The constitution & the bible

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

yeah right .... small

like lust, ego, gluttony, vanity, wrath, pride and indifference towards others is "bad". this stuff is over rated

that earthly things in moderation are good for you. variety is the spice of life. utterly useless.

Love and compassion towards your fellow man should always be one of your primary goals. flat out ass-a-nine notion here.

yep Chas, just a small part of the book is useful.

You are conflating the perceived importance of some lessons with how much of the Bible they take up.

The stories and verses that address positive moral lessons is very small.

Every time people speak of the moral value of the New Testament, I'm reminded of Lord Russell's comment that, 'The New Testament is both good and original, but what is good is not original, and what is original is not good.'

Boru

[Angrboda]

The bible was printed and distributed at govt. expense in the history of the nation.
That action reflected the importance of the book.

That is simply false.

…because the lies about Congress and the Bible are the most popular of all the Christian nationalist history lies, I made this subject the very first chapter of the book. The chapter, titled "Congress and the Bible," debunks all the myths and lies regarding the printing, financing, distribution, or recommending of Bibles by our early congresses, most of which are variations of the same three stories -- two involving the Continental Congress, and one an act signed by James Madison. The chapter also includes some related lies that have, quite disturbingly, made it into the opinions of Supreme Court justices in a few First Amendment cases.

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

Myths regarding the printing, financing, distribution, or recommending of Bibles by our early Congresses are among the most popular of all the religious right American history lies. Most are variations of the same three stories – two involving the Continental Congress, and one an act signed by James Madison.

---

The first is the story of the Continental Congress importing Bibles in 1777.

• According to William Federer, in his book America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations: “Continental Congress September 11, 1777, approved and recommended to the people that 20,000 copies of The Holy Bible be imported from other sources. This was in response to the shortage of Bibles in America caused by the Revolutionary War interrupting trade with England. The Chaplain of Congress, Patrick Allison, brought the matter to the attention of Congress, who assigned it to a special Congressional Committee, which reported:
  
  
  • That the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States in the Union. Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible.” ...

... William Federer’s version of the 1777 Bible story is typical of those found in the majority of religious right American history books. It tells half of the real story, includes a quote from an actual committee report, but ends with a fabricated resolution. The resolution is created to change the outcome of the story from Congress dropping the matter, which is what really happened, to Congress proceeding to import the Bibles …In addition to changing the outcome of the story, none of the religious right American history books fully explain why Congress was considering importing the Bibles in the first place. Most mention that the war with England caused a shortage of Bibles, which is true, but this is only half the story. Congress’s consideration of the matter had to do with the prevention of price gouging…

---

The second of the top three myths about Congress and the Bible involves the edition of the Bible begun by Robert Aitken in 1780, and completed in 1782.

• According to William Federer, in his book America’s God and Country: “Robert Aitken (1734-1802), on January 21, 1781, as publisher of The Pennsylvania Magazine, petitioned Congress for permission to print Bibles, since there was a shortage of Bibles in America due to the Revolutionary War interrupting trade with England. The Continental Congress, September 10, 1782, in response to the shortage of Bibles, approved and recommended to the people that The Holy Bible be printed by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia. This first American Bible was to be ‘a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools’:
  
  
  • Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled...recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize [Robert Aitken] to publish this recommendation in any manner he shall think proper.”

Elsewhere in the same book, Federer includes a second version of the story, in which Aitken was “contracted” by Congress to print his Bibles.

• According to Federer: “Congress of the Confederation September 10, 1782, in response to the need for Bibles which again arose, granted approval to print ‘a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.’ The printing was contracted to Robert Aitken of Philadelphia, a bookseller and publisher of The Pennsylvania Magazine, who had previously petitioned Congress on January 21, 1781.”

There are many versions of this story floating around, all worded to mislead that Congress either requested the printing of the Bibles, granted Aitken permission to print them, contracted him to print them, paid for the printing, or had Bibles printed for the use of schools. Congress did none of these things. All they did was grant one of several requests made by Aitken by having their chaplains examine his work, and allowing him to publish their resolution stating that, based on the chaplains’ report, they were satisfied that his edition was accurate …The actual resolution is edited in various ways. The purpose of this editing is to omit that Congress also had a secular reason for recommending Aitken’s Bible, and, in most cases, to turn the resolution into a recommendation of the Bible itself, rather than a recommendation of the accuracy of Aitken’s work.

---

The third of the top three religious right myths about Congress and the Bible is that our early Congresses passed acts that financially aided Bible societies. The most popular example is an act signed by James Madison in 1813.

• According to David Barton, in his book Original Intent: “...in 1812 [sic], President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.”

This act, entitled An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia, had absolutely nothing to do with aiding this society in its goal of distributing the Bible. It merely waived an import duty on one shipment of printing plates, determined by Congress to have been unfairly charged.

At the beginning of the War of 1812, an act was passed doubling all import duties to fund the war. The Bible Society of Philadelphia had ordered a shipment of printing plates from England in 1809. By the time their order reached England, their plates were manufactured, and the shipment arrived in America, it was 1812 and the new tariff schedule had gone into effect. Because this particular shipment was ordered three years before the war began, Congress granted the society’s request that it be taxed according to the pre-war tariff schedule.

---

http://www.liarsforjesus.com/ (available via torrent)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well done, rasetsu.

Boru

[Minimalist]

Yes...we now know that the "prof" is a Beck-class idiot.

[archangle]

yeah right .... small

like lust, ego, gluttony, vanity, wrath, pride and indifference towards others is "bad". this stuff is over rated

that earthly things in moderation are good for you. variety is the spice of life. utterly useless.

Love and compassion towards your fellow man should always be one of your primary goals. flat out ass-a-nine notion here.

yep Chas, just a small part of the book is useful.

These are the sort of notions you'll find in many different belief systems and holy scriptures and self-help books, and the sort of behaviors most well-adjusted and decent people exhibit regardless of belief system. They aren't original ideas invented by the Bible's writers, and the God of the Bible exhibits virtually all of those negative behaviors, with the implication that you should do as God says and not as he does.

When you look at the Bible's exclusive content, there isn't that much of value to be found.

never said it was the first or only. only does it have value. It has more than "tiny" value. is really all I am saying.

and it does have value in another way ... it can teach us, as all history can. It shows that at least 6000 years ago we "are" screwed up and things go bad when we are self centered. That alone in more than "little" value.

Also it has value in looking into agenda's. In fact, I would say how a person describes the bible is a good way to judge them a dope. either atheist or literal.

At the very least it tells us something about ourselves when some take it as the work of a type god that does not exist. That alone is more than "tiny".

[Chas]

These are the sort of notions you'll find in many different belief systems and holy scriptures and self-help books, and the sort of behaviors most well-adjusted and decent people exhibit regardless of belief system. They aren't original ideas invented by the Bible's writers, and the God of the Bible exhibits virtually all of those negative behaviors, with the implication that you should do as God says and not as he does.

When you look at the Bible's exclusive content, there isn't that much of value to be found.

never said it was the first or only. only does it have value. It has more than "tiny" value. is really all I am saying.

and it does have value in another way ... it can teach us, as all history can. It shows that at least 6000 years ago we "are" screwed up and things go bad when we are self centered. That alone in more than "little" value.

Also it has value in looking into agenda's. In fact, I would say how a person describes the bible is a good way to judge them a dope. either atheist or literal.

At the very least it tells us something about ourselves when some take it as the work of a type god that does not exist. That alone is more than "tiny".

The Bible is not historical - it tells us nothing about what humanity did 6000 years ago.

And you might want to reread what I actually said previously.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

One of the presidents (I forgot which one) stated this system in America would only work for a moral people.
The current regime is doing all possible to negate the separation of powers found in the Constitution- which were based on the Bible---
The Lord is our king (office of president)
The Lord is our judge (office of the Judicial)
The Lord is our lawgiver (Congress)

Having had tyranny from England, the framers sought to segregate power as much as possible and among multiple office holders.
If you read the writings of the Founders, you would see where the foundation came from.
The bible was printed and distributed at govt. expense in the history of the nation.
That action reflected the importance of the book.

[Brian37]

Here's a political/ religious question for my atheist brothers, sisters, and other, does the bible hold any significance anymore? Or is it full of useless ideas and rules? I know most of you will answer the latter, but what does that make of the constitution of the united states? Does it hold significance, or is it a dated document that is too aged to have any effect?
Please leave your opinion in the reply section below.

The bible has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Constitution. I do not think the founders were idiots when they left out the words "Jesus" and "Christianity" in terms of setting up religious pecking orders. "No religious test" is in the oath of office.

Barbary treaty article 11 "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Signed without dissent by both houses of congress into a law June 10th 1797 by president John Adams.

"Freedom of religion" in the First Amendment had nothing to do with favoring Christianity first as a social pecking order. The part Christians hate is that the First Amendment was a ban on monopolies of power, an anti trust law. It was clear that even though the founders had a wide variety of beliefs, they did not want a government based on theocracy.

Our laws are written by us, not based on any holy book. Otherwise why put "No religious test" in the Constitution.