Were Most Of America's Founding Fathers - Christians

[JakeStarkey]

Of course secular ethics and religious opinion influenced the Founders.

 

[DriftingSand]

Here it is again. Although Barton is a good man with a sharp mind and tons of verifiable information I shall bypass him for the sake of the naysayers and go to a Government site instead. Read closely:

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. 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. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

Religion and the Congress of the Confederation - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

There it is folks. As plain as the metal plate in your ... well never-mind.

 

[DriftingSand]

Hollie and brucebeat have blocked DS's attempted side step, forced the issue back on the original source (Barton), which was destroyed early on, so DS is simply running around yelling 'no' 'no' 'no.'

Evangelical and fundamentalist Christtians are so very easy to defeat on this issue

Rationalist Christians, on the other hand, hold their own.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9029095-post222.html

Have you heard of the New England Primer? Look it up.
Have you heard of the McGuffey Readers? Look them up.

No amount of defamation, slander, side-stepping, and childish antics will change the fact that America was founded by Christians standing upon Christian principles. Squeeze your eyes and hold your breath all you wish ... you can't change the fact that the Bible was literally used in early schools and in the early Universities. No amount of naysaying will change the fact that the early Universities were founded by devout Christian men. You simply can't change the facts and history. (Try as you might).

 

[Hollie]

Hollie and brucebeat have blocked DS's attempted side step, forced the issue back on the original source (Barton), which was destroyed early on, so DS is simply running around yelling 'no' 'no' 'no.'

Evangelical and fundamentalist Christtians are so very easy to defeat on this issue

Rationalist Christians, on the other hand, hold their own.

Rationalist Christians, on the other hand, hold their own.

Great comment. And why not? Rationalist Christians like everyone else of faith, and no religious faith, are free to believe or not without interference from government. Due to the vision of the FF's, everyone has the right to believe (or not) as you wish, and you have every expectation of that right being honored by others (even if grudgingly) and protected by law.

The Founding Father's ideals were such that the USA would be a long-flourishing pluralistic nation, hence, "E Pluribus Unum" --Out of Many, One. A most original and brilliant of mottos. The stream of refugees from tyranny was well known at the time -- many the colonists themselves were refugees, going back hundreds of years. The long range vision of the Founding Father's clearly indicates they did not think such a growth would ever end (and 240 some years later, it still has not) and so the fundamental documents of law restricting the government's rights to the liberty and freedom of conscience of the people was worded to ensure neutrality regardless of which religious belief is in the majority.

 

[DriftingSand]

May I ask that you get some knowledge of the facts. Thank you.

Congress did not have any bibles printed.

What American schools received these bibles?

Okay ... now I know that you haven't ready ANY of the information provided nor did you watch the videos. Please know what you're talking before you speak.

Read post #172. The link is DIRECTLY from the Library of Congress. That's an official site. Then, watch the second video in the OP. It's short and really, really easy to understand. Then get back to me that tell me that Congress "didn't have any Bibles printed."

I read post #172. Why didn't you?

I'll tell you again. Congress did not have any Bibles printed.

From post#172:

"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."

Did you see the part where it identifies Robert Aitken, "at his own expense".

What part of Robert Aitken, "at his own expense" are you finding that conflicts with: "Congress did not have any Bibles printed"

Aitken printed the initial Bible on his own then petitioned Congress to sponsor the printing of many more. Congress agreed. It's history!

Robert Aitken

Robert Aitken had immigrated from Dalkeith in Scotland in 1769 to settle in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There, he opened a bookshop and also began publication of “The Pennsylvania Magazine” to which Thomas Paine often contributed. By 1776, Robert Aitken was the official printer of the Journals of Congress for the United States Congress. Aitken was a bold patriot, and it disturbed him greatly to see his country without copies of the scripture. In 1771, he produced the first English language New Testament printed in America. It was eagerly received, and went through a second edition printing in 1778, a third in 1779, a fourth in 1780, and a fifth in 1781.
On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as “The Bible Congress.” Thus, in 1782, Robert Aitken produced the first English language Bible printed in America. In 1783, George Washington wrote a letter commending Robert Aitken for his Bible. The Robert Aitken Bible is known as the “Bible of the American Revolution” and it remains the most rare and valuable of early American English Bibles.

http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/colonial-bibles.html

Note: Another non-Barton site^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[DriftingSand]

Education Began in the Home and the Fields
Education in early America began in the home at the mother’s knee, and often ended in the cornfield or barn by the father’s side. The task of teaching reading usually fell to the mother, and since paper was in short supply, she would trace the letters of the alphabet in the ashes and dust by the fireplace.[6] The child learned the alphabet and then how to sound out words. Then a book was placed in the child’s hands, usually the Bible. As many passages were familiar to him, having heard them at church or at family devotions, he would soon master the skill of reading. The Bible was supplemented by other good books such as Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan, The New England Primer, and Isaac Watt’s Divine Songs. From volumes like these, our founding fathers and their generation learned the values that laid the foundation for free enterprise. In “Against Idleness and Mischief,” for example, they learned individual responsibility before God in the realm of work and learning.[7]

Education in Colonial America : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

 

[Hollie]

And for a different perspective:

Chris Rodda: No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools

 

[DriftingSand]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Dr. Benjamin Rush[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] (1745-1813), distinguished physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dr. Rush was an outspoken Christian, statesman, and pioneering medical doctor. He was a prolific author, publishing the first American chemistry textbook. In 1797, President John Adams appointed Rush as Treasurer of the U.S. Mint, a position he held until 1813. He also founded America's first Bible society. At the time of his death in 1813, he was heralded as one of the three most notable figures of America, the other two being George Washington and Benjamin Franklin.[/FONT]

"A Defence of the Bible in Schools" by Dr. Benjamin Rush
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[DriftingSand]

Noah Webster, Jr. (October 16, 1758 – May 28, 1843), was a lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English-language spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author. He has been called the "Father of American Scholarship and Education". His blue-backed speller books taught five generations of American children how to spell and read, secularizing their education. According to Ellis (1979) he gave Americans "a secular catechism to the nation-state".[1]
Webster's name has become synonymous with "dictionary" in the United States, especially the modern Merriam-Webster dictionary that was first published in 1828 as An American Dictionary of the English Language. He is considered one of the Founding Fathers of the nation.[2]

Webster in early life was something of a freethinker, but in 1808 he became a convert to Calvinistic orthodoxy, and thereafter became a devout Congregationalist who preached the need to Christianize the nation.[43] Webster grew increasingly authoritarian and elitist, fighting against the prevailing grain of Jacksonian Democracy. Webster viewed language as a tool to control unruly thoughts. His American Dictionary emphasized the virtues of social control over human passions and individualism, submission to authority, and fear of God; they were necessary for the maintenance of the American social order. As he grew older, Webster's attitudes changed from those of an optimistic revolutionary in the 1780s to those of a pessimistic critic of man and society by the 1820s.[44]

Noah Webster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DriftingSand]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]The religious and moral education of youth was paramount in early American schools. The first book in the classroom was the Bible. It was central to a child’s education, not only for its content, but the way it was used to build skills. Students learned how to read using the Bible. Much of the school day was devoted to memorizing and reciting passages from it, and passages were copied to learn penmanship. [/FONT]

[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica] The first textbook was the New England Primer, used between 1760 and 1843. The most popular schoolbook in the nineteenth century was the McGuffey Reader, introduced in 1836. Based on landmarks of world literature, the set of six readers, which increased in difficulty, were the basis for teaching literacy, as well as basic values such as honesty and charity. The readers gave the teacher flexibility she lacked before, allowing her to more easily teach a classroom of pupils of different ages and levels. Tens of millions of copies were sold in the nineteenth century. In rural America the McGuffey Reader was often the only exposure people had to world literature. [/FONT]

PBS: SCHOOL: The Story of American Public Education

 

[Hollie]

You're getting frantic, DS.

Your sweaty, chest-heaving cutting and pasting is not adding any credibility to your earlier comments that were discredited.

 

[DriftingSand]

History of education in the United States

Textbooks

In the 17th century, the schoolbooks were brought over from England. By 1690, Boston publishers were reprinting the English Protestant Tutor under the title of The New England Primer. The Primer was built on rote memorization. By simplifying Calvinist theology the Primer enabled the Puritan child to define the limits of the self by relating his life to the authority of God and his parents.[27][28] The Primer included additional material that made it widely popular in colonial schools until it was supplanted by Webster's work. The "blue backed speller" of Noah Webster was by far the most common textbook from the 1790s until 1836, when the McGuffey Readers appeared. Both series emphasized civic duty and morality, and sold tens of millions of copies nationwide.[29]

Colleges

Religious denominations established most early colleges in order to train ministers. In New England there was an emphasis on literacy so that people could read the Bible. Harvard College was founded by the colonial legislature in 1636, and named after an early benefactor. Most of the funding came from the colony, but early on the college began to build an endowment.[32] Harvard at first focused on training young men for the ministry, but many alumni went into law, medicine, government or business. William and Mary College was founded by Virginia government in 1693, with 20,000 acres of land for an endowment, and a penny tax on every pound of tobacco, together with an annual appropriation. James Blair, the leading Anglican minister in the colony, was president for 50 years, and the college won the broad support of the Virginia gentry, most of whom were Anglicans. It trained many of the lawyers, politicians, and leading planters. Students headed for the ministry were given free tuition. Yale College was founded in 1701, and in 1716 was relocated to New Haven, Connecticut. The conservative Puritan ministers of Connecticut had grown dissatisfied with the more liberal theology of Harvard, and wanted their own school to train orthodox ministers. New Side Presbyterians in 1747 set up the College of New Jersey, in the town of Princeton; much later it was renamed Princeton University. Rhode Island College was begun by the Baptists in 1764, and in 1804 it was renamed Brown University in honor of a benefactor.

History of education in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DriftingSand]

Happy reading. See ya'll tomorrow. May God bless the seeker of truth with truth and wisdom. And may the haters of our Lord and Savior awaken tomorrow with a softened heart and desire to know true history.

Thank God for our wonderful, Christian heritage.

Sleep well.

 

[amrchaos]

I found something out about David Barton, the guest on Huckabee's show. It seems that Barton's work is not historically supported when he talks about Jefferson

Nelson Pulls Thomas Jefferson Book

There are other authors you may wish to cite, but I think David Barton is not a creditable source.

 

[DriftingSand]

I found something out about David Barton, the guest on Huckabee's show. It seems that Barton's work is not historically supported when he talks about Jefferson

Nelson Pulls Thomas Jefferson Book

There are other authors you may wish to cite, but I think David Barton is not a creditable source.

Barton isn't credible or the actual, historical documents in his extensive collection isn't credible?

If we want to look specifically at the man then he's certainly no less credible than many of the trolls participating in this conversation but the documents in his possession are the real deal.

Even the most vile criminals are sometimes used as witnesses in criminal trials. A pure scumbag can add factual evidence to a prosecutor's case.

From your link:

"We took all of those concerns seriously, tried to sort out matters of opinion or interpretation, and in the course of our review learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported.”

Note the word "some." Not adequately supported? Hardly makes Barton a villain.

 

[Hollie]

I found something out about David Barton, the guest on Huckabee's show. It seems that Barton's work is not historically supported when he talks about Jefferson

Nelson Pulls Thomas Jefferson Book

There are other authors you may wish to cite, but I think David Barton is not a creditable source.

Barton isn't credible or the actual, historical documents in his extensive collection isn't credible?

If we want to look specifically at the man then he's certainly no less credible than many of the trolls participating in this conversation but the documents in his possession are the real deal.

Even the most vile criminals are sometimes used as witnesses in criminal trials. A pure scumbag can add factual evidence to a prosecutor's case.

What is disturbing is that you continued to represent Barton as a credible source when the evidence was available that he was a charlatan and a fraud.

That obviously calls into question your credibility, you being such a good Christian and all.

 

[DriftingSand]

I found something out about David Barton, the guest on Huckabee's show. It seems that Barton's work is not historically supported when he talks about Jefferson

Nelson Pulls Thomas Jefferson Book

There are other authors you may wish to cite, but I think David Barton is not a creditable source.

Barton isn't credible or the actual, historical documents in his extensive collection isn't credible?

If we want to look specifically at the man then he's certainly no less credible than many of the trolls participating in this conversation but the documents in his possession are the real deal.

Even the most vile criminals are sometimes used as witnesses in criminal trials. A pure scumbag can add factual evidence to a prosecutor's case.

What is disturbing is that you continued to represent Barton as a credible source when the evidence was available that he was a charlatan and a fraud.

That obviously calls into question your credibility, you being such a good Christian and all.

He's as credible as a President that promises his "believers" that they can "keep their doctor and insurance policy" then allows hundreds of thousands to lose their policies. Remember?

Barton has presented lots and lots of information. Catching him making a mistake here or there doesn't destroy his credibility. You make mistakes all the time: does that make you forever not credible?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Barton isn't credible or the actual, historical documents in his extensive collection isn't credible?

If we want to look specifically at the man then he's certainly no less credible than many of the trolls participating in this conversation but the documents in his possession are the real deal.

Even the most vile criminals are sometimes used as witnesses in criminal trials. A pure scumbag can add factual evidence to a prosecutor's case.

What is disturbing is that you continued to represent Barton as a credible source when the evidence was available that he was a charlatan and a fraud.

That obviously calls into question your credibility, you being such a good Christian and all.

He's as credible as a President that promises his "believers" that they can "keep their doctor and insurance policy" then allows hundreds of thousands to lose their policies. Remember?

Barton has presented lots and lots of information. Catching him making a mistake here or there doesn't destroy his credibility. You make mistakes all the time: does that make you forever not credible?

This post further cripples your credibility.
What does President Obama have to do with this discussion?

 

[DriftingSand]

What is disturbing is that you continued to represent Barton as a credible source when the evidence was available that he was a charlatan and a fraud.

That obviously calls into question your credibility, you being such a good Christian and all.

He's as credible as a President that promises his "believers" that they can "keep their doctor and insurance policy" then allows hundreds of thousands to lose their policies. Remember?

Barton has presented lots and lots of information. Catching him making a mistake here or there doesn't destroy his credibility. You make mistakes all the time: does that make you forever not credible?

This post further cripples your credibility.
What does President Obama have to do with this discussion?

LOL. Comparing the credibility of one of your icons to the credibility of one of your villains hurts MY credibility? Hahahahaha I see that you don't really understand the definition of "credibility." I find it interesting that when I reveal a certain level of hypocrisy from the anti-Christians posting here then my credibility is questioned. Thanks for revealing your line of "reasoning." I'm newly enlightened.

 

[thebrucebeat]

He's as credible as a President that promises his "believers" that they can "keep their doctor and insurance policy" then allows hundreds of thousands to lose their policies. Remember?

Barton has presented lots and lots of information. Catching him making a mistake here or there doesn't destroy his credibility. You make mistakes all the time: does that make you forever not credible?

This post further cripples your credibility.
What does President Obama have to do with this discussion?

LOL. Comparing the credibility of one of your icons to the credibility of one of your villains hurts MY credibility? Hahahahaha I see that you don't really understand the definition of "credibility." I find it interesting that when I reveal a certain level of hypocrisy from the anti-Christians posting here then my credibility is questioned. Thanks for revealing your line of "reasoning." I'm newly enlightened.

Unfortunately you are not.
Your post did nothing to defend Barton, but rather sought to excuse his guilt.
You inadvertently condemned your hero.