Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

Talk:George Washington

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Washington, Christian Champion[edit]

Now, I'm hardly an expert on former-US presidents, hell, it's only thanks to an ISP ad I saw on TV that I know who my country's first prime minister was (I think every Aussie out there will recall the infamous Bigpond ad). But it seems to me that we may need to counteract this heap o' crap with something a bit more accurate, I notice that Aschlafly's contributions on this topic are rather non-substantive. So, can we perhaps point out in this article how George Washington was not a "Christian Champion"? "People's Champion" I can agree with, "Humanitarian Champion" I can agree with, but "Christian Champion" seems about as accurate as "First Man on Pluto while wearing Mickey Mouse ears".

I feel that a balanced article demonstrating Washington's strong Christian values, plus an equally weighted dose of his beliefs in equality regardless of religion and his shortcomings as a "perfect" Christian fits this quite nicely. Well, it fits #3 and that's as good a reason as any.

So, how was Washington a good Christian as opposed to a "Christian Champion"? Well, to start off with the plusses, he attended church regularly, owned family pews at several churches and was a member of the lay council at a local parish. Why don't I bother to cite these? Frankly because my aim here is not not prove that he was a good Christian, as I say, there's little (if any) doubt that he was. Let's face it, his immortal farewell address made it very clear that he believed religion was essential to maintain national morality. Now, let's move on to why he could hardly be considered a man who fought "a righteous battle for the spiritual republic of Jesus Christ" (as the assfly asserts).

Things George Washington done what Assfly would consider librul and atheistic:

  • While employing mechanics for his estate, Washington requested that those hired should be "good workmen", but that they "may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."[1]
  • In a letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Washington gives us a goldmine of quotes regarding religious tolerance:
  • The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: - OMG he said librul!!!11!one!
  • happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizen.
  • every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.[2]
  • Farewell address[3] contains strong support of religion in general, but no specific mention of Christianity, God, or Jesus. He also rejected the sentence "does it [national morality] not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative Religion" from a draft of his address.[4]
  • Would always leave church before communion. [5]
  • Voiced an objected to a bill that would force people to "donate" to their religion.[6] (good luck reading it)
  • While signed by John Adams, it was during Washington's term that the Tripoli Treaty was drafted. The Tripoli Treaty reads:
  • "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"[7]

As you can see, there are several ways in which Washington demonstrated his tolerance of other religions, and while he believed that religion in general was good for a nation's morality, never once did he imply that Christianity was exclusively the only religion capable of achieving this (nor did he ever assert that Atheists are immoral people). While he was a regular church-goer, he never did the thing "proper" and stayed for communion. It would seem that Washington, while a fine upstanding Christian, a wonderful humanitarian and an incredibly open minded person, was not the "Christian Champion" that some people would like to believe he was.

Anyway, I thought I'd run my ideas through the talk page instead of spewing them into the article. This is a large change to the article, and it may not be appreciated by everyone (or anyone...), so I felt it would be best to discuss it first. As I said, I wouldn't want the article to be all about "Washington as a failed 'Christian Champion'", but a fair and balanced look at how he was not the epitome of Christianity, I believe that title goes to this guy. Not to mention the fact that I don't want to get lynch-mobbed by angry Americans, I perceive that presidents are (with some notable exceptions) regarded very highly, particularly the earlier presidents, and I don't want to write an article that will upset everyone.

Ideas, thoughts, opinions... death threats? -Redbacknot Redneck 15:15, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that's an awesome little essay to add to the article. Do it! Crundy 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just found this...[edit]

...and it is a mess. I was looking over the rewrite linked from here, and it seems decent. A bit dry, but I'm sure another editor can put some "snark" in it.--George (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this entry is awful. Merge or replace the entry with the proposed rewrite?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The rewrite is dull as arse, but it's still better than the crap we have here. Keep the present intro, boil down the rewrite and shorten the stuff about torture, which has a point but is waffly. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hand to and quickfix[edit]

Sorry i don't have an account right now, but while reading i noticed it was spose to say french "and" not french "hand" in the third paragraph of the "bio" section, thank you, and sorry if i trampled on anyones toes — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Was George Washington a traitor?[edit]

According to this Quora answer it was, and according to the Virginia museum of history and culture he can be considered a traitor as he was British, and he couldn't be a patriot as the USA didn't exist back then as an independent nation. I don't know if it fits the purpose of the article but it is interesting for me. Idk what to put (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

it would only make sense to consider him a traitor if britain had crushed the revolution or if we held a grudge over it. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)