Were Most Of America's Founding Fathers - Christians

[peach174]

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.

That statement has also been twisted.
Our Nation is founded on Christian principals and religious freedom.
There is a big difference between being a Christian Nation and being founded on Christian Principals.
If we were a Christian Nation the founders would have never allowed freedom of other religions.
We had Jews who were part of the formation of this country they started coming here in 1654.

This is Barton's point
WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built – a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined. In accord with what was so accurately stated by George Washington, we believe that "the propitious [favorable] smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation which disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained."

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

His publisher stated that Barton's work does not meet academic standards and is flawed. There is no leftist agenda.

 

[DriftingSand]

Who actually believes that a group of Christians would create a new nation from the ground up so that 240 later their posterity would be attacked as "loonies" who believe in an invisible, non-existent god? Does anyone truly believe that that was the intent of the Christian Founders?

 

[amrchaos]

You do know that sponsoring the printing of a Bible could be considered the same as printing the Bible yourself.

Whats the real difference. Well one gives money for printing, the other organizes the press and hire the labor to print, but essentially the two has the same intention--the production of a bible for mass consumption.

So which is it? Did Congress 'sponsor' or 'sanction' the printing of the Bible. Also, what real difference would it make. Evidently, Congress is supporting the literature for Christian consumption, how is it one can not conclude that Congress has some bias towards Christian life over any others?

If the argument was weakened to "The founding fathers made special efforts to support the spiritual life of Christians" one would be hard pressed to argue against it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Who actually believes that a group of Christians would create a new nation from the ground up so that 240 later their posterity would be attacked as "loonies" who believe in an invisible, non-existent god? Does anyone truly believe that that was the intent of the Christian Founders?

They also didn't imagine space travel or open heart surgery.
The expansion of knowledge marches on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"If the argument was weakened to "The founding fathers made special efforts to support the spiritual life of Christians" one would be hard pressed to argue against it."

I agree, so frame the argument accordingly instead of making erroneous assertions beyond the scope of the argument.

 

[amrchaos]

You right Peach, somewhere I did twist the argument

The closest thing that comes to what I have been saying is a question posed by Huckabee:"Is America a secular or Christian nation?" This is posed according to the first, between 5:00 and 5:30.

Even so, Barton never responds to the question, at least not in the clip posted by the op.

Did I spark an argument based on misunderstanding?

 

[thebrucebeat]

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

I provided my citation.
Feel free to provide your own.

 

[DriftingSand]

=amrchaos;9032372]You do know that sponsoring the printing of a Bible could be considered the same as printing the Bible yourself.

It could but I don't believe it does in this case.

Whats the real difference. Well one gives money for printing, the other organizes the press and hire the labor to print, but essentially the two has the same intention--the production of a bible for mass consumption.

Aitken went broke printing his Bible on his own. He then went to Congress who "sponsored" the continuation of Aitken's work. Thus, in a roundabout way, Congress financed the printing of an American edition of the Bible.

So which is it? Did Congress 'sponsor' or 'sanction' the printing of the Bible. Also, what real difference would it make. Evidently, Congress is supporting the literature for Christian consumption, how is it one can not conclude that Congress has some bias towards Christian life over any others?

A sanction can occur without sponsorship but to sponsor something is to automatically sanction it. I doubt that Congress would pay for something that they didn't sanction. According to the Library Of Congress the men who made up the Congress at that time were devout Christians.

If the argument was weakened to "The founding fathers made special efforts to support the spiritual life of Christians" one would be hard pressed to argue against it.

I think at this point we can all agree that Congress and the early government of the United States saw to it that this nation was not to force Christianity upon anyone. They allowed for freedom of religion (any religion). However, the nation is deeply rooted in the tenets of Christianity and the founders were primarily Christian. So it goes without saying that they generally adhered to the principles of Christianity which were likely reflected in the decisions they made and the direction they pointed the country in during that time period.

But I've said it before, nobody in their right mind can believe that a bunch of Christian men designed a government so that 238 years later their posterity would be persecuted by secularists.

 

[amrchaos]

I don't think Dr. Throckmorton is anything close to a liberal.

IMHO,I think this is really a case of conservatives trying to play it safe than the work of some leftist pressure group.

I mean, this is not like arguments posted in an informal forum or board. Barton's work is suppose to reflect serious academic research with starling supporting evidence. It is easy to see why some conservatives in academia would get nervous if it contain inaccuracies.

 

[thebrucebeat]

But I've said it before, nobody in their right mind can believe that a bunch of Christian men designed a government so that 238 years later their posterity would be persecuted by secularists.

Already addressed this sloppy argument. There are many things they didn't anticipate. Civil war over their initial blessing of slavery, for example.
They may well have seen the future of non-believers in this country, and made it a protection in the COTUS.
Who knows?
In the end, they produced a document that gave the non-believer equal protetction under U.S. law.
Or just maybe they weren't as Christian as you imagine, and were more concerned in protecting their own land acquisitions, which were considerable.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wait

I was taught Franklin was a Quaker. Quakers are christians. I learned both of these facts in public school.

On the other hand, who is the "atheists" founding father?
I was taught that some fouders had strange and radical ideas about god and faith, but I have yet to find the atheists amongst them.

Who is the public school claiming is an atheist? Which public schools systems are teaching this?

Instead of focusing on Atheists, I look at nontheists in general, or secular gentiles under Natural Laws upon which our Constitutional principles are based.

Jefferson edited his own version of the Bible, removing references to miracles, and stuck with the natural laws and wisdom that Jesus taught.

So I think this speaks to the branch of law where gentiles follow laws by nature or conscience, just common sense.

I believe Jesus makes it clear in the Bible he governs the Gentiles as a separate fold of the same flock; so the same spirit of Jesus or Justice governs both the natural laws of the state and the scriptural laws of the church though these are separate paths.

I see the Constitution as the equivalent of God giving the natural laws to the Gentiles to write down and teach from/establish for the secular realm compared with God giving the divine laws to Moses to write down and establish law for the tribes of believers from the Jewish to Christian and Muslims who all follow the scriptural laws in the Bible sent by God.

Both these paths are fulfilled in the Spirit of Christ Jesus or Restorative Justice, which brings about a similar Reformation in both church and state to restore the spirit of he laws and reconcile with the letter of the laws. We are going through similar processes of resolving conflicts to establish a universal agreement on truth and justice, using the given laws for the respective institutions, leaders and groups under them to cover all people.

 

[Chuckt]

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.

Why would other countries ban the Bible to be imported? They knew it was the driving force of this country, I feel.

 

[DriftingSand]

I don't think Dr. Throckmorton is anything close to a liberal.

IMHO,I think this is really a case of conservatives trying to play it safe than the work of some leftist pressure group.

I mean, this is not like arguments posted in an informal forum or board. Barton's work is suppose to reflect serious academic research with starling supporting evidence. It is easy to see why some conservatives in academia would get nervous if it contain inaccuracies.

You may be right about conservatives "playing it safe." It's too bad more conservatives don't have Barton's backbone in the face of a hostile environment. Many modern Christians believe that Christians are supposed to be "doormats." Nelson Publishers should do some research then stand by their initial decision.

Nevertheless, America was founded on Christian principles by Christian men. Many fought and died; shed blood; and lost limbs so that King George's vision of a government of full control didn't take possession of the New World. Thank God that they died so that atheists would speak their mind and secularists could print their thoughts.

 

[emilynghiem]

But I've said it before, nobody in their right mind can believe that a bunch of Christian men designed a government so that 238 years later their posterity would be persecuted by secularists.

Already addressed this sloppy argument. There are many things they didn't anticipate. Civil war over their initial blessing of slavery, for example.
They may well have seen the future of non-believers in this country, and made it a protection in the COTUS.
Who knows?
In the end, they produced a document that gave the non-believer equal protetction under U.S. law.
Or just maybe they weren't as Christian as you imagine, and were more concerned in protecting their own land acquisitions, which were considerable.

Unfortunately DS, that rejection is part of the process.
All people and systems have to go through flaws, falling out and recovering.

If any system of laws were practiced perfectly, people would make an idol out of that, and claim superiority over any others from other groups besides THAT one.

We would judge each other by label and association, which is what Jesus warned about, NOT to judge by who came from which father or which family, which becomes a condition.

So as we examine all people, all groups, denominations, systems and laws,
we will see that all have been and can be abused, because people are flawed and biased.

So this makes us equal, in both our strengths and weaknesses, not putting any above others. We need help from each other to correct our mutual problems and get back on track. All people, systems, cultures/generations will go through a version of this process.
We must all answer to the same justice in the end, and all accept equal corrections due.

 

[DriftingSand]

But I've said it before, nobody in their right mind can believe that a bunch of Christian men designed a government so that 238 years later their posterity would be persecuted by secularists.

Already addressed this sloppy argument. There are many things they didn't anticipate. Civil war over their initial blessing of slavery, for example.
They may well have seen the future of non-believers in this country, and made it a protection in the COTUS.
Who knows?
In the end, they produced a document that gave the non-believer equal protetction under U.S. law.
Or just maybe they weren't as Christian as you imagine, and were more concerned in protecting their own land acquisitions, which were considerable.

Unfortunately DS, that rejection is part of the process.
All people and systems have to go through flaws, falling out and recovering.

If any system of laws were practiced perfectly, people would make an idol out of that, and claim superiority over any others from other groups besides THAT one.

We would judge each other by label and association, which is what Jesus warned about, NOT to judge by who came from which father or which family, which becomes a condition.

So as we examine all people, all groups, denominations, systems and laws,
we will see that all have been and can be abused, because people are flawed and biased.

So this makes us equal, in both our strengths and weaknesses, not putting any above others. We need help from each other to correct our mutual problems and get back on track. All people, systems, cultures/generations will go through a version of this process.
We must all answer to the same justice in the end, and all accept equal corrections due.

I actually agree to a certain degree. Men are imperfect. Period!! Christians see mankind as being in a fallen state and prone to sin. It's much easier to sin than it is not to sin. Mankind is a bit lazy and unwilling to make the efforts necessary to walk a completely upright life so they end up leaning away from the ideals of any truly moral institution that requires any sort of inner change. It's likely why America was primarily Christian at her founding while Christianity is becoming America's "red-headed step-child" today. Secularists DEMAND the freedom and liberty to do whatever they want but their quick to call Christians "close minded" and "hateful" for choosing to follow the tenets of the Bible.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I suppose that most of them were Christians. They were also slave owners. George Washington produced the most whiskey in the colonies, and a large part of it went to the Indians. He also became rich by marrying money, and taking advantage of his employers by buying land that they sent him to survey. Jefferson enslaved his own children. Washington was also an adulterer with his married neighbor's wife. Aaron Burr was an opportunist and a traitor, as well as a murderer. Even the other founders considered Patrick Henry a lose cannon, and would not have anything to do with him. Adams came to despise Franklin when working with him in France. Franklin got Adams fired from the French diplomatic mission and sent to the Dutch to raise money, just to get rid of him. Adams and Jefferson didn't speak for at least 10 years, probably much more. Adams was so furious with Jefferson that he left Washington D.C. the day before the inauguration just so he would not have to attend. Jefferson made a lot of money selling nails, which were manufactured by slave children, not old enough to work in the fields.

They were all a swell bunch of fellas...

 

[emilynghiem]

I actually agree to a certain degree. Men are imperfect. Period!! Christians see mankind as being in a fallen state and prone to sin. It's much easier to sin than it is not to sin. Mankind is a bit lazy and unwilling to make the efforts necessary to walk a completely upright life so they end up leaning away from the ideals of any truly moral institution that requires any sort of inner change. It's likely why America was primarily Christian at her founding while Christianity is becoming America's "red-headed step-child" today. Secularists DEMAND the freedom and liberty to do whatever they want but their quick to call Christians "close minded" and "hateful" for choosing to follow the tenets of the Bible.

Yes sometimes the shoe has to be on the other foot before we see we make the same mistakes. Those who criticized Christian Rightwing for imposing their beliefs are now doing the same. Those who criticized free choice as wanting to shirk responsibility now argue why aren't we trusted with free choice to take responsibility and not abuse it?

Both roles have now been reversed. Let's see who learns and figures it out that it's mutual.

 

[DriftingSand]

Well, I suppose that most of them were Christians. They were also slave owners. George Washington produced the most whiskey in the colonies, and a large part of it went to the Indians. He also became rich by marrying money, and taking advantage of his employers by buying land that they sent him to survey. Jefferson enslaved his own children. Washington was also an adulterer with his married neighbor's wife. Aaron Burr was an opportunist and a traitor, as well as a murderer. Even the other founders considered Patrick Henry a lose cannon, and would not have anything to do with him. Adams came to despise Franklin when working with him in France. Franklin got Adams fired from the French diplomatic mission and sent to the Dutch to raise money, just to get rid of him. Adams and Jefferson didn't speak for at least 10 years, probably much more. Adams was so furious with Jefferson that he left Washington D.C. the day before the inauguration just so he would not have to attend. Jefferson made a lot of money selling nails, which were manufactured by slave children, not old enough to work in the fields.

They were all a swell bunch of fellas...

Yeah ... the founders who died for your freedom were just awful. Not nearly as virtuous as you are, I'm sure.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, I suppose that most of them were Christians. They were also slave owners. George Washington produced the most whiskey in the colonies, and a large part of it went to the Indians. He also became rich by marrying money, and taking advantage of his employers by buying land that they sent him to survey. Jefferson enslaved his own children. Washington was also an adulterer with his married neighbor's wife. Aaron Burr was an opportunist and a traitor, as well as a murderer. Even the other founders considered Patrick Henry a lose cannon, and would not have anything to do with him. Adams came to despise Franklin when working with him in France. Franklin got Adams fired from the French diplomatic mission and sent to the Dutch to raise money, just to get rid of him. Adams and Jefferson didn't speak for at least 10 years, probably much more. Adams was so furious with Jefferson that he left Washington D.C. the day before the inauguration just so he would not have to attend. Jefferson made a lot of money selling nails, which were manufactured by slave children, not old enough to work in the fields.

They were all a swell bunch of fellas...

It was explained to me that slaves were not directly owned but mortgaged through banks and paid off along with the property.

The same way homeowners today cannot just give away their homes to others
because they are still paying for them, people back then could not just free their slaves.

The same criticisms you have of founding Americans
still apply to Americans today.

We depend on slave labor from other countries.
We could not afford to buy our cell phones and other amenities were it not for
cheap Chinese labor.

How many of us are working full time to try to replace slave labor with equitable wages?

How many of us criticize founding slave owners for taking advantage of the labor of others, used to support themselves, while working on "long term plans" to change the system?

Aren't we all relying on slave labor still until we change the system?