<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Recommitment &amp; the Washington Bible</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sacredsymbolic.com/recommitment-the-washington-bible/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sacredsymbolic.com/recommitment-the-washington-bible/</link>
	<description>Learning truth through symbolism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:37:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tevya</title>
		<link>http://sacredsymbolic.com/recommitment-the-washington-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-238</link>
		<dc:creator>Tevya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:42:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacredsymbolic.com/?p=350#comment-238</guid>
		<description>Ray, thank you for sharing that article. And pointing out that there are a lot of experts who believe that Washington never added those words. I read it the article, and had previously looked at the site attached to your name. My article was not meant to be a formal treatise of the subject. But, I maintain that oral history and tradition are evidence as well, however inaccurate they often prove. When we are able to know all truth, I will not be one bit surprised to find out that Washington did not say those words. However, I won&#039;t be a bit surprised if we find out that he did, in fact, say them. Either way, I&#039;m no expert on the subject and don&#039;t care to debate it. 
 
As for accepting the cutting of the cherry tree, you&#039;re taking my very simplified explanation of a more complex concept and work, and using it out of context. I have no argument with you. The good historian takes all available evidence into account. Tradition &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; evidence, no matter how you look at it. In some--albeit rare--cases, tradition has proven more accurate than  a contemporary account. I weighed the evidence available, and like many, many others, concluded the words were spoken. To me its not a terribly important point either way. But just as a suggestion, you might consider that we don&#039;t know what sources were available to the writer of the 1880 (or whenever it was) account of the inauguration. He may well have been looking at an eye-witness account, that has since been lost to us. We just don&#039;t know. In the case of the cherry tree, we have stronger counter-evidence to negate the fictional story. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ray, thank you for sharing that article. And pointing out that there are a lot of experts who believe that Washington never added those words. I read it the article, and had previously looked at the site attached to your name. My article was not meant to be a formal treatise of the subject. But, I maintain that oral history and tradition are evidence as well, however inaccurate they often prove. When we are able to know all truth, I will not be one bit surprised to find out that Washington did not say those words. However, I won&#039;t be a bit surprised if we find out that he did, in fact, say them. Either way, I&#039;m no expert on the subject and don&#039;t care to debate it.</p>
<p>As for accepting the cutting of the cherry tree, you&#039;re taking my very simplified explanation of a more complex concept and work, and using it out of context. I have no argument with you. The good historian takes all available evidence into account. Tradition <i>is</i> evidence, no matter how you look at it. In some&#8211;albeit rare&#8211;cases, tradition has proven more accurate than  a contemporary account. I weighed the evidence available, and like many, many others, concluded the words were spoken. To me its not a terribly important point either way. But just as a suggestion, you might consider that we don&#039;t know what sources were available to the writer of the 1880 (or whenever it was) account of the inauguration. He may well have been looking at an eye-witness account, that has since been lost to us. We just don&#039;t know. In the case of the cherry tree, we have stronger counter-evidence to negate the fictional story. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray Soller</title>
		<link>http://sacredsymbolic.com/recommitment-the-washington-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-196</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Soller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:15:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacredsymbolic.com/?p=350#comment-196</guid>
		<description>Tevya, your article should cite sources other than Bowen and the Library of Congress, because they do not provide a contemporaneous or subsequent firsthand account for George Washington having added &quot;so help me God: to his oath. Did you read the 1/9/09 USA Today article that&#039;s posted at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-washington-oath_N.htm,&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-...&lt;/a&gt; or click to the website attached to my name?  
 
By your reasoning, according to Fischer&#039;s book, we should credit George Washington with cutting down his father&#039;s cherry tree. Parson Weems was, at least, a house guest at Mount Vernon, whereas Bowen is not known to have ever met Washington during his earthly existence. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tevya, your article should cite sources other than Bowen and the Library of Congress, because they do not provide a contemporaneous or subsequent firsthand account for George Washington having added &quot;so help me God: to his oath. Did you read the 1/9/09 USA Today article that&#039;s posted at <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-washington-oath_N.htm," rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-" rel="nofollow">http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-</a>&#8230; or click to the website attached to my name? </p>
<p>By your reasoning, according to Fischer&#039;s book, we should credit George Washington with cutting down his father&#039;s cherry tree. Parson Weems was, at least, a house guest at Mount Vernon, whereas Bowen is not known to have ever met Washington during his earthly existence. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tevya</title>
		<link>http://sacredsymbolic.com/recommitment-the-washington-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator>Tevya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:46:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacredsymbolic.com/?p=350#comment-109</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the feedback Nancy, Eric, and Ray. 
 
Eric also let me know that the same team who brought &lt;i&gt;John Adams&lt;/i&gt; to us, is now working on a TV adaptation of McCullough&#039;s &lt;i&gt;1776&lt;/i&gt;. I&#039;m excited for that! 
 
Ray, thanks for pointing out that most presidents don&#039;t append anything to the oath of office as Washington did. One source I read suggested there have been many who followed Washington&#039;s lead, but you&#039;re right, that&#039;s not true. 
 
As for no contemporary sources for his adding &quot;So help me God,&quot; I&#039;m sure you&#039;re familiar with David H. Fischer&#039;s book &lt;i&gt;Historians Fallacies&lt;/i&gt;, in which--among many other things--he shows that a lack of evidence is not counter-evidence. This being true, I went with the best evidence we have available. Thanks for keeping me thorough though. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the feedback Nancy, Eric, and Ray.</p>
<p>Eric also let me know that the same team who brought <i>John Adams</i> to us, is now working on a TV adaptation of McCullough&#039;s <i>1776</i>. I&#039;m excited for that!</p>
<p>Ray, thanks for pointing out that most presidents don&#039;t append anything to the oath of office as Washington did. One source I read suggested there have been many who followed Washington&#039;s lead, but you&#039;re right, that&#039;s not true.</p>
<p>As for no contemporary sources for his adding &quot;So help me God,&quot; I&#039;m sure you&#039;re familiar with David H. Fischer&#039;s book <i>Historians Fallacies</i>, in which&#8211;among many other things&#8211;he shows that a lack of evidence is not counter-evidence. This being true, I went with the best evidence we have available. Thanks for keeping me thorough though. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray Soller</title>
		<link>http://sacredsymbolic.com/recommitment-the-washington-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Soller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:21:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacredsymbolic.com/?p=350#comment-104</guid>
		<description>Tevya, you need to know that inspite of what was portrayed on the HBO mini series John Adams, based on the book with that name by David McCullough, there is no contemporaneous or subsequent firsthand account which tells us that George Washington added the extra constitutional phrase, &quot;So help me God,&quot; to his presidential oath. Furthermore, if a person does the research, one will find out that, at present count, most presidents are not known to have appended anything to their oath of office.  
 
When it comes to Washington&#039;s laying his hand on the Masonic Bible and kissing it after completing the oath, he did not include that protocal during his second inauguration. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tevya, you need to know that inspite of what was portrayed on the HBO mini series John Adams, based on the book with that name by David McCullough, there is no contemporaneous or subsequent firsthand account which tells us that George Washington added the extra constitutional phrase, &quot;So help me God,&quot; to his presidential oath. Furthermore, if a person does the research, one will find out that, at present count, most presidents are not known to have appended anything to their oath of office. </p>
<p>When it comes to Washington&#039;s laying his hand on the Masonic Bible and kissing it after completing the oath, he did not include that protocal during his second inauguration. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Roberts</title>
		<link>http://sacredsymbolic.com/recommitment-the-washington-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-102</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Roberts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:28:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacredsymbolic.com/?p=350#comment-102</guid>
		<description>Excellent thoughts about &#039;the General&#039;. My wife and watched the John Adams series and we both really enjoyed it. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent thoughts about &#039;the General&#039;. My wife and watched the John Adams series and we both really enjoyed it. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nancy DeHoyos</title>
		<link>http://sacredsymbolic.com/recommitment-the-washington-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>Nancy DeHoyos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:48:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sacredsymbolic.com/?p=350#comment-100</guid>
		<description>Edward enjoys the John Adams series as well. I enjoy reading your posts as always! Thanks! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Edward enjoys the John Adams series as well. I enjoy reading your posts as always! Thanks! </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

