tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post737697114364735904..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Did Washington Ask God for Help at His First Inauguration?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58072266680832087522012-01-01T13:47:15.423-07:002012-01-01T13:47:15.423-07:00.
I'm not exactly sure what I wrote that cause....<br />I'm not exactly sure what I wrote that causes you to respond as you did, Brian.<br />.<br />What I wrote may have originated from what you wrote; but, it also includes other input that can be imputed into the broader conversation.<br />.<br />I almost suspect some pedantic attitude that comments must all relate specifically to what is written in the main article of any thread of discussion here. I don't agree with that thinking. What is written touches on other points participants may sense in their own mind. We're not sitting here like toads waiting to be filled with enlightenment from on high. I hope that makes some sense. I agree with some of what you wrote and I have some disagreements with some of it; but, I don't want to belabor those things. And, just because I make a comment does not mean that I am claiming some truth or another. It's nice when there is intercourse that moves us in a progressive direction. Criticism is not always unwelcome. It's can even help us speak more clearly.<br />.<br />The point Tom claims that I don't understand Rowe is an example of how problems can come into being. If I don't understand someone? And, they see that? They have a responsibility to explain themselves rather than just acting like they're so much smarter than anyone else in some lofty place. Do you get my point? I'm not looking for trouble.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85733343580475250302011-12-31T14:14:26.119-07:002011-12-31T14:14:26.119-07:00Brad, my article is not making the case that Washi...Brad, my article is not making the case that Washington was an orthodox Christian. I am silent on that point in this article. Nevertheless, I disagree with your statement that he "clearly" was not. You can see he was "clearly not a Deist" (Washington himself puts that to rest), but Washington kept things vague and mysterious (deliberately, methinks) on the orthodox side of things. I would say: "He was clearly not a Deist, and kept the specifics of his Christian faith close to his vest." <br /><br />We are in full agreement on the SMHG thing, which was the main point of my article.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5684317034247326902011-12-31T14:10:28.648-07:002011-12-31T14:10:28.648-07:00Phil, I'm just not sure how to reply to your c...Phil, I'm just not sure how to reply to your comments. You seem to erecting straw men with what I wrote. My article was designed to take a "minimalist" approach, meaning I was careful not to overreach. I limited my claims to what I think virtually all historians would agree with. <br /><br />Nowhere did I reference the King James Bible or a "Christian Nation." Yet you took a jab regarding the former and persist in arguing the latter point, not to mention that (as TVD points out) your implied definition of "universalism" doesn't square with what the term really means.<br /><br />Setting all that aside, let me try to find some common ground with you...<br /><br />Washington's idea of God, I think, was informed by 18th century colonial Anglicanism, Enlightenment thinking, and 18th century Masonic thinking. <br /><br />I think there's a difference between 18th century Masonic thinking regarding God and 19th/early 20th century Masonic thinking regarding God, but I won't get into that right now. I also believe there was a difference in thinking about God between 18th century Anglicans and 21st century Anglicans and Episcopalians. <br /><br />I never claimed (as you seem to think I am doing, if even in some kind of stealthy way) that Washington was endorsing a Christian Nation. I believe Washington spoke of God in ways that would UNITE Americans. He was big on unity, and didn't want to see religion divide America - as it had and was dividing Europe. <br /><br />But the one thing I am trying to make clear in this article is that Washington believed God was a PERSONAL, INTELLIGENT Entity that answered prayer and gave Providential aid. He did NOT see God in some mystical, abstract, semi-pantheistic way. God was a real Being with an intelligent MIND that related with the human race. And Washington believed that prayer was important in communicating with God.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83248003529646284922011-12-31T13:23:53.133-07:002011-12-31T13:23:53.133-07:00.
I think, in respect, that Brian's article br....<br />I think, in respect, that Brian's article brings up the question of how these ideas about "god" impigned on the Founders' thinking.<br />.<br />If George Washington ended his oath with So Help Me God we cannot put the intent or purpose of his meaning into the context of our concerns today. It is, in a real way, irrelevant. The present day politics are probably more like what the Founders feared than they are what most of us might be thinking.<br />.<br />It seems to me that the main reason we even concern ourselves with this question has to do with a desire to gain power over those who haven't yet been convinced that America was founded to be a Christian nation. Once we've proven that George Washington really did speak the SHMG line, then .....<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84856771324049509802011-12-31T11:48:19.847-07:002011-12-31T11:48:19.847-07:00Reason (intellectual understandng of history) or P...Reason (intellectual understandng of history) or Pragmatism (practical understanding of government and/or the human) lends itself to different analysis about universal claims.<br /><br /> Academia would understand plurality as human cognition, and transpose these upon "Nature's God", as a political manuever for the religious conscience for a "universal God".....But practical realities (human experience) beg the question of/about "god" himself, which becomes religious and scientific intolerance, as the gap widens as to understandings about 'God' (personal reality or Universal Nature), and where and what the public/private domain means.<br /><br />Personal realities within the brain (cognition) are personal realities, while "Nature's God" such as the Founders understood was more of a political (and philosophical) appeal, as to form a unified means to make the nation "go forward" and accomplish the task at hand (the American Revolution).<br /><br />On the matters of the public realities (government) and personal realities (the brain), our liberty of conscience is the only way to allow for human choice, value and commitment. The person is the universal, and a Constitutonal government that is not defined by one particular value, is of importance to affirm liberty. Therefore, the only universalism undermines the personal and private and makes "God" the outside authority or source of "being in the world".<br /><br />I think the disparity between "then and now" is that there was a social consciousness, as to social structures/institutions that were cohesive units that made for a more unified understanding AND experience!!! Today with divorce rampant, and society openly diverse, there is more question about and openness to many aspects to humans and their choice about values. what makes for meaning and what human flourishing really means....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70461851237465076452011-12-31T11:32:27.018-07:002011-12-31T11:32:27.018-07:00.
My thinking is that what we call "universal....<br />My thinking is that what we call "universalism" today is an outgrowth of an understanding about "God" ever since the Enlightenment which fueled Modernity. It comes out of the thinking of Kant, Schliermacher, and Hegel.<br />.<br />During the ending of the Enlightenment, thinkers were being more and more curious about the ideas of "truth" and "god". And, the ideas unfolding were "universalist" in their impact.<br />.<br />Contrary to the elitist here who often criticizes those who fail to grasp his perspectives.<br />.<br />As far as this "Christian Nation" idea is concerned, it is a perspectival view and nothing anyone comes up with is going to effect much. Universalism gave birth to Deist thinking.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34537878470183810922011-12-31T11:21:33.426-07:002011-12-31T11:21:33.426-07:00So getting back to Brian's EXCELLENT post...
...So getting back to Brian's EXCELLENT post...<br /><br />I think your argument is sound, Brian, so long as you don't take it to the extreme that the Peter Lillback's of the world seem to. I concur that George Washington was CLEARLY a man of faith. What kind of faith and to what degree may be debated (within reason). He was clearly not a Deist or an orthodox Christian but something in between; not quite Thomas Paine, not quite Samuel Adams. <br /><br />As for SHMG, I don't know and I don't care. Your argument is fullproof on this matter. One could be a die-hard Christian or a complete agnostic and still choose to inclued (or omit) SHMG from one's oath. It makes no difference. <br /><br />To borrow from Shakespeare, the SHMG issue is "Much Ado About Nothing."Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88139379102353551392011-12-31T11:11:56.276-07:002011-12-31T11:11:56.276-07:00Well, if one is talking within the Academy the que...Well, if one is talking within the Academy the question of universalism would be answered like I segmented history.<br /><br />But, if you are talking about human rights,and/ro natural rights, then you are talking about government. These were the arguments politicians used to defend the Revolution and the right of resistance, as in the DOI.<br /><br />So which values are being questioned as to "universalism"? Academic/historical understanding, or government/public policy/human rights values?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6316755582308382272011-12-31T07:06:24.427-07:002011-12-31T07:06:24.427-07:00.
I read your comment, Tom.
.
Happy New Year to a....<br />I read your comment, Tom. <br />.<br />Happy New Year to all.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51849223056535129952011-12-31T03:54:56.683-07:002011-12-31T03:54:56.683-07:00The God of Nature was quite popular in the Eightee...<i>The God of Nature was quite popular in the Eighteenth Century when Universalism was on the rise.<br />.<br />But, everyone knows that.<br />.<br />Right?</i><br /><br />That's not even remotely what "Universalism" is, Phil. I realize now that you don't understand what Jonathan Rowe writes about all the time, let alone me. Dang.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69758741847473520782011-12-30T18:51:53.418-07:002011-12-30T18:51:53.418-07:00Phil.
Some section the 18th century as the Age of ...Phil.<br />Some section the 18th century as the Age of Reason....followed by the Age of Romanticism in the 19th century.<br /><br />Romanticism based on sentiment/feeling<br /><br />Transcendentalism (Emerson,Whitman, etc.) were those that spoke and wrote of romanticizing nature (human and "the green" ;-) )...<br />Pragmatism<br />William James and Schliemacher gave us ways of cultural diversity and plurality....and a sentimental dependence/feeling upon "God"....<br /><br />At least that is what I think I remember....wrong? corrections anyone?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20506976726830602282011-12-30T15:09:27.507-07:002011-12-30T15:09:27.507-07:00,
Good grief!
.
Beside the quesion of whether or n...,<br />Good grief!<br />.<br />Beside the quesion of whether or not So Help Me God was in the oath George Washington gave is another question I would like to see answered.<br />.<br />Where is it seen that George Washington, in any instance when he spoke the words, God or Divine Providence, always each and every time meant Jehovah God of the King James Bible?<br />. <br />The quote given in your talk, Brian, seems very Masonic to me. I have it in my thinking that G.W. believed in the God of Nature.<br />.<br />The God of Nature was quite popular in the Eighteenth Century when Universalism was on the rise.<br />.<br />But, everyone knows that.<br />.<br />Right?<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76095234680065296052011-12-30T07:43:44.138-07:002011-12-30T07:43:44.138-07:00at least dangerous for religious zeal...maybe not ...at least dangerous for religious zeal...maybe not so dangerous in our political realm....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91223806099685790082011-12-30T07:41:43.621-07:002011-12-30T07:41:43.621-07:00The greater question I have is; In a world where e...The greater question I have is; In a world where extremism is dangerous, how can one act as a George Washington, without causing another war with a "Britain"?<br /><br />George Washington or many others that came to America and fought for liberty were considered courageous, but they had to be committed to such a task with a vision and hope that could not be deterred. Such radicalism might be dangerous in today's world, where radicalism is the problem, isn't it?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80517190925121418432011-12-29T20:03:31.745-07:002011-12-29T20:03:31.745-07:00Bravo, Brian!
JayBravo, Brian!<br /><br />JayMagpie Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01390264410632162085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86135334359405926512011-12-29T17:41:03.481-07:002011-12-29T17:41:03.481-07:00Anyone in leadership has responsibilities that the...Anyone in leadership has responsibilities that they are accountable for....which should scare the **** out of ANYBODY in today's world!!! (and I say that NOT to be offensive, but for effect/emphasis!)....Such was the cause of the American Revolution.<br /><br />People ARE arguing about peripheral issues, as far as I am concerned, because our economy stinks, men are out of work and the world is at the brink of being "blown up"! And what is the FREE WORLD arguing over? whether someone is a Christian or not or whether the nation can survive apart from Christian faith, or some OTHER nonsense!!! <br /><br />WE are a PEOPLE, that won't last till the of the decade IF we don't answer some of the problems and challenges that are facing us! <br /><br />I sure hope that the movies that are coming out, such as IRON LADY will have some impact upon those that are so caught up in the religious debates! <br /><br />George Washington was great because he recognized his frailty before large and looming needs before him...It would do our leader well to also recognize the complexities, without being trite about them and thinking only of their political careers! <br /><br />I hope that Americans WILL be thankful for their liberties and it does NOT MATTER whether they thank God or thank the leaders of the past....we just must NOT take our liberty for granted!<br /><br />It is so disheartening to have such debates that make no differences to real world politic....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com