Discussion on George Washington Article
Just because something is silly, does not mean that it is not true. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about the truth and while sometimes the truth is very silly, it still is important. The canonization of George Washington, while silly, is an issue that is important to many Catholics. By deleting this section, you are not living up to your own standards (e.g. Biases of Wikipedia). You claim to be Pro-Christianity and Pro-America, yet you delete a section about one of our greatest leaders as a result of anti-Catholic bias. Shame on you, sir.
In the end, there was never a way that he could be canonized. It was proposed that he should be, but George Washington was not Catholic - as you stated in the article. If he were canonized, there would be grounds for keeping this section. Nothing came out of this topic. It was truly useless information. --David R 23:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)
I have several images taken by my own camera of several landmarks related to George Washington. I have a photo of the historic Christ Church Episcopal church in old town Alexandria that George Washington regularly attended. A photo of the very pew in which he and his family sat in during services. I also have a photo of his tomb taken at his Mt. Vernon property. How can I post these onto the Conservapedia site? --Watchman 17:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)
George Washington's expenses
What, no mention of his expensive expense account? Washington was magnanimous enough to lead the Revolutionary Forces against Great Britain for free, saying:
Sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress that as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this arduous employment, I do not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those I doubt not they will discharge, and that is all I desire.
However over eight years his expenses came to nearly $500,000 – well over $4 million in today's money. He also gave loans to his friends that were never repaid, he bought limes by the crateload (400 at one point), and he treated himself to every "sundry" good available. From July 21-22 1775, he bought a pig, an unreadable number of ducks, "1 dozen pigeons, veal, 1 dozen squash, 2 dozen eggs, hurtleberries, biscuit and a cork cask."
From September 1775 to March 1776, Washington spent over six thousand dollars on booze.
Once President, Washington made the same offer to exchange a salary for an expense account. He was politely rebuffed and given a modest $25,000-a-year salary.  Britinme 16:01 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Giving up power
The British Empire in 1936, when Edward VIII voluntarily abdicated, giving up worldly power to marry the wife of his choice, included India, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and many other nations right around the globe - Edward was the Head of State of all of them. Washington's stepping aside after two terms as US president was trivial by comparison. --Burke 12:02, 4 March 2007 (EST)
- By 1936, the King was merely a figurehead. This was amply demonstrated by the events just prior to World War II. He had essential no power.
- Also, the abdication was to obtain something else that King Edward VIII wanted (marrying a woman). It was like resigning one position to accept another one. Had the British allowed him to marry the woman and remain King, he would have done so.
- Washington declined permanent rule over the United States despite being relative young and in good health. It was a pure declining of immense worldly power and the only similar example in world history was by Jesus.--Aschlafly 13:29, 4 March 2007 (EST)
- Jesus didn't decline worldly power; he declined sin in the Last Temptation. Also, you're patently wrong bout the "only similar example" being history. Let's start in Rome. Diocletian abdicated from his post as senior Augustus to allow his junior Caesar to take his place. He did this for no other reason than the good of Rome; to secure the balance in the tetrarchy. Also, famously, the Roman dictator Cincinattus served as unquestioned ruler for under a year before surrendering his position and returning to his farm, earning him a place in Roman legend. Washington actually followed Cincinattus' example, as all the founders sought to emulate the Roman Republic, and British poet Lord Byron caught on. In his poem, "Ode to Napoleon Bonaparte," the poet scourges Bonaparte before hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West." http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.--AmesG 10:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Another person who voluntarily relinquished power was the Italian patriot, Garibaldi, who used his army to unify the country, and then gave up the power he could have assumed. Also, George Washington should probably not be compared to Jesus if you don't want to isolate conservative thinkers outside of the United States.
- indeed many rulers have retired or abdicated or not sought another term in world history (including Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Grant in 19th century US history). When offered worldly power Jesus always declined, but Washington ACCEPTED in 1775 (command of the army), 1789 (presidency) and 1798 (command of the army again). 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)
Was he a freemason cause he had a free mason burial. Or was his wife a mason? --Will N. 12:20, 4 March 2007 (EST)
- Washington was a Mason. There are paintings of him wearing some Mason regalia.--Dave3172 10:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Yes, definitely a mason. Only a mason can receive a masonic burial. Woman cannot join freemasonry. Also, there is much doubt as to Washington's faith, although it almost certainly had a theistic base. According to his pastor, Abercrombie, I believe his name was, he was a Unitarian. It appears that he doubted the doctrine of the trinity and Christ's divinity. --Adon2 01:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- I thought he was a Deist. FernoKlump 12:41, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
- He wasn't a deist at all. He was a Christian, and this fact was confirmed not only in his own writings, but in the writings of others. Karajou 12:52, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
- My addition was completely cited and true. There was no reason to remove it. FernoKlump 13:18, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
If no one can give me a reason why doubts towards his Christian faith shouldn't be added, then I am going to change it back FernoKlump 13:46, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
- You were given a reason; he was not a deist, and that was confirmed by his and other's writings. Do not change it. Karajou 11:54, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Have you even looked at my edit? I didn't write that he was a deist. I said that I thought he was a deist in the talk page. There are doubts to whether or not he was really a Christian and the information I added reflects that. But if conservapedia is about lying to push an agenda then leave it out. FernoKlump 12:00, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
- FernoKlump, the question is not whether or not WE have looked at your edits; the question is whether YOU have read either the writings of Washington himself, or the statements and writings of those that knew him, or both. The article stands on the fact that he was a Christian. Karajou 12:46, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
- I guess there is no arguing with someone who can lock the page. FernoKlump 12:54, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
FK, if you have reason to believe your own "thought", please share it with us. What is the source of your opinion that Washington was a Deist? --Ed Poor Talk 16:23, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
- I never inserted into the article that he was a deist. I heard somewhere else that there were deistic characteristics to his faith. This is what I added and was reverted:
"While it is generally accepted that he was theistic and believed in a higher power, there are doubts that he was a Christian. He only attended church rarely and did not take communion, though his wife, Martha, did. " FernoKlump 19:02, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
OK Karajou, Washington's pastor, Dr. Abercrombie said (or wrote I'm not entirely sure) after Washington's death, "Sir, Washington was a Deist." to Reverend Bird Wilson . So the question is whether YOU have read all of Washington's writings and the writings of those who knew him, or just the ones that suggest that he was a Christian. I am not dismissing the evidence that he was a Christian, I think that evidence of both christianity and deism suggests that he was somewhere in between being a Deist and being a Christian. FernoKlump 01:13, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
- What you have picked for references was two pro-atheism blogs; the adds at the top of one ("stop the Bible thumpers!") say it all. And in the above line you write "Dr. Abercrombie said (or wrote I'm not entirely sure)". In short, you're not entirely sure. You're going to have to hit the books. Karajou 03:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
- Virginiaplaces.org is not a pro-atheist blog FernoKlump 10:03, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I find it amazing that someone so mean as to own slaves could ever be seen as a Christian. By the time of the American Revolutionary War (in itself a small side-line of a greater Franco-British War) the ownership of slaves was seen in most civilised countries as somewhere between illegal and unfashionable. Indeed, one of the points of contention between the American colonies and Britain was the ownership of slaves and their use producing goods sold at a cheaper price than goods made from non-slave labour. Whilst it is true that Washington had his slaves released at his death, this is hardly gracious of him. To quote Voltaire "The man who leaves money to charity in his will is only giving away what no longer belongs to him"
- Exuse me. Many Godly men had slaves. In fact God has several instructions about slaves in the first five books of the Bible. Slavery wasn't evil. It is mistreating those slaves that is evil. -Additioner 17:33, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
- It was first outlawed in the Roman Empire under Christianity, before coming back again in a new form a millennium later. Of course in some other parts of the world it never went away at all. Learn together 23:37, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
I cleaned up some of the quotes and gave them the proper cites. Some of the quotes were false (the firearms quote for example). The quote about the U.S. government not being founded on the Christian religion does exist, but it has nothing to do with Washington. It was in the text of a treaty that the U.S. signed with the Barbary Pirates in the very early nineteenth century. --McIntyre 10:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
- That's great, but the section is still severely lacking. That second quote boggles my mind: Why in the world would you reference the Farewell Address without giving a quote related to Washington's two famous warnings: the first about factions and political parties and the second about entagling alliances. I don't have the time to read through and find simple quotes about them, but I strongly recommend the article is changed to include them. Stryker 15:22, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't there be a mention that John Adams was his Vice President? LyraBelaqua 23:49, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
Notes & References
- ↑ http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html
- ↑ http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html#1
I'm brand new to Conservapedia. Why can't we edit the George Washington article? I'd like to be able to make the "term of office" section more specific by including the month and day of inauguration and separating George Washington's term into "1st term" and "2nd term." Mal 17:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Decipher George's Will
Washington gave his nephews the Swords or Cutteaux and they are to choose in the order they are named.
These swords are accompanied with an injunction not to unsheath them for the purpose of shedding blood, except it be for self defense, or in defense of their Country & its rights; and in the latter case, to keep them unsheathed, and prefer falling with them in their hands, to the relinquishment thereof.
My understanding, only to use the swords to protect America ideals/rights and only reliquish by dying in defense of America?
"Washington is perhaps the only person other than Jesus who declined enormous worldly power, in Washington's case by voluntarily stepping aside as the ruler of a prosperous nation."
For goodness' sake; is this a joke? Firstly, comparing any human to the son of God looks extremely forced and rather pathetic, not to mention disrespectful to those of a religious (but perhaps not American) bent. He was a great man, but trying to compare him to Jesus just looks daft. Secondly, "Washington is perhaps the only person other than Jesus who declined enormous worldly power". That bit's just rubbish. Plenty of people have declined power who had the oppotunity to take it.
By all means, point out that he was a noble man who believed in the ideal of liberty for the USA, and who declined power, but trying to portray him as some sort of cross between Jesus and Gandhi, whose very footsteps echo of liberty and nobility, just looks silly. Also, come to think of it, it's rather disrespectful to both Washington and Jesus. KarlJaeger 17:24, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Parts of the article seem to be lifted verbatim from a website. We need a rewrite. RJJensen 22:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
|!||Part of this article was copied from Conservapedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.|
The Death of Cincinnati
It's all well and good to emphasise the faith and inspiration of the great George Washington, but to deny history to do so is a little over the top. Washington WAS compared with Cincinnati. Byron DID call him the "Cincinnati of the West". The town, now city, of Cincinnati WAS renamed in honor of him. "The Society of the Cincinnati" of whom he was first president until his death, still flourishes. Why is all this being denied? AlanE 14:21, 2 February 2009 (EST)
It's not being denied. Washington was indeed compared with Cincinnatus -- Cincinnati is the plural and the name of the revolutionary society. But that's not the same as noting this fact prominently at the head of an article dealing with Washington. A good encyclopedia prioritizes information, and since this is a Christian encyclopedia, it makes sense to prioritize the Christian and Biblical model which Washington exemplifies. We can't talk about everything, and it makes sense to chose a Christian reference over a pagan one whenever it seems possible. I'm sorry to suggest removing anything, and a case can certainly be made for mentioning the Washington-Cincinnatus connection somewhere further down in the article. But at the front? I don't think that's the best choice in an explicitly Christian encyclopedia. And while were mentioning comparisons, why not mention parallels between Washington and Judas Maccabeus? Would that be a great Christian and Biblical model for our first president? LatinScholar 14:31 02/09 EST
- If it's not being denied, where is it? It has not just been lowered in priority - it has been completely removed! And by all means compare him to Judas Maccabeus. Be my guest. But completely removing the Cincinnati reference is removing an historical fact. One of the things I have always thought admirable about colonial America and the nascent United States was its knowledge of the classical era which comes out in the names given to everything from towns to Indian tribes. I have always considered it good that there was room for both devotion to the Lord and a classical education at the same time. Has this now disappeared? AlanE 15:17, 2 February 2009 (EST)
I will place the reference to the Cincinnati elsewhere in the article as you suggest, I'm sorry I removed it altogether. Although as far as the relationship between Christianity and paganism goes, I recommend that you read Tertullian on this subject. He lived in the 2nd century, after all, and knew paganism at first hand. LatinScholar 15:32 02/09 EST
- Thank you for the reinclusion. And yes, I know Tertullian. AlanE 15:56, 2 February 2009 (EST)
Washington was nominally a member of the Anglican Church, primarily because it involved a local political role. He was not devout, and his beliefs are close to Deism. He does not make a suitable model for Evangelicals. RJJensen 20:59, 2 February 2009 (EST)
This isn't Wikipedia. If you want to say that the father of the greatest Christian republic wasn't a Christian, perhaps you should take it over there. Washington is the model of a Christian champion and to suggest otherwise is to suggest that America's roots aren't Judeo-Christian but secular. There are plenty of liberals who want to imply just that, that America was founded by secularists and pagan deists, men without any real devotion to Our Savior or Biblical principles. The whole reason Conservapedia exists is to assert the conservative vision of our Founding Fathers. LatinScholar 21:46, 02/09 EST.
- Does it make out readers better citizens or Christians if we feed them information we know to be false. probably not. Was GW an atheist or secular? No. Was he a Christian? In terms of ritual yes--he attended public services. In terms of his beliefs, probably not. In public and private he used deist terms and ways of thinking. He almost never mentioned Jesus Christ. However, he did insist that religion was good for the nation and wanted to support it.RJJensen 22:57, 2 February 2009 (EST)
I never advocated presenting information known to be false, I just said that I was tired, as I hope other editors are, of attempts to take Christianity out of American history. WP already does it. CP doesn't need to imitate them. We need to present the conservative perspective of America as the greatest and only example of a free Christian republic. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but I hope that some other CP contributors will weigh in here and stand up for the Christian George Washington. LatinScholar 19:51, 02/09
I was going to add a very brief mention, but I ran into edit conflicts twice. Here is what I want to add, without any header:
As the Iroquois Indians had been raiding the colonies' northern frontier, Washington ordered the "total destruction and devastation" of Iroquois settlements in order to crush their Confederacy.<ref>https://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/06/27/town-destroyer-versus-the-iroquois-indians</ref><ref>http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-3</ref><ref>http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/history-1994/early-america/colonial-indian-relations.php</ref>
Of course, DavidB4, your version conflicts with mine. I'll let you decide what to do. Either way is fine, but I don't really want to emphasize liberal revisionism by adding a header, nor do I want to cite that "voltairenet.org" source. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (EDT)
- Hi, sorry about that. As soon as I saw it, I started working on a good revision, hoping to get it done before a revert. That didn't work, but I thought it was safe afterwards--I didn't mean to conflict with you. Your content is good and should be added. If you want, you can do the work. Otherwise, I can. --David B (TALK) 16:58, 18 September 2017 (EDT)
- I will let you make any further edits, as the existing content is already yours by now. If you want to replace that with what I have above, that's great, but if you don't want to do that, I would just prefer if you would remove that "voltairenet.org" source and the header. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2017 (EDT)
- Okay, I think I've put them together. Feel free to revise it as you wish. I removed the section heading, but I'm not sure that's really a good idea. As a separate topic, I feel like it should be separate. I suppose this is okay though. Thanks for your help! --David B (TALK) 19:55, 18 September 2017 (EDT)
- That makes sense. The issue is so trivial in the perspective of the whole war, but it is a common attack against Washington and the revolution. Because they use it as a popular accusation, I think it's wise to have a good piece on it also. I've put back a heading.--David B (TALK) 23:52, 18 September 2017 (EDT)