Ok. David Barton. Enough said.I don't know for sure, but I believe the early Church in the colonies was primarily Anglican. Yet I would think the services were probably geared more toward preaching embraced by all of the various denominations, with a heavy emphasis on praise and worship, rather than sectarian doctrine. But don't discount the main point: a government building was officially approved as a church building by both the House and Senate.
Ok. You are setting up a straw man. Many of the early Americans WERE Christian. It was a part of their daily lives much like it is a part of OUR lives. I am not at all opposed to having a Christmas display at city hall. I am also not opposed to having a Purim display or a Ramadan display. What I AM opposed to is having a Jehovah's Witness lead my child in prayer. Or a Muslim. Or, for that matter, a Mormon.No, it had to do with a British shipping blockade in 1777. The people petitioned Congress to find a way to either import Bibles from somewhere, or else the materials necessary for the colonists to print their own. While the resolution was passed, money allocated, and Bibles were ordered by Congress, there is no indication that they ever actually arrived. But then, I suppose that's understandable with the war going on, huh?
The point is: Congress had an active hand in trying to secure Bibles--which obviously flies in the face of the modern revisionist perception of the Colonial government being vehemently opposed to the propagation of religion. Incidentally, four years after the aforementioned petition, Congress unanimously approved the printing of the Aitkin Bible, the first to be printed in the US. Again, the Bible was openly advocated by the government of the United States.
Today, not only would our government shrink in horror from sponsoring the printing of Bibles, but routinely sanctions the filing of endless lawsuits over even voluntary displays of the 10 commandments, Nativity Scenes and crosses in public places--despite their having been in place for a century or more, in some cases. A drastic change in the status quo, between early America and modern America , wouldn't you say? That's the point. Here's the "linky" you asked for:
I need to do a memory refresher on the bibles. I'll come back to this, perhaps over the long weekend.
So you would be good with children learning to read from the Qu'ran today? Or maybe the book of Moroni?You're missing the point that Bibles even were a fundamental part of public schools. That schoolchildren grew up reading the Bible--with the government's blessings--is the point; and remarkable by today's standards and government policies. Being saturated with the word of God from childhood is one of the reasons so many early Americans grew up as Godly people, something that is sadly missing in American society today.
The Bible was THE common book in society. There were no dedicated school book publishing houses - there were few BOOK publishers. They used what was available to most people in that era.
Have you read the "decision" and some of the following decisions by the judge in that case? It was a case to decide whether or not a Catholic priest (Irish I think) could be contracted by an American church to preside over the district. The law at the time (we were in a period of anti-immigration) said manual labor could not be contracted from out of the country. The judges decision was that the priest was "brain" labor and therefore exempt. his point was the majority of the people in the nation were Christian - therefore making it a "Christian Nation" and that those Christians who resided within the nation had a need for a shepherd.Again, you're missing the point: revisionists attempt to portray the wall of separation as having been firmly in place since America's founding, and religion eschewed in the public square. Yet, as late as 1892, the view existed among even members of the Supreme Court, that the USA is "a Christian nation." Whether or not you and I agree with that assessment, is immaterial and beside the point.
Please don't take David Barton at face value. He leaves out lots of crucial information and at times bends things to make them say what he would have them say.
And I'll ask again - would you be willing to have a Muslim lead your child in prayer every day?My point is: the same religious activity that is expressly forbidden in public schools and other government-funded institutions is employed in opening every session of Congress, where the laws of the land are designed and drafted--including the one that forbids prayer in government-run institutions. Does that not seem just a tad incongruous?
I'll deal with the John Adams portion of this whole thing as I have more time. Ponder indeed.