I would like to meet no one but...CHRISTIANS BRUTALIZED IN HOLY LANDBy Mark GlennSome 200 Christian Zionist leaders, representing churches spread throughout America, Europe, Africa and Asia, gathered in IsraelÃs Knesset to “beg forgiveness†for 2,000 years of “Christian persecution†of Jews.The well publicized ceremony took place under the auspices of the “Knesset Christian Allies Caucus,†just one of a growing number of partnerships springing up in recent years between organized Jewish and Christian Zionist groups for the purpose of funneling Christian money and political support toward Israel. Part of the statement reads as follows:“On behalf of millions of Christians, we repent before you for crimes committed against the Jewish people throughout history in the name of Christianity.…We have sinned against God and against you.… To you we owe much.… Through you, God gave us the Holy Scriptures, and because of this we have a heritage, a destiny, a hope and a compass for living.…What a treasure you are in the sight of our God! You are His chosen and the apple of His eye.…â€But despite the fact that Israel was built (and continues to live) off of handouts from Christian countries—principally the U.S. and Germany—and for all the inherent groveling and breast-beating that this mea culpa was meant to convey, it obviously did not “cut the mustard†in improving Christian/Jewish relations in Israel, the birthplace of Jesus Christ and the 2,000-year-old religion created in His name.Besides the fact that Israel has now become a haven for international gangsters—meaning rampant prostitution, drugs, human trafficking and money laundering to name a few—there are other indicators surrounding Israel’s political and social character as well that show she is anything but friendly to the morals and precepts of Christian teachings. Christian churches that were not taxed are now being sent heavy bills. Media outlets featuring Christian programming on television and radio are having their license renewal applications rejected.More telling though is the fact that physical attacks on Christians, their symbols and institutions continue in Israel unabated, and not by “Islamo-fascists†(so much discussed by the likes of Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, John Hagee, Bill O’Reilly, et al.) but rather by a more fanatical sect that has nursed a hatred for Christianity since its inception, the people who collectively call themselves “the Israelites†and whom Christians are told to “bless.â€Pastor Hagee has been an avid supporter of the state Israel since his first visit there in 1978. “I went to Israel as a tourist and returned home a committed Zionist,†he said. His book says that Jesus did not come to Earth to be the Messiah. In what appears to be a growing trend these days, physical attacks on Christians, their churches and symbols are beginning to show a marked rise in Israel.For nearly a century, since the invasion of Palestine began, Christians of all denominations have suffered bombings, shootings, arsons and wanton acts of senseless destruction of their sacred properties—and all of it by a horde of Marxist/atheist invaders from Eastern Europe calling themselves “God’s chosen.†From the moment they arrived—announcing to the world “We’re baaaack†with all the fanfare that their grip over the Western media afforded them—they picked up where their alleged ancestors left off in attempting to erase the name of the hated Jesus from the Holy Land.Mimicking the same kind of behavior their Bolshevik cousins exhibited during and after the takeover of Russia and using the “fog of war†as a smokescreen for their actions, Christian church properties have been bulldozed, blown up or burned down on numerous occasions, all of it chalked up to “collateral damage.†Since the Jews of Europe began reconstructing the nation that was destroyed some 2,000 years ago following the predictions of Jesus Himself, priests, pastors, nuns, churches, cemeteries, Bibles, icons, stained-glass widows, all were all fair game as far as the Zionists were concerned when it came to maintaining its exclusively “Jewish character.â€Not long after Israel declared her statehood, legislation was passed outlawing Christians trying to convert Jews to the religion of Jesus Christ with a 5-year prison sentence attached for good measure.Now, no longer limited to impersonal attacks done in the middle of the night with minimal chance of being caught, Jews (and particularly those in Jerusalem, the city of Jesus’s sham trial and murder by his enemies) are coming out in the open now and displaying their ancestral hatred for all things Christian without any evident fear of what kind of consequences might follow.Out-in the-open physical attacks on priests, pastors, statues and Christian processions by extremist Jews is now more the norm than the exception. A recent case involving a Greek Orthodox clergyman involved a skullcap-wearing elderly Jew tapping on the window of the clergyman’s car and when the man opened his window, the Jew spat in his face, something becoming a daily occurrence in Israel. Only a few days later, a yeshiva student spat at the cross as it was being carried by the Armenian archbishop during a procession near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and did so under the watchful eye of his rabbi, who did nothing to impede him.In another recent case, 13 bishops from Austria were barred from praying at Jerusalem’s Western Wall by a rabbi who oversees the site. The Christians refused to remove the crosses around their necks, which the rabbi considered “insulting.†Other Christians who have seen the increasingly bold and violent nature on the part of Israel’s Jews toward them and their faith in a manner up close and personal say that during Jewish religious festivals such as Purim (celebrating the hanging of Haman and the execution of 75,000 Persians) they stay inside and lock their doors, fearing their lives are in danger amid a band of rowdy, drunken and violent Jewish extremists.One would think that, with all the lecturing taking place during the last half-century by organized Jewish groups when it comes to “hatred†and “intolerance†(not to mention the undeniable influence these groups have wielded in getting “hate crimes†legislation passed in most Christian countries), there would be more concern paid for this growing trend in the “headquarters†of Jewish values in the world—Israel.With all the fear-mongering to which Christians are subjected on a daily basis when it comes to Islam that is inaccurately portrayed as inherently anti-Christian by the likes of John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Joseph Farah and other neo-cons, you would expect some attention given to this alarming business taking place in Israel. And yet, not a peep from any of them. Attacks on Christians by Jews Increasing in Israel, PalestineA former schoolteacher fluent in several languages, Mark Glenn spoke at the AFP-TBR conference on the Middle East panel. He is a prolific writer whose provocative essays have been published worldwide. He and his wife Vicki and their eight children maintain a ranch in northern Idaho. His book, No Beauty in the Beast, can be ordered from TBR BOOK CLUB (1-877-773-9077) for $28 ppd.(Issue #51, December 17, 2007) Please make a donation to American Free Press Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003--------------- A interesting read.Myths of Martin Luther King by Marcus EpsteinThere is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy. Jim Powell’s otherwise excellent The Triumph of Liberty rates King next to Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock as a libertarian hero. Attend any IHS seminar, and you’ll read "A letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a great piece of anti-statist wisdom. The Heritage Foundation regularly has lectures and symposiums honoring his legacy. There are nearly a half dozen neocon and left-libertarian think tanks and legal foundations with names such as "The Center for Equal Opportunity" and the "American Civil Rights Institute" which claim to model themselves after King.Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero? The answer partly lies in the fact that the mainstream Right has gradually moved to the left since King’s death. The influx of many neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom were involved in the civil rights movement, into the conservative movement also contributes to the King phenomenon. This does not fully explain the picture, because on many issues King was far to the left of even the neoconservatives, and many King admirers even claim to adhere to principles like freedom of association and federalism. The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech.In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism. He believes this made King even more admirable. He also deals frankly with King’s philandering and plagiarism, though he excuses them. If you don’t mind reading his long discussions about gangsta rap and the like, I strongly recommend this book.Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled "Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind," where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision."The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote, No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law. Predicting that critics would note that many whites were equally disadvantaged, King claimed that his program, which he called the "Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged" would help poor whites as well. This is because once the blacks received reparations, the poor whites would realize that their real enemy was rich whites. Myth # 2: King was an American patriot, who tried to get Americans to live up to their founding ideals.In National Review, Roger Clegg wrote that "There may have been a brief moment when there existed something of a national consensus – a shared vision eloquently articulated in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, with deep roots in the American Creed, distilled in our national motto, E pluribus unum. Most Americans still share it, but by no means all." Many other conservatives have embraced this idea of an American Creed that built upon Jefferson and Lincoln, and was then fulfilled by King and libertarians like Clint Bolick and neocons like Bill Bennett.Despite his constant invocations of the Declaration of Independence, King did not have much pride in America’s founding. He believed "our nation was born in genocide," and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners.Myth # 3: King was a Christian activist whose struggle for civil rights is similar to the battles fought by the Christian Right today.Ralph Reed claims that King’s "indispensable genius" provided "the vision and leadership that renewed and made crystal clear the vital connection between religion and politics." He proudly admitted that the Christian Coalition "adopted many elements of King’s style and tactics." The pro-life group, Operation Rescue, often compared their struggle against abortion to King’s struggle against segregation. In a speech entitled The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King, Bill Bennet described King, as "not primarily a social activist, he was primarily a minister of the Christian faith, whose faith informed and directed his political beliefs."Both King’s public stands and personal behavior makes the comparison between King and the Religious Right questionable.FBI surveillance showed that King had dozens of extramarital affairs. Although many of the pertinent records are sealed, several agents who watched observed him engage in many questionable acts including buying prostitutes with SCLC money. Ralph Abernathy, who King called "the best friend I have in the world," substantiated many of these charges in his autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. It is true that a man’s private life is mostly his business. However, most conservatives vehemently condemned Jesse Jackson when news of his illegitimate son came out, and claimed he was unfit to be a minister.King also took stands that most in the Christian Right would disagree with. When asked about the Supreme Court’s decision to ban school prayer, King responded,I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in god. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right.While King died before the Roe vs. Wade decision, and, to the best of my knowledge, made no comments ..ion, he was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood. He even won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and had his wife give a speech entitled Family Planning – A Special and Urgent Concern which he wrote. In the speech, he did not compare the civil rights movement to the struggle of Christian Conservatives, but he did say "there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts."Myth # 4: King was an anti-communist.In another article about Martin Luther King, Roger Clegg of National Review applauds King for speaking out against the "oppression of communism!" To gain the support of many liberal whites, in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965 Playboy that there "are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida." This was a bald-faced lie. Though King was never a Communist and was always critical of the Soviet Union, he had knowingly surrounded himself with Communists. His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed.King’s sympathy for communism may have contributed to his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he characterized as a racist, imperialistic, and unjust war. King claimed that America "had committed more war crimes than any nation in the world." While he acknowledged the NLF "may not be paragons of virtue," he never criticized them. However, he was rather harsh on Diem and the South. He denied that the NLF was communist, and believed that Ho Chi Minh should have been the legitimate ruler of Vietnam. As a committed globalist, he believed that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective."Many of King’s conservative admirers have no problem calling anyone who questions American foreign policy a "fifth columnist." While I personally agree with King on some of his stands on Vietnam, it is hypocritical for those who are still trying to get Jane Fonda tried for sedition to applaud King.Myth # 5: King supported the free market.OK, you don’t hear this too often, but it happens. For example, Father Robert A. Sirico delivered a paper to the Acton Institute entitled Civil Rights and Social Cooperation. In it, he wrote,A freer economy would take us closer to the ideals of the pioneers in this country's civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized this when he wrote: "With the growth of industry the folkways of white supremacy will gradually pass away," and he predicted that such growth would "Increase the purchasing power of the Negro [which in turn] will result in improved medical care, greater educational opportunities, and more adequate housing. Each of these developments will result in a further weakening of segregation."King of course was a great opponent of the free economy. In a speech in front of his staff in 1966 he said,You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism.King called for "totally restructuring the system" in a way that was not capitalist or "the antithesis of communist." For more information on King’s economic views, see Lew Rockwell’s The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.Myth # 6: King was a conservative.As all the previous myths show, King’s views were hardly conservative. If this was not enough, it is worth noting what King said about the two most prominent postwar American conservative politicians, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.King accused Barry Goldwater of "Hitlerism." He believed that Goldwater advocated a "narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude." On domestic issues he felt that "Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century." King said that Goldwater’s positions on civil rights were "morally indefensible and socially suicidal."King said of Reagan, "When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events."Despite King’s harsh criticisms of those men, both supported the King holiday. Goldwater even fought to keep King’s FBI files, which contained information about his adulterous sex life and Communist connections, sealed.Myth # 7: King wasn’t a plagiarist.OK, even most of the neocons won’t deny this, but it is still worth bringing up, because they all ignore it. King started plagiarizing as an undergraduate. When Boston University founded a commission to look into it, they found that that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation was stolen, but they insisted that "no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree." In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as "I Have a Dream," were plagiarized, as were many of his books and writings. For more information on King’s plagiarism, The Martin Luther King Plagiarism Page and Theodore Pappas’ Plagiarism and the Culture War are excellent resources.When faced with these facts, most of King’s conservative and libertarian fans either say they weren’t part of his main philosophy, or usually they simply ignore them. Slightly before the King Holiday was signed into law, Governor Meldrim Thompson of New Hampshire wrote a letter to Ronald Reagan expressing concerns about King’s morality and Communist connections. Ronald Reagan responded, "I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed, to them the perception is reality."Far too many on the Right are worshipping that perception. Rather than face the truth about King’s views, they create a man based upon a few lines about judging men "by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin" – something we are not supposed to do in his case, of course – while ignoring everything else he said and did. If King is truly an admirable figure, they are doing his legacy a disservice by using his name to promote an agenda he clearly would not have supported.January 18, 2003Marcus Epstein [send him mail] is an undergraduate at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA, where he is president of the college libertarians and editor of the conservative newspaper, The Remnant. A selection of his articles can be seen here.Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------Another interesting read.REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACYI pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONSGovernment. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.COMMENTSNotice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson, 1816.http://www.1215.org/index.html------------------------- ---------I have no heroes, allthough i admire a few including Our First Anti-King President.GEORGE WASHINGTON AND DEISMDeists have a great example of toleration, perseverance, and integrity in the person of fellow Deist George Washington.Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, "often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."Like truly intelligent people in all times and places, Washington realized how very little we know about life and the workings of the universe. He wrote that the ways of Providence were "inscrutable." Yet he DID the very best he could in all aspects of his life. When things were dark and it looked like the Revolution would be lost, he never gave up. Even when people in his own ranks were turning on him and trying to sink him he persevered because of his deep heartfelt Deistic belief in Providence.George Washington coupled his genuine belief in Providence with action. After the American defeat at Germantown in 1777 he said, "We must endeavor to deserve better of Providence, and, I am persuaded, she will smile on us." He also wrote that we should take care to do our very best in everything we do so that our, "reason and our own conscience approve."Washington's toleration for differing religions was made evident by his order to the Continental Army to halt the observance of Pope's Day. Pope's Day was the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes' Day in England. A key part of Pope's Day was the burning of the effigy of the Pope. In his order, Washington described the tradition as, "ridiculous and childish" and that there was no room for this type of behavior in the Continental Army.The altruism and integrity that Washington possessed is made evident by his restraint in his personal gains. At the successful conclusion of the American Revolution he could have made himself dictator for life. Or he could have allowed others to make him king. Yet, like the Roman General Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus before him, Washington refused to do either.Preacher Weems has written that on Washington's death bed, "Washington folded his arms decently on his breast, then breathing out 'Father of mercies, take me to thyself,' - he fell asleep." Like almost all of what the Christian fundamentalists have written about Washington, this is not true.Tobias Lear, Washington's secretary, was with him when he died. The following is his account of Washington's death."About ten o'clk he made several attempts to speak to me before he could effect it, at length he said, -'I am just going. Have me decently buried; and do not let my body be put into the vault in less than three days after I am dead.' I bowed assent, for I could not speak. He then looked at me again and said, 'Do you understand me?' I replied, 'Yes.' 'Tis well,' said he."About ten minutes before he expired (which was between ten and eleven o'clk) his breathing became easier; he lay quietly; - he withdrew his hand from mine, and felt his own pulse. I saw his countenance change. I spoke to Dr. Craik who sat by the fire; - he came to the bed side. The General's hand fell from his wrist - I took it in mine and put it into my bosom. Dr. Craik put his hands over his eyes and he expired without a struggle or a sigh!"Like other Deists such as Paine, Jefferson, Voltaire, Franklin, and Allen, Washington did not fear death but looked at it as just another part of nature. Though he didn't speculate much on an after-life, he was comfortable to look at his own death as part of God's design.George Washington offers us a tremendous example of altruism and positive action. His actions tell us stronger than any words could possibly do to persevere in the face of all obstacles. To never give up and to always combine our sincerely held beliefs with action.©Deism.com