Were Most Of America's Founding Fathers - Christians

[DriftingSand]

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.

Man can you stretch things WAY out of proportion. I'm guessing that you're a secularist/Liberal. There can be no other explanation.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

Man can you stretch things WAY out of proportion. I'm guessing that you're a secularist/Liberal. There can be no other explanation.

Not an argument, just an avoidance of your obvious embarrassment.
So noted.

 

[peach174]

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.

Do we have freedom of speech or not?
Jefferson did go to church and was very much for religious freedom.

Too bad they don't do the same with all of books written by lefties who are not quite historically true and many of their viewpoints have been twisted to fit their own ideology.

What the guy is saying is that Barton's view is not supported by the lefts historical ideology. So the book needs to be taken off the market.

This is exactly what Russia did to their authors who opposed communists ideology.
The only thing missing here is they haven't arrested Barton.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

Do we have freedom of speech or not?
Jefferson did go to church and was very much for religious freedom.

Too bad they don't do the same with all of books written by lefties who are not quite historically true and many of their viewpoints have been twisted to fit their own ideology.

What the guy is saying is that Barton's view is not supported by the lefts historical ideology. So the book needs to be taken off the market.

This is exactly what Russia did to their authors who opposed communists ideology.
The only thing missing here is they haven't arrested Barton.

So a very conservative publisher took the book off the shelves because conservative scholars determined the book was not credible, and this somehow is an indictment of liberals.
This somehow is then conflated with government censorship in communist Russia.
You can't fix stupid.

 

[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.

Do we have freedom of speech or not?
Jefferson did go to church and was very much for religious freedom.

Too bad they don't do the same with all of books written by lefties who are not quite historically true and many of their viewpoints have been twisted to fit their own ideology.

What the guy is saying is that Barton's view is not supported by the lefts historical ideology. So the book needs to be taken off the market.

This is exactly what Russia did to their authors who opposed communists ideology.
The only thing missing here is they haven't arrested Barton.

Shhhhh! They don't like it when you make sense. They'll call you a name.

The secularist revisionists are dead set against anyone revealing facts that are contrary to their half-truths or outright lies. They have a set agenda and they will go to major lengths to suppress the truth. As we've seen, when they can't debate the facts then they will attack a person's character. It's a well-used, liberal tactic.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

Do we have freedom of speech or not?
Jefferson did go to church and was very much for religious freedom.

Too bad they don't do the same with all of books written by lefties who are not quite historically true and many of their viewpoints have been twisted to fit their own ideology.

What the guy is saying is that Barton's view is not supported by the lefts historical ideology. So the book needs to be taken off the market.

This is exactly what Russia did to their authors who opposed communists ideology.
The only thing missing here is they haven't arrested Barton.

Shhhhh! They don't like it when you make sense. They'll call you a name.

The secularist revisionists are dead set against anyone revealing facts that are contrary to their half-truths or outright lies. They have a set agenda and they will go to major lengths to suppress the truth. As we've seen, when they can't debate the facts then they will attack a person's character. It's a well-used, liberal tactic.

As pointed out to this poster, the book was removed from the shelves by conservatives that understood, which you do not, that Barton's "work" represented an embarrassment to both the publisher and to the movement.
It was the half-truths and outright lies by Barton that brought him down.
This was not a liberal assassination.
It was a conservative suicide.

 

[peach174]

Do we have freedom of speech or not?
Jefferson did go to church and was very much for religious freedom.

Too bad they don't do the same with all of books written by lefties who are not quite historically true and many of their viewpoints have been twisted to fit their own ideology.

What the guy is saying is that Barton's view is not supported by the lefts historical ideology. So the book needs to be taken off the market.

This is exactly what Russia did to their authors who opposed communists ideology.
The only thing missing here is they haven't arrested Barton.

Shhhhh! They don't like it when you make sense. They'll call you a name.

The secularist revisionists are dead set against anyone revealing facts that are contrary to their half-truths or outright lies. They have a set agenda and they will go to major lengths to suppress the truth. As we've seen, when they can't debate the facts then they will attack a person's character. It's a well-used, liberal tactic.

As pointed out to this poster, the book was removed from the shelves by conservatives that understood, which you do not, that Barton's "work" represented an embarrassment to both the publisher and to the movement.
It was the half-truths and outright lies by Barton that brought him down.
This was not a liberal assassination.
It was a conservative suicide.

Barton's book was attacked by Dr. Warren Throckmorton who is very much a liberal lefty.
He is always attacking ring wing views.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Shhhhh! They don't like it when you make sense. They'll call you a name.

The secularist revisionists are dead set against anyone revealing facts that are contrary to their half-truths or outright lies. They have a set agenda and they will go to major lengths to suppress the truth. As we've seen, when they can't debate the facts then they will attack a person's character. It's a well-used, liberal tactic.

As pointed out to this poster, the book was removed from the shelves by conservatives that understood, which you do not, that Barton's "work" represented an embarrassment to both the publisher and to the movement.
It was the half-truths and outright lies by Barton that brought him down.
This was not a liberal assassination.
It was a conservative suicide.

Barton's book was attacked by Dr. Warren Throckmorton who is very much a liberal lefty.
He is always attacking ring wing views.

Warren Throckmorton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not claiming that the evidence he has such as the copy of a Bible printed by Congress is not real, I am saying that the conclusions that he draws from these pieces appears to be faulty.


In other words, he may be using to much creative imagination when the arguments demand more rigorous substantiation.


Also note, it is not the left that is pulling the book, it is his publisher. His publisher is claiming this. I have yet to find the publisher's full statements on why he decided to pull Barton's book, but eventually I will.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not claiming that the evidence he has such as the copy of a Bible printed by Congress is not real, I am saying that the conclusions that he draws from these pieces appears to be faulty.


In other words, he may be using to much creative imagination when the arguments demand more rigorous substantiation.

He (Barton), has no evidence of a bible printed by congress because there is no such thing.

 

[amrchaos]

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:

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

I'm not claiming that the evidence he has such as the copy of a Bible printed by Congress is not real, I am saying that the conclusions that he draws from these pieces appears to be faulty.


In other words, he may be using to much creative imagination when the arguments demand more rigorous substantiation.

He (Barton), has no evidence of a bible printed by congress because there is no such thing.

I am not going to get into what is and what is not creditable in Barton's book. At the moment, I have to feign ignorance on the matter until I can find more information--especially from the publisher, on the issue.

Now I think some of us needs to understand who exactly is Thomas Nelson. As being a former publisher of David Barton's book, The Jefferson Lies, Nelson is best known for publishing books related to Christian spirituality and other christian material.

It may be best to visit his website before denouncing him as a leftist conspirator easily influenced by communist ideology.

Thomas Nelson


I don't think he cares much about Karl Marx, would you not agree?

 

[Chuckt]

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.

Do we have freedom of speech or not?
Jefferson did go to church and was very much for religious freedom.

Too bad they don't do the same with all of books written by lefties who are not quite historically true and many of their viewpoints have been twisted to fit their own ideology.

What the guy is saying is that Barton's view is not supported by the lefts historical ideology. So the book needs to be taken off the market.

This is exactly what Russia did to their authors who opposed communists ideology.
The only thing missing here is they haven't arrested Barton.

So a very conservative publisher took the book off the shelves because conservative scholars determined the book was not credible, and this somehow is an indictment of liberals.
This somehow is then conflated with government censorship in communist Russia.
You can't fix stupid.

And when some of these publishers are persuaded to dump a book they say they don't promote their own books but others.

 

[peach174]

As pointed out to this poster, the book was removed from the shelves by conservatives that understood, which you do not, that Barton's "work" represented an embarrassment to both the publisher and to the movement.
It was the half-truths and outright lies by Barton that brought him down.
This was not a liberal assassination.
It was a conservative suicide.

Barton's book was attacked by Dr. Warren Throckmorton who is very much a liberal lefty.
He is always attacking ring wing views.

Warren Throckmorton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Go to his web site

 

[Chuckt]

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:

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

I'm not claiming that the evidence he has such as the copy of a Bible printed by Congress is not real, I am saying that the conclusions that he draws from these pieces appears to be faulty.


In other words, he may be using to much creative imagination when the arguments demand more rigorous substantiation.

He (Barton), has no evidence of a bible printed by congress because there is no such thing.

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

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

I didn't see David Barton listed anywhere in the citations. Anyone care to explain?

 

[peach174]

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:

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

I'm not claiming that the evidence he has such as the copy of a Bible printed by Congress is not real, I am saying that the conclusions that he draws from these pieces appears to be faulty.


In other words, he may be using to much creative imagination when the arguments demand more rigorous substantiation.

He (Barton), has no evidence of a bible printed by congress because there is no such thing.

Barton never said Congress printed a Bible.
Congress has never had a printing press.
What Barton has always said was that the Aitken Bible was the only Bible to receive Congressional approval.


From The Manhattan Rare Book Company
Aitken Bible

"The Bible of the American Revolution":
First Edition of the Extraordinarily Scarce Aitken Bible,
The First American Bible, of Profound Importance in Defining the Freedom and Identity of America

The Aitken Bible: Rare 1782 First Edition

As long as the United States remained under British rule, the British government forbade the printing of Bibles in America. When the Colonies declared their independence, the importation of Bibles became restricted and by 1777 there was a severe shortage of Bibles in America. On September 11, 1777, this shortage of Bibles was brought to the attention of the Continental Congress by its chaplain, Dr. Patrick Allison. He said in his report that Bibles were urgently needed because, “the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great” and on Dr. Allison’s advice, Congress passed a resolution to make every attempt to import 20,000 Bibles in English “from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the Union.” The importation of Bibles soon proved to be nearly impossible and the Continental Congress had to search for another alternative to supply the population with their most important book.

On January 21, 1781, the noted colonial printer Robert Aitken petitioned Congress for both sanction and support for the production of a complete Bible for the American people and a committee was immediately formed to determine if Aitken were qualified to produce a book of such significance. Aitken’s impressive credentials (he had, among other things, been the publisher of the Journals of Congress for the first Congress and published numerous articles by Thomas Paine) convinced the committee and on September 10, 1782, a Congressional Resolution was adopted granting Aitken permission and financial support for the printing of the first edition of the first American Bible.

 

[amrchaos]

I found Dr. Throckmorton's web page

DrThrockmorton.com

It is suggested by Wiki that he was an exponent of ex-gay therapy. For some odd reason, that sounds more like christian conservative than wild-eyed liberal.

Is it possible, that if anyone questions Barton's creditability is some kind of leftist conspirator or flat out liberal. Because I am to find people that doesn't fit the "leftist" mold.

 

[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.

I'm not claiming that the evidence he has such as the copy of a Bible printed by Congress is not real, I am saying that the conclusions that he draws from these pieces appears to be faulty.


In other words, he may be using to much creative imagination when the arguments demand more rigorous substantiation.


Also note, it is not the left that is pulling the book, it is his publisher. His publisher is claiming this. I have yet to find the publisher's full statements on why he decided to pull Barton's book, but eventually I will.

First, thanks for your civility and mature approach to the conversation.

I honestly believe that if you and I read all the original documents that Barton has at his disposal we would walk away with at totally different view of the founding of this nation than what we've been taught.

There's no doubt (based on the various information I easily found online) that the Bible was used on America's schools as well as other textbooks with a very strong Christian lean. There's no doubt that America's earliest and most prestigious Universities were founded by Christians and that the Bible was present in the halls of higher education. There's no doubt that the majority of our founders were Christians and that many of them were theologians or ministers of the Gospel.

Barton has provided hours of teaching and training. He's apt to slip up on one issue or another. We certainly can't define a man by the mistakes he's made. I don't believe that he purposely tried to mislead anyone IF INDEED he actually did. But if we're going to define Barton by his imperfections then we need to be willing to look in the mirror and define ourselves in similar manner.

The publisher of Barton's book certainly read his material before publishing that material. They wouldn't have published it unless they found it acceptable. The reason the publisher removed the book is likely due to political or peer pressure. I'm also not convinced that Nelson is a "conservative" publishing house. I will have to research them before reaching a conclusion but if I'm not mistaken I believe they've published some literature that could be considered liberal.

 

[amrchaos]

I'm not claiming that the evidence he has such as the copy of a Bible printed by Congress is not real, I am saying that the conclusions that he draws from these pieces appears to be faulty.


In other words, he may be using to much creative imagination when the arguments demand more rigorous substantiation.

He (Barton), has no evidence of a bible printed by congress because there is no such thing.

Barton never said Congress printed a Bible.
Congress has never had a printing press.
What Barton has always said was that the Aitken Bible was the only Bible to receive Congressional approval.


From The Manhattan Rare Book Company
Aitken Bible

"The Bible of the American Revolution":
First Edition of the Extraordinarily Scarce Aitken Bible,
The First American Bible, of Profound Importance in Defining the Freedom and Identity of America

The Aitken Bible: Rare 1782 First Edition

As long as the United States remained under British rule, the British government forbade the printing of Bibles in America. When the Colonies declared their independence, the importation of Bibles became restricted and by 1777 there was a severe shortage of Bibles in America. On September 11, 1777, this shortage of Bibles was brought to the attention of the Continental Congress by its chaplain, Dr. Patrick Allison. He said in his report that Bibles were urgently needed because, “the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great” and on Dr. Allison’s advice, Congress passed a resolution to make every attempt to import 20,000 Bibles in English “from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the Union.” The importation of Bibles soon proved to be nearly impossible and the Continental Congress had to search for another alternative to supply the population with their most important book.

On January 21, 1781, the noted colonial printer Robert Aitken petitioned Congress for both sanction and support for the production of a complete Bible for the American people and a committee was immediately formed to determine if Aitken were qualified to produce a book of such significance. Aitken’s impressive credentials (he had, among other things, been the publisher of the Journals of Congress for the first Congress and published numerous articles by Thomas Paine) convinced the committee and on September 10, 1782, a Congressional Resolution was adopted granting Aitken permission and financial support for the printing of the first edition of the first American Bible.

Ok, Congress never printed a Bible. They sanctioned the printing of a Bible.
Thanks for the correction.

Now let us return to the issue at hand. Barton used this information to support his arguments that our nation founder's wanted this nation to be a christian nation. Is this a creditable argument, or is Barton reaching a bit too far.

 

[DriftingSand]

I found Dr. Throckmorton's web page

DrThrockmorton.com

It is suggested by Wiki that he was an exponent of ex-gay therapy. For some odd reason, that sounds more like christian conservative than wild-eyed liberal.

Is it possible, that if anyone questions Barton's creditability is some kind of leftist conspirator or flat out liberal. Because I am to find people that doesn't fit the "leftist" mold.

Actually, a free-thinking Liberal can also be opposed to "gay marriage" or homosexuality in general. I also know folks who consider themselves Christians who have nothing at all against the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[DriftingSand]

He (Barton), has no evidence of a bible printed by congress because there is no such thing.

Barton never said Congress printed a Bible.
Congress has never had a printing press.
What Barton has always said was that the Aitken Bible was the only Bible to receive Congressional approval.


From The Manhattan Rare Book Company
Aitken Bible

"The Bible of the American Revolution":
First Edition of the Extraordinarily Scarce Aitken Bible,
The First American Bible, of Profound Importance in Defining the Freedom and Identity of America

The Aitken Bible: Rare 1782 First Edition

As long as the United States remained under British rule, the British government forbade the printing of Bibles in America. When the Colonies declared their independence, the importation of Bibles became restricted and by 1777 there was a severe shortage of Bibles in America. On September 11, 1777, this shortage of Bibles was brought to the attention of the Continental Congress by its chaplain, Dr. Patrick Allison. He said in his report that Bibles were urgently needed because, “the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great” and on Dr. Allison’s advice, Congress passed a resolution to make every attempt to import 20,000 Bibles in English “from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the Union.” The importation of Bibles soon proved to be nearly impossible and the Continental Congress had to search for another alternative to supply the population with their most important book.

On January 21, 1781, the noted colonial printer Robert Aitken petitioned Congress for both sanction and support for the production of a complete Bible for the American people and a committee was immediately formed to determine if Aitken were qualified to produce a book of such significance. Aitken’s impressive credentials (he had, among other things, been the publisher of the Journals of Congress for the first Congress and published numerous articles by Thomas Paine) convinced the committee and on September 10, 1782, a Congressional Resolution was adopted granting Aitken permission and financial support for the printing of the first edition of the first American Bible.

Ok, Congress never printed a Bible. They sanctioned the printing of a Bible.
Thanks for the correction.

Now let us return to the issue at hand. Barton used this information to support his arguments that our nation founder's wanted this nation to be a christian nation. Is this a creditable argument, or is Barton reaching a bit too far.

The "issue at hand" is defined by the OP. Were the founders mostly Christian. It's been established that they were. Even the more rabid Libs who have participated in the conversation (for lack of a more proper term) have agreed that they were.

But the term used in the Library Of Contgress is "sponsored" not "sanctioned."

1spon·sor noun \ˈspän(t)-sər\
: a person or organization that pays the cost of an activity or event (such as a radio or television program, sports event, concert, etc.) in return for the right to advertise during the activity or event

: a person or organization that gives someone money for participating in a charity event (such as a walk or race)

: an organization that gives money to an athlete for training, clothes, equipment, etc., in return for the right to use the athlete for advertising

Sponsor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary