So to repeat, for the record for we know accuracy is important with all this lying going on.
1a) Congress looked only at subsidizing material for the Bibles so Print Paper or Bond to print Bibles but certainly NOT Bibles for that would Violate the First Amendment.
There was no First Amendment. Your documents show below are dated 1777, I believe. The Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787 and the first ten Amendments weren't added until 1791.
1b) Crusty says shortage of paper/material was due to Gouging during a time of shortage.
No. I said that there was a shortage of materials, and that Congress was looking at ways of avoiding gouging because of it.
2) Before that Mr. Aiken took the job of printing Bibles but (I assume) he was not connected with the Government so the Government had no Connection to the Bibles themselves (my assumption).
okay.
3) He (Aiken) received NO Money from the Government (Congress).
True.
4) All Congress did was pass a resolution commending Aiken's Printing of the Bible.
True.
Note that if the pages don't appear below or the links don't word I have attached all three pages below.
Do the FACTS and EVIDENCE back up your accuracy or the Christian lies (as you call them)?
Pg 733, Last paragraph, A Committee Appointed to Consider what? Rev Dr. Allison and others report. What was the Report? --> Looks like a shortage of paper for the printing of Bibles alright but why the Shortage?
There was a war going on. This was 1777.
Paper cannot be procured but with such difficulties and subject to such causalties as render any dependence on it altogether improper. Got to remember something was going on during this time, what was that? Could it be WAR with England? Where is that gouging issue? What about casualties, is that from gouging or possibly cause of conflict? Sounds like the paper could be obtained but with difficulty and potential casualties. Now I could be wrong I somehow I think that means it would be hard to get because of the threat of death to those obtaining it. I don't read in there anywhere that has to do about COST which would translate to gouging. 1b) above is looking thin.Exactly.
pg 734 continued, note the committee seems to recommend Congress appropriate money to obtain enough type paper to print off 30,000 copies with paper binding or the WHOLE BIBLE at a cost of £10,272 10 pounds to be reimbursed by the sale of the books/Bibles. Then comes the good part, stay tuned.
The Committee recommends different .. the reasons for the reconsideration is given but I like this next part . read with me ... "that the use of the Bible is so universal, andits importance so great, that your committee refer the above to the consideration of Congress. Now the next good part: your committee recommend that Congress import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland or elsewhere into the different ports of the states in the Union: Hey Crusty what is that next line???? Oh the resolution that's right. Whereupon the Congress was moved, to order the Committee of Commerce to import twenty thousand copies of the Bible: Then comes the VOTE.
pg 735, Note the DATE: September 11, 1777
under the vote the outcome: Lets read together: So it was resolved in the affirmative.
But this never happened. It turned out that the cost was prohibitive, and because there was a war going on, they never imported the Bibles. In Bill's thread, I've posted an excellent article that covers the complete incident, not just the documents you are cherry-picking.
Lets see now. What about our above points again in light of the actual Congressional Journal of September 11, 1777.
1a) Congress looked only at subsidizing material for the Bibles so Print Paper or Bond to print Bibles but certainly NOT Bibles for that would Violate the First Amendment. Evidence, at least to my eyes, looks like there was discussion to obtain material locally, to print Bibles but I don't see a Mr. Aikens mentioned anywhere and looks like the Government was going to do the printing and the obtaining of material and then go into the Bible Selling business to help out the budget and recover the money. So for 1a) Crusty (atheist) goes down in flames . . . oops sorry shouldn't have said flames
You are only looking at three documents that don't give a complete picture. This is typical of people trying to rewrite history. No you shouldn't have said that, it makes you look foolish, immature, and just plain stupid. I always thought better of you. I'm having to reassess my opinion.
1b) Crusty says shortage of paper/material was due to Gouging during a time of shortage. Crusty I may not read and comprehend as well as others but looks like to me the difficulties here was worry about getting the paper and obtaining enough without harm due to getting killed by someone. I don't see anything about prices being too high or costly here. Crusty goes down on Gouging also
No, I didn't say that. Your reading comprehension is deficient in this matter. Strike two to you.
2) Before that Mr. Aiken took the job of printing Bibles but (I assume) he was not connected with the Government so the Government had no Connection to the Bibles themselves (my assumption).
There was a Report by a Rev. Dr. Allison but I see no mention of a Mr. Aiken printing any Bibles here. There is definite intent on the Government (Congress) to print the Bibles and then sell them to get the money back but the nice, warm and fuzzy thing (at least to me) is that they (Congress/Government felt the Bible was so universal (universal umm I think that is a way of saying it (the Bible) is very popular and desired) AND, I like this part, It's (The Bible) IMPORTANCE SO GREAT. Why you think they would say such? Maybe Trust in GOD? Maybe for the information inside or do you think it was just to shield them from those nasty RedCoat shells? Either way on point 2 - Crusty pitching some guy Aiken printing Bibles that Congress pays part of the cost (that's what subsidizing means) - TRUTH - Government looks at paying ALL the Cost and doing ALL the Printing then selling Bibles to help get the money back.
You are only looking at three documents, not the whole story. Please take off the blinders. I've never said that Colonial period citizens were not Christian, nor that the Bible wasn't important to them. The Aiken Bible and supporting documents are easily found through Google. Try it. Better yet read the article I posted in Bill's thread. "Looking" isn't the same as doing. Now you are just grasping. Strike three. Next inning for you.
3) He (Aiken) received NO Money from the Government (Congress). On this point Crusty is 100% accurate for there is NO mention of any money going to an Aiken for printing Bibles.
Thank you. And just to point out, everything else I've said is at least 99% true, since I was working from memory.
4) All Congress did was pass a resolution commending Aiken's Printing of the Bible. - Well you know where this is going by now Crusty, Care to guess the end of the story?
Now about this statement of yours that I copy here:
So GBRK, I'll have to add you to the list of Liar's for Jesus if you wish to continue to spread the misinformation that Congress printed Bibles. You don't even have your facts straight. It was not the first congress after the signing of the Constitution that this story is about, which brings the rest of your argument to a screeching halt.
I ask you Crusty ... according to the Evidence, from the Government's website. WHO IS LYING NOW? Who is spreading MISINFORMATION NOW? I will give you in my zest to make a point that the Constitution was finally signed in September 1778 it should be evident that there was no move to isolate God from Government and that in fact Government was all for getting the Bible (God's Word) the Whole Christian Bible into as many people's hands as possible. In fact if there had of been 50 States then that would have been 400 Bibles per State.
I won't call you a liar here, you are just misinformed. The Constitutional Convention wasn't even called until 1787. You've transposed your numbers and rendered your argument moot. The Constitution was drafted in 1787, the Bill of Rights weren't added until 1791. Strike one in the second inning goes to you.
Point is BILL WAS CORRECT and you Incorrect.
Point is YOU ARE WRONG and I'm correct.
I doubt an apology or retraction is in the coming for I realize how difficult it is for you atheist to do anything or say anything wrong or put out misinformation.
I'm not an atheist. Strike two. Will you be apologizing to me?
In fact it is most likely documents like the above copies and information like this the reason it is so important to limit what History can be taught in Government Schools for we should never let people know our Government and Congress ever distributed or obtained 20,000 copies of a Book that taught and informed people about a Creator called GOD. No this would be potentially teaching Creationism and about Religion and we all know this violates the First Amendment.
I've read this paragraph three times now, and what I get out of it is that you are saying that using historical documents to teach history is NOT the way to go. This is strike three for you. You've wiffed it for two innings now, and your statement is exactly what is wrong with religious based education. When ALL the documents are looked at, the truth comes out. Your misunderstanding of simple historical dates, cherry-picking of documents and misapplying interpretations of a limited amount of information to form an incomplete, inaccurate, and almost completely false historical explanation is typical of the wacko religious right.
Your Reply???????????????????? as A Rob put it .. The Lesson Continues ...
And you've been schooled my friend.