Was George Washington Religious?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 เม.ย. 2023
- Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Be well informed. Download the free Ground News app at ground.news/religionforbreakfast
Join our Patreon community!: / religionforbreakfast
One-time donations here!: www.paypal.me/religionforbrea...
Check out my favorite religious studies books by following this affiliate link to my Amazon page: www.amazon.com/shop/religionf...
You may have seen paintings of George Washington kneeling in prayer-an image that gives the impression that Washington was a very religious man. But was he?
Select footage and images courtesy of Getty
Compare news coverage from diverse sources around the world on a transparent platform driven by data. Try Ground News today: ground.news/religionforbreakfast
I wonder how ground news would work on biblical source criticism.
This is so freakin’ perfect. The first sponsor of ANY video I will actually buy.
@@MusicalRaichu Source criticism is pretty neat. Q is most likely the man Jesus Himself. And J and E are likely comprised into the book of Genesis, in 1300bc. Which, actually, using that date, you can track the whole Biblical Timeline through history, and even date the flood. There's so many historical artefacts that prove the Bible, it's undoubtedly being written at the time periods it describes. Which is all the more reason to believe in it.
And the Gospels are pretty much Eye Witness accounts. Papias, through the testimony of St. John, tells who wrote two of them, and Luke would accompany Paul, and have met eye witnesses. Paul actually met with the disciples eight years after Jesus' death. And Luke travelled with Paul, so it's clear that they had access to firsthand sources and witnesses. John is actually written by John, too. John dictated it to Papias.
You never mentioned in the video he was a freemason. If you knew anything of freemasonic beliefs then the distancing himself from christian beliefs makes sense and believing in an impersonal distant creator.
The Ground News recommendation was one of the extremely few on TH-cam that I've found useful. UPDATE: My "free subscription" hit its limit in just a few minutes. I know they want paid subscriptions, but that didn't make a good impression on me.
Has anyone discussed the possibility that George Washington not following any religion publicly is possibly the result of him wanting to set an example of a secular government in line with the first amendment?
@@steverogers5730 sure, and as the first elected leader of the first major democracy in thousands of years Washington knew he was setting many examples and precedents. A self imposed term limit, choosing to be called "Mr president" instead of one of the grandiose other titles people proposed, etc. Its not unreasonable to suggest, though i have about as much evidence for my reasoning as most other people seem to, that he saw a responsibility as the first leader of possibly the first secular government in history with no imposed religion and sought to set a precedent by not publicly supporting a personal religion even indirectly
He simply may have been aware of religious wars raging across Europe a few generations earlier and wanted to avoid that in America
It sounds like he was private about his religion long before the first amendment was written. If he started avoiding communion after the Revolutionary War, that is almost 10 years before the Bill of Rights existed.
If it's true that he changed from before the war, I think it could be that he saw the church he was going to as linked to Britain and after gaining independence from the country, he also wanted to practice independence from the church. Not letting anyone know your beliefs, so they can't tie you to an institution and not following its rules would give that kind of freedom.
@@jasons5916 Obviously Washington influenced the Bill of Rights. His values would certainly play into their creation, so of course he would have been practicing his beliefs prior to their creation.
No
Even if the event was true, the reaction is kind of ridiculous:
"Never before had I thought it possible to see a soldier praying, of all things!"
Like, dude, that happens all the time.
Like damm, guess the Crusaders were debating Aristotle philosophy when they tried to take Jerusalem.
That statement itself is a kind of usable history for Quakers. How do you circle the square of venerating a murderer (as pacifist Quakers might call a soldier)? By pointing out that said murderer was very pious, of course. Thirty years later, now Quakers can also participate in Washington veneration and they can do so guilt-free.
A cynical take? Sure. But we should never underestimate the power of both wanting to fit in with the crowd/society and cognitive dissonance.
@@nuke___8876 the fact that a person is a soldier doesn’t undo the fact they’re killing a person? whether a person or is legally sanctioned in the action or not, the end result is the same
@@DontKnow-hr5my Kurt Vonnegut, a veteran of WWII, responded to "there are no atheists in the trenches" with "There’s somebody who's never been in the trenches."
@@nuke___8876 I don't think it's a cynical view. It's crucial that people realize that while politicians constantly use history conscious of the fact, most people don't. As you pointed out, they're just trying to figure a way out of the cognitive dissonance.
Honestly, I assumed George Washington was private about his religious beliefs because he wanted to uphold a separation of church and state. He seemed to be very conscious of the fact that he was setting precedent.
Notably, when he wrote about Muslims and Jews, George Washington made it clear he wanted them to be welcomed in the new republic as free and equal citizens.
He didn’t speak about it publicly because he was an Episcopalian . Liturgical churches are much more reserved in expressing theology than other denominations .
@@karlstrauss2330 But that is not what the video is analyzing. Yes, he was an Episcopalian, but did he subscribe to Christian beliefs? I know lots of people that simply go through the motions, often to satisfy a loved one or to maintain a reputation in their community.
@@PeacefulPariah yes he did. “Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great creator of heaven & earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven, in pity and compassion upon me thy servant, who humbly prostrate myself before thee… sensible of thy mercy and my own misery; there is an infinite distance between thy glorious majesty and me… I humbly beseech thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins, for the sake of thy dear Son, my only saviour, J. C., who came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance… Help all in affliction or adversity-give them patience and a sanctified use of their affliction, and in thy good time deliverance from them; forgive my enemies, take me unto thy protection this day, keep me in perfect peace, which I ask in the name & for the sake of Jesus. Amen." - George Washington, Wednesday Morning Prayer recorded in the Prayer Journal, dated April 21-23, 1752;
@Karl Strauss That's over 20 years before the revolution. Even 10 years ago I was a very devout Catholic. Now I'm a devout atheist. People can learn and change their beliefs with new information.
@@brutusthebear9050 "The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country." General George Washington, General Order, July 9, 1776
"Perhaps, Sir, No occasion may offer more suitable than the present, to express my humble thanks to God, and my grateful acknowledgments to my Country, for the great and uniform support I have received in every vicissitude of Fortune, and for the many distinguished honors which Congress have been pleased to confer upon me in the course of the War." George Washington, Address to Congress, Princeton, August 26, 1783
The idea he ran home to his wife...who he married 25 years later...seems like an awful big thing not to ever factcheck when spreading this story. Wow.
The nature of storytelling doesn't consider too many chronological facts, just an overall mythology to convey some actual event that may have been much more mundane in real life.
Yeah, it's not like anyone was going to (or was even able) to fact check it at the time. It was just a story, and like many stories it was more useful when truth-adjacent.
Who needs fact-checking when it would ruin the narrative?
This is pretty common in a lot of weird religious stuff. People tend to just look past it because the story makes em feel good.
Almost as if he had an agenda that never involved the truth
As someone who's been in the Freemasonic community for many years it confuses me how little Masonry and Deism are talked about by academic studies of founding fathers of the US. Accurate info about Masonry is so rare outside the esoteric community and it is very important to the history of many many nations like the US, England (where the UGLE is) and France (among tons of others). Look up the art of Washington and Freemasonry.
All those words he used for "God" are popular for Masons.
I've heard the strangest takes on Masonry. It's kind of annoying to constantly have to explain to people we aren't Satanists. We're not really anything anymore which is half the reason no one wants to get involved except to get away from their wives for a while
Aw man I just finished the video and he didn't even mention Washington was a Mason. I really don't get it. I think it's because academic channels like these use classical academic sources which had a tradition of explicitly not talking about Masonry. That tradition of not talking about it needs to change to combat the intense amounts of misinfo out there which leads to dangerous conspiracy-minded indoctrination. Channels like this would do a great service to speak of Masonry as it actually is in the real world, don't ignore it.
not surprising given they the freemazons are super secretive and shaddy
@@wildmen5025 Yep. They're just people and some of the most grounded I've ever met. Many of my Mason friends are university teachers or academics themselves (like one who has made it his life mission to study Sanskrit language and is at the forefront of translations of ancient Sanskrit texts). Exceptions like P2 in Italy give the impression all Lodges are like that. They're not. It's super vanilla compared to what I was in which was the OTO but I left that and am now in the process of entering Blue Lodge Masonry since everything I loved about the OTO was Masonic whereas what I didn't was all the Crowley stuff
@@elessal They're a society with secrets not a hidden underground thing (there's signs on towns with directions to the Lodge, hardly a hidden cult :p). Many of the "secrets" are in the times of the internet not very secretive you can go visit and speak to them or check out documentaries by BBC and others who've been given tours of the Lodge and explained what it's all about. There are also a lot of academic sources out there which are easy to find
I am so impressed with this video. It’s so hard to find unbiased content about the religion of the founding fathers. People either want to make it seem like all of them were Bible believing Christians or that all of them were deists with no Christian beliefs. I would love to see you cover more content about the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and the “Bible” he wrote or Benjamin Franklin and his involvement with secret societies.
Benjamin, Washington both stay level /G\
I second a video on Jefferson as he seemed to be pretty sympathetic towards Unitarianism (John Adams was part of that group) and at that time Unitarians were considered to be barely Christian because of their rejection of the Trinity and their very rationalist theology and his version of the Gospels pretty much depicts a fully human Jesus without miracles, in general most of the Founders come across to me as theologically liberal Christians (for their time at least) or just not very devout about it in general.
From what I've read Franklin might have been the closest to being truly a Deist but that might be debatable as well.
@@monus782 Unitarians are still not considered Christian because they aren’t
No Christian would dare participate in a revolution. The Founding Fathers were devil worshipping Freemasons.
Tbf, deism in this context is more like modern agnostics who were raised Christian
"Journalists write the first draft of History." That is a great quote and thing to keep in mind that I had never heard before but completely puts into text succinctly my thoughts on modern journalism.
Reminds me of the old term "Yellow Journalism" and our involvement in the 11 Year War, or at least the last 12th year of it....
“Pray not like the hypocrites, out in the open to be seen of men. Pray secretly, behind closed doors, where only the Father will see you.”
Paraphrased Matthew 6:5-6. I’m not religious, but this is my favorite bible verse, and I think it applies here to Washington. I concur with the theory that he probably was religious, but didn’t want to set a bad example for secular republican government with any overt religiosity.
Your ability to be thorough yet concise is a gift. I don't mean to dismiss all the hard work and research that goes into these videos, but your ability to communicate these complex topics in an accessible way is a valuable thing, especially on TH-cam.
I've always loved Oscar Wilde's observation that the most charming thing about the story of Washington never telling a lie, is that it is itself a lie.
I think you are referring to this passage from Wilde's essay, "The Decay of Lying": "The crude commercialism of America, its materialising spirit, its indifference to the poetical side of things, and its lack of imagination and of high unattainable ideals, are entirely due to that country having adopted for its national hero a man, who, according to his own confession, was incapable of telling a lie, and it is not too much to say that the story of George Washington and the cherry-tree has done more harm, and in a shorter space of time, than any other moral tale in the whole of literature."
@@markkozlowski3674
& as the passage continues...
CYRIL: My dear boy !
VIVIAN: I assure you it is the case, and the amusing part of the whole thing is that the story of the cherry-tree is an absolute myth.
I wonder how Founding Fathers would react to the current state of US
probably not surprised by a two party system, and definitely not surprised by religion in politics. that being said, no slaves? that'll be a shock
It's hard to say. They would almost definately be period appropriate levels of sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. But on the other hand they wouldn't approve of Republican fascism, voter suppression, the Jan 6th Insurrection, Donald Trump, the general incivility of the Conservatives, etc.
IDK. How would they react to flight? Or computers? Or hot water from a tap?
Hamilton would be aroused
@@jacobortega3424 could you elaborate on what you mean by “religion in politics?”
This is a great channel and a good video. But:
1. I’m surprised there was no mention of Washington’s involvement in Freemasonry. The doctrines and rituals of Freemasonry clearly had a profound impact on Washington’s religious life, as evidenced by his common designations for God.
2. The idea of Providence was not a departure from the Deism of that time but an essential aspect. The historian, David Holmes identifies the importance of Providence in the 18th century Deism, and Charles Taylor provides a description of this Providential Deism in his A Secular Age. Briefly, the Deist God has not simply created the machinery of the universe and then let it simply run as a kind of experiment (what will happen if . . . ?); rather, this Providential Deist God has built Laws of Nature and the Moral Law and the Laws of History into the machinery of His Creation-i.e., the Natural Universe. Many of the Providential Deists among the Founding Fathers saw the American Revolution and the movement of human history toward Independence, evidenced by the Revolution, as an out-working of these Providential Laws. Moreover, Jefferson could appeal to the Providential out-working of the Moral Law when he declared with regard to slavery, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his Justice cannot sleep forever.” Anyway, when Washington appealed to Providence as the explanation for his survival of the Revolution, it seems more likely that this isn’t a denial of Deism but an expression of the kind of (Providential) Deism ascendant during his lifetime.
3. This Providential Deism was supported and promulgated by Freemasonry at that time and had a deep influence on colonial Anglicanism and early Episcopal Church. Even the Rt Rev’d James Madison (cousin of the more well-known President of the same name), first Bishop of Virginia and contemporary of Bishop William White (mentioned in your video), was an avowed Providential Deist.
Well said I was going to ask the same question of why he didn't bring up Washington's involvement in the Masonic Lodge even tho there is evidence he was initiated but didn't attended many of the meetings of his Lodge.He also he left out in this video a supposed death bed conversion to Catholicism by Washington as well....I wonder why?🤔
YES YES YES YES YES. Very incomplete presentation devoid of any mention of Washington’s freemasonry. Perhaps he was afraid that addressing it would earn him a TH-cam strike.
@@bongodrummond4638 I don't think he would get a strike but who knows in this day and age
I was thinking the same thing. It’s very strange that he didn’t talk about such a big aspect of Washington’s life.
My Grandfather's cousin was a high-ranked mason who was also a bit cagey about his faith. He used unusual words when describing God. I can't remember the exact words, but it wasn't English because we aren't English first language speakers.
If he was indeed religious, I understand Washington being very private with his religious beliefs. Aside from being a supposedly unbiased role model for the people, I can understand the position on a personal level.
I too am very private with my religious beliefs, because much of them are incredibly personal to me, or not something I feel I need to share with others. I am normally quite a quiet and private person anyway, so I will only discuss or talk about religious topics if I have a strong desire to share or a desire to add any additional thoughts.
I go to church frequently, and am incredibly religious, but I am sure you would not know it in every day life, or even at church (aside from how I act with others, I guess).
That is to say, I had never heard the prayer story, or anything related to George Washington's religion before this; however, I do not think it matters that we know definitively. It is almost better to see how he acted and presented himself, because we can get a good sense of what his character was just from that.
As much as I like to talk about religion whenever the subject comes up I usually don’t bring it up myself and try to be as private as possible as well because I know how polarizing the subject can be (thus the famous phrase about how you should never bring it up in polite conversation alongside politics) and because many of my very personal beliefs are pretty unorthodox in nature so depending on whom I’m talking to I don’t want either start a debate or have to spend time explaining those beliefs to people so I wonder if Washington was in a similar situation (my impression for most of the Founders is that most of them were either theologically liberal Christians, for their time at least, or just not that devout about it).
@@monus782 Also he was very private with everything personal. To the point that Marth burned all their personal letters under his wishes. I gather that only one man actually knew about his religion in detail: Charles Lee. And he never wrote anything on the motion. So anyone saying one way or the other is just trying to add him to their causes.
What a well-written comment. A pleasure to read.
That painting of Washington kneeling in prayer is comically frequent in US Mormon homes and churches. Saw it a lot growing up.
because the painter is a mormon.
It's all over the Evangelical world too - saw it over and over again in my 26 years in that bubble - because it justifies their burning desire to ram their religion down everyone else's throats.
George Washington had a portrait of Mary in his house. Non religious people don't keep paintings of Mary in their homes. There's also plenty of over things that stand out about him. Particularly his thanks to God for saving him at the battle of Monongahela
You don't have to be a Christian to believe in God.
@@todradmaker4297 Your stance is that Mary, the Virgin Mother of Jesus, is not Christian iconography? Slap yourself.
@@todradmaker4297Then why did he attend an Episcopalian church, read the Bible daily, pray consistently, serve as a vestryman in his church, and reference God and scripture constantly in his letters and speeches?
Nobody other than Catholics have pictures of Mary in either their houses or churches. Catholicism was a minority religion mostly in Maryland until later 19th Century migrations. More Huegonauts than Catholics in early colonial America and some French speaking congregations in SC survived into the early 20th Century. Valdez in North Carolina was settled by people who'd been non-Catholics for a few centuries at that point. The colonies and later states collected a fairly eclectic group of fringe religion including Swedenborgians, and I've even met Bahai followers in Philadelphia.
@@RebeccaOre G.W. actually donated toward the construction of a Catholic church in Baltimore and one of his friends was an archbishop.
I wonder if his privacy with his personal religion after the American Revolution was impacted by the fact that the British Monarch as the head of the English State was also head of the established Anglican Church. And as a new country that maybe Washington did not want to publicly bind the State with the Church again, especially as Anglicans in the US were in the process of distancing themselves from King George and the English Church. Not sure but would be interesting to see if anyone else did some research on this
His experience with the British, where he was forced to swear that he wasn’t a Catholic? I believe, was very informative of his development of religious tolerance
Very insightful possibility. You should suggest it as a topic to Dr. Kat.
What you mentioned heavily reminded me of when nearly 200 years later John F Kennedy had to downplay his Catholicism when running for president because of fears of him being loyal to the pope, a foreign head of state, and I wonder if Washington had been more public about his faith he might have been seen as somehow still loyal to the Crown or favoring one church over the others and maybe that’s exactly what he was trying to prevent in the first place. As others have mentioned maybe he really did believe in the importance of the Separation of Church and State and he was trying to set an example through his own conduct.
The research has been done on this and basically what you write is all we have. It's a plausible explanation. I've noted before that it's ironic that Anglicans like Washington (and many others) would lead the revolution. Because technically, to be a member of that church in good standing, you take oaths of obedience to the crown. Which is what GW did on more than one occasion.
I never studied History but I did study Theology.
My professors were very critical of students who "Proof texted" (ie picked usually Scriptural quotations, out of context, to support whatever argument they wished to make).
It seems to me that the concept of "Usable Past" is very like "Proof texting"....
Good historians will recognize the limitations of their own interpretations and theses. I don’t even consider the best of my own writings to be beyond certainty.
Because it is exactly that. It allows you to create any narrative you want from any peice of history
@@jonnyd9351
Sure, you can conceivably argue any thesis you want…but that doesn’t mean you’ve made a good thesis
History (though distorted) in some way is truth or an attempt at truth. Theology is just pure made up fuckery.
Another possibility that hasn’t been mentioned here yet: perhaps he had strong Christian beliefs and believed that his actions during the War of Independence left him damned. His behaviour reminds me of my grandfather, who was a strong Knox Calvinist from the early 20th century Scottish highlands who, because he was born out of wedlock, believed he was predestined to damnation for most of his life. As a for-instance, he was married on the steps of the local church, because he didn’t believe he was worthy to be married inside a church. Washington refusing the Eucharist has a similar vibe to me.
The entire point of the Christian religion is forgiveness for sins...
@@dawnfire82 Calvinists believe in predestination. Look it up before you attempt to dispute another person’s true story as an archetype to explain Washington’s behavior surrounding the Eucharist.
@@jmelande4937 Exactly in what way is he wrong?
That's so sad! And so not what many branches of Christianity teach, which makes it extra sad.
Re Anglican infrequent church attendance: my mom was a lapsed Catholic, my dad was a lapsed Episcopalian, which she said was the same as a practicing Episcopalian, except he stayed home on Christmas and Easter.
This channel makes great content. I was watching the video and thinking, “He hasn’t mentioned the farewell address yet.” Then he mentioned it.
I’m not an historian, but I’ve loved history and studied it for as long as I can remember. From what I’ve seen, this is the most well thought out, comprehensive, yet succinct description of the faith of any founding father presented to the public thus far. Nothing was overlooked, and nothing was exaggerated. Content like this should be celebrated.
Thanks for the kind words! I'm planning a mini-series that will include Jefferson, Franklin, and a few others.
@@ReligionForBreakfast it would be interesting for you to throw in John Jay. They weren’t all deists. Add an orthodox Christian for good measure. 🙂 I’ll be looking forward to the series.
@@ReligionForBreakfast When are you gonna cover the Inca?
@@ReligionForBreakfast Looking forward to that since it's a contentious issue. It's also really cool that Jefferson removed the supernatural parts of the bible.
I went to an elementary school in Salt Lake City that pushed the Arnold Friberg painting and its attendant narrative hard. Was interesting to see in a historical context.
That's probably partly because Arnold Friberg was a prominent Mormon artist who lived in Utah and created many paintings commissioned by the LDS church
@@ninjoshday good
@@crazysarge9765 w2ww❤2😂❤2q11w1😂w1❤😊😊
Welcome to Utah.
Utah is a joke when it comes to religion and historical accuracy
I'm very pleased to find such a well researched, fair, calm, and even-handed assessment. Then still admitting that in truth we still can't be completely sure. Great job on this video! Love Washington!
Good honest historian work here. “We don’t know” or “we can’t be sure” may not be as provocative but in so much of history it is as much as we can argue.
I have heard that Protestantism in England and the US, in the time period of Washington, focused primarily on the ethical content of Christianity and not on theological doctrine or supernatural elements. So whether or not Washington actually believed in Christian theology, his focus on seeing Christianity primarily as a tool for moral and ethical formation would not have been out of step with the dominant cultural mood of Protestantism at the time, especially Protestantism practiced by the upper, educated classes.
Not really, some of Protestantantism's great theologians during this time came out of Oxford, Princeton ect. ect.
"There are pretenders to piety as well as to courage."
Moliere
🎯
When saying how Washington’s actions were in line with that of most Anglicans at the time. I felt like you could have explained WHY Anglicans were like that at the time, like what was going on to make Anglicans avoid the Eucharist, or why church attendance was so low in the 18th century. I don’t know maybe that’s just me I guess.
This raises a good question. Not that I think there is an answer "What were Washington's views of the 2nd Great Awakening?" It was in 1790.
*Great video analysis!* Looking forward to more content and information
Yeah, the story about the prayer at Valley Forge always had an, "And then everybody clapped" aspect to it. I'm not surprised it's apocryphal.
Your pivot into the sponsor was excellent on this episode. Gonna check it out! Also just a great video as always 👍
So seamless I thought it was a 15 minute ad for a second
I HATE ADS! Except, this one was so good and worthwhile, Im actually gonna check it out!!!!
0:16 I thought the Brandywine was in northern Eriador? I can't believe Tolkien lied!! 😑
If Washington stopped taking the eucharist after the war, i wonder if something either shook his faith, or his faith made him feel unworthy of the action during the war. Seeing death like that in a war can really effect the psychie and religion usually will make people face that because it asks that you look inwardly in those quiet moments
He could have even witnessed cannibalism, who knows
That was a smooth ad transition. You got me for a while!
Your show reminds me of the best parts of going to college. Keep up the good work!
That he was extremely private about his religion and constantly used Enlightened pseudonyms for God makes me think he just didn't want to express his Deist-like spirituality to the public.
Many of those pseudonyms are very prominent in Masonry, of which he was a member. Added to his stated wish that the republic be open to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Etc. Makes for a fairly solid argument that he was a Deist of the masonic variety. Where he believed that the other religions of the world all worshiped the same god. A view that would not have likely gone over well with the general public.
That story reminds me of the interview where Trump didn't have a favorite bible verse and he said he likes all of it.
Most politicians are not religious, not Christian, not Muslim, not Jewish, they only believe in accumulateing as much power as possible.
Very well done. Informative, and I enjoyed watching this content. Thank you.
Great video, small note: most Quakers actually don't celebrate communion as a ritual, although the reason for this (that every meal is to be seen as a communion) might mean we still commune in some sense.
Back in 1960s elementary school, 90% of what we were taught about Washington was certainly legend.
That was a really smooth transition to the sponsorship. Well done!
no mention of Washington being a freemason :(
As a Freemason I can say you have to affirm a belief in God to join; now you do not have to be a Christian but you must believe.
@@stormythelowcountrykitty7147 yup i read it on their website
@@stormythelowcountrykitty7147 or more accurately. Belief in a supreme being. Im pretty certain we accept polytheists too.
Yes I was heart broken also 😢
@@rewt127 we do 😊
I am currently reading The Widow Washington by Martha Saxton. Mary Ball Washington's constant use of religion while cruelly enslaving people was hierarchical in the extreme, and bizarre. Was her son trying to avoid some of that hypocrisy I wonder?
Washington was a slave holder himself.
Now do Muslims. 🙄
@@dawnfire82 Nobody said anything about Muslims. This video is about Washington, hence the comment is talking about his mother. Jesus Christ.
@@dawnfire82 Adams told Muslims in North Africa that the US was not a Christian nation. The Puritans had show the horror of theocracies, and were not so far in the past then than they are now.
I think it’s really important to understand Washington’s position as a Freemason. Freemasons teach a lot of the principles of the enlightenment which went against church and state and pushed for democracy against the monarchs of the day. In freemasonry god is referred to as the great architect and come together in the idea of a higher power but choose to leave the specifics as a deeply individual and personal decision and practice. Given his position and his background in Masonic culture it wouldn’t be surprising if he was so vague and non-public due to a wish to have that Separation between his personal beliefs and what is being cemented as the beliefs of the state he was aspiring to form.
@@Christopher-ii6tr TIL Satan is pro-democracy
It's just like the story about that tree that was carrying blight that would have infected the entire Orchard and George was wise enough to notice and brave enough to take action to cut it down before it could do any harm.
Never heard that one before. Now, I'm not a huge founding fathers guy, but...
I mean, seriously, doesn't that neuter the point of the cherry tree myth? That even as a child, he was brave / noble / righteous / etc enough to fully admit to his wrongdoing?
Fascinating video. Greetings from Venezuela. 👍🖖
What a cool topic I would've never considered. Great video!
I knew about the communion leading to his leaving a church, but was unaware of much of this. 😊
Great video, so informative, recently new subscriber, think your channel is so important.
This was fascinating. Thank You!
George Washington was a deeply religious humble man and credited many of his victories and providence to God. “The Man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf.”
-Washington’s letter to Samuel Langdon, September 28, 1789
When I was about 18, I went to church with a girl and the pastor called me out during his sermon in front of everybody. Said he didn’t like boys just showing up to his church to chase girls. My reaction, didn’t go back. He did services at my dads funeral a couple years ago, and asked me why I don’t go to his church. I told him, you had me and you embarrassed me. Why would I come back? He didn’t even remember the incident. Oh well, going to Christian church services these days makes my skin crawl anyway. Side note: I ended up dating the girl for about a year, 12 years later. She turned out to be an epic cheater.
That was the smoothest slide into a sponsored spot I've ever seen.
I couldn't ask for a better explanation for this "pick and choise argumentive histry presented (PCAHP) THANK YOU VERY MUCH❤ YOUR WORK!
He was a Freemason which one of the requirements is you can not be an atheist , which im not saying you said that but he would have believed in the Lord or at least some form of higher Deity in order to join
but Freemasons deny Providence
At Valley Forge there is the Washington Memorial Chapel, built as part of this hagiography and towards a certain national myth. I sang there as a choirboy, and still am adjacent to the music program, and it always felt to me a strange intersection of church and state. This insight helps me locate that experience. I'd be curious to know, if you were invited to speak there, what you would want to reflect about the institution.
John Fea was one of my professors in undergrad, cool to see his work get a shout out here 🤙🏼
Very Good and most useful. Thank you
Very great content as always. You’re channel was a large inspiration behind my own attempts to present my own religion, Zoroastrianism, in a similar way. Keep up the excellent work!
I wish you all the best in the continuation of your oldest and most influential of faiths 🙏
Do you have a Roman soldier uniform? That religion was REALLY popular with the Roman Army. And it just feels right.
10:40 I find it telling that he did not say it as if religion was the only source for morality. Really enjoyed this one.😊
Great Video. Keep up the good work. I read John Fea's book and took a virtual class with him. I learned alot of interesting topics about christianity in early colonial america and the revolutionary war with him.
Have you ever interviewed him? If not maybe thats something to consider.
One additional factor is his being a Freemason. While that is not a religion, it does have a spiritual philosophy that appears compatible with how you describe his religion. Of course, like his view on the social usefulness of religion, I'm sure his motives for joining a lodge would also be social. Indeed many of the Founding Fathers were also Freemasons
10:34 Washington's remarks on the public role of religion in his Farewell Address were probably a reaction to the Reign of Terror happening in France at the time, as the French Revolution had also stripped the Church of all its power and property. (And Ron Chernow suggested it may have also been a bit of a jab at Thomas Jefferson as a Francophile secularist Deist).
My grandfather used to take me to the masonic lodge often when they were doing stuff that wasnt meeting related. He showed me the portrait of washington and explained that a copy resides in every lodge there is. The masonic lodge says that you must believe in a higher creator they dont get more specific than that. But he may have been secretive because he was a member of a secretive group that has its own religious beliefs. Just my 2 cents
Interesting. I wonder what they feel about deists? I don't see a functional difference between being a deist and being agnostic, the only difference being one of personal belief. Both people would agree that they have no evidence for or against the existence of a higher power.
If a deist can be a mason, it seems weird to exclude agnostics. My guess is its more of a tradition than anything else? There were very few agnostics or atheists back then and it seems people were culturally religious but it had less of an effect on their actions maybe?
@@kj_H65f well, the masonic lodge is a copy of solomons temple. Solomon built his temple using captured demons and then later was tricked most likely by a female entity that he could either not or didnt capture but did appear to him and warn him, she got him to sacrafice some locusts to moloch or bahl or both im not super sure but that is when he lost Gods favor and was left to himself. All of this leads me to think they dont discriminate because they agree there are higher powers and right and wrong are simply a matter of subjectivity. Again i dont know a whole bunch but i was privvy to a little more than most lol.
@@kj_H65f Personal belief is a pretty big difference, though. I don't know where the masons stood, but a belief in a higher power is so entwined with morality for some (e.g. the assertion that atheists are untrusthworthy or amoral simply because their morality isn't based on godliness) that a person's beliefs are just as important as they way they actually behave.
@@kj_H65f The sole religious requirements of (the most prominent form of) Freemasonry are that a Mason-to-be must believe in a Supreme Being of some sort and a Volume of Sacred Law (VSL), i.e. some sort of holy or philosophical text that they use to order their lives.
Jews, Christians, and Muslims say "I believe in God. He created the world and everything in it; He intervenes in the world and provides rewards and punishments for us in this life and the next because He loves us". Their VSLs are, respectively, The Tanakh (which Christians call The Old Testament), The Bible (The Tanakh plus The New Testament), and The Qur'an.
Hindus say roughly the same things, but pluralize "God" and the following pronouns and generally believe in a cycle of reincarnation rather than any permanent afterlife. There are a number of important Hindu scriptures, but most likely their chosen VSL is the Bhagvad Gita.
Deists say "I believe in God/the Gods. He/She/It/They created the world and everything in it, but they don't take an active interest in Creation or in Us anymore. There may or may not be an afterlife where we may or may not be punished, but any apparent relationship between our living moral conduct and our success or failure here and now, in the world of the living, is pure coincidence." Deists don't typically believe in Divine Revelation, as a consequence of the "God does not intervene" principle, so they don't consider any text "holy" per se, but they may take any or a number of these or other religious texts, depending on their personal interests and/or the culture they grew up in, as containing a philosophy worthy to live by, befitting the high wonder and beauty and order of Creation, despite being mere works of men.
These and, all theists, pass Masonry's religious test because they can say the first sentence truthfully and in good conscience, and they have their books. Everything in between and all the even finer details not mentioned are irrelevant to Freemasonry.
An agnostic says "I can't say for certain that any higher power exists". They may _possibly_ hold a VSL level of attachment to a proper religious or philosophical text, but statistically most of them probably don't consciously think about religion or philosophy much at all, almost certainly not to the point of holding any work to be their "Sacred _Law"._
Deists can pass the religious test. Agnostics fail the first (and arguably more important) question and very likely fail the second. Ergo, deists can be Masons and Agnostics cannot (again, in the oldest and most prominent form of Freemasonry).
There is no Masonic God however he could have simply understand the potential issues of taking side with denominations maybe 🤔
I know this has nothing to do with the content of the main video, but that ad transition was seamless and relevant.
Ground News seems like a great idea. I'm going to try it.
I was skeptical until the death thing. Now I think he was probably Christian until the war, which I think we call all agree is an experience that changes people. Even his talk about the providence of having survived, I think the concept of providence can exist without an actor.
Which War? He fought in the French-Indian War prior to the Revolution and was known for his brutality against Native Americans.
@@eq2092 the war he claims providence saved his life
I think the truth is that George Washington believed in God but not Jesus. He would have been a hypocrite to partake in communion.
Or he met another God 🕺🤖 and thus doubted Christianity ✝.
@@eq2092 "was known for his brutality against Native Americans."
A reasonably well-propagated lie is that the Iroquois called him "eater of villages." However, Washington did not fight in Iroquois land (which is in the northeast) in that war. He fought in Ohio and Virginia. A biographer I read long ago (Joseph Ellis) demonstrated that name was earned by a family member, several generations back, and Washington 'inherited' it.
Many of the people who immigrated to America were fleeing religious persecution. The founding fathers were very deliberate in assuring separation of church and state. One can only assume that Washington’s attempts to keep his personal beliefs private was a continuation of this principle.
"Many of the people who immigrated to America were fleeing religious persecution."
That's not quite true. Many people who immigrated to America did so to impose religious persecution on others and themselves. The whole "fleeing" thing is just "useful history" so they don't seem like the bad guys.
The segues into the sponsorship are flawless 😂🤘🏻
You do a really good job. Thank you.
This view of Washington reminds me of my parents. When I was 10 years old I asked my mother what she and my father believed. My mother told me that "What your father and I believe is none of your damn business." I took this to mean that I was to decide my own beliefs without undue interference from others. Perhaps Washington did not want to portray himself as the guide to follow in the religious sense, letting the people of the new nation think for themselves as individuals on the subject.
BTW: My patriarchal great great great great grandfather served under Washington when he celebrated his 20th birthday in January of 1778 at Valley Forge. He had then only recently been one of Daniel Morgan's riflemen and fought at the Battle of Saratoga. His name is on the monument that commemorates that event.
He was probably more spiritual than religious.
Not that old chestnut
@Ed Carson You can have faith in the beyond without adhering dogmatically to any one doctrine.
What's so eye-rolling about that?
@@theophrastusbombastus1359 well said
Wonderful video!
14:17 bravo, on the way you worked ground news into the story.
We here in the USA in public schools are mostly taught American mythology.
Thank you so much for the commentary on what history is. Kind of obvious but very timely. I am commenting from Florida where "just the facts" is being pushed hard at all levels of education.
Dang, that was a smooth transition to the ad at the end 😄
This is a rad video! 👍
Very informative video but you left out two important points: one being Washington's involvement and initiation into the Masonic Order although there is evidence tht he had little involvement in Masonry and attended only a handful of meetings at his Lodge.The second point left out is Washington's supposed death bed conversion to Catholicism...other than tht great job as usual 👍
Except for the fact that he also served as Master of his lodge - A lodge which exists to this day?
@@stickoutofthemud Masonry is agnotics as to which divine being, just says to be part of your neighborhood faith community.
6:17 getting kneed in the balls by a horse, that's gotta sting.
Fun to hear John Fea called out- I took an intro to history class with him in college.
If only more politicians where more private about their religious faith like Washington may have been.
Considering his beliefs regarding the relationship between religion and a healthy republic, do you think that if Washington knew this view of him would be so widespread, he would've allowed it?
The Masons believe that being part of the church of one's neighbors had value, bu to also keep in mind that a Muslim Mason was a fellow Mason.
Jesus repeatedly says in the Sermon on the Mount that you are supposed to keep your praise and worship secret. Maybe he just took that REALLY seriously?
I was given a signed print of that painting by Arnold Friberg. I was the cartoonist at the Deseret News at the time, the Mormon newspaper in Salt Lake City. I paid for a professional framing and gave it to my daughter’s family.
This is a masterful analysis. There are two other aspects that fit in perfectly with your conclusions. The first is that Washington was, in spite of his image of being above politics, a masterful politician. Washington may well have realized that a public demonstration of his Anglicanism could alienate the burgeoning Methodist, Baptist, and Congregationalist movements in the United States, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Catholics. Washington was trying to create a country, and in this situation espousing or even publicly adhering to a particular denomination could create an unnecessary source of dissension. Connected to this, there is every indication that Washington did in fact believe strongly in freedom of religion. Any expression of more than the vaguest religious beliefs could undercut this utterly novel attempt to create a nation without a common central religion. Washington was probably a practicing Christian, but he heeded well the admonition of Jesus about the Pharisees.
People still believe Washington prayed then?
I meant openly or loudly.
He would have had to if he was a Mason. Emphasis is placed on being true to one's faith in the fraternity
@@wildmen5025 Yeah but that's in the fraternity, praying publicly wouldn't be true to the idea.
@@ohajohaha he prayed during the battle of new York i believe
Pretty hard to stop people from praying. All you need is a few seconds of silence.
fascinating insight!
1. As you undoubtedly know, some Anglicans would not agree that they're members of a Protestant church.
2. Washington's Anglicanism sounds pretty standard for the 18th century upper class; what Methodists and revivalists were reacting against.
3. "Usable past": yeah, sure, everyone gets to have their own interpretations, but they shouldn't try to have their own facts. All societies live by myths, but the US sounds at times as though it's creating its own version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. I mourn.
Historiography is the most important factor to keep in mind when reading any historical account. What type of source is it, who’s saying it, why are they saying it, in what context, for what reason, to who is it being addressed, what information is included and what is being left out. All of this and more, but sadly these days it seems like most people continue to just view history as a set recorded series of events that played out as it was taught to them by a specific teacher from a specific source.
When I was in college I was a very conservative, even fundamentalist, type of Catholic who had very questionable views about history and politics (one of those views being that democracy itself was a mistake and absolute theocratic monarchies like 17th century Spain were the best form of government) and I think one of the things that broke me out of that mindset is taking a class about Ancient Greece that heavily taught historiography and to this day I’m really thankful for learning about that concept
The Continental Congress attended a Mass of Celebration at Old St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Philadelphia at the conclusion of the Revolution. He wondered how the people had adopted the Protestant church after the splendor of the service. Our French Allies were pleased.
When I was taking American Religious History in seminary, this is similar to what we learned. The answer to Washington’s religion and the faith of the Founding Fathers would disappoint the most deeply religious and the most fervently secular. It was difficult to pin down the religious beliefs of the founders, because they were not trying to build a Christian nation. On the other hand, they do not shy away from quoting the Bible and referring to terms like “our Creator” (like in the Declaration of Independence). A remarkably inclusive term. I like to say that our country was founded on spiritual principles, but not aligned with any particular religion.
I would say it was founded solidly on Enlightenment principles, and therefore any religious terms used were deliberately kept vague enough that anyone except an outright atheist (very rare back then) could accept them.
Well, they weren't above Catholic money and soldiers for help though.
Vive La France
Viva Espana
Some of the people involved in the American revolution were out and out atheists. Tom Paine, for example.
Kind of a minor nitpick but I would personally appreciate it if the title card for the series was on screen for a little longer. Could barely make out what that was until I finally went back and paused it.
'The uses and abuses of history' was the first thing we had to read at undergraduate history.
"Communion... is a ritual practiced across all denominations of Christianity."
Uhhh... (Raises hand in Quaker.)
May be a rare practice rather than a normal one. When I was trying to be christian, I only saw it once in over 20 years.
i was just going to make the same comment! everyone always seems to forget about us lol
As a Freemason, I know that George Washington at least believed in the Grand Architect of the Universe.
But maybe he didn't believe that Jesus was the Grand Architect; just one of the carpenters.
10/10 for smooth ad transition 😂
Thank you.
It seems like of like Washington didn't have a set religious identity... Christian inspired, but open to other ideas of god. It's actually pretty common among Americans I know today, so I wonder if that's something closer to a default that people just didn't/don't talk about
This "usable past" thing is such a nationalistic thing. Every single major country I can think of has had a phase where nationalism led to some sort of past greatness narrative. Even today, we see that happening in Russia, as one of the reasons their tyrant wants Ukraine.
Yup, nations need foundational myths.
You make excellent content, thanks!
Arnold Friberg did multiple paintings from the Book of Mormon, so he was used to painting fables.
His church attendance sure does look like his wife asked him to go with her, but he refused to take communion because he didn't believe in it or much of what happened in a service. A lot of people have been drug into church services by a believer in the family