Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

Was a "Deist" some kind of religious fanatic?
'The Founders weren't Christians, they were deists', along with 'After 1964 civil rights legislation Republicans and Democrats switched positions on race' are staples of the Liberal interpretation of history, written in modern textbooks and taught by the national teacher's unions. Mott is simply parroting what he learned in school and did not question.
 
The Inquisition was to push back the Islamic hordes who invaded Europe, back to their original lands in the Middle East. That's not systemic murder and torture- it's war.
You don't have the first idea what you are talking about. Gallileo was not Islamic and had not invaded Europe. The Holy Roman inquisition actually took place in the 16th century and was aimed primarily at heretics, not Muslims. The Spanish Inquisition which began under King Ferdinand after he chose to unite Spain under Catholicism. Jews were the primary focus of that, when it began in the 15th century, but seeing how the Spanish inquisition lasted until the early part of the 19th century, protestants got their share of red hot pokers stuck up their ass. I think you confuse the Crusades, which had nothing to do with the Inquistition, and which began in the later part of the 11th century and went through to the end of the 13th century. Truly, your ignorance of history is astounding.
 
You don't have the first idea what you are talking about. Gallileo was not Islamic and had not invaded Europe. The Holy Roman inquisition actually took place in the 16th century and was aimed primarily at heretics, not Muslims. The Spanish Inquisition which began under King Ferdinand after he chose to unite Spain under Catholicism. Jews were the primary focus of that, when it began in the 15th century, but seeing how the Spanish inquisition lasted until the early part of the 19th century, protestants got their share of red hot pokers stuck up their ass. I think you confuse the Crusades, which had nothing to do with the Inquistition, and which began in the later part of the 11th century and went through to the end of the 13th century. Truly, your ignorance of history is astounding.
What you're referring to were folks using religion as a tool to advance their political agenda, not a systematic advancement by the Catholic Church. Truly, your ignorance of human nature is astounding.
 
'The Founders weren't Christians, they were deists', along with 'After 1964 civil rights legislation Republicans and Democrats switched positions on race' are staples of the Liberal interpretation of history, written in modern textbooks and taught by the national teacher's unions. Mott is simply parroting what he learned in school and did not question.

No, Mott is stating what he has read in many places.

"Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]"

"Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15]"


George Washington was such a devote christian that he didn't mention Jesus in his extensive correspondence??


Dixie, here is a quote from Washington that you might have missed:

""Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." "
- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792


Also, there is no record of Washington partaking of communion. In fact, he would get up and leave the church when the communion sacrament started.

"The closing years of his life, save the last two, were passed in Philadelphia, he being then President of the United States. In addition to his eight years' incumbency of the presidency, he was, during the eight years of the Revolutionary war, and also during the six years that elapsed between the Revolution and the establishment of the Federal government, not only a frequent visitor in Philadelphia, but during a considerable portion of the time a resident of that city. While there he attended the Episcopal churches of which the Rev. William White and the Rev. James Abercromble were rectors. In regard to his being a communicant, no evidence can be so pertinent or so decisive as that of his pastors.

Bishop White, the father of the Protestant Episcopal church of America, is one of the most eminent names in church history. During a large portion of the period covering nearly a quarter of a century, Washington, with his wife, attended the churches in which Bishop White officiated. In a letter dated Fredericksburg, Aug. 13, 1835, Colonel Mercer sent Bishop White the following inquiry relative to this question:

"I have a desire, my dear Sir, to know whether Gen. Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all. ... No authority can be so authentic and complete as yours on this point."

To this inquiry Bishop White replied as follows:

"Philadelphia, Aug. 15, 1835.

"Dear Sir: In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.

... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you. I am respectfully.

"Your humble servant,

"WILLIAM WHITE."
(Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 196, 197)."



"In a standard Christian authority, Sprague's "Annals of the American Pulpit," written and compiled by Rev. Wm. B. Sprague, D.D., is a sketch of the life of Rev. James Abercromble, D.D. In this biographical sketch is to be found some very important evidence from the pen of Washington's other pastor, pertaining to the subject under consideration. I quote the following:

"One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it: 'With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of conversation at table said that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal? arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning'" (Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. v, p. 394)."




Plenty of info here: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html
 
What you're referring to were folks using religion as a tool to advance their political agenda, not a systematic advancement by the Catholic Church. Truly, your ignorance of human nature is astounding.

You are trying to separate the catholic church from the actions of its leaders?
 
What you're referring to were folks using religion as a tool to advance their political agenda, not a systematic advancement by the Catholic Church. Truly, your ignorance of human nature is astounding.

The Holy Roman Inquisition was created by the Holy See and under Pope Sixtus was overseen by the The Congregation of the Holy Office. It was primarily aimed at Protestants. It was this same group that condemned Galileo for suspicion of heresy and who forced him into house arrest for the rest of his life. Interestingly enough the last formal act of the Holy Roman Inquisition was to kidnap a jewish boy who had been secretly baptised by his nurse. Imagine that, a bunch of priests kidnapping a little boy.
 
"Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15]"

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our 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 everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.
George Washington's Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XV (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 55.
 
The Holy Roman Inquisition was created by the Holy See and under Pope Sixtus was overseen by the The Congregation of the Holy Office. It was primarily aimed at Protestants. It was this same group that condemned Galileo for suspicion of heresy and who forced him into house arrest for the rest of his life. Interestingly enough the last formal act of the Holy Roman Inquisition was to kidnap a jewish boy who had been secretly baptised by his nurse. Imagine that, a bunch of priests kidnapping a little boy.
Again, acting to advance a political agenda, not as good Christians.
 
George Washington's Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XV (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 55.

Political speech that does not say anything about his own beliefs, but speaks of those of the majority of the population.
 
Again, acting to advance a political agenda, not as good Christians.

The catholic church is inseparable from politics. The church was trying to eliminate the competition, and that was part of the point of the inquisition.
 
First, I proved Boller lied. Second, your argument appears to be that Washington was a shallow man who used Christianity to advance a political position. Is that your position?
 
First, I proved Boller lied. Second, your argument appears to be that Washington was a shallow man who used Christianity to advance a political position. Is that your position?

I said nothing of the kind. What I said was clear.
 
Again, acting to advance a political agenda, not as good Christians.
So as a catholic you do not believe the pope to be infallible? Because it was the Holy See that established the inquisition. Means the pope gave it his blessing. Also the abduction of a child because they believed he was a Catholic being raised by Jews was not POLITICAL.
 
Was a "Deist" some kind of religious fanatic? Because I found the following quotes from Washington:

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained”

“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.”

--------------------------------------------------------

Now I don't know much about this "Deist" claim, but it sounds like the guy had a strong fondness for God and religion, and felt they were very important to our nation. Can you explain this, or do you want to run away from it and hide, like you always tend to do when someone hands you that ass?

Political speech that does not say anything about his own beliefs, but speaks of those of the majority of the population.

Sounds like he is speaking from the heart and this is sincerely what HE believes. How can you tell he wasn't saying something about his personal beliefs? What part of the above quotes, indicates in your brain, the man was not saying what he really believed? I have to think, the guy who couldn't tell a lie about chopping down a cherry tree, would lie about what he fundamentally believed concerning God. That doesn't make much sense, but I am sure you are going to explain it to me.
 
Sounds like he is speaking from the heart and this is sincerely what HE believes. How can you tell he wasn't saying something about his personal beliefs? What part of the above quotes, indicates in your brain, the man was not saying what he really believed? I have to think, the guy who couldn't tell a lie about chopping down a cherry tree, would lie about what he fundamentally believed concerning God. That doesn't make much sense, but I am sure you are going to explain it to me.

The cherry tree story is generally accepted to be apocryphal, isn't it?
 
Sounds like he is speaking from the heart and this is sincerely what HE believes. How can you tell he wasn't saying something about his personal beliefs? What part of the above quotes, indicates in your brain, the man was not saying what he really believed? I have to think, the guy who couldn't tell a lie about chopping down a cherry tree, would lie about what he fundamentally believed concerning God. That doesn't make much sense, but I am sure you are going to explain it to me.
Please tell me you don't REALLY believe the Cherry Tree story. That was invented by Parson Weems a century after Washington's death. You and SM will believe absolutely anything.
 
Please tell me you don't REALLY believe the Cherry Tree story. That was invented by Parson Weems a century after Washington's death.

Yes, I know, but I was alluding to the fact that Washington's honesty and integrity were what the man was all about! When asked, who was our greatest president, most will say Washington. And it's not because he could spin a good lie about God!
 
Sounds like he is speaking from the heart and this is sincerely what HE believes. How can you tell he wasn't saying something about his personal beliefs? What part of the above quotes, indicates in your brain, the man was not saying what he really believed? I have to think, the guy who couldn't tell a lie about chopping down a cherry tree, would lie about what he fundamentally believed concerning God. That doesn't make much sense, but I am sure you are going to explain it to me.

Based on the fact that he would get up and leave rather than stay during communion, the fact that he spoke ill of the faith in private correspondence, and the fact that his closest friends all claim he was a deist, I see his speech as speaking on behalf of the nation rather than on behalf of himself.
 
Back
Top