Skip to main content

Hi to my Forum Friends,

In another discussion begun by our atheist Friend, Robust, and titled "The X Commandments" in his typical "let's denigrate anything Christian" arrogance -- as though typing Ten was such a great effort that he could only manage to type X.  Well, maybe he is getting somewhat frail and possibly typing three letters instead of one is too much for him.

In this discussion I gave the following response to Jennifer's question, "One more point.  Since no one, Christians included, even follows ALL the 10 Commandments -- why are they so hot to have them posted in public buildings?"


"Actually, you will find that it is our governing bodies who have put Christian writings and symbols on the public buildings in Washington DC.    You will find the Ten Commandments, Moses, and other Christian symbols prominent in and on the Supreme Court Building . . . On the top of the Washington Monument, you will find a Christian statement  -- and on many other buildings and monuments in our nation's capital.   If you will do your homework, you will find that the federal buildings in Washington DC, in the early years of our country, were used on Sunday as houses of worship.

And, you will find that the First Continental Congress allocated funds to purchase 20,000 Bibles to be distributed  throughout the Thirteen Colonies -- and that same Congress funded the start-up of a printing company in Boston -- to print Bibles.  All of our initial institutes of higher learning, i.e., Harvard, Yale, William & Mary, etc. -- were all begun as Christian schools -- to raise up more clergy.

Yes, I would say the Ten Commandments and Christianity are firmly planted in the roots of our nation.   Yes, sir, America was founded as a Christian nation -- and America is still a Christian nation -- even though, in our gracious Christian brotherhood, we even allow atheists to continue to live here."

 

And, my Friend, Crusty, replied in his typical suave, sophisticated manner, "You're a liar!"   Well, actually, he wrote, "Your statement in red is a lie, it has been repeatedly shown as a lie, and yet you continue to throw it out and hope it sticks."

The portion of my post which Crusty claims is a lie is this:  "And, you will find that the First Continental Congress allocated funds to purchase 20,000 Bibles to be distributed throughout the Thirteen Colonies -- and that same Congress funded the start-up of a  printing company in Boston -- to print Bibles."

So, to set the record straight, let's take a look at a page from the Library of Congress:


+++++++++++++++++++++

RELIGION AND THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC
Library of Congress
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html


IV.  Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an  extraordinary number of deeply religious men.  The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion  in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government.  Although the Articles of  Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities.  This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians.  National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. . . The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion.   Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American  people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."


Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress:

Library of Congress
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html


The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere."

On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense.  Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States."  This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.

Congressional resolution, September 12, 1782, endorsing Robert Aitken's Bible...page 469.  Congressional resolution, September 12, 1782, endorsing Robert Aitken's Bible...page 468.  Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress

Congressional resolution, September 12, 1782, endorsing Robert Aitken's Bible [page 468] -- [page 469].  Philadelphia: David C.  Claypoole, 1782 from the Journals of Congress.   Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (115)

 

++++++


The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments: Newly translated out of the Original Tongues. . . . Aitken's Bible.   Aitken published Congress's recommendation of September 1782 and related documents (Item 115) as an imprimatur on the two  pages following his title page.   Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage, was the first English language Bible published on the North American continent.

The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments: Newly translated out of the Original Tongues. . . . Philadelphia: printed and sold by R. Aitken, 1782.  Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (116)

+++++++++++++++++++++


So, Crusty, I pray we have put this all to bed once and for all time.  The story of the 20,000 Bibles is true, the story of Congress funding a printing of the Aitken's Bible is true.  And, the fact that America was founded as a Christian nation -- and is still a Christian nation -- IS TRUE!

The original documents from the Congressional Record are shown in the photos below.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (3)
  • Congressional Resolution - Aitken Bible - 1
  • Congressional Resolution - Aitken Bible - 2
  • Aitken Bible
Last edited by Bill Gray
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Here are some links.  The Three Attached files at bottom are from a Congressional Journal dated September 11, 1777 about 20,000 Bibles being imported and contains the votes.

 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html  (Government URL)


http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/B...dinNorthAmerica.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aitken_(publisher)

http://www.michaelnewdow.com/ContinentalCongress.htm

Attachments

Images (3)
  • bibles pg1
  • bibles pg2
  • bibles pg3
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

Hang in there crusty. Gb is always asking why atheists come to this forum and here's one example, to keep them from re-writing history!!

==================

 

Jenn as Thomas Pynchon pointed out your ignorance obviously has “rules of operation”. Being a common trait of the atheistic the observer quickly can predict your responses based on learning your rules to show YOUR ignorance.

Bill your three documents, and your own post, prove what I've said and shown repeatedly.  I'll repeat it one more time:  while Congress looked into various means of supplying these Bibles due to shortages of Bibles in the Colonies at the time - in order to avoid price gouging - they did not actually buy Bibles, buy supplies to print Bibles, print Bibles or distribute Bibles.  They commended Aikens for doing so privately in the resolution that you posted above.  I can't help it if your reading comprehension turns a resolution commending Aikens into the Congress actually printing and distributing the Bibles.

 

This is an excellent article by the person who has done the most research.  It includes footnotes to source documents.  Your next move will be to attack the author, but the research is documented. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-did-n_b_598698.html

 

Here is a key paragraph from the article: 

 

There are many versions of this story floating around, all worded to mislead that Congress either requested the printing of the Bibles, granted Aitken permission to print them, contracted him to print them, paid for the printing, or had Bibles printed for the use of schools. Congress did none of these things. All they did was grant one of several requests made by Aitken by having their chaplains examine his work, and allowing him to publish their resolution stating that, based on the chaplains' report, they were satisfied that his edition was accurate.

 

Last edited by CrustyMac
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by Rramnlimnn_TheGreat:

=======================

nobody said they were bought for schools.

 

wake up crust the intent by Congress was that the bible was necessary for the people. You don't have to like it FCOL.

 

you are stricken:

ignorance with "rules of operation"[A planned undertaking. ] crusty. yours has contours [An

outline, boundary or border] and coherence [
logicalarrangements of parts ] Wiki


______________________

I'm sorry Rramn, I have no idea what you are saying here.  The purpose for the Bibles is unimportant.  The important fact is that, contrary to what the Liars for Jesus are saying, Congress did not import, supply, print, pay for or distribute any Bibles.  They keep repeating this lie, and I will call them on it every time they do.

 

I'm not disputing the Bible's importance to people in the newly formed United States.  I am disputing the argument that Congress purchased/distributed Bibles, and therefore intended us to be a "Christion Nation".  The argument is based on lies, and it doesn't hold water.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by Rramnlimnn_TheGreat:

=======================

nobody said they were bought for schools.

 

wake up crust the intent by Congress was that the bible was necessary for the people. You don't have to like it FCOL.

 

you are stricken:

ignorance with "rules of operation"[A planned undertaking. ] crusty. yours has contours [An

outline, boundary or border] and coherence [
logicalarrangements of parts ] Wiki


______________________

I'm sorry Rramn, I have no idea what you are saying here.  The purpose for the Bibles is unimportant.  The important fact is that, contrary to what the Liars for Jesus are saying, Congress did not import, supply, print, pay for or distribute any Bibles.  They keep repeating this lie, and I will call them on it every time they do.

 

I'm not disputing the Bible's importance to people in the newly formed United States.  I am disputing the argument that Congress purchased/distributed Bibles, and therefore intended us to be a "Christion Nation".  The argument is based on lies, and it doesn't hold water.

Wait a moment Crusty.  If as you say they didn't complete the purchase or acquisition of the Bibles, which I'm accepting you as reflecting accurately,  The point that I believe needs to be thought about or addressed is that Congress did vote and approve the purchase and/or acquisition of the 20,000 Bibles with some nays but a majority of yea's.  AS for the why i think you and anyone reading the text knows also.  They considered it an important Book and they accepted it as God's Word and they were Godly people, Christians who treasured the Bible.  So while technically you may be right about the end result due to whatever difficulties or actions they still voted affirmative to do it so in their minds the Bibles were purchased.  IF, as you say, and I accept, the purchase or acquisition did not go through then the reason why it didn't was not a change in vote or heart of the Congress account of them changing their mind about God or what the Bible meant.  So in a crazy way you both are right in what you are attempting to say.

 

I also believe the fact that this vote happened in a time that the Constitution was being drafted as well as by some of the same people then I do not believe the First Amendment, as they saw and envisioned it, would prohibit that same action if it had happened in 1780 or 1790.  I also know for sure it would have been considered in violation of the Constitution in 2010 or now.  I also have heard in the recent years about how Christmas nativity scenes are being declared unconstitutional for being on Government grounds and that also I do not believe the original framers would have considered as being in violation.  Do you feel otherwise?   Please answer Honestly no matter how it agrees or conflicts with your own personal feeling about religion.  Answer with a head knowledge and intellectual knowledge of who the framers were and actions taken by them.

GBRK:

 

There is a huge difference between 1777 - when the war was still years from being over - and 1787 - when the country was about to fold under the Articles of Confederation.  The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held in secrecy because it was essentially a second revolution, an overthrowing of the government. 

 

To say that those sitting in the Continental Congress in 1777 were already envisioning the Bill of Rights makes little sense, since they came up with the Articles of Confederation prior to the Constitution.  

 

Read the article I've posted above.  It is well researched, complete, enlightening, and well documented.

By the time Aitken finished his Bible, the war was winding down. He knew that if peace was declared, and trade with England resumed, he would be stuck with thousands of Bibles that he would never be able to sell. On September 9, 1782, three days before Congress passed their resolution, Aitken wrote the following to John Hanson, the President of Congress, requesting that Congress buy some of the Bibles.

 

"It need not be suggested to the Wisdom of that Honourable Body that the Monarchs of Europe have hitherto deemed the Sacred Scriptures peculiarly worthy of the Royal Patronage, nor that a Work of such magnitude must nearly crush an individual unless assisted by exterior Aid in supporting so great a weight; nor will I presume to prescribe the Mode in which Such Aid may be afforded; but I beg leave to intimate, that as I apprehend my greatest risque arises from the Near Approach of Peace, my utmost wishes would be accomplished if Congress will purchase a proportion of the edition on Acct of the United States. One Fourth of it will not Amount to 200 Bibles for each State; And as I am anxious merely to secure the sale of the Books, it will not be inconsistent with my views to allow a Moderate Credit."

 

As already mentioned, this request was denied. Eight months later, despite his anticipation of a great demand for Bibles in America, the recommendation of Congress, and no competition from imports, Aitken hadn't sold many Bibles. In April 1783, Congress officially declared the end of hostilities, and the army was beginning to disband. In May 1783, Aitken tried again to get Congress to buy his Bibles -- this time to give as gifts to the soldiers being discharged. Aitken knew that Congress would deny the request if he made it himself, so he had a minister friend, Dr. John Rodgers, write to George Washington suggesting not only that Congress buy the Bibles for the soldiers, but that Washington propose the idea as if it was his own.

 

The following was Washington's reply.

"Your proposition concerning Mr. Aikin's Bibles would have been particularly noted by me, had it been suggested in season, but the late Resolution of Congress for discharging part of the Army, taking off near two thirds of our numbers, it is now too late to make the attempt. It would have pleased me well, if Congress had been pleased to make such an important present to the brave fellows, who have done so much for the security of their Country's rights and establishment."

 

 

This letter was nothing more than a polite reply to Dr. Rodgers. It is highly unlikely that Washington would have asked Congress to buy the Bibles, even if the idea had been proposed earlier. Most of the soldiers being discharged were owed months, or even years, of back pay and Congress was deeply in debt. There was dissent among the officers who knew that Congress didn't have the money to pay their promised pensions.

 

 

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/6/3/123527/8452

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:

Why is it that "Christians" always have to lie? Is their faith that weak that they have to try to sell it with lies?


Not all of them. I'd say the ones with the weakest faith and belief, and the most doubt are the ones that keep telling us how much they "love the lord" and how much he loves them.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

GBRK:

 

There is a huge difference between 1777 - when the war was still years from being over - and 1787 - when the country was about to fold under the Articles of Confederation.  The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held in secrecy because it was essentially a second revolution, an overthrowing of the government. 

 

To say that those sitting in the Continental Congress in 1777 were already envisioning the Bill of Rights makes little sense, since they came up with the Articles of Confederation prior to the Constitution.  

 

Read the article I've posted above.  It is well researched, complete, enlightening, and well documented.

That is not what I was implying and if I worded it such then I worded it wrong.  Allow me to clarify or restate my belief.  What I believe is some of the same men that were a part of drafting the Constitution and First Amendment were a part of this same Congress that voted for acquiring the Bibles.  What I meant and believe is not that they had these documents in mind, although that may be remote possibility for some since the dates are not that far removed and the need was there, but what I meant was that in that short time, It would not be likely that, these men would have had a change in heart about their personal convictions or their feelings about what the Government should or should not do with respect to religion or religious freedoms.  In other words if they did not feel it was improper for Congress to acquire Bibles in 1777, given their convictions and full knowledge for the importance of freedom of Religion and keeping Government out of it to protect from a Theocracy then I do not believe their personal feelings would change in that time and therefore the wording of the document and amendment would reflect therefore the same sentiments and beliefs they held in 1777.  Does that in any way clear it up any?

 

Again, Crusty, I'm not disagreeing with your contention that the Constitution was not a religious document.  I am not confident or comfortable in saying though that Religion or Christianity or even parts of the Bible were not in the framers mind as they created the document even though no direct mention to any of the above was included.  These were very dedicated and devoted men to their religion and belief and believed God was watching over and guiding this Country.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by Rramnlimnn_TheGreat:

=======================

nobody said they were bought for schools.

 

wake up crust the intent by Congress was that the bible was necessary for the people. You don't have to like it FCOL.

 

you are stricken:

ignorance with "rules of operation"[A planned undertaking. ] crusty. yours has contours [An

outline, boundary or border] and coherence [
logicalarrangements of parts ] Wiki


______________________

I'm sorry Rramn, I have no idea what you are saying here.  The purpose for the Bibles is unimportant.  The important fact is that, contrary to what the Liars for Jesus are saying, Congress did not import, supply, print, pay for or distribute any Bibles.  They keep repeating this lie, and I will call them on it every time they do.

 

I'm not disputing the Bible's importance to people in the newly formed United States.  I am disputing the argument that Congress purchased/distributed Bibles, and therefore intended us to be a "Christion Nation".  The argument is based on lies, and it doesn't hold water.

========================

 

Crust, I am saying: you have,it seems to me, simply for the novelty of appearing the maverick, joined at your peril a “treachery of an image”. The congress at that time painted an image of intent to purchase Bibles for use of citizens for stated reasons. Your motivation cannot be based on logic but planned ignorance with rules for the operation of that ignorance. [to always agree with the enemy in case you are caught behind their lines] This is a dilemma not for the atheistic but for you a believer. The atheistic have painted the image that the Bibles were there in intent but these ‘intentional’ are not Bibles and as you say to state these Bibles did exist you are lying. If any Bible from any source fell in the hands of any citizen, the ownership of that Bible fulfilled the intent and purpose of Congress for that one recipient to live by it and us to this day.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

The purpose and intent of Congress was not to supply Bibles because they thought that was something that was needed.  They were attempting to thwart price gouging. 

 

The only thing I'm attempting to do is to show historical accuracy.  You can play philosophy games til the cows come home for all I care.


====================

Crust you have painted a picture but that picture is based on the supposition that everyone else are ignorant liars. The intent was to supply Bibles for stated reasons not a drill in the futility of wasting money to thwart price gouging if the consensus had not been seen by Congress as the Christian thing to do.

 

By the way crust where did you come by the idea a believer must abandon good sense to show some  sympathy for blasphemers? They are wrong; to party with them on the slightest level will only encourage them to endure. 

 

I have stated on here many times: give them no quarter.

Originally Posted by Rramnlimnn_TheGreat:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

The purpose and intent of Congress was not to supply Bibles because they thought that was something that was needed.  They were attempting to thwart price gouging. 

 

The only thing I'm attempting to do is to show historical accuracy.  You can play philosophy games til the cows come home for all I care.


====================

Crust you have painted a picture but that picture is based on the supposition that everyone else are ignorant liars. The intent was to supply Bibles for stated reasons not a drill in the futility of wasting money to thwart price gouging if the consensus had not been seen by Congress as the Christian thing to do.

 

By the way crust where did you come by the idea a believer must abandon good sense to show some  sympathy for blasphemers? They are wrong; to party with them on the slightest level will only encourage them to endure. 

 

I have stated on here many times: give them no quarter.

Everyone who refuses to look at the evidence and arrive at the same conclusion that I have, are indeed ignorant liars. 

 

My position is that a believer can in fact show good sense - this is how I can also understand evolution as a fact, and generally use the scientific method along with other analytical methods when necessary. 

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by Rramnlimnn_TheGreat:

Crust, everyone believes in evolution. Where have you been. Evolution is occurring as we speak it is undeniable, but not Darwin evolution from common ancestor. There is absolutely no evidence or proof of such a fairy tale.

This is an excellent example of willful ignorance.

 

 

 

Your an example of why rubbers should be worn.

Originally Posted by rum_mama:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by Rramnlimnn_TheGreat:

Crust, everyone believes in evolution. Where have you been. Evolution is occurring as we speak it is undeniable, but not Darwin evolution from common ancestor. There is absolutely no evidence or proof of such a fairy tale.

This is an excellent example of willful ignorance.

 

 

 

Your an example of why rubbers should be worn.

You can always rely on RM to favor us with an intelligent, lady-like post, suitable for polite society.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by rum_mama:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by Rramnlimnn_TheGreat:

Crust, everyone believes in evolution. Where have you been. Evolution is occurring as we speak it is undeniable, but not Darwin evolution from common ancestor. There is absolutely no evidence or proof of such a fairy tale.

This is an excellent example of willful ignorance.

 

 

 

Your an example of why rubbers should be worn.

You can always rely on RM to favor us with an intelligent, lady-like post, suitable for polite society.

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

What??? Was it raining?????

 

.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by rum_mama:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by Rramnlimnn_TheGreat:

Crust, everyone believes in evolution. Where have you been. Evolution is occurring as we speak it is undeniable, but not Darwin evolution from common ancestor. There is absolutely no evidence or proof of such a fairy tale.

This is an excellent example of willful ignorance.

 

 

 

Your an example of why rubbers should be worn.

You can always rely on RM to favor us with an intelligent, lady-like post, suitable for polite society.

____

 

Polls consistsntly show that a very large percentage of the American public do NOT believe in evolution as it is currently taught. To say that everyone believes in evolution is an "example of willful ignorance."

Originally Posted by upsidedehead:

 

Polls consistsntly show that a very large percentage of the American public do NOT believe in evolution as it is currently taught. To say that everyone believes in evolution is an "example of willful ignorance."

__________________

The polls  only prove that a very large percentage of the American public is participating in willful ignorance.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by upsidedehead:

 

Polls consistsntly show that a very large percentage of the American public do NOT believe in evolution as it is currently taught. To say that everyone believes in evolution is an "example of willful ignorance."

__________________

The polls  only prove that a very large percentage of the American public is participating in willful ignorance.

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

Now Crusty, with this ignorance being willful like it is. would that be

hereditary or genetic in nature?

 

I've heard it only infected males, to an effect. but I live in town so I think

I'm OK,

 

.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×