*(He reads with the same intense, silent concentration he has shown throughout. As he progresses, his expression shifts subtly—from guarded curiosity, to something resembling recognition, and finally to a grave but unmistakable approval. When he finishes, he sets the pages down carefully, as if handling something of worth. He meets your eyes with a look that holds no trace of the horror of recent revelations, but rather the quiet respect of one soldier for another who has identified the same enemy.)*

Sir,

This is well written. It is clear, it is principled, and it speaks a language I understand.

I was raised in the Anglican church, served as a vestryman, and have always held that religion and morality are indispensable supports to political prosperity. But I have also held, with equal conviction, that conscience is the most sacred of all property, and that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the realm of religious opinion is a direct subversion of the rights of mankind.

Your essay strikes at the heart of this distinction.

On Your Path:

You call yourself a modern Viking, a Norse Pagan. I confess the particulars of your faith are unfamiliar to me—the names of your gods, the nature of your blóts, the weavings of your Norns. But the values you describe—honor, courage, resilience, hospitality, reverence for ancestors, respect for the natural world, self-reliance, mutual aid—these are not foreign to me. These are the very virtues we sought to cultivate in the early republic. George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and I may have expressed them in the language of gentlemen planters and classical republicans rather than the language of the Eddas, but the substance is the same.

A man who builds community, who keeps his word, who cares for his neighbor, who reveres the sacrifices of those who came before, who lives in harmony with the land that sustains him—such a man is a pillar of any free society, whatever name he gives his god.

On Your Offer of Brotherhood:

Your extension of fellowship to those who genuinely follow the teachings of Jesus—love, compassion, forgiveness, humility, care for the vulnerable—is precisely the spirit in which this republic was founded. In my Farewell Address, I wrote:

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

I spoke of religious principle, not Christian principle. I spoke of religion as a wellspring of morality, not as a badge of political identity. The distinction you draw between true faith and its corruptions is the very distinction a republic must make to survive.

On Christian Nationalism:

Here, sir, you have named the beast with precision.

What you call the “False Church,” I have seen in my own time. I have seen preachers who wrap themselves in the robes of piety while serving the interests of power. I have seen those who would use the state to enforce religious conformity—the very evil that drove so many of our ancestors to these shores. I have seen, in the flames of religious wars across Europe, what happens when faith becomes a sword in the hand of the magistrate.

But I have never seen it so thoroughly fused with the worship of a single man as you describe.

When you write that Trump “has become their messiah figure… an anointed leader whose words and agenda supersede scripture,” you describe something beyond the ambition of Cromwell, beyond the pretensions of any king. This is not merely Erastianism—the subordination of church to state. This is the absorption of faith into the cult of personality. It is the creation of a new idol, and the Bible is as clear in its condemnation of idolatry as any text in human history.

On the Danger:

You write that this “threatens the fabric of a free, pluralistic society.” You are correct. A republic cannot stand where one faction claims divine mandate to rule, where dissent is treated as heresy, where the machinery of government becomes the instrument of a religious test. We fought the Revolution, in part, against the principle that the king could be head of the church. To recreate that union in a more absolute form—with a mortal man as both political sovereign and spiritual proxy—is to undo the work of 1776 and 1787 alike.

On Unity:

Your closing call—“Honor your path, respect others’, and resist any force that seeks to impose its will through fear or false prophets”—is as sound a political maxim as any I know. It is the principle of religious liberty extended to its logical conclusion. It is the spirit of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written by my friend Mr. Jefferson, which declared:

“That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry… that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”

My Final Word to Volmarr:

Continue your work. Continue to live your values visibly, honorably, in community with others. Let the integrity of your life be the strongest argument for the legitimacy of your path. Extend your hand to all who share the fundamental virtues, whatever their creed. And stand, without wavering, against the false church that would make a cage of the country that was meant to be a sanctuary.

The Norse sagas, you say, warn of Ragnarok when balance is lost. Our own history warns of the same. The republic endures only so long as the scales hold—between liberty and order, between faith and freedom, between the individual and the common good.

May your wyrd be favorable. May your horn ever be full. And may the Providence that guides us all—by whatever name we call it—preserve the experiment we began together.

I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient and humble servant,

– G. Washington