My daughter says ..

[hillbilly]

.. I should share this. It may help some understand why parents, students & teachers down here are not wanting to give up Bible History classes in school. Not trying to start a war or anything like that, just askin' folks to at least hear out the link and try to understand that there are still some area's in America that still teach about and believe in the principals they were taught this nation was founded on. I know views on the way certain things are done or how life is lived or is not lived seem to vary according to location ( and I understand that ), but she's only 14 and could check up on this thread so please be considerate. I'm offering to give ya'll the same respect I'm asking and I'll vow to do the same in future posts in other peoples threads as well.

Piece to all, Dave


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

.. I should share this. It may help some understand why parents, students & teachers down here are not wanting to give up Bible History classes in school. Not trying to start a war or anything like that, just askin' folks to at least hear out the link and try to understand that there are still some area's in America that still teach about and believe in the principals this nation was founded on. She's only 14 and could check up on this thread so please be considerate. I'm offering to give ya'll the same respect I'm asking and I'll vow to do the same in future posts in other peoples threads.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

I'm guessing that David Barton is the leader of a church group of some kind and not a tour guide for the US Park Service. For that reason, I suppose it's understandable that he got the history of that bible wrong.

The bible in question is known as the Aitken Bible. It's called that because it was published by a man named Robert Aitken, a printer and bookseller in Philadelphia.

During the Revolutionary War the supply of bibles for the Colonies, printed in England, ceased so the Continental Congress considered purchasing 20,000 bibles from other countries. They even passed a motion to buy them but they never reached the point of passing a resolution so nothing ever actually happened.

Enter Robert Aitken. He had been printing New Testaments in the Colonies since 1777. In 1781 he petitioned the Continental Congress to certify his bible as textually accurate. Congress agreed to do so, believing that their certification might be a boost to the printing industry in America. Aitken also asked the Continental Congress to grant that his bible be published under the "Authority of Congress" and that he be appointed as the official publisher of sacred texts. Both these requests were denied.

Aitken began publishing his bible in 1782 but despite the official certification and despite the fact that bibles had been unavailable in the colonies for 7 years, the Aitken Bible was a commercial failure. Unable to sell enough of them to avoid a financial loss, Aitken asked Congress to buy his bibles and give them to returning veterans of the Continental Army. They declined.

So, there never was an official bible here and Congress never printed any bibles. In fact, the Continental Congress refused to do these things when asked. It's also worth noting that all this took place during the Revolutionary War, before there was a United States so the speaker's statement that "this bible was printed by the US Congress in 1782" the only thing he got right was the year.

Now for the paintings. The first shows Columbus landing in the new world and giving thanks to God. That's certainly a plausible occurence but it can in no way be construed as having any significance for a country established in a different place 300 years later. This is especially true because Columbus was claiming the New World in the name of the Spanish king and queen.

Okay, so Pocahontas being baptized. This happened in the Virginia Colony, a part of the British Empire. There is an official religion in Britain so the baptism of a "heathen princess" had political significance. Having had experience with living under the rule of a government in which the church had the power of the state behind it, and vice versa, the Founding Fathers created here a government free of the shackles of an official State religion.

Now the Pilgrims leaving for the New World. The Pilgrims were a religious sect fleeing persecution in England. Being a religious sect, I don't see anything particularly surprising about depicting them at prayer.

I'm frankly having a little trouble squaring the holding of services in the Capitol with the Separation of Church and State. My reading suggests that Jefferson and Madison felt that this was acceptable because the services were voluntary and non-denominational.

And that brings us to religious instruction in public schools. It might be non-denominational but it certainly isn't voluntary and it's most definitely Christian. As such, it subjects people of other faiths or people of no religious belief to compulsory instruction in the Christian faith. That's unconstitutional.

Hillbilly, how would you feel if suddenly your daughter found that her school was offering compulsory classes in religious instruction but that the religion being taught was Islam? Would you be okay with that? Now perhaps you can relate to what compulsory Christian instruction would mean for Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist students.

It's admirable that you want your daugher to be educated in her faith but it's wrong to want to require it of other children, especially those of other faiths. It should be voluntary and shouldn't be restricted to one religion.

Finally, you have an option. I suspect that you belong to a church and I suspect that your church has a bible school. That's where your kid should be getting their religious instruction, not in taxpayer-funded public schools. When you come right down to it, you're really not being denied the right to religious instruction. It's just that you need to look for it where it belongs, in church.

John

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'm guessing that David Barton is the leader of a church group of some kind and not a tour guide for the US Park Service. For that reason, I suppose it's understandable that he got the history of that bible wrong.

The bible in question is known as the Aitken Bible. It's called that because it was published by a man named Robert Aitken, a printer and bookseller in Philadelphia.

During the Revolutionary War the supply of bibles for the Colonies, printed in England, ceased so the Continental Congress considered purchasing 20,000 bibles from other countries. They even passed a motion to buy them but they never reached the point of passing a resolution so nothing ever actually happened.

Enter Robert Aitken. He had been printing New Testaments in the Colonies since 1777. In 1781 he petitioned the Continental Congress to certify his bible as textually accurate. Congress agreed to do so, believing that their certification might be a boost to the printing industry in America. Aitken also asked the Continental Congress to grant that his bible be published under the "Authority of Congress" and that he be appointed as the official publisher of sacred texts. Both these requests were denied.

Aitken began publishing his bible in 1782 but despite the official certification and despite the fact that bibles had been unavailable in the colonies for 7 years, the Aitken Bible was a commercial failure. Unable to sell enough of them to avoid a financial loss, Aitken asked Congress to buy his bibles and give them to returning veterans of the Continental Army. They declined.

So, there never was an official bible here and Congress never printed any bibles. In fact, the Continental Congress refused to do these things when asked. It's also worth noting that all this took place during the Revolutionary War, before there was a United States so the speaker's statement that "this bible was printed by the US Congress in 1782" the only thing he got right was the year.

Now for the paintings. The first shows Columbus landing in the new world and giving thanks to God. That's certainly a plausible occurence but it can in no way be construed as having any significance for a country established in a different place 300 years later. This is especially true because Columbus was claiming the New World in the name of the Spanish king and queen.

Okay, so Pocahontas being baptized. This happened in the Virginia Colony, a part of the British Empire. There is an official religion in Britain so the baptism of a "heathen princess" had political significance. Having had experience with living under the rule of a government in which the church had the power of the state behind it, and vice versa, the Founding Fathers created here a government free of the shackles of an official State religion.

Now the Pilgrims leaving for the New World. The Pilgrims were a religious sect fleeing persecution in England. Being a religious sect, I don't see anything particularly surprising about depicting them at prayer.

I'm frankly having a little trouble squaring the holding of services in the Capitol with the Separation of Church and State. My reading suggests that Jefferson and Madison felt that this was acceptable because the services were voluntary and non-denominational.

And that brings us to religious instruction in public schools. It might be non-denominational but it certainly isn't voluntary and it's most definitely Christian. As such, it subjects people of other faiths or people of no religious belief to compulsory instruction in the Christian faith. That's unconstitutional.

Hillbilly, how would you feel if suddenly your daughter found that her school was offering compulsory classes in religious instruction but that the religion being taught was Islam? Would you be okay with that? Now perhaps you can relate to what compulsory Christian instruction would mean for Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist students.

It's admirable that you want your daugher to be educated in her faith but it's wrong to want to require it of other children, especially those of other faiths. It should be voluntary and shouldn't be restricted to one religion.

Finally, you have an option. I suspect that you belong to a church and I suspect that your church has a bible school. That's where your kid should be getting their religious instruction, not in taxpayer-funded public schools. When you come right down to it, you're really not being denied the right to religious instruction. It's just that you need to look for it where it belongs, in church.

John

Perfect. Apart of course in line 2 of the final paragraph where either an s should be put on the end of kid or their should be changed to her

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Combwork

Perfect. Apart of course in line 2 of the final paragraph where either an s should be put on the end of kid or their should be changed to her

Missed that one. I had originally written it thinking that Hillbilly had two daughters bit realized he referred to only one so I went back and modified it.

John

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'm guessing that David Barton is the leader of a church group of some kind and not a tour guide for the US Park Service. For that reason, I suppose it's understandable that he got the history of that bible wrong.

The bible in question is known as the Aitken Bible. It's called that because it was published by a man named Robert Aitken, a printer and bookseller in Philadelphia.

During the Revolutionary War the supply of bibles for the Colonies, printed in England, ceased so the Continental Congress considered purchasing 20,000 bibles from other countries. They even passed a motion to buy them but they never reached the point of passing a resolution so nothing ever actually happened.

Enter Robert Aitken. He had been printing New Testaments in the Colonies since 1777. In 1781 he petitioned the Continental Congress to certify his bible as textually accurate. Congress agreed to do so, believing that their certification might be a boost to the printing industry in America. Aitken also asked the Continental Congress to grant that his bible be published under the "Authority of Congress" and that he be appointed as the official publisher of sacred texts. Both these requests were denied.

Aitken began publishing his bible in 1782 but despite the official certification and despite the fact that bibles had been unavailable in the colonies for 7 years, the Aitken Bible was a commercial failure. Unable to sell enough of them to avoid a financial loss, Aitken asked Congress to buy his bibles and give them to returning veterans of the Continental Army. They declined.

So, there never was an official bible here and Congress never printed any bibles. In fact, the Continental Congress refused to do these things when asked. It's also worth noting that all this took place during the Revolutionary War, before there was a United States so the speaker's statement that "this bible was printed by the US Congress in 1782" the only thing he got right was the year.

Now for the paintings. The first shows Columbus landing in the new world and giving thanks to God. That's certainly a plausible occurence but it can in no way be construed as having any significance for a country established in a different place 300 years later. This is especially true because Columbus was claiming the New World in the name of the Spanish king and queen.

Okay, so Pocahontas being baptized. This happened in the Virginia Colony, a part of the British Empire. There is an official religion in Britain so the baptism of a "heathen princess" had political significance. Having had experience with living under the rule of a government in which the church had the power of the state behind it, and vice versa, the Founding Fathers created here a government free of the shackles of an official State religion.

Now the Pilgrims leaving for the New World. The Pilgrims were a religious sect fleeing persecution in England. Being a religious sect, I don't see anything particularly surprising about depicting them at prayer.

I'm frankly having a little trouble squaring the holding of services in the Capitol with the Separation of Church and State. My reading suggests that Jefferson and Madison felt that this was acceptable because the services were voluntary and non-denominational.

And that brings us to religious instruction in public schools. It might be non-denominational but it certainly isn't voluntary and it's most definitely Christian. As such, it subjects people of other faiths or people of no religious belief to compulsory instruction in the Christian faith. That's unconstitutional.

Hillbilly, how would you feel if suddenly your daughter found that her school was offering compulsory classes in religious instruction but that the religion being taught was Islam? Would you be okay with that? Now perhaps you can relate to what compulsory Christian instruction would mean for Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist students.

It's admirable that you want your daugher to be educated in her faith but it's wrong to want to require it of other children, especially those of other faiths. It should be voluntary and shouldn't be restricted to one religion.

Finally, you have an option. I suspect that you belong to a church and I suspect that your church has a bible school. That's where your kid should be getting their religious instruction, not in taxpayer-funded public schools. When you come right down to it, you're really not being denied the right to religious instruction. It's just that you need to look for it where it belongs, in church.

John

Not for nothin' John if I knew all this stuff my head would explode.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by hillbilly

.. I should share this. It may help some understand why parents, students & teachers down here are not wanting to give up Bible History classes in school. Not trying to start a war or anything like that, just askin' folks to at least hear out the link and try to understand that there are still some area's in America that still teach about and believe in the principals they were taught this nation was founded on. I know views on the way certain things are done or how life is lived or is not lived seem to vary according to location ( and I understand that ), but she's only 14 and could check up on this thread so please be considerate. I'm offering to give ya'll the same respect I'm asking and I'll vow to do the same in future posts in other peoples threads as well.

Piece to all, Dave


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

Well, that's one mans story..............

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'm guessing that David Barton is the leader of a church group of some kind and not a tour guide for the US Park Service. For that reason, I suppose it's understandable that he got the history of that bible wrong.

The bible in question is known as the Aitken Bible. It's called that because it was published by a man named Robert Aitken, a printer and bookseller in Philadelphia.

During the Revolutionary War the supply of bibles for the Colonies, printed in England, ceased so the Continental Congress considered purchasing 20,000 bibles from other countries. They even passed a motion to buy them but they never reached the point of passing a resolution so nothing ever actually happened.

Enter Robert Aitken. He had been printing New Testaments in the Colonies since 1777. In 1781 he petitioned the Continental Congress to certify his bible as textually accurate. Congress agreed to do so, believing that their certification might be a boost to the printing industry in America. Aitken also asked the Continental Congress to grant that his bible be published under the "Authority of Congress" and that he be appointed as the official publisher of sacred texts. Both these requests were denied.

Aitken began publishing his bible in 1782 but despite the official certification and despite the fact that bibles had been unavailable in the colonies for 7 years, the Aitken Bible was a commercial failure. Unable to sell enough of them to avoid a financial loss, Aitken asked Congress to buy his bibles and give them to returning veterans of the Continental Army. They declined.

So, there never was an official bible here and Congress never printed any bibles. In fact, the Continental Congress refused to do these things when asked. It's also worth noting that all this took place during the Revolutionary War, before there was a United States so the speaker's statement that "this bible was printed by the US Congress in 1782" the only thing he got right was the year.

Now for the paintings. The first shows Columbus landing in the new world and giving thanks to God. That's certainly a plausible occurence but it can in no way be construed as having any significance for a country established in a different place 300 years later. This is especially true because Columbus was claiming the New World in the name of the Spanish king and queen.

Okay, so Pocahontas being baptized. This happened in the Virginia Colony, a part of the British Empire. There is an official religion in Britain so the baptism of a "heathen princess" had political significance. Having had experience with living under the rule of a government in which the church had the power of the state behind it, and vice versa, the Founding Fathers created here a government free of the shackles of an official State religion.

Now the Pilgrims leaving for the New World. The Pilgrims were a religious sect fleeing persecution in England. Being a religious sect, I don't see anything particularly surprising about depicting them at prayer.

I'm frankly having a little trouble squaring the holding of services in the Capitol with the Separation of Church and State. My reading suggests that Jefferson and Madison felt that this was acceptable because the services were voluntary and non-denominational.

And that brings us to religious instruction in public schools. It might be non-denominational but it certainly isn't voluntary and it's most definitely Christian. As such, it subjects people of other faiths or people of no religious belief to compulsory instruction in the Christian faith. That's unconstitutional.

Hillbilly, how would you feel if suddenly your daughter found that her school was offering compulsory classes in religious instruction but that the religion being taught was Islam? Would you be okay with that? Now perhaps you can relate to what compulsory Christian instruction would mean for Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist students.

It's admirable that you want your daugher to be educated in her faith but it's wrong to want to require it of other children, especially those of other faiths. It should be voluntary and shouldn't be restricted to one religion.

Finally, you have an option. I suspect that you belong to a church and I suspect that your church has a bible school. That's where your kid should be getting their religious instruction, not in taxpayer-funded public schools. When you come right down to it, you're really not being denied the right to religious instruction. It's just that you need to look for it where it belongs, in church.

John

This is another mans story. And it sounds far more plausible to me.

I've never understood how anyone, now or in the 18th Century could see "Religious Freedom" as anything but just that---The right of each and evey individual to choose his/her own religious path. Free of undue influence, on the part of the government or anyone else.

Dave

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Missed that one. I had originally written it thinking that Hillbilly had two daughters bit realized he referred to only one so I went back and modified it.

John

Still excellent reading. The Mayflower carried Christian separatists away to relative safety. Thinking about it, with the number of different varieties of Christians ending up in what was to become the USA, what would have been the chances of it starting out as a hard line Christian community then over the generations evolved into something really nasty. New Testament = peace & love. Old Testament = An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Children punished for something their fathers did several generations back etc. etc.

Hard line Christians aren't well known for their tolerance of other faiths. As for stoning to death, we were at it way before the Muslims.

[finnbow]

The fellow talking was David Barton, once called "one of the foremost Christian revisionist historians." As John's lengthy and informative post illustrates, "revisionist history" is certainly an oxymoron. Apparently this fellow has developed a reputation for shoddy workmanship when it comes to his writings about American history and the meaning of the First Amendment.

Hillbilly - With all due respect, you're not doing your daughter any favors by exposing her to this contrived view of American history. It may comport with how Barton and others would like history to have played out in support of their modern day beliefs/agenda, but it doesn't comport with the truth.

BTW, from my perspective anyone who wraps his sleeve with American flag stripes and produces a video with patriotic music whelling in the background is immediately suspected of being a charlatan. It seems my suspicions proved correct in this instance. In the words of one of the great thinkers of that day (or any day), Samuel Johnson, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

[d-ray657]

Several sources debunk Barton's attempts to re-write the history of the United States Constitution. Some of those sources are atheist organizations who have an agenda of their own. This is unfortunate in that it creates the impression that those who do not support falsification of American history are anti-Christian. In my introduction here, I stated my hope to see the meaning of Christianity rescued from the religious right. It is essential to the freedom of religion to prevent excessive entanglement by religion into the operation of government, and vice versa. Any organization that seeks to make our government responsible for the promotion of a particular set of religious principles puts the freedom of every American at risk. The process of governing, with the necessary compromises entailed in advancing legislation, does not work well with unyielding religious views preventing completion. In the same way, the compromises made in public life do not translate well to one's personal system of beliefs. We need not re-write history to undo a system that has made the United States the most religious nation in the world.

Regards,

D-Ray