

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)

I've been chasing this down and so far the only thing resembling substantive evidence is the Denver Register article. It seems extremely dubious, as for one thing I see no evidence that anyone has actually seen this article. As best as I can tell, the proper title is the Denver Catholic Register, and it is the archdiocesan newspaper in those parts.

The following passage is quoted frequently on-line: "Although the records of Washington's final hours are much more comprehensive than those of Henry, they leave a different picture. While no one can know what Washington was thinking on this subject on December 14, the complete lack of religious context is striking. According to the extant record of Washington's final hours, there was no reference to any religious words or prayers, no request for forgiveness, no fear of divine judgment, no call for a minister (although ample time existed to call one if desired), no deathbed farewell, no promise or hope of meeting again in heaven." (Twohig, Dorothy. "George Washington and the Legacy of Character: He Died as He Lived". fathom.com. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{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)

• http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0008.htm *seems* (unclearly tho') to be quoting from the Register --JimWae (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The main entry from August 18 is plainly invoking the DR article and repeats the same account as the other examples of same I've found. Mangoe (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.sede-eens.com/documents/washington.html gives different sources --JimWae (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking over this one, I see that the crucial passage is in fact cited out of the Denver Register. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• http://books.google.com/books?id=0sU4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA287&dq=edward+everett+washington+virgin&ei=_ta7R4MyiaiJAabcyI4L gives Everett's book - which supports only the picture card of Mary --JimWae (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest version

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)

The list of personal effects definitely does not rate as verification that Washington became a death bed Catholic... we have no idea how he obtained the items or why he kept them. For example, I have a Jewish friend that collects Byzantine Icons... he likes the artwork... but having them does not make him Greek Orthodox. One could argue that mentioning the items in our articles constitutes an OR sythesis... taking disperate and unrelated facts and stringing them together to make a point. I would remove it.

As for the DR claim ... I agree that it is "ify" at best (and WP:Fringe at worst). I would suggest removing it entirely until we can get confirmation.Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this version:

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.

with essentially the same references? If we remove it entirely I think we're just going to have a slow-motion edit war. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that would work... pending confirmation of what is stated in the actual DR article. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Verification of the Denver Register articles

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)

Works for me... if the underlying source does not exist, it should certainly be cut. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the material, and also rephrased the section with the two postmortem testimonies so as to remove some bias. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The two cards

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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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 :)

• "Steiner" :
  • [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html#1 ''The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents'' by Franklin Steiner]

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

These duplicates are now consolidated. —ADavidB 11:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A proposal?

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)

Novak a "philosopher"???

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)

Good point, but I would go further.. just say: "Author Michael Novak maintains..." and not go into labeling him one way or the other. If people want to know more about him they can click on the link to article about him. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Catholic connections

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)

If you have reliable sources, feel free to add information. But don't add speculation or imply a conclusion not explicitly made by sources.

It seems people of every religious outlook want to claim Washington as "one of us" (from Deists to Fundamentalist Christians). From everything I have read about Washington, he was not High Church (for example he rarely took communion... a fact which, many years after Washington's death, resulted in an Epicscopal Bishop (one who was definitely High Church) to accuse him of being a Deist. He does not fit the pattern for Low Church either. If we had to put a label on him (and doing so is dangerous as our modern understanding and meaning of these labels has changed since his day) I would call him a "Latitudinarian"... disdaining the extremes of both High and Low Church.

Be particualry careful not to apply anacronistic labels to historical figures. What we think of today as "Anglo-Catholic" is really the result of the Oxford Movement of the mid to late 1800s. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotation housecleaning

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)

Use of "Dr." in article (Dr. Peter Lillback)

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)

that applies to articles about people--not here--this article is on Geroge Washington (not on Lillback). Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Clear POV

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)

Or perhaps the Pastor's were lying... or... (more likely) all were telling the truth, as they knew it from their personal experience. Please read WP:NPOV... When sources disagree we do not choose between them... but neutrally present the disagreement. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

now we see the problem of using OR in primary sources--they are contradictory. That is why Wiki insists on using Reliable Secondary sources [like Chernow, who won the Pulitzer prize last year for his bio of Washington] Rjensen (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it isn't OR to describe what primary sources said... the potential for OR is in interpreting what they said. One thing we have to remember (and this is OR, so can not go into the article)... both Nelly Custis-Lewis, and Rev. Abercrombie were writing after Washington's death... which (more importantly) was during the period when the Second Great Awakening was in full swing. The SGA (to coin an abbreviation) dramatically changed common religious practice in the United States. Practices (such as when one took communion) changed due to the SGA... practices that were normal when Washington was alive were suddenly not normal any more... and vise versa. Indeed, the SGA changed the very role that religion played in society. Before the SGA, it was rare for anyone (whether religious or not) to refer to Jesus in their correspondence... that did not mean they did not believe, it just meant that they didn't outwardly express their belief. The SGA changed all that... after the SGA, outward expressions of faith became far more common.

My feeling is that issues like "did he take communion?" or "did he mention Jesus in his writings" are based on misunderstanding Anglican norms at the time that Washington lived... In the era in which Washington lived, a good Anglican was expected to NOT take communion unless he/she had gone to confession first (and most Anglican men did not go to confession regularly). As for referring to Jesus, there was concern that doing so would be considered inappropriate, taking His name in vain... so terms like "Divine Providence" were commonly substituted. Thus, the fact that Washington was not known to take communion on a regular basis, or did not overtly refer to Jesus can be seen as an indication of his piety and conformity to Anglican norms... not as an indication that he rejected them in some way.

We also have to remember that during the Age of Enlightenment there was not a clear demarcation between devout Anglicanism and Deism (unlike today). Even very devout Anglican Bishops and Archbishops routinely used language that we, today, would classify as being deistic. Those writing after the Second Great Awakening have an unfortunate habit of applying definitions of religiousness to historical figures that simply did not apply to them. All too often they (retroactively) place men like Washington into modern categories... saying that he was Deist, or (contrarily) that he was a God Fearing mainstream Christian... neglecting to realize that, in the era in which he lived, it was quite possible for a person to be BOTH at the exact same time. Modern's classifications just don't apply. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

it is not allowed by Wiki to use primary sources to draw a conclusion; Wiki rules insist on using reliable secondary source = RS. Note that Deism in 2012 is not an active religion anywhere-- but it was VERY active in 1790 in US and Britain. Rjensen (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:PRIMARY... While we can not use primary sources to draw a conclusion, that does not mean we can not discuss or mention (ie describe) what primary sources say. The key is whether a conclusion is drawn or not. In this case, I don't think that a conclusion was drawn. The article essentially says: Contemporaries disagree on whether Washington regularly took communion... Nelly says X but Abercrombie says Y. That is an appropriate use of primary sources and isn't OR. Now, if took this a step further and stated "Nelly says X, therefor Washington was a God Fearing Christian" or "Abercrombie says Y, therefore Washington was a Deist" then we would have a clear OR situation.

As for the commonness of Deism... I could not disagree more... Deism is actually more of a distinct religion today than it was in 1790. There are people today who self-identify as "Deists" (as distinct from Christian), where as in 1790 those with deistic tendencies still thought of themselves as belonging to a Christian denomination. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The big problem in this is reliability. There is a trope in rationalist circles of identifying a long list of FFs as deists, when only a couple (notably Thomas Paine) self-identify as such. If you look into the history of religion at the time, the situation is more complicated. I'm pretty sure (meaning that I don't have sources in my hand at the moment) that deism was never a very widely-held viewpoint, though it was certainly characteristic of the period. However faith on the ground at the time did not have the intense coloring it took on in the Victorian era; to put it bluntly, people as a whole tended not to be very religious, and especially weren't very demonstrative about it.

I saw the list of "these people thought he was a deist" refs and was planning on dealing with it. The big problem with all of those is the generally low quality of the sources for so biographical a detail as this. I could trust most of them to report affiliation, which doesn't require much in the way of interpretation; but since we're talking an inference from writings and behavior, it isn't enough simply to be a secondary source. We have to pass judgement on the quality of the interpretation, and most of the sources in that list don't provide any evidence of how they compiled the lists of deists they presented, and indeed I have some suspicion that they were largely dependent on the same compilation and were simply repeating each other. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

to say "Contemporaries disagree on whether Washington regularly took communion." is a conclusion--it is a 21st century synthesis based on scattered primary sources stretched over many decades. It has to be based only on reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No it is not a conclusion... it is a factual descriptive summary of what is contained in two contemporary sources. Nelly says he did... Abercrombie says he didn't. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's what Nelly wrote in the letter concerning communion:

• On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.
• My mother resided two years at Mount Vernon, after her marriage with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution.

Presumably "after the blessing" means "before communion", although I'm not the one to ask about how church services work. The second statement is a repetition of a claim made by her mother (not herself), is clearly limited in its scope, and therefore doesn't support a broad conclusion.

IMHO, when there are exactly two primary sources involved, saying something like "Contemporaries disagree on whether Washington regularly took communion" is silly in this context -- just say what both of them said, and avoid anything that draws a conclusion. Magic♪piano 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh... sorry if I confused people... I was not proposing that we actually state "Contemporaries disagree..." etc. in the article... I was making a point about Original research. I agree that we should just quote what both people said and leave it at that. This is what the article did prior to this most recent round of POV editing. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar

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)

Could you do me a favor and post the text you would like to add here... then I can critique it more directly. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add the whole deism paragraph. You tell me which part of the text is wrong or unsourced and i will modify it. Pass a Method talk 06:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

this seems to be the paragraph: Deism was an influential worldview during his lifetime. Per author Robert Corfe, George Washington insisted on seperation of church and state, and made sure Christianity was not mentioned in the constitution. Washington never quoted "Jesus" or "Christ" in private or public letters. He preferred deist terms such as "architect" and "almighty ruler".

1) " Deism was an influential worldview during his lifetime." is OK and in there with same footnote. "Per author Robert Corfe, George Washington insisted on seperation of church and state, and made sure Christianity was not mentioned in the constitution." true enough but not connected to deism. It should be elsewhere in this article. "He preferred deist terms such as "architect" and "almighty ruler"." ok and it's now in the article. Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What indication is there besides Corfe's sayso that GW "insisted on seperation [sic] of church and state, and made sure Christianity was not mentioned in the constitution [sic]"? The following does not seem to indicate a person who fought for separation: "In a letter to George Mason in 1785, he wrote that he was not among those alarmed by a bill "making people pay towards the support of that [religion] which they profess", but felt that it was "impolitic" to pass such a measure, and wished it had never been proposed, believing that it would disturb public tranquility.[55]"--JimWae (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

when a politician says "it was "impolitic" to pass such a measure, and wished it had never been proposed, believing that it would disturb public tranquility." that means he is against it--he does NOT want it to become law. That is he supports the status quo in Virginia of separation of church and state. Rjensen (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Supporting someone else's proposal is not "insisting and making sure" --JimWae (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Rjensen As for the seperation of church and state. That IS related to deism. Deism is secular, and seperation of church and state is too. Pass a Method talk 11:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the separation of church and state (as this phrase was understood in the 1790s) had nothing to do with deism... or secularism. It related to objections to having an Established Church... (ie objections to the official support of a particular religious denomination by the State)... in Virginia the Established Church was the Church of England (later the Episcopal Church)... while in Connecticut and Massachusetts the Established denomination was the Congregationalist Church. In some cases the objections to having an Established Church had to do with basic rights - like who could vote (in Connecticut, for example, you could not vote unless you were a member in good standing of the established Congregationalist Church)... in others the objections centered on tax revenues (the State with an Established Church supported the official denomination with tax money, paying for buildings, clergy, etc... and more importantly, the State did not use tax revues to support any other denominations. So, if you were a Baptist, living in Virgina, the State took your tax money and used it to support the established Anglican Church - and not the Baptist Church). Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

the policy GW was talking about was a proposal that did not pass that required all men to pay taxes to a church of his choice. The Const of 1787, which GW chaired, explicitly said no religious test of any kind to hold federal office. That too is separation of church & state. Rjensen (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Re the policy that GW was talking about... exactly... Washington supported the continuation of State support for the established Anglican/Episcopal Church, and opposed removing that support by allowing people's tax money to go to other churches. As for the Const. of 1787... Not quite... the original Constitutional (drafted in the convention of 1787, which GW chaired) actually said nothing (one way or the other) about religious tests... Madison wanted to put in a ban on religious tests, but the convention tabled it (the issue was too divisive). That was why the Constitution had to be amended in 1791 (the First Amendment). Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Deism section

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. 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".

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)

"so did everyone else"-- well no--that needs a RS and does Not match the texts in standard religious documents like WW Sweet. More religious folks used terms like "providence of God" (Adams used them; GW did not). The evangelicals always talked about "God" --see Fred Anderson link in footnote 5. as did High Church Anglicans. (as well as Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists & Lutherans). In his Thanksgiving proclamations of 1789 and especially 1795 of 1795 he favored deists--he made no references to Jesus or to Christianity. Some Protestant ministers were upset, one said it was "Unpardonable neglect". ( see Rose Klein, in American Jewish Archives, July 1968, Vol. 20 Issue 2, pp 156-162) Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the articles I pointed you to? Both articles mention Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Martin Luther... all four of these highly influential Christian theologians used these terms multiple times in their writings... Or do you think they are deists as well? The terms were indeed commonplace. Read sermons of the period (especially Anglican sermons of the late 1700s), and you will find the terms frequently used. You are reading more into word usage than is justified by the facts. I think you step way over the line of OR and POV by saying that not using terms like God, and Jesus in some way means Washington "favored" deists. Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas? Calvin? Augustine??? Were talking here about American politicians the late 18th century,and their use of the English language. We have a RS (Fred Anderson) explaining how GW used religious language and that's quite important and relevant. There is no RS whatever that says GW read Calvin, Luther, Aquinas etc. Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I have posted to WP:NORN and WP:NPOVN requesting that some neutral third parties get involved in this discussion. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As an involved party, I do think it is appropriate to mention GW's word choice in the article - but to do so by stating that scholars have pointed to this as an indication that GW was sympathetic to deism. However, the connection left out is that he was a Freemason & they were heavy users of this terminology. How much Freemasons were influenced by deism is a question worth pursuing, though I doubt a final conclusion is ever possible. Btw, right now the Deism section is entirely out of sequence, coming before his baptism. The lede should also summarize the debate - which has gone on for more than 2 centuries - about the extent to which he can be called a Xn & the extent to which he was a deist. The lede should also note that authors have used other terms (mostly anachronistic) to describe the religious stance of not only GW., but also & other deistic Xns. The usage of these terms by religious Xn writers is also worth mentioning,(with Protestant/Anglican sources, which I've not seen recently) but keep in mind that people who give sermons usually use more "poetic" language than the "faithful" do. I do not recall anyone ever accusing GW of being a poet. Also note that, as with his believing in deism, scholars (& a near-Inquisition of GW himself) have repeatedly searched for evidence that he actually believed in Xty & repeatedly have turned up very little. There is no doubt that he believed in one god, but his actions (and language) were mostly consistent both with deism and with being a conformist with no apparent Xn conviction. This is not to say that they were entirely inconsistent with believing in Xty AND keeping it hidden. However, his main conviction would seem to be that [just about any] religion was good for society, and he never was reticent to say that. --JimWae (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It happens that Masonic history is my professional specialty... and you raise a very good point about the terms being in common usage by the fraternity. The question that historians wrestle with when it comes to Freemasonry and Deism is... did Deism influence the words that Freemasonry uses - or was it the other way around - did Freemasonry influence the words that Deism uses? From my studies of the subject, I tend to lean towards the latter. The Deists adopted the language of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The main GW article says, way too far down in the 4th paragraph of the Religion section, says:

The exact nature of Washington's religious beliefs has been debated by historians and biographers for over two hundred years.

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)

I think we must recognize that we can never settle the issue in this article. What we can do is outline both sides of the debate. --JimWae (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There are people to whom it is important what the religious views of the American Founding Fathers were. This includes historical revisionists, of whom David Barton is probably the most famous example, who seek to cast them as some stripe of Christian. Some of these people are also notorious for playing fast and loose with the facts to further this agenda. Tempest in a teapot, or something to take seriously? GW in particular is difficult to pin down because of the paucity of primary materials. As JimWae says, this article should present the available facts and the principal non-fringe positions in the debate. Magic♪piano 23:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The key here is in-text attribution. My main objection to the section is that it presents a debated issue as if it were settled. Having a big bold section header saying "Deism", and then listing fact A, B, C implies that the facts presented unquestionably demonstrate that he was a deist. Instead, we should stick to reporting on the opinions of Scholars. Something along the lines of: "Scholar X, in his biography of Washington, noted facts A, B, C about Washington, and reached the conclusion that Washington was a Deist. Scholar Y, on the other hand, notes facts E, F and G and reaches the conclusion that Washington was not a Deist". Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with magic piano Pass a Method talk 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Except for the Deism section, the article more or less starts with summations of what is documented, moves to what contemporaries said, and then moves to what historians say. The Deism section ought to be integrated into the latter section, and some sections (e.g. those on his public writings and religious toleration) should be moved above the contemporary testimony. Magic♪piano 18:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Millennium

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)

Um... Millennialism is hardly universally accepted in Christian theology. A few Christian denominations have accepted it, but most definitely did (and do) not... so it isn't "evidence" of anything except that Washington did not belong to a denomination that believed in Millennialism. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Um Um -- the editor who put it in was using it as evidence of GW's Christianity. It's evidence that he rejected a key theological belief of the "evangelical" school of Christianity which included millennialism (preached by Jonathan Edwards in the First Great Awakening and the revivalists of the Second Great Awakening) Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 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

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)

Folks... we should not be quoting Washington's writings in order to "prove" that Washington held certain beliefs... that is what scholars are for.

Instead of saying: "Washington said 'blah blah Providence blah blah' thus he was a <insert belief here>" We need to attribute the opinion to a scholar that holds it... as in: "According to noted Washington biographer Ima Scholar, the fact that Washington said 'blah blah Providence blah blah' indicates that he was a <insert belief here>." Please see WP:No original research... we should not reach our own conclusions as to his beliefs based on our own examination of his writings. Blueboar (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Deathbed Conversion

Credible reports persist of Washington's deathbed conversion to Catholicism.207.119.215.168 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't. This has been hammered into the ground, and the only "proof" is a non-existent Catholic diocesan paper. Mangoe (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Entire final Chernow quote

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)

Jim, Deism covers a very wide variety of beliefs... yes, some Deists very much believe that God has a plan... but other Deists very much don't. Some Deists see God as the "Divine watchmaker"... believing that God set up the rules of the universe, hit the start button and is simply watching what occurs dispassionately and without a plan. Blueboar (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That said, I don't think Chernow is commenting on the beliefs of Deists (he does NOT mention Deism at all). He is commenting on modern debates over Washington's beliefs. Perhaps you are "reading between the lines" ... and seeing something that isn't actually there? Blueboar (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Chernow quote, as it apears in the article, suggests that there is controversy over whether GW was religious or not. Are you aware of any such controversy? Such is not mentioned previously. The examples Chernow gives support religiosity - but they do not support Xn over just about any other religion. --JimWae (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

and "the plan", for ALL deists I've ever heard of, was in the original design, not in 'daily' alterations to the design because it was not working perfectly.--JimWae (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What I get out of that quote is that Chernow believes there is a controversy over whether GW was religious or not (he comes down on firmly the side that he was religious, and specifically Anglican in that religiousness). To be honest, I think there is a modern debate over this... It gets wrapped up in debates between Fundamentalist believers calling for "Freedom of religion" and Atheists calling for "Freedom from religion" ... both sides try to point to the founding fathers (including GW) in an attempt to support their views. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As for "the plan"... I know Deists who think the whole universe thing is merely God's experiment. That there was never a "plan", or a "design" ... That God essentially just said to himself... "hmmm, I wonder what will happen if I do this <big bang>"... I also know Deists who think that God does indeed tinker with the cosmic watch from time to time (not often... and definitely not on demand... but occasionally). Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article previous to that to even slightly suggest that anyone is saying GW was not religious. The quote is just out of place or without proper context. It appears in the context of THIS article to say GW was Xn & nothing else. As for GW, if indeed there are such deists as you say -- with God as an imperfect experimenter -- they have had little to say in the literature on deism (and I wonder why they would even call themselves deists). The other type -- who believe God just occasionally make "adjustments", and which I am familiar with -- lends support to the possibility of GW was one of those. Nevertheless, if someone is arguing GW did not believe in God as an accident-prone experimeter, it has little bearing at all on whether he was deistic or not.--JimWae (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So move the quote or give it context. Fix the problem, don't just complain about it. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As for whether GW was Xn and nothing else... That has been my biggest problem with this article... my personal opinion is that he did have at least marginally deistic beliefs... but... I am aware that such beliefs well within the norms for the Anglican/Episcopal Church at the time he lived (especially in the somewhat "trimming" Anglicanism that was prevalent among Virginia planter society). THAT last point is what this article is missing.

The fact is, in the late 1700s having deistic beliefs was not incompatible with being a devout Anglican/Episcopalian. The two were not mutually exclusive. This changed shortly after GWs death, with the impact of the Second Great Awakening and the rise of Evangelicalism. The Anglican/Episcopal Church turned significantly more "High Church", and made an effort to distance itself from Deism. It is this change that explains why there was suddenly so much discussion of Washington's religious beliefs, and efforts to "prove" he was a "good Christian" starting around the 1820s. The "Great Man" could not be seen to hold what had become a marginal belief. The very definition of what was "acceptable" in Christian belief had changed, and so revisionists had to show that Washington conformed to the newly acceptable.

Today we see counter-revisionism... scholars want to poke holes in the hagiography that surrounds the founding fathers. So they focus on Washington's deism, and downplay his Christianity. That is just as wrong. We should do better... We need to reject the revisionists on both sides... and give historical context to Washington's beliefs. We need to explain to the modern reader that in the late 1700s it was possible for a man to be both a devout Anglican and to hold deistic beliefs.... all at the same time. It isn't X or Y... its X and Y. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar has some excellent points about the 1820s. But I disagree with the statement "scholars want to poke holes in the hagiography" --that has not been true since the 1920s. What we have instead, I suggest, are amateur evangelicals who want to claim GW (and other Founders) for their own Fundamentalist beliefs to make that case that the US was a "Christian nation". GW made it clear he welcomed Catholics and Jews in terms of full equality, and the Senate a year after he retired unanimously voted the US was not officially a Christian nation (in the Treaty of Tripoly). Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, counter-counter-revisionism by Fundamentalists does exist, and should be rejected as well. I am saying we need to reject the Washington was X (and only X) mentality... and embrace the more nuanced and complex "Washington was X but that does not mean he was not Y as well". The fact is, Washington was a fairly devout Christian in the context of his era... but his form of Christianity was a late 18th century form of Southern Planter Anglicanism (which was not given to outward displays of religiosity, and was heavily influenced by deistic ideas.) Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I disagree entirely with giving Chernow the final word; I believe that it unduly skews things towards the "GW was a devout Christian" camp. To wit: "Before the Revolutionary War he was Anglican - Church of England - which meant after the war, he was Episcopalian. So, he was clearly Christian... That's a number of fallacies in one phrase. First, because membership in the first or second group does not necessarily demonstrate membership in the third, and because externally-perceived or imposed membership in a group does not demonstrate the intention of the subject to belong to that group. Adolf Hitler was raised in the Christian faith by his parents, he promoted Christianity (albeit in a modified form) as a tool for moral control and, although he ceased to participate in religious services, he never withdrew his membership from the Church. In this, he clearly parallels Washington's religiosity. Does that mean that Hitler "was clearly Christian"? I doubt it. Chernow goes on to claim "(Washington) was quite intensely religious, because even though he uses the word Providence, he constantly sees Providence as an active force in life, particularly in American life. I mean, every single victory in war he credits to Providence. The miracle of the Constitutional Convention he credits to Providence. The creation of the federal government and the prosperity of the early republic, he credits to Providence... I was struck at how frequently in his letters he's referring to Providence, and it's Providence where there's a sense of design and purpose, which sounds to me very much like religion..." Except that it doesn't sound "very much like religion" once the reader is aware that Washington used the term gender-neutrally, such as in this example in a letter in his own hand, after the defeat at Germantown: "We must endeavor to deserve better of Providence, and, I am persuaded, she will smile on us." (emphasis mine) Indeed, Washington's most commonly used term that is held up as an example of his "faith" -- "Providence" -- he as often personified as female or neuter, as he did male. Reading Chernow's claim with that in mind, it would be much more difficult for readers to accept the claim that Washington's use of "Providence" supports the notion of him being "intensely religious", or his views sounding "very much like a religion". It sounds very little like a religion, and certainly nothing at all like Christianity (show me one mention in the Bible of Yahweh being described as female!) So, while having no intention of running afoul of WP:NOR, I think that there should be a more objective and neutral coda to summarize the section and end the article. Bricology (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

One view point or the other has to come last... I don't think the order really matters. Would you rather we put Chernow's view first? Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar is arguing with the RS, which is not allowed. The question is not GW's theological orthodoxy or personal piety but whether he associated himself regularly and throughout his life with organized Christianity, which he did. Rjensen (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Um... where have I argued with the RS (or did you just type the wrong username)? Blueboar (talk)

Rjensen wrote "...whether he associated himself regularly and throughout his life with organized Christianity, which he did." I disagree, and I think that the citations listed in the article support me. Just three examples: "I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than he himself did", "Biographer Barry Schwartz has stated that Washington's 'practice of Christianity was limited and superficial, because he was not himself a Christian'", and "When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie...mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington completely stopped attending on communion Sundays. Abercrombie later related that an unnamed person...told him that Washington, in recounting this incident, said he had never been a communicant...Long after Washington died, when asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: 'Sir, Washington was a Deist!'" Given the body of evidence already presented in the article that suggests that Washington did not "associate himself regularly and throughout his life with organized Christianity", we are left with conflicting views of Washington's beliefs and practices. Consequently, to state that he did would be to claim more than one logically can. Bricology (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Peter Lillback's qualifications

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)

Yet you reverted my edit (and not just to fix a dead link) even though you haven't shown him to be a historian either. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 11:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he should be characterized as a "historical theologian". It's not the same thing as "historian", but also not as random as "author". And/or his religious affiliation should be explicitly called out. Magic♪piano 15:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I really hate such quibbling distinctions... to me, there is absolutely no significant difference between a "historical theologian" and a "theological historian", except which department of the university issued his degree. Both terms indicate a study of the history of theology. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to me that his primary focus area is theology with a bit of history, and not a historian in the traditional sense. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 11:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone of us is in a position to assess his qualifications to this degree of exactitude. I think more to the point is the book's (lack of) reputation. Glenn Beck apparently pushed sales of it up quite a ways by promoting it on his show, but it has little footprint in GScholar; one of the few references to it (in a, well, screed-ish biography of Jerry Falwell) has a passing reference to it as a "screed". There's another more substantial reference to it in a paper discussing the political use of a particular biblical verse (Micah 6:8), but that's about it. Book references are a little thicker, but still few, and mostly from patently conservative perspectives. The only substantive and perhaps neutral work I found was an essay collection (Espinosa, Gastón, ed. (2009). Religion and the American Presidency: George Washington to George W. Bush with Commentary and Primary Sources. Columbia University Press.) which includes it in a list of several books talking about Washington's religion in a rather long chapter on the matter. I note, BTW, that this chapter never uses the words "deist" or "deism", though I also note that the authors of the chapter disclaim examination of Washington's beliefs in any detail.

The book is essentially self-published. The Providence Forum is an organization headed by Lillback. My impression overall is that what we have here is the opposite number of Steiner's book: a bit of advocacy at the other end of the scale. It seems to me that the best course is to identify Lillback by position and point to Beck's promotion, assuming we can source the latter. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Concur. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Communion: commonly or uncommonly participated in?

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)

To understand Abecrombie's comment you have to understand how common religious practices in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church changed during Washington's lifetime (an effect of the Second Great Awakening). During most of Washington's life, the Anglican Church in Virgina was somewhat "low church"... it was not common for Anglicans to take communion. However, in reaction to the evangelical fervor of the Second Great Awakening, the Anglican/Episcopal practice shifted to a much more "high church" stance... "bells & smells" became more important than they had been... and by the time that Abecrombie was writing, it was expected that Episcopalians would take communion on a regular basis (ie it became more common).

In other words... in NOT taking communion, Washington was following the standard religious practices of his denomination, as they were in his era. Abercrombie's comment, however, reflects the standard religious practices of a later era.

Sure, if Washington had been a Deist (as Abercrombie claims), he would not have taken communion... but... neither would a devout Anglican of Washington's era. Thus, the entire "communion" issue is something of a red herring. It really does not tell us anything about Washington's beliefs. I would remove the entire section. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Bricology has read the Holmes book throughly enough. From page 49: "If George Washington apparently went to church on about one out of every four Sundays except when he was President, and if he apparently never received the sacrament of holy communion in his adult life, that was unexceptional behavior for many male Anglican gentry during the Deistic era."

Another work that supports the notion of communion as being a relative rarity is In The Hands Of A Good Providence: Religion in the Life of George Washington by Mary V. Thompson Google Books, see chapter 5. (The citation to the Novak book, by the way, gives a page number, even if the Google Book link doesn't go there directly.)

I don't think the issue of communion should be swept away; if it is a red herring, this article (which is about religion after all) should not ignore the subject, but expose the idea that it is. Magic♪piano 18:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

One more citation from a most recent scholarly review of material on Washington [2]: “George Washington’s relationship with the sacrament of communion is complicated, but certainly fits the norm for both England and Virginia at this period. John Nelson has described how ‘eighteenth-century Anglicans on both sides of the Atlantic had great difficulties with Holy Communion,’ leading to a situation in which few congregants actually took part in this ritual, which was typically observed three to four times a year… The fact that so few congregants took communion (percentages varied from one parish to another, ranging from 5-30% in England in the first half of the 18th century, and averaging about 15% in Britain’s southern colonies), has been attributed to a number of causes.”

The passage goes on to mention reasons for not participating in communion, from concern about imitating Roman Catholic mass practices to worries about superstitious practices (which was a common view of communion among Protestants who were anti-Catholic at this time) to concerns among congregants that they were not worthy for the sacrament. Apparently an 18th-century Scottish Anglican prayerbook went so far as to include a special section assuring congregants that they wouldn't go to hell if they took the Eucharist without satisfying every supposed condition before communing.

Given these statistics (which are derived from a scholar -- John Nelson -- who actually studied church-going behavior in Virginia in the 18th century), I would suggest that the article's language: "it was also not uncommon in those days for churchgoers to pass on participating in communion" actually doesn't go far enough. If only about 15% of Virginia's Anglican congregants participated in communion, Washington would actually have been among the LARGE MAJORITY who did not commune.71.68.236.121 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the point I have been trying to make for over a year now (but without a source to support what I said... thanks). As I see it, if we are going to keep the material about Washington not taking communion in the article, we really need to discuss it in proper context... by noting the things you mention above. The alternative is to omit it completely (as being potentially misleading information that does not really tell the reader anything useful about Washington's religious views). Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Magicpiano wrote "I wonder if Bricology has read the Holmes book throughly enough". The page you cited, from Holmes' book, states this: "Although writers have long tied Anglicanism to loyalism, recent scholarship has shown that some forty-five percent of Anglican clergy from Georgia to Massachusetts supported the American side actively or passively in the American Revolution...The figures were even greater for the Anglican laity, where a solid majority favored the patriot cause. Benjamin Franklin...George Washington...and more than half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Anglicans...The Anglicanism of many of these patriots and founding fathers, of course, was Deism in the Anglican mode. But in the eighteenth century, as today, laypeople were not examined as to whether their private theological views agreed with official doctrines taught in their denomination. Among educated Anglicans in the later decades of the eighteenth century, a certain amount of Deism was common..."". So rather than supporting the claim that Washington was not a Deist, it actually states the opposite. Blueboar wrote "...Washington would actually have been among the LARGE MAJORITY who did not commune." You cannot explain away two facts at the local level: that Martha (who was a paragon of propriety and had a keen sense for the zeitgeist) always received communion, and that the Rector of their church both expected Washington to be a communicant, and expressed disappointment that he was not. Indeed, after this chiding, Washington absented himself from church altogether. None of this suggests that receiving communion was "uncommon" in Washington's own milieu; it suggests the opposite. Bricology (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"So help me, God"

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)

New work on the subject

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)

FREE MASON vs. freemason, use of SIC (and 2 Thank You_s

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)

George Washington and the Menorah

Shneor Zalman Cheshin, Israel's first supreme Court president, 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.

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)

I've removed this section. It cited no reliable sources, as Wikipedia defines them, and one of the references was to this Talk page (not appropriate--either cite these sources in the text, or don't). I respect that this story has existed and been passed down, including by and to some important individuals, but it's rather obviously "just a story," not a historical event that can be documented in a way that can be used in an encyclopedia article. It's no different from the cherry tree story, except that it is far lesser known.

The "technical flaws, factual mistakes, errors in timeline, etc." noted in the "Valley Forgery" article listed above (Calgary Jewish Free Press) are hardly minor details. ("For example, it dates the events at Valley Forge in the winter of 1775-76, whereas they occurred two years later. It situates Washington, apparently in the role of President, in New York City during the winter of 1776; in reality, the general was then waging war elsewhere, and his presidential term would not commence until 1789. Washington promises to award the lad a Medal of Honor—but that award would not be established until the Civil War, almost a century later.") And if you dismiss those details as inaccurate, how can you be so sure the story "definitely...happened"? Just because significant modern figures may have heard and even believed the story does not give it any historical provenance.

The text of this section also does not match the purpose of this article. In its entirety, the section said: "Some Jewish schools have taught that George Washington was inspired by a Jewish soldier who lit a Chanukah Menorah during the revolutionary war." But what "some schools have taught" (in the 20th century) has nothing to do with Washington's "religious views"--particularly when the teaching is just that he "was inspired by" the Jewish soldier. There's certainly no suggestion that Washington himself practiced or incorporated any Jewish beliefs, rituals, or customs into his life. If the idea was to show his general attitude toward the Jewish people, the article already mentions the historically significant (and well-documented) letter to the Jews of Newport. --EightYearBreak (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)