He didn’t mention segregation and he didn’t mention race. The implication is yours. And the Tea Party movement has outspoken black members amongst it: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/black_tea_party_express_tour_t.html

But if they have a ‘civics test’ for voting, won’t that exclude Sarah Palin?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/21/palin-vp-senate/

You betcha

@1: He said (I paraphrase) ‘we got this President because we don’t have literacy tests’. I don’t comment enough to know whether you’re a troll, or merely ignorant of fairly recent history, but I hope it’s the latter.

I suppose there’s a third option that Mr. Tancredo himself (a former US Congressman) is entirely ignorant of his country’s actions within his own lifetime, and so didn’t see the obvious ramifications of his speech, but that seems fanciful.

He didn’t mention segregation and he didn’t mention race.

Oh please don’t give me that crap. The implication is clear – as Sunder Katwala points out. Otherwise why mention ‘literacy tests’? Weren’t they the ones accusing Obama of being elitist not long ago? How can he be elitist while attracting illiterate people?

Even the Times report said: “but a dark underbelly of xenophobia has been exposed”

Decrying America’s multiculturalism, Mr Tancredo said that Republicans and Democrats had voted for a black man because they felt they had to.

And I thought these people did not care about a person’s race?

Funny that – ConservativeHome’s international section has no mention or link to the Tea Party convention

Sunny – of course ConHome doesn’t feature the Tea Party convention, because it’s clearly a “non story”.

It’s interesting that ToryBear is describing the “Young Briton’s Foundation” Parliamentary Rally in terms of it being a “Tea Party”:

http://www.torybear.com/2010/02/tea-party-at-commons.html

You don’t think that Sarah Palin will be invited to speak at that Tea Party, do you?

Sorry, that should be “Young Britons’ Foundation” but maybe I was more correct the first time

“Oh please don’t give me that crap. The implication is clear – as Sunder Katwala points out. Otherwise why mention ‘literacy tests’”

He was the head of the department of education for over a decade.

Of course, his point is wrong and stupid; there is no significant relationship between general intelligence and picking good public officials, even though plenty of political theorists in history (including the godlike JS Mill) had suggested giving more vote power to ‘intelligent’ people.

My point is that you cannot smear a whole movement just because of one really shitty speech.

My point is that you cannot smear a whole movement just because of one really shitty speech.

He opened the convention. People stood up and gave him a standing ovation. I don’t know what exact evidence you want.

Has anyone major Republican distanced themselves from this?

It’s a tad clumsy to speak of a “Tea Party movement“; they’re a big swarm of bickering factions. Palin’s tagged along with a a group of astroturfing, PR jingoists, but there are others who, rightly, think these factions are a bunch of opportunists.

Also…

Then there is the small matter of the $100,000 being paid to Mrs Palin. “That’s a lot of damned tea,” one delegate griped.

By the way, Tancredo’s the charmer who once proposed that the US bomb Mecca if “extremist fundamentalist Muslims” attacked them. Even John Podhoretz lightly suggested that he “shut his pie hole“.

BenSix has a point. Obviously Tea Partiers come from a wide range of political and cultural backgrounds, and there is an awful lot generalised and incohate anger at the political system that is powering it. I am hoping the result would be to steer the Republican party in a genuinely free market and small government direction. Neither Palin nor Tancredo are great exponents of that.

True, that.

(Apologies, world, for the gratuitous “a” and “ed”.)

Anyone following the Tea Party convention may also have noticed that Joseph Farah has been banging on about Barack Obama having no “documentation of birth”.

So it’s the usual birther drivel again, a conspiracy that hinges on his parents somehow smuggling him into the USA because they knew that someday he would be President …

Not schadenfreude but poetic justice.

http://www.denverpost.com/allewis/ci_11619072

In no way can Palin be considered a ‘ formidable political force ‘. However, she perfectly encapsulates the insularity and stupidity of small town conservative America. They could not hope to find anyone who was a better representation of them. Too bad that she represents a shrinking demographic.

It is quite astonishing that anyone would defend the wingnuttery of the Tea-Partiers. Sure they are a diverse bunch with different agendas. However, one would need to be willfully blind and deaf to ignore the implicit and explicit racism directed towards Obama. The slogans and pictures of Obama as Hitler last summer tell us all we need to know about the ‘ movement ‘. They are nothing but a contemporary version of the KKK.

It was the people holding up pictures of Bushitler at protests that later made Obama’s nomination possible against Hilary Clinton. The weird thing about politics is how every coalition has really weird views within it. It is amazing how durable constitutional democracies are considering almost any lack of consensus on values within any reasonably large society.

“Young Britons Foundation” – sounds like something the BNP would set up

I wonder what the American first nationers make of views such as –

“the fabric of US society has been eroded by the “cult of multiculturalism”".

Perhaps in two hundred years or so the first nationers of the British Isles will be watching in bemusement as the Islamic majority complain about their society being eroded by some other outsiders.

Of course if there was an educational threshold to voting, Palinn would get nowhere since half her supporters are idiots.

It is amazing how durable constitutional democracies are considering almost any lack of consensus on values within any reasonably large society.

People act on their opinions in extremely placid ways. Think how raucous things would get if those who hold that abortion is murder followed their view to its logical consequences.

@20
I’m curious if you have ever met any of her supporters or is your belief in your superiority informed by the media?

Sunny H – “Tom Tancredo …. aid the fabric of US society had been eroded by the “cult of multiculturalism”, “Islamification”, and large numbers of immigrants who did not want to be Americans.”

I find it hard to see how anyone can object to this. A certain vision of America has been destroyed by immigration and replaced with a new one. Who would deny it? How is this extremist?

“In his most incendiary comment, he invoked the segregationist methods of the southern states, saying that Obama had been elected because “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country”.”

A civics test. Civics was his first choice. I know Sunny is going to read racism into this but the racism is not there. You have to work pretty hard to see it too. I have no idea what his intent was, and perhaps it was racist, but you have to really work to find racism in that comment.

“a historical allusion lost on few of the delegates present.”

This being some magical form of mind reading carried out by the journalist in question I suppose. How does he know?

“Sunder Katwala at Next Left points out why Tancredo mentioned literacy tests:”

Again we have some wonderful form of mental telepathy that enables a British Socialist who I assume has never met Tancredo tell exactly what he was thinking and why he said what he said. Brilliant.

Come on, this is diving to the bottom of a pretty slime-filled barrel.

“We wonder if Conservatives in the UK, who previously played down racism amongst the Tea Party movement and generally amongst Republicans, will acknowledge or even distance themselves from the wingnuts.”

Why should they have to? What goes on in America has nothing to do with what happens in the UK. And Cameron is more like John Kerry than he is like even John McCain.

“One featured speaker, a “Patriot Pastor” named Rick Scarborough, told The Times that he was not against legal immigrants “but God has ordained that you are not a nation if you don’t have borders”.”

Another statement of the obvious. If Britain really stopped enforcing its borders it would no longer have a British majority and it would cease to be British.

“he added: “If this country becomes 30 per cent Hispanic we will no longer be America. We don’t want to become like the UK where in places you have Sharia.”

I am still struggling to see why these pretty obvious views cause offense. Sunny? Can you explain?

calling the tea party people racist is devisive and only galvanizes them into a more cohesive group. Is there any poll that has been done that has conclusively detemined the members are racist? Are there any minorities who are members?

I called Tancredo a Know Nothing nativist. Since he has his defenders, can anybody offer a cogent defence of this statement?

“And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think that we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country. People who could not even spell the word “vote,” or say it in English, put a committed socialist idealogue in the White House. Name is Barack Hussein Obama”.

-Of course there is no evidence that non-English speaking voters were a decisive electoral bloc in 2008.
- Obama did increase turnout, and most of all among a demographic – black voters – who used to be denied the vote through a literacy test. (However, the black vote was clearly not decisive in his margin of victory in the popular vote or electoral college).

The Tea Party organiser, defending the speech as “fantastic”, told CNN that “Tancredo doesn’t feel like a lot of people who supported Barack Obama understand the basics of this country.” (that is also a view Tancredo takes of the President himself of course).
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html

What is most interesting about the rage of the Tea Party wing-nuts is that it is founded on an insistence that the election was stolen because it is incomprehensible to those involved that they do not speak for almost all Americans. This prevents them developing a right-wing ideological analysis of why they lost a democratic election (eg, less government is always better for American prosperity, but people felt scared immediately after the crash, or whatever) because they are in denial about losing the election, preferring to explain it as a UN-liberal media-Fabian socialists-radical Islamist-gay liberal conspiracy foisted on honest Americans.

Even the “birther” conspiracy theory – which is both ludicrous and xenophobic – doesn’t really get them there, as it doesn’t explain why people voted for Obama. (They allege a ‘hidden agenda’ usually of Islamist fundamentalism combined with radical socialism/Communism, but claim the public agenda is itself dangerous and socialist).

Anybody who has ever followed Tancredo’s public statements will know that he is obsessed by immigration, sometimes illegal immigration and sometimes the cultural impact of immigration generally. (He can struggle to keep separate ideas like “illegal immigrant” and “Hispanic”). As AP wrote at the end of his Presidential campaign “Mr. Tancredo has consistently polled at the back of the nine-man Republican field. He has based his campaign on opposition to illegal immigration, a top issue in many areas of the country. He has run television advertisements that link lax border security to terrorist attacks, rape and other crimes”.

Come on, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck.

Modern attitudes require succesful racists to codify their public pronouncements. Their followers know exactly how to interpret them. It is naivity or willing sophistry to suggest there isn’t a willingly racist subtext in the published statements.

“calling the tea party people racist is devisive and only galvanizes them into a more cohesive group. Is there any poll that has been done that has conclusively detemined the members are racist? Are there any minorities who are members?”

There are some prominent ones:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/93346/

This is a problem though. Immigration and race relations splits the right in some very annoying ways.

25. Sunder Katwala – “Since he has his defenders, can anybody offer a cogent defence of this statement?”

I don’t think I need to. All I need to do is point out that your claim – that this is a racist statement – has no factual basis I can see in what he said. That remains true whether or not I agree with what he said. The fact that he may have said one dumb thing does not mean he said all, or any random, dumb things.

“-Of course there is no evidence that non-English speaking voters were a decisive electoral bloc in 2008.”

I did not notice that he said they were. Nor are non-English speakers a racial classification or a racial group.

“- Obama did increase turnout, and most of all among a demographic – black voters – who used to be denied the vote through a literacy test. (However, the black vote was clearly not decisive in his margin of victory in the popular vote or electoral college).”

I see no evidence that Tancredo said that they did – or that he showed any signs of knowing whether this is true or not. It looks to me as if he is blaming the election of what he thinks is a socialist on poor political education among the voters. What else is he going to think? It is a vast Lizard-based conspiracy? This does not seem exceptional to me. Leftists say that the poor Whites vote for the Republicans because they are poorly educated all the time.

What you and Sunny have done is jump on one isolated word and blow it up into a vast conspiracy. It is odd.

26. Yurrzem! – “Come on, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck.”

Really? And this is an argument you want to be associated with? Traditionally put forward by the sort of people you want to be associated with?

“Modern attitudes require succesful racists to codify their public pronouncements. Their followers know exactly how to interpret them. It is naivity or willing sophistry to suggest there isn’t a willingly racist subtext in the published statements.”

So you’re saying that there is a level of reality that only you understand and can see that is invisible to other people, but luckily you and only you know what is *really* going on? You think that this is compatible with happiness?

To all concerned the British Conservative,New Zealand National,Australian Liberal and National,etc Parties who are aligned with the USA Republican Party and its hangers on are signed up through the International Democratic Union,World Anti Communist League,etc have agreed with the racist stance of the Republikkkan Party and the Tea Party movement by dint of said affiliations.

It is sad to think that the racist, hysterical anti-public-sector nonsense of the US Tea Party is being replicated not only in far-right loons like UKIP and the Libertarian ‘Party’ but also within the supposedly “mainstream” Tory Party.

So Much For Subtlety: “Really? And this is an argument you want to be associated with? Traditionally put forward by the sort of people you want to be associated with?”

So the source of a quotation reflects upon the quality of an argument? Specious.

Dealing with nazis was forced upon me when they became active in my area. I’ve had more than enough to do with the scum to know codified racism when I see it.

Just put the Tancredo quotes into the context of other US far-right pronouncements and they fit nicely into a nasty little body of work from Nick Griffin’s mate David Duke to Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan.

Sunder Katwala @ 25

Your description of Tom Tancredo as a ‘nativist’ is even more than usually crass.

Tancredo’s background (on both sides) is Italian-American. Precisely the kind of immigrants that the nativists were keen to keep out.

Your genuine American nativist would have seen little difference between Italians and the Hispanics, who so trouble Mr Tancredo.

Which also makes the epithet ‘racist’ a bit problematic. Many of the illegals Tancredo bangs on about are Salvadorean. Only 1% of El Salvador’s population self-identify as ‘indigenous’ and there is no black population there. A thorough-going racist might stress the mestizo element, but as I say, such a racist would have to be extreme even by racists’ standards. In the UK, Salvadoreans tend to be described as ‘white other’ on ethnic monitoring forms.

Unlike Sunny, I cannot read Tancredo’s mind. But his political activities appear to have grown out of a campaign against bi-lingual teaching in schools. So I’d guess his antipathy towards Latino immigration is rooted in a fear of linguistic/cultural change. Maybe he meant English test, rather than literacy test?

“And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think that we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country. People who could not even spell the word “vote,” or say it in English, put a committed socialist idealogue in the White House. Name is Barack Hussein Obama”.

Despite some pathetic attempts to paint this as sheer stupidity – I think most people would rightly see this as racist. And

“…find it hard to see how anyone can object to this. A certain vision of America has been destroyed by immigration and replaced with a new one. Who would deny it? How is this extremist?”

What vision of America has been destroyed? Could you define it please

How could have immigration ruined America – Immigration builds America and has been since the days of the revolution.

Since when is it Un-American to heed to the better angels of our nature and recognise that not everyone could pull themselves up by themselves – they need a helping hand. Government could be a force for good in supporting the American dream by ensuring the opportunities are there for the many -

If Americans really hated Government support so much then why is the GI Bill, The Pell Grant, The Federal & State Finanical Aid System for Higher Education so popular and the two most popular programme in the Country are Medicaid and Medicare. So this myth that Americans don’t want Government to provide a helping hand is just bullshit and those who preach that more often than not have the means to provide healthcare to their families, or send their kids to college without any aid. They are few compared to those who do not.

Finally, this evangelical GOD Country syndrome is definitely not something the framers of the US Constitution wanted – they wanted to keep religion and State as far away as possible. So how did immigration change the country for worse?

@ 22 (abc)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk

I don’t think they are stupid people, but a significant portion of them are clearly not well informed.

Thomas

The same on both sides of the aisle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl0WwC9OcOI

Racism is discriminating on the basis of race (or ethnicity, origins, language…).

So this statement is only racist if it clearly discriminates.

That is not to say that it does not have racist overtones (the reference to a segregationalist policy is clear, if unintended), or that no dogwhistle was intended. But the statement itself (one line of a ten minute speech) is not enough to be labelled racist (as opposed to stupid, ill-informed and potentially offensive, none of which are illegal).

Note also one line in a ten minute speech at a convention of one faction of a movement that has influence within but is certainly not synonymous with a political party (the Republicans) that has lose links (co-operatively and ideologically) with another party in this country (the Conservatives) should not require any comment from the Conservatives.

On a personal note, I have a concern here. Sunny and Sunder called racism, when it is not a racist statement (for all the overtones). To call racism for something like this, for a Nigel Farage-type marginal political figure, means that calling racism on someone more extreme and marginal, and clearly recorded as making racist comments (a Nick Griffin type?) becomes less effective, because you are wasting a serious accusation on a case where some of us say ‘no not racist. Stupid yes. Racist no.’ And therefore we have less liklihood of believing you next time. To resort to childish fables, calling wolf is legitimate if you see a wolf, but if you only hear it, people may not believe you when you finally do see it. I would have no problem with ‘approaches racism’ or something like that, but to actually assert it here is wrong. Mr Tancredo is clearly an ignorant fool who should be challenged; I just feel this way of doing it devalues a serious accusation and opens the door for the real overt racists to say and do what they like.

Perhaps in two hundred years or so the first nationers of the British Isles will be watching in bemusement as the Islamic majority complain about their society being eroded by some other outsiders.

abc

It won’t happen.

Once Britain becomes Muslim it will never change again.

@38

Lets give a weary cheer to our new BNP correspondent.

Hip hip! – oh, fukit.

34. Shamit – “Despite some pathetic attempts to paint this as sheer stupidity – I think most people would rightly see this as racist.”

If Tancredo read the phone book out loud some here would cry racism.

“What vision of America has been destroyed? Could you define it please”

Well the vision of America as a WASP country for instance.

“How could have immigration ruined America – Immigration builds America and has been since the days of the revolution.”

I don’t see anyone claiming immigration has ruined America. Who did? I would note that Native Americans might well point out that immigration ruined their America and way of life.

“Since when is it Un-American to heed to the better angels of our nature and recognise that not everyone could pull themselves up by themselves – they need a helping hand. Government could be a force for good in supporting the American dream by ensuring the opportunities are there for the many -”

Because it is specious rhetoric with no relation to reality?

“Finally, this evangelical GOD Country syndrome is definitely not something the framers of the US Constitution wanted – they wanted to keep religion and State as far away as possible. So how did immigration change the country for worse?”

They wanted to keep it as far away from the Federal Government as possible. But so what? With whom are you arguing?

25. Sunder Katwala – “Anybody who has ever followed Tancredo’s public statements will know that he is obsessed by immigration, sometimes illegal immigration and sometimes the cultural impact of immigration generally.”

And what does that have to do with literacy tests and disenfranchising Blacks? Nothing whatsoever? Or is it because he holds one view you don’t like, he must logically also support every other view you don’t like?

32. Yurrzem! – “I’ve had more than enough to do with the scum to know codified racism when I see it.”

So you are taking Senator McCarthy’s line and defending it? Interesting to see. What is more you are agreeing with me that this “racism” exists in your mind and only in your mind and nowhere else?

“Just put the Tancredo quotes into the context of other US far-right pronouncements and they fit nicely into a nasty little body of work from Nick Griffin’s mate David Duke to Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan.”

I can find a few quotes from Obama that could be put, with just as much justice, with those gentlemen’s words as Tancredo’s. At least Duke and Obama are members of the same party.

So nice to get a voice of opposition from someone whose family came over on the Mayflower. Oh, wait, Tancredo’s grandparents came fresh of the boat from Italy. So, Italian (white) immigrants good, brown immigrants bad? Is that it Tom?

I have not read everyone else’s comments yet as I have been busy with work in such.

However….

The left’s characterizing the Tea Party and other conservative movements as racist has always been a cowardly trick and it works!

Calling a conservative a racist to discredit them is easier than actually debating the content of their arguments. There is nothing in the US worse than getting called a racist and all of your energy is spent defending your reputation and not debating your ideas.

Here we are on a socialist website and conservatives are telling you they are not racists rather than debating the benefits of limited government, responsible government spending, personal responsibility, etc.

That’s just the way you want it!

@44: When Tancredo was saying ‘don’t let them immigrants vote till they take a literacy test’, I somehow doubt the soundbite he was aiming for was “limited government” or “responsible government spending”.

Just commenting on some particular comments

34…Shammit\

“they (US framers) wanted to keep religion and State as far away as possible”

As it pertained to the establishment of a national religion yes you are correct…If you are trying to say that they were not Christians and were not inspired by God you would be incorrect. There is no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution.

25 Sunder

The Republicans were romped during the 2008 election because they failed to act responsibly when they had absolute power from 2002-2006, selected a non-conservative presidential candidate in 2008, and were against a historically charismatic candidate that has proven to be fairly incompetent. The Tea Party movement is more upset with Republicans than Democrats because they were supposed to represent conservatives but did not.

45 Kentron

No Kentron- he was saying don’t let people vote for the leader of your country when they can’t even understand the fundamental debates in the native language of the country in which you are actually voting for the leader.

Bill Clinton was known for naturalizing immigrants just in time to vote for him. Our democratic party has a history of organizing immigrants to vote democratic so they could get benefits.

@47: If his concern was with those who can’t understand the fundamental debates, he would advocate barring a whole host of voters. Language is one of numerous barriers to political understanding, and concentrating on it seems remarkably arbitrary (or motivated by other concerns.)

Hi,

I am a British Nationalist.
What most of you would describe as a misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic pig.
Or perhaps a Nazi, Fascist, Bigot when you are in one of your foaming at the mouth phases.

But after reading some of the stuff on here I am happy to be called all of the above.
I don’t who which are the worse pompous arseholes, neo-cons or liberal lefties.
It’s a close run thing.
You people are so far up your own arses it beggars belief.

Pip Pip!

48 Kentron you opened a can of worms on the language issue. What is wrong with knowing the issues that your country faces in the very language they speak. Sorry, you need to do better with your response.

Also, when we had minor problems, when the US had a government surplus, stocks and real estate were profitable, etc. we had a movement to not teach English in some of the school (i.e. Cuban descent in Miami areas) and people who supported mandating English in the schools were called fascists, racists, etc. Not teaching the international business language inside a country in which it is also the native language is astoundingly short-sighted. Language is an important issue.

The US became a historical world power when people left a less satisfying life mostly from Europe (political unrest, high taxation, soicalism/communism, etc.) and became “American”. It was mandated that they use the national language in the public square and their parents made sure that their children learned English to assist them to contribute and thrive in America. Why can’t the new generation of immigrants do the same thing?

Randy Bullock:

Actually, many of the framers and past great presidents were devoutly NOT Christian:

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” -Jefferson

“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]

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” – Franklin

“The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.” – Paine

“The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession.”
-Spoken by Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis

Seriously, what is it with Lib Con these days? The comment threads are full of far-right loons who are apologists for racism.

Makes for painful reading.

52. Daniel welcome to the conversation. Regarding Christianity

Evidence suggests that Paine was a Diest and not a Christian. He died an unhappy, ostracized drunk. Hope that worked for him.

If you were to say that Jefferson and Franklin did not leading perfect Christian lives you would be correct. However, singular quotes about “orthodox” and “church” refers to their dislike of organized religion and many Christians have huge reservations with a variety of organized religions. There is nothing in those quotes that indicate they did not believe in Christ, or the Creator. Cherry picking singular quotations to prove that someone does not believe in Christ is not sufficient evidence.

The Declaration of Independence and EVERY STATE constitution refer to God, Creator, etc.

Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration- “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Franklin was the defacto editor of the Declaration and surely did not drop the reference to God.

George Washington- To the non-Christian indians (I’m sorry- this is a politically correct liberal website- the indigenous North American human being population possibly of Asian decent that migrated over the ice bridge (before the ice was melting due to the massive 0.0000000001 degree temperature increase)-

“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.”

Word for word answer from a .org (left leaning website) which actually possibly brings up that he was deist- supporting your theory that he was not purely Christian.

There are hundreds of writings of Washington out there. In fact, the University of Virginia has been publishing volumes of work for 50 (I believe!) years now. They are well over a hundred volumes strong. You can find more about them at: http://www.virginia.edu/gwpapers

Also, another great place to look on the web is at the Library of Congress. You can do a search for specific topics or phrases from his writings.

As for your question regarding the quote, I do not have the whole text, but the date is September 17, 1796.

For your other question regarding George Washington — was he a Christian? There are several schools of thought. Some consider him a Deist, others a devout Episcopal, others a Christian. Then, there is the thought, what do you mean by Christian? Many people consider themselves Christian whether they are “Catholic” or “Born-Again.” George Washington certainly was a religious man. His own diary shows of his dedication. For one perspective, you could read the book “George Washington, The Christian” by William J. Johnson. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1919). Also, for specific quotes related to this subject, a nice compilation of materials from various sources including Washington is “America’s God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations” by William J. Federer. (Coppell, TX: Fame Publishing, Inc., 1994).

For another thought, the letter below was written by George Washington’s adopted daughter (also his step-granddaughter) Eleanor (Nelly) Parke Custis Lewis. It was written in 1833 in response to author Jared Sparks [who compiled a set of Washington's Writings] request for info on Washington’s religious beliefs for a book he was writing that was published under the title “The Life of Washington”.

Woodlawn, 26 February, 1833.

Sir,

I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hastento give you the information, which you desire.

Truro Parish is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church, and Woodlawn are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother. It was a beautiful church, and had a large, respectable, and wealthy congregation, who were regular attendants.

He attended the church at Alexandria, when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day.

No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.

It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o’clock, where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun, and remained in his library until called to breakfasdt [sic]. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, “that they may be seen of men.” He communed with his God in secret.

My mother resided two years at Mount Vernon, after her marriage with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis, died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event, he knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge Washington’s mother, and other witnesses.

He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war I have often seen him perfectly abstracted, his lips moving, but no sound was perceptible. I have sometimes made him laugh most heartily from sympathy with my joyous and extravagant spirits. I was probably one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation, particularly when he knew that I had the most perfect model of female excellence ever with me as my monitress, who acted the part of a tender and devoted parent, loving me as only a mother can love, and never extenuating or approving in me what she disapproved in others.

She never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy, that he must have been a Christian. She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity. Is it necessary that any one should certify, “General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?” As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, “Deeds, not Words”; and, “For God and my Country.”

-Lincoln was not baptized, but contrary to liberal belief WAS a consistent church goer. He was not a founding father by the way. However, his writings and speeches convey his spiritual views.

“He spoke of God often and in many different ways—William J. Wolf counted thirty-three different expressions, like “Almighty Being” or “Father of Mercies,” in Lincoln’s Collected Works. Yet Lincoln rarely referred to Jesus. I speak of Jesus rarely in my own life and almost never in work of the public as I wish not to push my faith on others. If he or I did not believe in Christ we would have NEVER discussed him.

In his second inauguration he references two New Testament readings.

“The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God can not be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party—and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say this is probably true—that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere quiet power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.”

So there is evidence that the founding fathers had Diest and Christian beliefs and Lincoln was undoubtedly Christian.

Guys, come on I live here…the U.S. is a Christian nation founded by Christians…I know its not cool or nuanced or sophisticated, but that’s just the way it is.

Randy Bullock, you do protest too much.

52. Daniel

Painful indeed. But you are most likely used to pain as you are married to a woman who demanded a hyphenated last name.

This conservative is married to a native American with brown skin tones..Oh my.

Ex-girlfriends include a Mexican dentist, an Australian with Thai ancestry, another native American, a colored women who had no idea what her father was, and 6″3 white as a ghost basketball player.

My sport teammates include blacks of both American and African birth, white Europeans of American and European birth, Europeans of Sri Lankan birth, Latins from the Americas and Europe, etc.

These people are my friends because they are great people.

Again, you protest too much and assume too much also but that is your right.