Uh that fact that chaplains were established for congress...
The role of the chaplain began before the Constitution or First Amendment was conceived (in fact, the first Congressional chaplain defected to the British in 1777) and is not mentioned in the Constitution. It has been a longstanding practice to have someone recite prayers, although it has been controversial through the years. James Madison eventually realized that the practice was unconstitutional, among others, but they were dealing with bigger issues in those days.
So yes, Congress did something that was inconsistent with their stated beliefs and ideals. Just as the Founders agreed that all "men" were entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", they did not extend that viewpoint to the millions of slaves of African descent.
...Bible printing was sanctioned by congress alone...
I don't know which alleged incident of sanctioning you're referring to here. In his older works, Barton has claimed the Northwest Ordinance sanctioned the printing of Bibles (until that was completely discredited) and in recent years he has been making the claim that Aitken Bible was printed by Congress for use in schools (which has also been completely refuted).
Unless you can give me some specifics, this is just a meaningless allegation.
...negates your view of separation of church and state. It was never intended to create a government devoid of God...
I would appreciate it if you would not take it upon yourself to tell me what my view of separation of church and state might be. For the record, it is not about "a government devoid of God" (which is not even possible), but a government that is neutral toward religious ideas, institutions and practices - a government that does not use its power, prestige, or property to support or restrict religious viewpoints. It supports freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
As far as your other nonsense about my signature you need to go back and read what Barton did. Your characterization is incomplete and therefore erroneous.
Barton's statement on the matter is Unconfirmed Quotation #2 down toward the middle of the page. Barton has admitted that he has not been able to find the quote (despite publishing it with a false citation) and mentioned it was first found in a 1956 article in
The Virginian. What Barton does not say is that the quote is actually a quote
ABOUT Patrick Henry, rather than a quote
FROM Patrick Henry. This is an error Barton makes frequently in his research.
That should have been made clear by the other link I sent which actually quotes from
The Virginian.
Barton does make the point that false quote is not completely inconsistent with Henry's views. He did not support separation of church and state and was on the "losing" side of the issue.
Patrick Henry did not believe that churches could survive without tax support, so he introduced a bill to tax citizens to support churches, although they would somehow get to designate their tax monies toward approved churches. The bill didn't get anywhere.
However, your focus on my signature out of the blue and unsolicited...
You made the charge that my views of separation of church and state were incompatible with the founders views. That charge is ridiculous, especially coming from someone who is sporting a false quote from Patrick Henry in his sig. Since I had already communicating with you privately about it so as not to embarrass you publicly - because I thought you might actually care about what is true - I thought it was appropriate to call you out on it publicly.
...shows your disdain for the biblical founding of this country. Sad.
I great respect for the true history of this great nation and those men and women who established religious liberty for us. I have disdain for those who attempt to corrupt history and tell lies that dishonor God and enslave the minds of those who believe them.
