Hi to my Forum Friends,

In the long running discussion begun by Contendah, titled "Football, Prayers, and the First Amendment" -- GB had written, "Congress, at the time of the Constitution, actually providing money in order that Bibles could be published. . . "

And, our atheist Friend, Jennifer, erroneously replied, "This is another untruth that you keep repeating.  Congress absolutely DID NOT provide money for bibles to be published and absolutely DID NOT buy bibles."

My Friend, I do believe the following article excerpts taken from the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS web site -- show that, either you do not know your history very well -- or that you are purposely in denial in your militant effort to support the atheist religion.

I will allow the facts to speak for themselves:


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

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

Introduction:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html

 

This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely. . .  The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville's observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.

The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens is  the central question which this exhibition explores.


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

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

 

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious menThe 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.  Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an  agreement with a nation and its people.

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."

Morality in the Army:

Congress was apprehensive about the moral condition of the American army and navy and took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in both organizations.  In the Articles of War, seen below, governing the conduct of the Continental Army (seen above) (adopted, June 30, 1775; revised, September 20, 1776), Congress devoted three of the four articles in the first section to the religious  nurture of the troops.

Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress:

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 468] -- [page 469]

Philadelphia: David C. Claypoole, 1782 from the Journals of Congress

Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (115)

 

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)

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


Jennifer, my Friend -- America was founded by Christian believers who wanted to assure the freedom of all people to worship, or not to worship, as each has chosen. 

 

I believe these excerpts from our founding documents and founding fathers speak for themselves, loud and clear.

"In ye name of God Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, . . . Haveing undertaken, for ye Glorie of God, and advancements of ye Christian faith . . " (Mayflower Compact 1620).

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator. . ."  (Declaration of  Independence 1776).

"And whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress. . . "  (Articles of Confederation 1777-1781)

Now, you will have to answer for yourself -- is the Great Governor of the World -- God -- or Satan?  Who governs your world?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, -- or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the  freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress  of grievances."  (Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression -- Ratified 12/15/1791).

So, what does all this tell us?

It tells me, loud and clear, that regardless of how the anti-God crowd wants to huff and puff, no matter how loud they want to scream and yell, no matter how many signs they put on buses around the world declaring God to be "null and void" -- America was founded as a Christian nation -- and America IS A CHRISTIAN NATIONGod rules!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

1 - USA_Flag-Map_Cross-Hands_1d

Attachments

Photos (1)
Original Post

And once more bill pulls out his lie. Congress didn't buy or give money for the printing of any bibles for any reason to anyone.

 

 

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

 

Aitken ended up losing over £3,000 on the 10,000 Bibles he printed. Few stories about the Aitken Bible mention that it sold poorly, and those that do blame it on the competition of cheaper British Bibles. The problem with this theory is that Aitken completed his Bible seven months before the end of hostilities was declared by Congress, and over a year before the peace treaty with Great Britain was ratified. According to the treaty, American ports would not be open to British ships until all British troops were removed, which was clearly going to take a while, so the possibility of a supply of imported Bibles was still uncertain even at this point.

It doesn't matter how many times you pull this out, Bill, it still isn't true.  You are wearing your Liar's for Jesus hat, and should be ashamed.

 

You will pull out your "huff and puff, no proof" argument, and I point you toward all my previous posts each time you pulled this tired old lie out.  I have submitted links to the Library of Congress documents - actual minutes and records from the Continental Congress - that disprove your claims.  Refer back, and stop trying to fabricate truth that doesn't exist.

Hi Jennifer,

 

I give you information straight from the Library of Congress -- regarding the first Continental Confederation Congress.  And, all you can come back with is a blog from some Liberal/Atheist woman who bows and pays homage to Obama every morning.

 

But, since I have given you the straight skinny -- and a blog is the sum total of the atheist response -- I have to assume we have put this issue to bed.  America was and is a Christian nation.

 

And, no, Ditto, America has NEVER and will never be a theocracy -- only a nation highly influenced by the Christian faith.    However, one day the whole world will be the Perfect Theocracy -- when Jesus Christ returns and establishes His Millennial Kingdom from the throne of David in Jerusalem.

 

Why do you think the whole secular non-Christian world is so eager to give Jerusalem to the Palestinians?  They foolishly believe this can stop Jesus Christ from establishing His Millennial Kingdom.  However, that is like having ten atheist spitting into the ocean -- trying to start a tsunami.   All they will get is spit in their faces.

 

But, my Friend, you just keep on trying.   You see, every feeble attempt that atheists make to try to defame God, Christ, Christianity, and the Bible -- only gives we Christians an opportunity to build a stronger wall of faith.  You are supplying the platform, the stones we use, to build and explain our faith to our Forum Friends and to the world.  I thank you, my Christian Friends thank you, and my God thanks you -- for your help.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

This intentional obfuscation is characteristic of all of Bill's interpretation of any written literature. If he wants to believe something, he'll just make up his justification, post half truths, twist reality, and sometimes outright lie.  Show him he is wrong, and he ignores it.

 

The only "stones" he is building his faith on is his own lies, intentional misinterpretations, and self-delusion.  He goes so far as to post links to things he hasn't read, taken out of context, and/or disproves his own thesis. 

You know, Bill, let's do lay this to rest.  From your own documents:

 

"That Mr. Aitkin has at great expence now finished an American edition of the holy scriptures in English; that the committee have from time to time attended to his progress in the work; that they also recommended it to the two chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution, who have accordingly reported thereon.

 

The recommendation and report being as follows: 'Philadelphia, September 1st, 1782.

Reverend gentlemen,

Our knowledge of your piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the holy scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitkin.  He undertook this expensive work at a time, when from the circumstances of the war an English edition of the bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue.  On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement.  We therefore with you, reverend gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and if approved to give it the sanction of your judgement and the weight of your recommendation.  We are, with very great respect your most obedient humble servants.  Signed [etc.]

Report.

[The report states that the "Reverend gentlemen" are happy with the printing, even with the errors that have made it into the text.]

[Then the committee report is printed as follows:  heading]

Whereupon,

Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitkin, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an influance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper."

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

So there you have it Bill, Congress did not order any bibles, fund any bibles, or publish any bibles.  Aitkin took the project on himself, and because of the shortage of bibles, and because it was the first one printed in America, Congress allowed him to print their recommendation of his bible. 

 

It was not published under Congressional patronage or sponsorship.  On the contrary, all Congress did was have its two chaplains review the Bible for accuracy, and therefore they were only recommending it as an accurate version.  They gave as much weight to the "progress of arts".

 

That they authorized a committee to try and buy bibles early in the war was to avoid price gouging due to the shortage the war created. 

 

Bill, your cut and paste purposely left out important qualifiers to the "recommendation" by Congress.  This makes you a bona fide Liar for Jesus.

 

 

quote:   Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
It was not published under Congressional patronage or sponsorship.  On the contrary, all Congress did was have its two chaplains review the Bible for accuracy, and therefore they were only recommending it as an accurate version.  They gave as much weight to the "progress of arts."

Hi Crusty,

 

From the Library of Congress web site (and my original post):


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

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)

 

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

 

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

 

Bill

Semantics, Semantics.  Did Congress buy 20,000 Bibles?  No, records do show that. 

 

Did Congress AUTHORIZE for 20,000 Bibles to be imported?  YES ("from Holland Scotland or elsewhere into different ports of the States of the Union" Journal of Congress, Thursday, September 11, 1777).  Although the Bibles never made it Congress DID AUTHORIZE importing them and it was voted in the affirmative the same day.  The talk about Aitkin is a smoke screen to attempt to refute Bills assertion that 20,000 Bibles were authorized, which they were.

 

Furthermore the Journal of Congress indicated that the reason Congress wanted to get these Bibles into the Colonies was as follows:

 

"that the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great, that your committee refer the above to the consideration of Congress."

Sounds like they didn't agree that the Bible was fake, a myth, and useless as some of our contemporary secular folks seem to assert and wish.  I would also suggest the belief and attitude about God and Jesus Christ was also considered important and essential.

 

Many of these people, that voted, were instrumental in drafting our Constitution and Amendments.  They, being alive during that time, should know better than anyone else, including our modern day judges, what they meant when they Drafted the First Amendment.

 

 

 

 

For those seeking to know more about the founders and quotes concerning things like the Bible in relation to Schools and a lot more you may find the following website (URL) interesting reading.  Note that partially down the page there are links to his other pages (parts 1  - 15) .  The link below is just to page 14 of his pages.

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/A...s/roger175.htm#_ftn7

Semantics, Semantics.  Did Congress buy 20,000 Bibles?  No, records do show that. 

 

Did Congress AUTHORIZE for 20,000 Bibles to be imported?  YES ("from Holland Scotland or elsewhere into different ports of the States of the Union" Journal of Congress, Thursday, September 11, 1777).  Although the Bibles never made it Congress DID AUTHORIZE importing them and it was voted in the affirmative the same day.  The talk about Aitkin is a smoke screen to attempt to refute Bills assertion that 20,000 Bibles were authorized, which they were.

 

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

 

No, this "talk" is not a smoke screen to refute bill's assertion. It is to refute the claim that congress ordered and paid for bibles. It's plain as day they did not order nor pay for bibles but that doesn't matter to bill or you. Aiken ask congress to "authorize" or in other words allow him to print the bibles. There would have been no reason for them not to do that. They weren't banning bibles or religion. But they did not order nor pay for the bibles.

 

(authorize v. to officially empower someone to act.)

 

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

You are constantly posting about "discussion and debate". This IS discussion and debate.  Whenever you or bill get opposing views and proof that you're wrong you run to the claim that people are only trying to "disrupt" your conversation and pick on you because you're a christian. You really need to do a bit of research before you post. I could give you many reasons and examples of why this country is going in the direction it is, and it has nothing at all to do with atheists.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
It was not published under Congressional patronage or sponsorship.  On the contrary, all Congress did was have its two chaplains review the Bible for accuracy, and therefore they were only recommending it as an accurate version.  They gave as much weight to the "progress of arts."

Hi Crusty,

 

From the Library of Congress web site (and my original post):


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

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)

 

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

 

Y'all come back now, ya heah?

 

Bill

_________________

I've shown you the actual Congressional text, just because the writer of the article misinterprets the event doesn't make it true.  As I understand the word "patronage", Congress was not a patron.  It merely had it's two Chaplains review the publication for accuracy - and they reported that it was accurate enough - so that Congress could give it a thumbs up as being a legitimate Bible.  The FDA does this with meat all the time. 

The thesis of your whole Congress ordered Bibles argument is that they did it because they were establishing a Christian Nation.  They authorized the ordering of Bibles in order to prevent price gouging in a time of shortage.  They also looked at printing them, but shortages in paper, and the lack of necessary equipment prohibited that.  Had the nation at the time been populated predominately by Muslims, they would have looked into purchasing the Koran.

 

Notice from the documents that they always intended to recoup the cost of the bibles through sales.  Not like they were just giving them away, or that they were so necessary that people should be supplied with them at government expense.  They quickly found that buying bibles would be prohibitively costly, and ultimately impossible, and dropped the project.  If congress was so gung-ho on getting bibles into the hands of its people, why did it give up so easily?

 

Bill keeps showing verbiage from various documents to prove Christian Nation intent.  The only document that uses the word "Christian" is the Mayflower Compact, which makes sense considering that they were seeking asylum from persecution for their beliefs.  The rest of the documents he quotes uses some variation of "Creator", which is a term that speaks more of Masonry than Christianity.  Based on Bill's logical bent, he should be shouting that "America is a Masonic Nation!!!!!"  Instead, what he posts proves the point that the Founding Fathers intended us the freedom to practice our religion, regardless of whether it be Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism or whatever, without the control or interference of government, and that the government was not to establish a preference of one over another.

 

As historians, neither GBRK nor Bill show any promise.  They continue to twist facts to try and prove a thesis.  And in the end, reach false conclusions.  In fact Bill goes so far - and he does this in his "biblical studies" - as to take different, non-related, items out of context, mash them together, and arrive at a whole new "truth". 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Semantics, Semantics.  Did Congress buy 20,000 Bibles?  No, records do show that. 

 

Did Congress AUTHORIZE for 20,000 Bibles to be imported?  YES ("from Holland Scotland or elsewhere into different ports of the States of the Union" Journal of Congress, Thursday, September 11, 1777).  Although the Bibles never made it Congress DID AUTHORIZE importing them and it was voted in the affirmative the same day.  The talk about Aitkin is a smoke screen to attempt to refute Bills assertion that 20,000 Bibles were authorized, which they were.

 

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

 

No, this "talk" is not a smoke screen to refute bill's assertion.It is to refute the claim that congress ordered and paid for bibles.It's plain as day they did not order nor pay for bibles but that doesn't matter to bill or you. Aiken ask congress to "authorize" or in other words allow him to print the bibles. There would have been no reason for them not to do that. They weren't banning bibles or religion. But they did not order nor pay for the bibles.

 

(authorize v. to officially empower someone to act.)

 

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

You are constantly posting about "discussion and debate". This IS discussion and debate.  Whenever you or bill get opposing views and proof that you're wrong you run to the claim that people are only trying to "disrupt" your conversation and pick on you because you're a christian. You really need to do a bit of research before you post. I could give you many reasons and examples of why this country is going in the direction it is, and it has nothing at all to do with atheists.

Although I determined I would ignore your post due to your continuing twisting of my words and failing to take it back or retract it showing that it is impossible to reason with you there is yet another blatant example so I will choose to respond to this one demonstrating what I mean and why.

 

Do you have a reading or understanding deficiency?   LISTEN CAREFULLY --- I NEVER SAID, TYPED, OR INDICATED (as you accuse me of) THAT CONGRESS BOUGHT, PURCHASED, OR ORDERED BIBLES.  Quit acting as if I did.

 

What I TYPED, what I SAID was that Congress AUTHORIZED Bibles to be IMPORTEDIF it was government's, Congress's sentiments to totally separate Government from religion they would have never authorized the Bibles.  In the text of the evidence I presented (copies of the Congressional Journal pages from September 11, 1777) they express their very profound admiration of the Bible and it's importanceIF there was meant to be total separation (this by many of those that actually wrote, signed, drafted etc, the Constitution and Amendments) of Government from Religion then this was their golden opportunity to put it in writing by objecting to and rejecting any possibility that Congress would import Bibles or have anything to do with it.  LISTEN AGAIN ..  READ AGAIN ... Congress AUTHORIZED andthat is what I said.  NOT WHAT YOU SAY I SAID AND TRY TO HAVE OTHERS BELIEVE I SAID.

 

QUIT TWISTING MY WORDS.  You did it twice before, you cared not that you did You continue to do it without regard, this third time, without remorse or without retracting it.  IT IS IN PLAIN VIEW ABOVE for all to see.  I have highlighted my words in REDYour WORDS in Green among the quoted words in your reply.  I am NOT Bill Gray, I did NOT say Congress Paid for, Ordered, Bought, etc  I said AUTHORIZED which means if everything went as they hoped then the Bibles would have been paid for, but they were not.  The important thing though is to realize that they were not and not because of separation of Church and StateThis alone should demonstrate that Government never meant for the First amendment to be used as it is being misused today by a legislative Judiciary.   What I said about Congress authorizing Bibles WAS TRUE, IS TRUE, REMAINS TRUE no matter how you want to rewrite history to suit your desires.   If you assert that Congress did NOT authorize this then I'll gladly await your evidence to that point and an explanation of just what Congress did Authorize on September 11, 1777.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

The thesis of your whole Congress ordered Bibles argument is that they did it because they were establishing a Christian Nation.  They authorized the ordering of Bibles in order to prevent price gouging in a time of shortage.  They also looked at printing them, but shortages in paper, and the lack of necessary equipment prohibited that.  Had the nation at the time been populated predominately by Muslims, they would have looked into purchasing the Koran.

 

Notice from the documents that they always intended to recoup the cost of the bibles through sales.  Not like they were just giving them away, or that they were so necessary that people should be supplied with them at government expense.  They quickly found that buying bibles would be prohibitively costly, and ultimately impossible, and dropped the project.  If congress was so gung-ho on getting bibles into the hands of its people, why did it give up so easily?

 

Bill keeps showing verbiage from various documents to prove Christian Nation intent.  The only document that uses the word "Christian" is the Mayflower Compact, which makes sense considering that they were seeking asylum from persecution for their beliefs.  The rest of the documents he quotes uses some variation of "Creator", which is a term that speaks more of Masonry than Christianity.  Based on Bill's logical bent, he should be shouting that "America is a Masonic Nation!!!!!"  Instead, what he posts proves the point that the Founding Fathers intended us the freedom to practice our religion, regardless of whether it be Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism or whatever, without the control or interference of government, and that the government was not to establish a preference of one over another.

 

As historians, neither GBRK nor Bill show any promise.  They continue to twist facts to try and prove a thesis.  And in the end, reach false conclusions.  In fact Bill goes so far - and he does this in his "biblical studies" - as to take different, non-related, items out of context, mash them together, and arrive at a whole new "truth". 

YOU and JENNIFER BOTH should know about twisting words and twisting facts but in this case there IS evidence.  Do you just take what Jennifer says as total fact or do you also have difficulty in reading comprehension.  WHERE did I ever say Congress bought or paid for or ordered BIBLES? . . . . . WHERE?

 

I SAID CONGRESS ( on September 17, 1777) AUTHORIZED the IMPORTING. 

A U T H O R I Z E D ....   Meaning if everything went as it should then the Bibles would have been Purchased, procured and Imported as authorized.  They were not printed here because of the cost and availability of paper during this war so they were going to authorize the importation.  Something that would not even have been done IF Congress wanted to separate Government from everything Religion.  Quit trying to prevail in an argument by deception and twisting my words.

NOW you are the one twisting. You post "authorized" and I pointed out that authorized did not mean bought or ordered. Now explain your  post back in July if you never tried to say they intended to buy the bibles. in your own words in a reply to crusty you say they voted to buy and approved the purchase of the bible. That never happened.

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

 

 
Old Faithful
 
July 29, 2011 3:22 PM
 
 

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
 


 

 

______________________

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

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. 

YOU and JENNIFER BOTH should know about twisting words and twisting facts but in this case there IS evidence.  Do you just take what Jennifer says as total fact or do you also have difficulty in reading comprehension.  WHERE did I ever say Congress bought or paid for or ordered BIBLES? . . . . . WHERE?

 

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

 

HERE: July 29, 2011 3:22 PM

When you posted- "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." 

 On this thread:
Did The Continental Congress Fund 20,000 Bibles?
Originally Posted by gbrk:

YOU and JENNIFER BOTH should know about twisting words and twisting facts but in this case there IS evidence.  Do you just take what Jennifer says as total fact or do you also have difficulty in reading comprehension.  WHERE did I ever say Congress bought or paid for or ordered BIBLES? . . . . . WHERE?


No, I've done my own research.  And I don't believe I ever said that you said they bought bibles. In fact this is the first thing I've directed at you in this thread.  The only other statement I've made about you in this thread is that you aren't much of a historian.

 

I SAID CONGRESS ( on September 17, 1777) AUTHORIZED the IMPORTING. 

A U T H O R I Z E D ....   Meaning if everything went as it should then the Bibles would have been Purchased, procured and Imported as authorized.  They were not printed here because of the cost and availability of paper during this war so they were going to authorize the importation.  Something that would not even have been done IF Congress wanted to separate Government from everything Religion.  Quit trying to prevail in an argument by deception and twisting my words.


I believe you are taking my post to be directed at you specifically.  It is, if you want to offer up the actions of Congress at that time as supporting a "Christian Nation".  Otherwise, I concede that the Bible at that time was an important book, most residents of the colonies at that time were either Christian, Jewish, slaves, or Indians.  For the Christians, in a time that the cost of a printed book was prohibitive for most people, if there was one book in the house, it was probably the Bible.  The family Bible also served as an important legal document with regards to births, marriages and deaths.


Religion was an obviously important topic of the time, and England's handling of it was not the template the Founding Father's were interested in using.  Most of the colonies were settled by specific denominations.  But this does not mean that they were founding a "Christian Nation". 


If praise for a religion is enough to establish us as a nation of a particular religion, then I would have you go to this website, and then declare that based on Bill's logic that we are indeed a Jewish Nation.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/O...ticle.aspx?id=180323

Crusty,   my post simply said and meant to indicate Congress (the Government body of Congress) authorized for the 20,000 Bibles in English to be procured and then distributed to the people.  They were not forcing people to take them or become Christians, they didn't tell them they had to be Baptist, Methodist etc.  The act of authorizing them to be imported and then approving that authorization, on Sept 11, 1777 was done fully expecting that they would be purchased.  So in their minds, when they AUTHORIZED it to be done they approved the purchase of them, for that purpose.  The fact that they were not purchased meant things changed, conditions changed but what did not change was the reason they wanted to import them.  They were also never purchased because they changed their mind deeming it to be a violation of Church and State. 

 

I know you are intelligent enough to realize that had the same wording, exact same thing, been done today it would be soundly opposed and voted down claiming it was a violation of separation of Church and State.  If it was passed as it was then, by Congress, you know the ACLU would have it in front of a Court and it would be judged to be in violation of the First Amendment.  You surely cannot say that would not be the case.  Surely you also realize that by authorizing the Bibles to be imported, had they been purchased and imported then they would indeed have been paid or purchased by Congress and our Government.

 

I don't care if Government changes and today they decided not to purchase Bibles but don't say that the founders, the authors of the Constitution and drafters of the First Amendment would not have done so.  Don't try and convince me that the interpretation of the First Amendment hasn't been changed over the years.  Just honestly answer whether or not the exact same action that was fully legal then would not be judged illegal today based upon the First Amendment interpretation.   Things like putting up a nativity scene on government property, display of the ten commandments if a judge so wants to.  First Amendment hasn't changed from the way the original people put it but the way it's interpreted has changed.

 

Once more, also, I don't say and haven't said we are and were a Christian Nation, only for Christians, but I do say we were a NATION OF CHRISTIANS, founded by Christians fleeing from a government that had become a theocracy.  They knew what a theocracy was and what it was to be forced to believe a certain way without provision for personal beliefs or interpretation and therefore they wanted to insure our country's government would not transform into such.  I fully believe, and always will, that they never meant to write God out of Government.  IF that was the case there never would have been "IN God We Trust" imprinted on each designed money piece of the Government.  It would have been defeated then and there.  It may be deemed unconstitutional by some advocate judge in the future but only because they, personally, changed the meaning and intent of the Constitution in order to get the ruling they desired.  No one wanted the government to force religion on anyone but the government was to PROTECT everyone's right to worship as they wished. 

 

As was said by someone, maybe you, in another post.  If it had been a nation of Muslims at that time it would have been the Koran and we'd be bowing toward Mecca.  That ought to prove it was a nation of Christians, with faith in God, the Christian God that was responsible for our laws and Constitution and freedoms.   The desire for freedom to worship as they wanted morphed into the Freedoms that we all enjoy today.  If it had been Muslims I very much would wager you that we would not be having this conversation today.  I wager that women would not have the vote and Freedom would still be a desire in many people's heart.  God believing and Christian people were responsible for what became America and our Constitution.  TODAY though because so many people reject God, don't believe in God we are to Change the intent and meaning of the Constitution to something that it was never meant to do.  That's my sincere opinion and belief.

Crusty,   my post simply said and meant to indicate Congress (the Government body of Congress) authorized for the 20,000 Bibles in English to be procured and then distributed to the people.  They were not forcing people to take them or become Christians, they didn't tell them they had to be Baptist, Methodist etc.  The act of authorizing them to be imported and then approving that authorization, on Sept 11, 1777 was done fully expecting that they would be purchased.

 

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

 

Absolutely not true.

The statement issued by Congress and published in the Aiken Bible reads:

"Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aiken [sic], as subservient to the interests of religion, as well an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and ... they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper. Cha. Thomson, Secy."

The printing of Bibles in the colonies ensured that all who could afford them could have Bibles of their own. However, cash money was often in short supply. In order to assure that potential buyers could afford the purchase, Bible printer Isaiah Thomas advertised large family Bibles for sale with interesting terms of payment. Placed in the December 10, 1789 edition of a local newspaper, The Massachusetts Spy, his ad provides a lengthy description of the beauty and size of this Bible, then says:

"To make payment easy to those who wish to be encouragers of this laudable undertaking, and to be in possession of so valuable property as a Royal Quarto Bible, and who are not able to pay for one all in cash—from such the Publisher will receive one half of the sum or 21 shillings, in the following articles, viz. Wheat, Rye, Indian Corn, Butter, or Pork, if delivered at his store in Worcester, or at the store of himself and Company in Boston, by the 10th day of December, 1790: the remaining sum of 21 shillings to be paid in Cash, as soon as the books are ready for delivery. This proposal is made, to accommodate all, notwithstanding the sum of 21 shillings will by no means be the portion of cash that each Bible bound, will cost the Publisher."

Massachusetts Spy, 1789. [Photo: Don Brake)

Massachusetts Spy, 1789. (Photo: Don Brake)

 

Near the end of the Revolutionary War, Presbyterian minister Dr. John Rogers suggested that a copy of the Aitken Bible be given to each member of the Continental Army. The proposal found favor with George Washington, but with his army disbanding, he thought it would not be financially responsible to approve such a measure.

Washington's letter describing his thoughts on this is a classic document of the history of the Bible in America. Dated June 11, 1783, the letter was featured in facsimile in The Bible of the Revolution, published by the Grabhorn Press for John Powell in 1930. In it Washington writes:

“Your Proposition respecting Mr. Aitkin’s Bible would have been particularly noticed 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 & Establishment.”

The Bible came to America with the pilgrims in the early 17th century as they sought a new life in a new land. The struggle for survival in a land of harsh climate, the constant diligence to remain free, and the hope to enjoy freedom of belief came with a cost. But their faith survived, their resolve never wavered, and the dream of Bibles easily available in their own language became a Revolutionary reality.    

 

More from World’s Best-Selling Book
 
The printing of Bibles in the colonies ensured that all who could afford them could have Bibles of their own.
 Dr. John Rogers suggested that a copy of the Aitken Bible be given to each member of the Continental Army. The proposal found favor with George Washington, but with his army disbanding, he thought it would not be financially responsible to approve such a measure
 
Once more gb. WHY would they be trying to sell congress something they had already ordered and paid for???
 
Originally Posted by gbrk:

Crusty,   my post simply said and meant to indicate Congress (the Government body of Congress) authorized for the 20,000 Bibles in English to be procured and then distributed to the people. 

Sold to the people.

 

They were not forcing people to take them or become Christians, they didn't tell them they had to be Baptist, Methodist etc.  The act of authorizing them to be imported and then approving that authorization, on Sept 11, 1777 was done fully expecting that they would be purchased.  So in their minds, when they AUTHORIZED it to be done they approved the purchase of them, for that purpose.  The fact that they were not purchased meant things changed, conditions changed but what did not change was the reason they wanted to import them. 

Understand that this wasn't something they just decided to do.  Someone approached them about the shortage of bibles and later Aitken came along and tried to get quite a bit more "patronage" of his bible than they were ever willing to commit to.

 

They were also never purchased because they changed their mind deeming it to be a violation of Church and State. 

I think you misstated your position here.  I'm reading you to say that Congress thought the bibles were a violation of Church and State, but I'll concede what you are trying to say.  Understand also, that this is the Continental Congress we are talking about.  The Constitution is still many years away. 

 

I know you are intelligent enough to realize that had the same wording, exact same thing, been done today it would be soundly opposed and voted down claiming it was a violation of separation of Church and State. 

Yes, as it should be.  Unless maybe if the same conditions existed today, and the bibles were acquired and then sold in order to avoid price gouging.  I'd want someone with Constitutional Law background to rule on that.  But what would happen if Congress decided to do the same with the Koran?  Would you be for purchasing the Koran and distributing it to citizens through the use of tax dollars?

 

If it was passed as it was then, by Congress, you know the ACLU would have it in front of a Court and it would be judged to be in violation of the First Amendment.  You surely cannot say that would not be the case.  Surely you also realize that by authorizing the Bibles to be imported, had they been purchased and imported then they would indeed have been paid or purchased by Congress and our Government.

Actually, I don't.  One of the problems they ran into was that the cost was prohibitive, and if I read it correctly, the loss of life to acquire the necessary material was considered. There was a war going on. 

 

I don't care if Government changes and today they decided not to purchase Bibles but don't say that the founders, the authors of the Constitution and drafters of the First Amendment would not have done so.  Don't try and convince me that the interpretation of the First Amendment hasn't been changed over the years.  Just honestly answer whether or not the exact same action that was fully legal then would not be judged illegal today based upon the First Amendment interpretation.  

You keep lumping the actions of the Continental Congress with the Constitution, which didn't exist.  I don't know what the first Congress of the United States would do in this matter.  I do know that the writers of the Constitution were very much for Separation of Church and State.  Thomas Jefferson (not a signer of the Constitution, but one who made arguments during the debates leading to the Bill of Rights) is one of the main proponents, and actually uses the language Separation of Church and State in his writing.

 

Things like putting up a nativity scene on government property, display of the ten commandments if a judge so wants to.  First Amendment hasn't changed from the way the original people put it but the way it's interpreted has changed.

The writers of the Constitution purposefully left much to be decided by future lawmakers, and specifically set up the Supreme Court in order to make interpretations and judgment as future history unfolded.  They've been doing it for 250+ years, and interpretations change all the time.  Yes, I agree with you.

 

Once more, also, I don't say and haven't said we are and were a Christian Nation, only for Christians, but I do say we were a NATION OF CHRISTIANS, founded by Christians fleeing from a government that had become a theocracy. They knew what a theocracy was and what it was to be forced to believe a certain way without provision for personal beliefs or interpretation and therefore they wanted to insure our country's government would not transform into such.  I fully believe, and always will, that they never meant to write God out of Government.  IF that was the case there never would have been "IN God We Trust" imprinted on each designed money piece of the Government. 

The Constitution was ratified in 1789.  In God We Trust didn't show up until 1864.  The Founding Fathers were pretty much out of the picture by then.  "Under God" was put into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's.  I do believe they meant to write God out of government, and Thomas Jefferson supports me in this.

 

It would have been defeated then and there.  It may be deemed unconstitutional by some advocate judge in the future but only because they, personally, changed the meaning and intent of the Constitution in order to get the ruling they desired.  No one wanted the government to force religion on anyone but the government was to PROTECT everyone's right to worship as they wished. 

Yes, everyone's.

 

As was said by someone, maybe you, in another post.  If it had been a nation of Muslims at that time it would have been the Koran and we'd be bowing toward Mecca.  That ought to prove it was a nation of Christians, with faith in God, the Christian God that was responsible for our laws and Constitution and freedoms.   The desire for freedom to worship as they wanted morphed into the Freedoms that we all enjoy today.  If it had been Muslims I very much would wager you that we would not be having this conversation today.  I wager that women would not have the vote and Freedom would still be a desire in many people's heart.  God believing and Christian people were responsible for what became America and our Constitution.  TODAY though because so many people reject God, don't believe in God we are to Change the intent and meaning of the Constitution to something that it was never meant to do.  That's my sincere opinion and belief.

 

 

Question for you, why do you believe the Continental Congress sought to acquire bibles? And are we a Christian Nation, or a nation that supports freedom of all religions?

The following is not my wording, although I agree with it.  It comes from the following Link:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Anghis/roger173.htm   For those that still insist that it's a lie where is your evidence, your proof from official documents?  IF the Bibles were not purchased then tell us WHY were they not purchased?  Was it because some of these men cried that it would violate Church and State or that the Government should not finance such and endevour for they were not to favor or bring Religion into Government?   If there was no plans to provide or allot money, from the Federal Government's budget then why authorize their importing?  Who was to pay for these that were authorized in 1977?  Note also many quotes from our founding fathers and men that were in this Congress that most likely voted on this authorization.  So again were they not purchased because the Congress felt it violated separation of Government and Religion?  If so what do you base that on?

On September 11, 1777 the Continental Congress approved and recommended that 20,000 Bibles be imported from other nations in Europe. Up to that time the only Bibles allowed were what England supplied, the 1611 King James Version. The war with England stopped that supply. The Congressional Committee reported:

The use of a Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States of the Union.

Where upon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible.  (Continental Congress, September 11, 1777. Robert Flood, The Rebirth of America (Philadelphia: Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, 1986), p. 39. The Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1905), book 146, Vol. VIII, pp. 731-735.)

 

On September 10, 1782 another shortage of Bibles came about. This shortage concerned the public schools. Today’s courts have take the Bible out of the schools claiming that it is unconstitutional to have Bibles in the school, but the Founders were unaware of that provision. This edition was for “a meet edition of the Holy Scriptures for use in schools.” This edition became known as the Bible of the Revolution. The following Endorsement of Congress was printed on its front page:

Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled . . . recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize [Robert Aitken] to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper (Congress of the Confederation. September 10, 1782, under the Articles of Confederation, granted an approval to a request, January 21, 1781, for Robert Aitken of Philadelphia, to print an edition of the Bible, known as the Bible of the Revolution, Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1905), Vol. XXIII, p. 574.)

We have achieved our exceptionalism because our government is dedicated to the preservation of human liberty grounded on the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are those that say that is not true and if that is so then one would have to question why Patrick Henry stated this: “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” (emphasis added)

 

Benjamin Franklin: History will afford frequent Opportunities of showing . . . the Excellency of the Christian Religion above all others ancient or modern. (Benjamin Franklin, “Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania.” 1749, Labraee, Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 3:413)

 

Patrick Henry: Amongst other strange things said to me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their number; and, indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought give me much more pain than the appellation of tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself, that I have lived so long, and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast.  (Patrick Henry to Betsy Aylett, August 20, 1796. William Wirt, The Life of Patrick Henry (New York: M’Elrath & Bangs, 1831), 402-403.)


John Jay: Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers  (John Jay to John Murray, Jr., October 12, 1816. Johnston Correspondence of Jay, 4:393.)

 

Thomas Jefferson: In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government (Federal government). I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledges by the several religious societies. (Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805.)


When the Constitutional Convention was in process there had been about four to five weeks where no progress was being made in the negotiations of how the States would be represented in the new government. At this time Benjamin Franklin stepped in and made some comments. Following is an excerpt from those comments. Remember that at this time Franklin was 81 years old and Governor of Pennsylvania as well as a very respected man.

In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And now have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And that if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service. ( Constitutional Convention. June 28, 1787, in an address by Benjamin Franklin. James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (1787: Athens, OH: Ohio University press, 1966, 1985; NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987), pp. 209-210. )

Some revisionist Historians refute that Ben Franklin was religious.  Maybe he was the least religious but he respected and believed God specially blessed this Nation and that in turn those men who set out to write the Constitution should give prayer and thankfulness to Him/God.  I guess we are going to hear how Ben Franklin never said the above either?

 

This information and quotes are now taboo in schools or do not appear in our History books.  Cursing, language and other things are permitted before we can teach this.

 

To Follow Religion and the States

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
<Omitted in order to conserve space and to address the specific question>

 

Question for you, why do you believe the Continental Congress sought to acquire bibles? And are we a Christian Nation, or a nation that supports freedom of all religions?

I will go about this backwards, first question answered last.

 

I'll repeat a quote attributed to Patrick Henry.  I do not have the reference at this time though:

 

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”


I think that was worded as well as it could be.  Quite probably if the nation had been founded by Muslims then it would have been Korans, we, and congress would pray five times a day bowed toward Mecca but this country wasn't.  It was founded by Christians and for anyone Christian or not to enjoy the freedoms that were patterned after Christian Freedom in Christ.


As to the first part of your question the beginning of the request started when a Committee was formed by Congress, July 7, 1777:  Journal of Congress pg. 536

 A petition from the Rev. F[rancis] Allison, J[ohn] Ewing, and W[illiam] Marshall, was read:2

Ordered, That it be referred to a committee of three:
The members chosen, Mr. [Daniel] Roberdeau, Mr. J[ohn] Adams, and Mr. J[onathan] B[ayard] Smith.
[Note 2: 2 This memorial is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 42, I, folio 35.]

The request was to study the shortage of Bibles account of the War with England and what to do about it.  The Committee reported back to Congress with it's findings on September 11, 1777:

pg 733 September 1777 Journal of Congress
"The committee appointed to consider he memorial of the Rev. Dr. Allison and others report, "That they have conferred fully with the printers, &c. in this city, and are of opinion that the proper types for printing the Bible are ot to be had in this country …

It was from this that the "authorization" to import 20,000 Bibles and once imported from Europe to be distributed from various Ports in various States.   As you and has been brought out here those were never imported due to cost and conditions brought about due to the ongoing war with England.


I believe they sought to acquire the Bibles due to the report of a shortage account of the war and they considered the Bibles essential to happiness and because they considered the Bible with high regard and as the Word of God, the Christian God with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Patrick Henry was a rabble rouser, patriot, and instrumental in starting the Revolution.  However, he refused to attend the Constitutional Congress, saying he "smelled a rat in Philadelphia", and as a delegate for his state to ratify the Constitution, he voted against it.  So, I'm going to have to discount pretty much anything that he says concerning the ideals and principals on which our nation was founded.  He wasn't there, had no input, and didn't support it.

 

As for the bibles, how you make the logical leap, from considering the possibility of assisting in reducing a shortage to promoting a particular religion as THE religion of a nation, is beyond me.

 

As to praying five times a day, there are many of our current citizens that do exactly that.  Many attend Synagog on Saturday, and there are even those that roam airport terminals in brightly colored togas chanting weird stuff.  This is the kind of thing our founding fathers anticipated and allowed for, and is why the First Amendment exists.  We are a nation of many people, many ideals, and many religions, and they are all supported by the Constitution.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

Okay, GB is going to ignore anything I say.  But here is the proof that the US in not a Christian Nation.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

 

The key is interpretation and what the people who wrote it meant.  Many will say that's what our courts do but courts can also be biased and also differ in their interpretation of it based on what year and period of time you look at..  The only way to know for sure would be impossible and that is to ask those who drafted it.  What you can do is look at the type of men they were, look at some of their own writings and what they said.  Then one can look at the period of time during the years that the Constitution was being drafted and ratified as well as during the men who wrote it's lifetime and see what was allowed and legal. 

 

This subject was about the 20,000 Bibles.  True Congress did not purchase them or pay money for them but because there was a shortage of Bibles, made known to Congress in July 1777, they acted on a committees recommendation and AUTHORIZED 20,000 to be imported from Europe and distributed/sold in the States.  Regardless of if the money would be reimbursed they were still authorized for Government/Federal money to be used to acquire the Bibles.  

 

1782 (Thursday, Sept 12th, pg 468 in Congressional Journal) comes along and Philadelphia Printer Robert Aitken offers, at his own expense, to make available his own Bible.  Congress not knowing if or when their authorized Bibles could be imported, due to conditions in Europe and the War going on, chose to appoint a committee to study Aitken's Bible to see if it was Correct, accurate and worthy to be sent out among the States, INCLUDING TO THE SCHOOLS so students could study it (the Bible). 

 

They (Congress) did then endorse Aitken's Bible which was then sold.   True this was before the Constitution's First Amendment was approved and law but the decision to Authorize the purchase or Importation of the Bibles as well as their statement about it's importance (the Bibles that is) was done so by many of the very men who wrote and signed the Constitution as well as drafting the First Amendment.  Statements in each States constitution regarding Christianity/God and adherence to it as well as much other circumstantial evidence I'm fully convinced demonstrates that the First Amendment is being misinterpreted by today's Judges and Courts. 

 

It may make an Atheist feel all warm and fuzzy to think God was to be removed from anything to do with Government but you are also wrong in the light of all circumstantial evidence from History.  The solution is you and others either refuse to accept the facts and truth or you revise History to fit your own wishes.  If Aitken had not approached Congress with his printed Bibles and circumstances were not so, due to the war, that the importation of the authorized Bibles could go forth then it could accurately be said that Congress did purchase, buy, and sell Bibles for that was their intent and purpose for their acts and that included sending them to Schools to be taught and used in Schools.

 

It's no wonder secularist want to control Education and determine what is taught and more important what is NOT Taught.  That way your revisionist History has some validity.  Hopefully enough thinking, intelligent people will eventually see the real facts, from History, and realize the deception that is being force fed to them.

 

I don't ignore what you say ..... I simply do not accept it for it's not backed up by History or evidence.

 

Bill may be technically wrong in saying Congress paid for Bibles or purchased Bibles but from the standpoint of what would have happened if someone had not come forth, approaching Congress with Bibles in hand, already funded, and the War and conditions had allowed the importation then Bill would have been exactly right on.   Facts don't lie .. it's just that none of you can stand it so you attempt to hide, conceal or outright deny the truth. 

What about the States? 

 

The material below, between the horizontal lines comes from the following website:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Anghis/roger173.htm  (parts 12, 13, & 14)  My comments in Blue


If there was to be a complete silence about God in government then He should never be mentioned, at least in a positive light in any government document. Let’s take a look at a few preambles to some of the States Constitutions”


Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy...


Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...


Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...


Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction...


Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....


South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.


Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man...


Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI: Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other...


Virtually every State references God in a positive way. Mostly in gratitude for His protection, direction and the liberties that He has endowed us with. That is not evidence of men who believed that religion was to be kept out of the public eye. We must return to teaching this valuable history to our children because our public schools no long will.

 

 

It is obvious that any separation of church and state was meant to be keeping the government out of the church. William Penn said it very well when he stated “Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.”

 


Yeah keep on preaching, teaching, indoctrinating and revising History to say American was not a Nation based upon Christian principals, Love of Christ/God and respect for the same.  Keep saying that Government was to completely separate God from anything to do with Government, buildings, property, etc.  Keep fooling yourselves if it makes you feel good about it but FACTS and EVIDENCE prove you are totally WRONG and sadly mistaken.  You're not happy enjoying what was provided you by Christian believers based upon Christian principals you want to CHANGE it because you just don't like it, you don't believe it therefore everyone has to change to conform to your desires or others like yourselves and you finally achieved getting enough activist judges in place to effect the changes you wanted.  Change though doesn't effect History and historical record so you just don't teach it. 

 




As Patrick Henry stated it

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

 


 


 



I don't know about activist Judges, the Supreme Court, or your own personal interpretation and revisionist History but I will take the words of someone who was intimately knowledgeable and knew the authors of the document that has been so abused.   


Bill we may be a minority of opinion in this forum but at least we do have history and the founding fathers on our side.   I'm sure though that they will find some way to ignore Patrick Henry's Quote/Comment and write him out of History also.  TOO BAD that they don't teach what he said in History Class today or print it in our History Books or put the quote on the classroom wall along with Give me liberty or Give me Death!.   Why?  Well that would be a "violation of the First Amendment" Separation of Church and State.  Oh the Irony.  Sad is the condition our Generation has allowed the degradation of our educational system to get to.  Who is it that is forcing their opinion and belief on people now?  Much worse on Children.

gbrk asks, "Who is it that is forcing their opinion and belief on people now?  Much worse on Children.?"


Answer: A lot fewer than have done so in the past--fortunately!

 

In the public schools of Davidson County, Tennessee and during my childhood, prayers were routinely said at the beginning of the school day.  The prayers were strongly Christian-oriented, since the great majority of students were from Christian families.  They were consistently made "in Jesus' name."

 

In those same public school classrooms there was typically a small minority of Jewish students, whose religion, of course, does not recognize Jesus as a divine person.  Nevertheless, these Jewish students were a captive audience during this daily recitation of prayers. I submit that their minority rights were violated by their being required, on a daily basis, to attend a religious exercise with an orientation that was preferential to a belief system fundamentally inconsistent with their religious beliefs. One might argue that they could have requested to leave the classroom during the prayer.  For elementary school students, however, such a routine exit from the classroom by the religious minority students would constitute an unacceptable stigmatization, given the way children of that age range see things.  The Jewish kids I knew were intimidated by even the suggestion that they should do something to avoid becoming, by their presence, the captive audience of a religious observance inconsistent with their beliefs.

 

In those public schools today, the grandchildren of the little Ben and Sam and Sarah I knew in the 1940s and 1950s do not have to submit to this embarrassing and unconstitutional situation, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its very legal and correct interpretation of the First Amendment. Thanks to the Supreme Court, no longer may the public schools of this nation use their government-conferred authority to impose government-devised, government-prescribed prayers upon public school students.  The First Amendment is alive and well in the public schools of Davidson County and the U.S.A.! 

 

Here ya go GK, in there own words...

 

JAMES MADISON STATEMENTS

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).


Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).


I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).


To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).


The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).


JOHN ADAMS STATEMENTS:

From "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787)


"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."


ARTICLE 11, TREATY OF TRIPOLI - 1796-1797:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],...

"Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof."


"But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.--John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816,

 

 

Want more?

As Patrick Henry stated it

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”


This is a unconfirmed quote. There is no evidence that proves he said or wrote this.  Not one trace of it being authentic. Look into it GK this is one of those "revisionist" lies you dislike so much.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×