| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2007 06:15:50 AM |
| Object: |
Washington Jesus and Prof. John Kaminski |
Washington Jesus and Prof. John Kaminski co-author of "The Godless
Constitution."
To:
From: Glen Goffin <buffip2@comcast.net>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Washington and Jesus
Jim,
Read my letter first. His reply seemed to miss the whole
point. Either that or he was upset that I had the balls to call his
attention to his misstatement..one that is being used by the
religious Reich to make their Christian Nation claims.
*******************
GLEN'S LETTER TO PROF KAMINSKI
At 01:14 AM 10/29/03 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Professor Kaminski,
I hope you will pardon this uninvited intrusion. My name is Glen
P. Goffin and I am a dedicated believer in the wisdom of
Church(Religion) and State(Government) separation. Motivated by this
dedication, I have been attempting to provide the most accurate,
original source, references I can find to those who appear to be
using the Christian/non-Christian writings of our founding/framing
fathers to support their pro or anti Church-State separation
propaganda claims. (Personally, I do not find supernatural
explanations credible.)
I have noted that many pro-separationist/non-religious
organizations are using your "...and never to Jesus,..." statement
(see below) as proof that George Washington was a Deist. Though I
personally believe that Washington was, indeed, more Deist than
Christian in his faith beliefs, I wonder if you are aware of the
Delaware Chiefs document (see below) over his signature and rank entry?
Further research indicates that the signed document (which
is reported as mutilated), whose text is in the handwriting of
Washington's Aide, Lt. Col. Robert Hanson Harrison, was originally
in the possession of Dr. A. S. W. Rosenbach, of New York City and
Philadelphia. The portion in brackets was supplied from the copy by
Caleb Gibbs, inclosed in Washington's letter to the President of
Congress, May 14, I779, q. v.
Based on pure guesswork, I am not overly surprised that
Washington signed this document. There were atrocities committed by
Indian allies of both the Continental and British armies before and
after the "Speech to the Delaware Chiefs." (See end note.) However, a
good many of Washington's troops were far more familiar with the
atrocities of the "heathen" Indians because of their pre-Revolutionary
struggles with them on the harsh frontiers of this new country. Gen.
Washington needed every fighting man, or woman, he could muster to
work together if they were to be victorious over the British. One way
to help reduce the existing animosities within his own forces, and
perhaps even increase the anti-Loyalist/British fervor, would be to
claim that the pro-Independence (Anti-British) Indians were being
introduced to biblical (Christian) conditioning.
http://www.masoniclodge4.com/history/
(Extract...with added punctuation for clarity)
"The impact of Masonry pervaded Washington's writing and ideas," said
John Kaminski, a history professor at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison who wrote "A Great and Good Man" about Washington,
and heads the university's Center for the Study of the American
Constitution. "Washington 's writings rarely include references to
God, and never to Jesus," Kaminski said, "but rather use the
terminology and philosophy of the Masons, referring to The Great
Architect and building in general." Washington became a promoter of an
extensive canal system aimed at facilitating westward expansion, and
Kaminski suggests that he was influenced even in that by his
experience as a Mason.
(End extract)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/washington/fitzpatrick/index.html
<ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&\
act=surround&offset=18497623&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+15:+SPEECH+TO+THE+\
DELAWARE+CHIEFS&query=Delaware+Chiefs&id=gw150049>Writings
of Washington, Vol. 15: SPEECH TO THE DELAWARE CHIEFS SPEECH TO THE
DELAWARE CHIEFS
[Head Quarters, Middle Brook, May 12, 1779.]
(Extracts)
Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your
principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open
the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own
Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great
mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship
between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people
with your Brethen of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the
other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You
do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the
religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier
people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist
you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and
union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.
Note: In the writing of Robert Hanson Harrison. The document
is signed by Washington, who added, beneath his signature, "Commander
in chief of all the Armies in the United States of America." The
above text is from the signed document (which is mutilated) in the
possession of Dr. A. S. W. Rosenbach, of New York City and
Philadelphia. The portion in brackets was supplied from the copy by
Caleb Gibbs, inclosed in Washington's letter to the President of
Congress, May 14, I779, q. v.
(End extracts
(End note)
July 3, 1778, loyalist Colonel John Butler with local troops and
Seneca Indian allies invades Wyoming Valley, north of the Susquehanna
River, and attacks at "Forty Fort." In the frontier war along the New
York and Pennsylvania frontier, Onandagas, Cayugas, Senecas, and
Mohawks of the Iroquois League ally with the British. Joseph Brant
(Joseph Fayadanega), a Mohawk war chief educated in English missionary
schools and an Anglican convert, has significant influence among
British government and military leaders. Oneidas and Tuscororas ally
with the Americans. Washington writes Philip Schuyler, a member of the
Indian commission for the northern department. George Washington to
Philip Schuyler, July 22, 1778
Based in what I have found to date, I am forced to question
your statement that GW never referenced "Jesus."
Sincerely,
Glen P. Goffin
Lt.Col. USAF (Ret)
***************************************
PROFESSOR KAMINSKI'S REPLY
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:01:01 -0600
From: John Kaminski <jpkamins@fac[delete]
Subject: Re: Washington and Jesus
To: Glen Goffin <buffip2@comcast.net>
Dear Colonel Goffin,
Thank you so much for your message. Who would have thought
that my spontaneous response to a series of questions on George
Washington and the Masons would have attracted any attention! But I
guess some statements touch some people's emotions.
It is rather amazing when you think of all the writing that
GW did--perhaps 30-35 volumes of his own writing, you have come up
with one rather innocuous reference to Jesus. I would say that you've
proven my point. One reference is really proof of my point. GW in all
of his innumerable references to God uses metaphorical allusions
regularly--repeatedly in fact. With regard to the one letter you
mention, two things stand out. First GW did not draft the letter--his
aide did. A busy GW signed it. Second of all, GW is not calling upon
God for intervention or support or blessing, etc. He is referring to
the religion of Jesus Christ. Well, what else would he refer to? The
Christian religion? It's the same thing. The Christian religion,
which GW was always an official member of a formal Christian
denomination, is referred to as the religion of Jesus Christ. On
numerous occasions Jefferson refers to Jesus and espouses the
"religion" of Jesus--that is the teachings of Jesus. He rejects the
faulty interpretation of man, especially those of the Apostles and
later "priests" who through their own inadequacies faultily interpret
Jesus' words. According to Jefferson, the words of Jesus provide a
wonderful philosophical model for human beings to follow. This is a
far cry from believing that Jesus--the man--was divine and that he is
part of the Trinity of God. Jefferson and Paine elaborate on this
subject--GW does not, but I believe as GW advanced, he became more
convinced in the unity of God. (This is true for many other Founders,
such as John Adams.) Certain topics, however, were
never or seldom addressed by GW in writing.
In essence, then, I would conclude that this ONE reference to
JESUS drafted by an aide and merely referring to the Christian
religion as the religion of Jesus substantiates the point I was making.
Thanks again for your interest.
John Kaminski
*************************************
Here are two additional followups on that in this exhange between
Glen (buffman) and myself
#1
From:
To: Glen Goffin <buffip2@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Washington and Jesus
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:04:51 -0500
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:21:35 -0500, you wrote:
:| Jim,
:|
:| Read my letter first. His reply seemed to miss the whole
point.
:|Either that or he was upset that I had the balls to call his
attention to
:|his misstatement..one that is being used by the religious Reich to
make
:|their Christian Nation claims.
The whole point is he broke rule #1
Absolutes seldom if ever are.
He spoke in an absolute
:| . . . "Washington 's
:|writings rarely include references to God, and never to Jesus,"
and proved rule #1 true
Absolutes seldom if ever are.
he didn't want to admit that he goofed, bad for him.
Yet, this can be salvaged.
At least part of his comments are valid. The fact that, at least so
far, only one reference to Jesus or Jesus Christ has been found is
pretty powerful evidence.
Too bad he didn't just simple say
You are right, I goofed there, I should have known better than to use
never. The plus is that one reference speaks volumes and I will
revise what I say on this topic in the future to include that
reference and point out just how powerful a piece of evidence that is.
Thirty some volumes of writings in his own hand and only one
reference to Jesus Christ and that in a letter addressed to Native
Americans
====================================
How did you ever find this?
That Gardiner fellow has a number of times made a big deal about a
prayer or prayer book that Washington was suppose to have had or
written or something when he was young. What do you know about it if
anything?
********************************
#2
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:08:10 -0500
To:
From: Glen Goffin <buffip2@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Washington and Jesus
At 07:04 AM 2/10/2004, you wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:21:35 -0500, you wrote:
Yet, this can be salvaged.
At least part of his comments are valid. The fact that, at least so far,
only one reference to Jesus or Jesus Christ has been found is pretty
powerful evidence.
xxxxx That was all I was attempting to tell the good professor.
Too bad he didn just simple say
xxxxx This is what I expected him to say and to thank me for the
citation.
Silly me!
You are right, I goofed there, I should have known better than to use
never. The plus is that one reference speaks volumes and I will
revise what I say on this topic in the future to include that
reference and point out just how powerful a piece of evidence that is.
Thirty some volumes of writings in his own hand and only one
reference to Jesus Christ and that in a letter addressed to Native
Americans
xxxxx ...and it was written by Washington's Aide...though he signed it.
====================================
How did you ever find this?
xxxxx A "fundie" Sec Web member who may have been quoting a D. Barton
reference. He didn't know the accurate source, or where he had read
it, but indicated that Washington had talked about Jesus to the
Indians. I spent hours surfing the net until I found it. Then I
offered, what I believed was an honest and sincere potential
explanation for why Washington had allowed "Jesus" to remain in the
text of that specific message...though I had no specific proof for my
scenario other than associated events, existing attitudes of the day,
and timing. (Both sides used Indians...sometimes brutally. This did
not sit well with Washington's frontiersmen volunteers. They didn't
trust having bands of Indians on their flanks given their real world
experiences with Indians in the recent past. By making it seem that
Washington's Indian allies would be under the influence/control of
Christian ideologies, it might help reduce the internal animosities
between his troops....and anyone else who was anti-Indian. Washington
needed support from any and all quarters/where he could find or create
it.)
That Gardiner fellow has a number of times made a big deal about a
prayer or prayer book that Washington was suppose to have had or
written or something when he was young. What do you know about it if
anything?
xxxxx That's one of the many things I lost. I had done a great deal of
research on that very item because of all the URLs using that alleged
Washington Journal as proof of his dedication to Christ. As I recall,
I spent a goodly amount of time researching "forgeries.
http://www.freethoughtassociation.com/essays/murphy10.htm
(Extract)
Historians Peter Marshall and David Manuel, co-authors of "The Light
and the Glory," report finding a book in the Yale Divinity School
library containing a twenty-four page manuscript entitled "Daily
Sacrifice" written in George Washington's own hand. This historic
volume, penned by Washington at age twenty, provides insight into his
devout walk with God.
(End extract)
(Peter Marshall Ministries...David
Manuel....http://www.twbookmark.com/authors/73/2152/)
http://jagger.me.berkeley.edu/~lawton/gwprayer.html
(Extract)
From Washington's Prayers, by W. Herbert Burk, 1907. Reprinted with
permission in George Washington, the Christian, by William J. Johnson,
The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919, pp. 24-35. rk,
(End extract
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/\
chapter_3.html#2
xxxxx And then we have this:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/steiner.htm
(Extracts)
Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have been
written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he ever
had anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him. A
little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford, who
had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man except
Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that of
Washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives facsimile
specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by side with
known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer book
was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that they are not
by the same hand.
Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled
correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller. But the
greatest blow it received was when the Smithsonian Institute refused
to accept it as a genuine Washington relic. That Washington did not
compose it was proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a newspaper correspondent
of the Capital, who traced the source of some of the prayers to an old
prayer brook in the Congressional Library printed, in the reign of
James the First.
Even the Rev. W. Herbert Burk, rector of the Episcopal Church of
Valley Forge, although a firm believer in Washington's religiosity,
thus speaks of these prayers: "At present, the question is an open
one, and its settlement will depend on the discovery of the originals,
or upon the demonstration that they are the work of Washington."
While the "Washington Prayer Book" was thoroughly discredited, there
is another prayer yarn told of him that will not die so easily.
(End extracts)
My company hasn't arrived yet. I will work on the other two e-mails
until they do.
Glen
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Washington Jesus and Prof. John Kaminski |
09 Jan 2007 08:29:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Washington Jesus and Prof. John Kaminski co-author of "The Godless
Constitution." ...
The authors of "The Godless Constitution" are Isaac Kramnick and R.
Laurence Moore (both Cornell U. professors).
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Washington Jesus and Prof. John Kaminski |
10 Jan 2007 03:43:24 AM |
|
|
"lanruvi2@yahoo.com" <lanruvi2@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> Washington Jesus and Prof. John Kaminski co-author of "The Godless
:|> Constitution." ...
:|
:|The authors of "The Godless Constitution" are Isaac Kramnick and R.
:|Laurence Moore (both Cornell U. professors).
Your riht, my mistake. I was too lazy to walk 15 feet and compare names
from my copy of the book
http://www.library.wisc.edu/news/releases/2006/20060519-Madison.html
John P. Kaminski is the founder and director of the Center of Study of the
American Constitution in the Department of History at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author or co-author of 12 books on early
American history. Kaminski is the author of the America's Founders series
and James Madison: Champion of Liberty and Justice marks the third
installment of the series.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "torresD" |
|
| Title: Clinton vs. McCain: Who's really better for Israel? - SHMUEL ROSNER |
10 Jan 2007 02:30:31 PM |
|
|
Clinton vs. McCain: Who's really better for Israel?
Clinton's higher ranking
than McCain was not unanimous,
but is nevertheless quite definitive.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=811576
Clinton vs. McCain: Who's really better for Israel?
By Shmuel Rosner
Trying new ways of asking questions is
a sure way to provide one with refreshing
data about his subject of interest,
and this exactly what we tried to do
with our Israel Factor panel this month.
(Click here for the results of the latest survey.)
A surprising conclusion:
For the first time since
we started this project,
we learn that most of the panel,
in a two way race between the
two leading candidates,
prefers Hillary Clinton the
Democrat over John McCain
the Republican.
This conclusion, though,
doesn't change the fact that
on average McCain keeps getting
higher marks from the panel.
In the regular question we
ask about all candidates -
the question that's the key
to our general ranking:
How good is the candidate for Israel -
McCain is third this time,
as he was in the last four surveys.
McCain got 7.12,
and was ahead of Clinton with 6.62
(they were virtually tied in the
first survey, back in September,
but McCain was ahead of Clinton
in the next three).
However,
in this survey we decided
to try and compare candidates
in imaginary two-way races.
Each pair simulates a possible
national race with one Democrat
and one Republican running against
each other.
Some of the pairs -
like Clinton vs. McCain -
are of the more likely candidates.
Some pairs - like Romney vs. Obama -
are of interesting candidates that
are still trailing in their respective parties.
The methodology we followed is this:
For each pair we gave one of
the candidates a score of 3,
and asked the panelists to rate
the other candidate from 1 to 5.
If they gave the candidate a score
of 3 it means that the two candidates
are perceived as equally good for Israel,
a higher number means the
second candidate is better,
a lower number means he is not as good.
In the case of McCain and Clinton,
we gave the Republican the imaginary
3. Clinton finished with an
average of 3.25, meaning she
is somewhat preferable.
Clinton's higher ranking
than McCain was not unanimous,
but is nevertheless quite definitive.
Four of the panelists gave
her a higher ranking than 3
(meaning, higher than McCain),
two ranked them as equal,
and two thought McCain was better.
Several questions we asked about
McCain in a different part of
our survey -
comparing him to Rudy
Giuliani on a number of issues -
can provide us with some clues
as to the reasons for which
Clinton was able to beat him
on this question.
The four panelists who thought Clinton
is better were the same panelists who
gave McCain the lowest grades on the
question his emotional attachment to Israel.
This, evidently,
is an important question,
and probably the most profound
reason why Giuliani keeps getting
better marks than McCain
(and Clinton -
in a two way race he
beat her easily with 4.12 to 3).
The panelists highlighted the
"emotional attachment" as the
most distinctive difference
between the two,
with McCain scoring 2.75 to Giuliani's 4.12.
Interestingly, back in September,
when we asked the "emotional attachment"
question about all the candidates,
Clinton beat McCain in this specific
area by 7 to 6.88.
Another important thing to
note is that in October,
when we asked the
panelists who's more likely
"to change his policies after the election,"
the panel trusted McCain to be
more consistent than Clinton.
Still,
Clinton was able to convince
the panel this month that she
is slightly better in a two-way race.
The same four panelists who ranked
Clinton higher were ready to rank
another Democratic possible nominee
as better than McCain in a two-way race:
Al Gore (who also scored 3.25 to McCain's 3).
But in Gore's case, as is in Clinton's,
the average he gets from the panel on
the general ranking question of
"good for Israel" is lower than
McCain's (7.12 for McCain and 5.87 for Gore).
In a two-way race between McCain
and John Edwards, the Republican
is the one leading, with 3.75 to
Edward's 3, and only one panelist
ranked McCain lower.
The explanation for this strange
phenomenon is both obvious and
complicated.
Prof. Fuchs, our statistics expert,
says that it often happens.
When you give your marks to
the wide field of candidates,
all you think about is the
candidate you rank,
but when you're forced to look
at a more specific race, this is
the time that you take sides.
Thus,
two panelists who gave McCain
and Clinton exactly the same
marks came to choose her over
him in a two-way race.
Three panelists gave Gore
and McCain the same marks,
but chose Gore in a two-way race.
Looking for a more profound,
less technical explanation?
You might be disappointed.
It's the "gut feeling"
component of political choice.
Forced to choose,
people make a decision -
and the panel revealed
its true colors on this
two-way race.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
