tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post9002573250286040000..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Lessons from Washington's First InauguralBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48914017977154010602009-01-19T10:46:00.000-07:002009-01-19T10:46:00.000-07:00By "specified lessons," are you referring to....**...By "specified lessons," are you referring to....<BR/><BR/>****<BR/><BR/><I>1. The American people should clearly and unequivocally embrace the EXISTENCE of God and their reliance on Him.<BR/><BR/>2. The American people should ADORE God - and that OBVIOUSLY means more than just a casual, dismissive "Yeah, I believe in God, but..." No, Washington is calling on the American people to embrace a deep, meaningful, contemplative relationship with God.<BR/><BR/>3. The United States has been blessed by God - and will continue to receive God's blessings, based upon their continued homage, adoration, and obedience.</I><BR/><BR/>****<BR/><BR/>I stand by that, though I will concede that Washington's references to God were gender-neutral. In fact, in at least one case, he referred to Providence as "she," I believe. So...I accept your clarification on that. <BR/><BR/>My main point is that GW didn't see faith and Providence as an irrelevant or peripheral abstraction. He firmly believed that our nation was under sovereign, providential authority - and that we should obey and adore that authority.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38863600841169645562009-01-18T20:36:00.000-07:002009-01-18T20:36:00.000-07:00I have to admit that when I read the post I though...I have to admit that when I read the post I thought the assertion was that GW endorsed the specified lessons stated. Given the referral to "Him", I thought the implication was that GW was endorsing Christianity as opposed to a general sense that religion and morality were necessary to maintain public virtue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37676414770063917482009-01-18T18:45:00.000-07:002009-01-18T18:45:00.000-07:00"[...] the debate on this site seems to focus on w..."[...] the debate on this site seems to focus on whether he added "so help me God" at the end of his official oath."<BR/><BR/>At least from my end, the reason for this focus is because such claims are essentially lies (a positive assertion in the absence of compelling evidence).<BR/><BR/>I don't see such a focus being anti-religious or pro-religious. It is a matter of principle.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57307078593229736662009-01-18T15:27:00.000-07:002009-01-18T15:27:00.000-07:00Exactly, Brad. Washington's First Inaugural was no...Exactly, Brad. Washington's First Inaugural was not exclusively Christian. It included Christianity and alluded to biblical themes. Washington ties America's fortunes to the degree to which the American people adore and obey God. Pretty much what the Old Testament prophets had to say about Israel and Judah. But, aside from that, the speech is carefully crafted to be unifying and not divisive. And for that, I commend Washington.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64805378099634378972009-01-17T15:36:00.000-07:002009-01-17T15:36:00.000-07:00Jimmyraybob writes:"Why wouldn't the Christian, Je...Jimmyraybob writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>"Why wouldn't the Christian, Jew, Muslim, deist, pagan, or for that matter American Indian (Iroquois delegate perhaps) not equally feel comfortable and fulfilled with such a fine address. I'm sure this speaks as well to today's new ager and mystic."</EM><BR/><BR/>Yes, you are exactly right. Any and all religions would be comfortable with Washington's public recognition/invocation of religion. I don't think that Mr. Tubbs is arguing that Washington was EXCLUSIVELY a Christian in his view. Instead he is simply pointing out that Washington was a RELIGIOUS man.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32822047939920874212009-01-17T15:30:00.000-07:002009-01-17T15:30:00.000-07:00Almighty Being...Great Author...Invisible Hand...b...<I>Almighty Being...Great Author...Invisible Hand...benign Parent of the Human Race...</I><BR/><BR/>Why wouldn't the Christian, Jew, Muslim, deist, pagan, or for that matter American Indian (Iroquois delegate perhaps) not equally feel comfortable and fulfilled with such a fine address. I'm sure this speaks as well to today's new ager and mystic. <BR/><BR/>As a non-theist <I>I</I> feel moved and humbled by the soaring nature and sentiment of his no doubt carefully chosen words. <BR/><BR/>However, to be an unequivocal supplication to the God of Abraham (or to be a clarion call to Christianity or Christian virtue alone), a few more specifics would have been helpful. For instance, instead of "Almighty Being" etc., he might have gone with Almighty God of Abraham or Father of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He might have implored the nation to heed more closely to the Bible and spoken specific verse as an illustration.<BR/><BR/>I'm not arguing the nature of Washington's faith as I wouldn't be much bothered either way, but these words just do not rise to a definitive proof that he was compelling the nation to Christianity (orthodox or unorthodox), which it seems the post is hinting at. If I'm wrong and the post is extolling a general call to deism and civic virtue then my apologies for assuming wrongly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27536649153222644592009-01-17T14:13:00.000-07:002009-01-17T14:13:00.000-07:00Very well done, Brian. I've read the post a few t...Very well done, Brian. I've read the post a few times and cannot find anything to disagree with. Maybe somebody else will, but from my point of view you are right. Regardless of Washington's specific religious beliefs -- or the lack thereof -- it is clear that he was a man of faith. Though there are a number of specifics that we can argue about, I think it is clear that Washington was a believer in God. <BR/><BR/>Nicely done!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.com