Essay: The Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause, one could say is the blueprint for how Thomas Jefferson viewed the relationship between politics and religion, by putting a wall of separation between them. In essence to this clause, the government cannot interfere with the affairs of the church and vice versa with the church not being able to interfere with affairs that pertain to the government which leads to the statement, separation of church and state. The focus that this paper will be taking is the view that America was not founded as a nation of Christianity, but rather on the principles of Reason and Natural Law which was heavily influenced by the Age of Enlightenment the founding fathers were a part of. This is not to state on an absolute conclusion that Christianity had no influence on how this country was founded, since there are inferences of the founding fathers having favorable praise on the lessons, teachings, and morals that came from the Bible as well as Jesus Christ. One of the clarifications as to why this paper takes this this stance is based on the reasons why the implementation of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause were important to the development of the nation. In the mind of the founding fathers, it was this goal that was essential to them, which was to bring about harmony among the people through equality and the unity of man being placed first and foremost with or without religion.
If there was a point of interest that stood above others, it would be what the faith of the founding fathers were though be it Paine, Washington , or Jefferson, not one committed to the idea of indoctrinating Christianity, or any religion, as the foundation of the United States. In fact they saw to it, Paine excluded, that in order to have peace among the colonists of various faiths and beliefs, not one religion should be thought of to have a higher standing within the nation. Historian Frank Lambert who speak on how the founders not only created a political revolution but a religious revolution which they found to understand the concept of religious liberty differently from that of the Puritans idea with Lambert pointing out the fathere’s were “conceiving it not as the freedom to practice the one truth faith, but as freedom to discover ultimate truth unhindered by any authority”(qtd. in Daniel, par. 1). George Washington, revered as one of the most important of the founding fathers, had a very secretive view that he kept upon himself regarding religion though he saw the concept in a very positive light nonetheless and as a key component to the country. Political scientist John G. West, described Washington’s three propositions of religion in regards to the American consensus on public life which in order goes as follows:
“First, Washington believed that religion served as the necessary defender of morality in civic life. Second, he maintained that the moral law defended by religion was the same moral law that can be known by reason. Third, he saw religious liberty as a natural right of all human beings.” (qtd. in Behn, par. 35)
Something of note is that he spoke upon religion in a plural sense and no singular distinction to Christianity, though his upbringing saw him baptized in the Church of England and he did attend service regularly as a duty of his station, though he never became a member of any active church where Thomas Jefferson remarked it as “the right to keep up appearances but being an unbeliever” or rather as a sense of social obligation which many historians perceive it as his faith being of a formal standing but still having deep respect towards worship. Something to note is how he would address his beliefs in his writings both public and private, were he never mentioned Christ and generally avoided any form of Christian language. He would normally refer to God as the “Great disposer of Human Event” or “Divine Providence” that he felt was omnipotent and constantly intervening who protected the nation as a whole, himself in particular. Historian Peter R. Henriques wrote, “that at the core of his belief system was his conviction that there was an unseen but beneficent power that directed the universe and human affairs”(qtd. in Behn, par. 39). Although that is not to say he was indifferent to the aspects of Christianity altogether with his view seeing religion as a necessary part of society and the Consensus that he held great interest in the Christian works, rather than the Christian faith. Paul Johnson wrote his thoughts on the subject of Washington being “an essential element of social control and good government, but his intellect and emotions inclined him more to that substitute for formal dogma, freemasonry….” (qtd in. Behn, par 41). There is then one father who took the meaning of one’s faith to another level when he crafted a book that would become a historical insight of his views on the christian system known as the Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson, an unorthodox member of the Christian faith and an active supporter, started work on the Bible in 1803, so as to present the most comprehensive teachings of Jesus of Nazareth upon finding criticism in the New Testament where in a letter to John Adams he argues he was protecting the philosophy of Jesus and the “pure principles which he taught … [from the] artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms as instruments of riches and power for themselves.” His views on the authors spoke in volumes finding them ignorant in their writing stating the saw their work as “being producers of superstitions and fabrications” along with going as far as to mark the Apostle Paul as “the first to corrupt the beliefs of Jesus”. He believed of the Clergy also aiding in the corruption to Christian beliefs that biographer Dumas Malone would note the span of Jefferson’s life to the view of the clergy observing, “from the his twenties until his death he was anticlerical in varying degrees of bitterness” (qtd. in Behn, par 5) . In the year 1817, he would write to John Adams the response to those who heard of changes of his religion spoken by others which he never made confidants of his creed. He would respond by stating, “say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life. If that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion that has regulated cannot be a bad one”. On the topic of whether Jefferson saw Christianity as the profound religion of the United States, to reiterate from an earlier paragraph in which came from his response to a letter from Virginia Baptists, who feared of a state religion being implemented, Jefferson would go on lay the foundations of the phrase Separation of Church and State, which is heralded as the intent and proper function of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause which prohibits Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another in order to establish equality among people of various faiths as well as protecting the right to believe and exercise one’s religion, though the latter is held to a certain extant. From this, you can make the case that Jefferson did identify himself as a Christian, take heed that he was more along the lines of a unorthodox Christian, with his true alignment of Christianity stemming from the teachings of Jesus Christ and not of those that proclaim of the supernatural events or divine upbringings, rather taking a veiled deistic view on Christianity. This expression could be supported from his letter to Peter Carr where by telling him”Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” So moving on from the two of the founding fathers who had a skeptical approach to Christianity, but above all respect towards the religion, Thomas Paine was well known among the founding fathers of having the most critical and vocal thoughts on organized religion, be it Christianity, Muslim, or Islam. Paine was mostly aligned with his views of Deism or otherwise known as natural religion, where instead of gaining insight through revelation or the teachings of the church, it’s the through the use of reason, natural laws, and the creation itself that instills a belief of God who does not intervene in the affairs of the world Compare his two most known works being Common Sense, written in 1776, and The Age of Reason, written in 1794, in where the support is arguably like night and day with Common Sense be regarded as one of the main inciters towards American independence, while The Age of Reason came with a hostile reception towards its message on the bible and religion that Paine was ostracized in the public’s mind along with receiving negative remarks and opinions be it from his fellow colleagues or founding fathers. Though despite all these opinions of him, he would remain adamant in his views and never wavered his belief. Paine wrote the piece in the year of 1794, during the period when the Catholic Church and all traces of its system was being abolished from the country. The Age of Reason would critique the institutions of religions proclaiming that they were created for personal gain, to instill fear, and to garner power and profit. He would then point out a flaw in the word revelation, where it no longer has the bearing of such a word if it is spread to others second hand and cannot be a revelation to them but only to the person who received such words. He would go on to compare the pantheon of gods the Romans had to the icons of Christianity, remarking that changes in only the titles and names were all that separated the two mythologies with no significant distinction other than the pursuit of wealth and power. He would lament the story of Jesus Christ being told through the writings of others, never of himself which lead him to believe the life of Jesus being of written value especially when the accounts of the supernatural events such as his birth and ascension to heaven being presented, in which was told through the accounts of 8 proxies as he called them, with only their word to take as evidence where he responds to theses accounts of the supernatural by affirming,“ But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas” (Paine 4). Following the publication, came a parade of negative opinions and hostility where once regarded as one of the most influential founding founders of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine was now viewed as an outcast having offended many who believe in the words of the bible. It is telling of the influence that Christianity had towards the colonists in the late 1700s, which was so was so revered and steadfast, that a hero can fall in the eyes of the many based on his opinions and views on religion demonstrate
d in the Age of Reason, where as in Common Sense, the opposite occurred when Paine made references to the bible to help incite a revolution.
When people say that those who made the treacherous voyage to America wanted religious freedom and those who did carried the Christian faith, it would instill that Christian Principles would lead to being the foundation for the United States, well the retort would be which principle exactly and from which denomination are they regarding since it isn’t that simple now and it was no where near civilized back then, but let the focus be on the religious representation. Now they are not wrong when it comes to the argument of being founded on a Christian foundation as Mark Whitten asserts that their social and cultural institutions have been founded on that of Christian religious heritage saying “that the American people have been a “Christian” nation in an Historical sense” (Whitten 2) . In 16th century Colonial America, you had a plethora of religions mixing and existing together, many being various Christian sects, such as Protestant, Catholic, Huguenots, Jewish, Anglican, Quakers, Lutherans, Presbyterian, Puritans and so forth. People tend to forget that African Slaves, which numbered in the 6000’s, also were present where some where Christianized during the Revolution and others retaining their Muslim faith they acquired being converted from Islam in Afirca. John Fea, an associate professor of American history would later speak on the folkloric traditions they also brought being “Synchrotized and mixed with Christian views and Muslim views to make a sorta Islamic culture among the slaves that was different then say Islamic cultures in Europe or the Middle East” (qtd. in John D Charlton). To speak on the religions of African slaves during this time would come with a great amount of strife where no African religions survived whole when brought to the colonies of North America. Historian Jon Butler spoke on some of the examples of African religions that were done away by New world enslavement remarking, “Thus, the religions of the Ashanti or Ibo societies on Africa’s west coast, for example, were no longer practiced on the North American continent, in the broad, expansive fashion they had been observed in Africa” (100). If you were to put it in perspective to the struggle of other Immigrant religions in America, no other race experienced such a widespread destruction of their traditional religions as did African slaves who came from “societies that were religiously and culturally distinct as much as their European counter parts” (Butler 101). Butler would go on to list the societies who were brought over to the new world such as the Akan, Ashanti, Dahoman, Ibo, and Yoruba notifying the diverse cultures African religion had in itself. Fea then spoke of the Native Americans during the colonization expressing “the Native Americans with their gods and cultures who also were synchrotized with Christian beliefs after being converted but still not forgetting and holding to their sacred traditions” (qtd in. John D .Charlton). But like the Africans slaves so to did they experience destruction of their societies and the religions that sustained them where an estimation of around 100-200 native societies disappeared by the time of the American revolution due to diseases, conflict, and converting to Christianity as where Bulter exclaimed stating, “as their culture disappeared, so to did their religion”(94) a destruction that would continue to the 19th century. As the Natives came into contact with Europeans, change started to take form in the Indian religious world. Butler would describe it to have a similar result when Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire acknowledging, “the native religions of North America changed greatly as contact with the Europeans drastically altered native cultures” (95). A point of emphasis was the Native American’s relationship with nature itself which would come under threat due the European colonization. An example came with the people of the Micmacs who had a special relation with the Beaver only to see it fade by the harvesting of Beaver skins by the Europeans, an action the Micmacs would later exhibit. The mass slaughtering of animals that came with colonization took no notice of the beliefs Native Americans instilled within certain animals which contained crucial supernatural roles that were told through as traditions, folklores, and stories which were essential to the natives that Butler would describe the impact by claiming, “the spirits residing in nature no longer spoke” (97).
With differences in beliefs comes disagreements or more on the point, complete intolerance toward other religions or questions of dissent, and America was no stranger to religious disputes occurring during the 16th and 17th century marks which encompasses a history of intolerance to religious freedom. The much fabled Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were a prime example of having no tolerance towards other religions or even questions of dissent within their “city upon a hill”. A quick resolution to this was, yes the Puritans did flee England to come to the New World because of religious dissent themselves but Historian Ralph Young states their dissent was “seeking to practice what they regarded as the one true faith, not freedom for all religions” (20). Religious toleration was almost non existent within the “city upon a hill” which is what the people who were discovered to have a false belief would come to understand. Historian Kenneth C. Davis speaks more on the religious discrimination speaking of examples such as:
“In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.” (2)
The first of America’s known Dissenter’s came with the arrival of Roger Williams in 1631 where he intimidatingly began to speak of his radical ideas, the first being the separation of the congressional churches of New England from the Church of England. Young commented on the the views of the Puritans being that “the Puritans did not wish to separate. They wanted to reform the church, and how could that be done from outside the church?” (20). Another example was when Williams questioned the authority of King Charles granting the charter given to Massachusetts Bay on the grounds of Charles having no right to the land arguing it belonged to the Natives in which they were not consulted on the matter. His last grievance was a call of separation of church and state and tolerance for all religions which was came 150 years before Jefferson’s time. Williams argued that civil authorities should have no power to monitor the beliefs of the people, nor was it their duty to enforce the Ten commandments or punish people based on the laws. These practices went against religious freedom, and for his arguments Young speaks on the Magistrates saying they “tried to convince him to tone down on his dissent; but he did not, and then they banished him in 1636” (20). After his banishment, Williams would then defend his views by writing The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, speaking on how all religious faiths should be tolerated and not be met with the “civill sword”, which he refereed to was the punishments that civil authorities used to enforce conformity of religion which he said went against the work of god and only strengthened the faith of those whose believed in other religions by claiming, “Violence and a sword of steele begets such an impression in the sufferers that certainly they conclude… that Religion cannot be true which needs such instruments of violence to uphold it so”. Regarding his view on church and state, he argued that they must be separated and be held with a well defined distinction between both to protect freedom of religion with the foundation of the colonies not mirroring those of Europe, who had an established religion along with expressing that religious belief should not be dependent on the notion of the King saying they “have no power of setting up the forme of Church Government, electing church officers, [or] punish with church censure” a view he would also apply to the churches having no powers in establishing or altering forms of government. Though his ideas were way ahead of his times, they would go unheralded as intolerance continued to reign among the colonies for much of the 1600s. It wasn’t till Thomas Jefferson and James Madison intervening that true religious freedom was able to set the platform to become widespread with the Virginia act of Establishing Religious Freedom of 1786. This act could be thought of as a precursor to the Establishment Clause, by disestablishing the English Church which at the time was the official state church of the colony in order to provide full freedom of religious belief and practice to all Virginians regardless of religious background. After becoming an official law, Jefferson wrote his thoughts with the goals of the law being “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” James Madison, a known Christian, also shared these same views as Jefferson which would cultivate in the writing of his essay titled “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” which would entail Madison’s view of the state having no business supporting christian instruction through reason which was a pivotal piece to ensuring religious freedom. Davis would then comment on how important Jefferson’s 1786 Virginia act was to securing religious freedom in the United States that he noted the actions of Madison who “wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he went to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787” (3) which would then later be reflected in the U.S. Constitution under Article IV. Later in his life Madison would write a letter that reflected on his views towards church and state proclaiming, “And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together”. So if Christian Principles were the foundation of this country, and with the current knowledge of the extreme forms of non-tolerance towards other religions taking place in addition to those who were punished for dissenting questions towards the church as well as fighting on the behalf of religious freedom and expression, the answer may not be what you hope it is. One can’t help but mark the distinction of bitter irony to which escaping England for religious persecution only led to meeting the same problem in a different world.
It’s no secret the bible played a crucial role in the revolution, so it can’t be ignored of the exuberant Christian influence in times of crisis and frenzied panic this nation has gone through, be it the Civil War in 1863 and even the Red scare brought upon by the Cold War in 1954 which would lead to the installment of the phrase “In God We Trust”. Now the phrase “In God We Trust” which has since become a prevalent statement in the United States, has interesting origins as to why it was added to the pledge, currency, and even the official motto of the United States all having convenient timing to their additions. To understand this convenient timing, you have to take into account the periods in which these changes took place, the first happening in 1863 which was the middle phase of the American Civil War. The proposal to add the phrase “In God We Trust” to U.S. coins came at the appeals of many devout Christians who argued of a justified action that needs to be in place at a time when the nation was in a domestic strife of war within itself. One such appeal came by letter from a Pennsylvanian minister who remarked in making the phrase present would “relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed” (Brown, par. 15). Secretary of the Treasure James Pollock gave his sentiments on this proposal as a necessary response in this time of conflict adding in his 1863 report:
“The time for the introduction of this or a similar motto, is propitious and appropriate. Tis an hour of National peril and danger, an hour when man’s strength is weakness, when our strength and our nation’s strength and salvation must be in the God of battles and of nations”.
Lawyer Andrew Seidel, remarked this plea for change as the “use of fear” during a time of confusion and pandemonium affirming in a lecture that “they recognized the country was tearing itself apart and everyone is scared, so now is our chance, lets seize that fear and we’ll inject God into the place that it hasn’t had the opportunity to be at”(qtd. in Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago). Whether this appeal to install the motto was an opportunity to play on the fear of the people, that is left rather untouched and as to ascertain accusations like that can’t really be determined to the fullest since it could merely be coincidental as a knee jerk reaction from the devoted who brought a proposal that could help reduce tensions in the war and bring unity. The second example may give more insight on this topic with the Red Scare having a prominent affect on the people of the United States during the 1950s which saw the beginning stages of the Cold War. As with this time period came fear of the “Red Menace” which was the moniker of Communist Russia and there was no short supply of propaganda to help spread this message, where by doing so incited a sense of paranoia and suspense among the United States if the result of war breaking out between the two super powers occurred. Now going down the line of all the affects that coincided with the Red Scare which took place in the years of 1954, 1956, and 1957 that you see these implementations take place, whether by coincidence or not. Counter Arguments presented these changes which started with changes to the Pledge of Allegiance explaining, “Originally didn’t read one nation under God, that wasn’t added until 1954. It wasn’t until 1956, that “In God We Trust” replaced the original national motto E Pluribus Unum(Of the many; One). And it was all of a year later that the phrase[In God We Trust] appeared on paper money.”(qtd. in Counter Arguments) He would go on to state that all these changes took place during the Cold War that saw the U.S fighting Godless Communism, albeit inconsequentially. To add to this notion the Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, in response to the crisis of loyalty that was prevalent during the the Civil War. It wasn’t until 62 years later that President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved of the changes where the legislative history of the act stated the intent, noted by Associate professor of history David Greenburg, was to “acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism.”(Greenburg, par. 11) Nevertheless you can see the convenient timing as to when these changes took place which were in times of war, conflict, or panic. British Author Christopher Hitchens, would speak on how the label of Godless Communism could be used as a statement against the U.S.S.R. in the past as being atheistic Communism, but how it wouldn’t be as simple in these current times with the enemy being an organization of faith based and their actions of violence and turmoil being acted by the parties who follow God. Hitchens spoke of the comparisons between the periods adding, “It’s not as simple as it use to be, when the right wing could say well our enemy is Godless Communism. Now our enemy is the most Godly imaginable group[Al- Qaeda]” (qtd. in heathr456). So remarking the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Cold War which are separated by the aspect of time, but it is clear as day the role Christianity had whether it be to fight for Independence, bring an end to conflict by faith, or to justify the excellence of “One Nation Under God” over another.
Going back on the notion that this is a country of multiple religions coexisting back then to present day 2015, America is still viewed as being a Christian Nation, a number that has grown more prevalent since the turn of the century with a paradox forming that sees number of religious diversity continuing to increase while the number of those who profess of having Christian faith, especially Protestant, has exhibited a steady decline from a study done by Jeremy Brooke Straughn and Scott L. Feld. Evidence of this claim was provided by the Pew Research center who received from their correspondents a noted increase in this view of a Christian nation proclaiming, “As of the mid-1990s, only 60 percent of Pew respondents said they regarded their country as a “Christian nation.” (qtd in. Straughn and Feld, par. 3) By 2002, agreement with this view had risen to 67 percent and reached a peak of 71 percent in 2005 before settling to 67 percent the following year. Let it be known that this view does not imply the idea of a Christian America imposing Christianity onto non Christians, or that Christians should be be granted specific rights or privileges. Nor does it show of the opinion that religion should play a more crucial role in politics. Be that as it may, it’s quite telling of this surging view of Christian identity gaining more prominence through the passage of time where in 1996, “38 percent of Pew respondents regarded being a Christian an essential aspect to truly being an American” (qtd.in Straughn and Feld, par. 55 ) . Moving forward 8 years later would see the figure rise to nearly 50 percent. One of the hypothesis considered to explain the reason for this increase was refereed to as the “period effect”, where “religious conceptions of American identity could experience a rise if major events of the day have brought religious and national issues to the forefront of public attention” (Straughn and Feld 287). This is a noted argument when you take into account the eight year span encompassing both the 9/11 terrorist attacks as well as the initial stages of the War in Iraq. Straughn and Feld would prove this hunch correct finding that “Among Christians, the proportion who saw Christianity as very important to American identity increased substantially between 1996 and 2004, assisted in part by a surge in religious commitment and national attachment”(302) . This was also in line with their prediction that intensification will be striking during unsettled times as they described it, with the appeal of a CN being marked strongly in the past which signals back to the examples of the Civil war and the Cold war that saw conflict or disputes carry influences of faith, be it for a call of unity or to show the superiority of one’s nation.
When one hears a proclamation that the U.S. is a Christian Nation, you get examples like quotes from the founding fathers, references to Christianity in the founding documents, or how the bible was quoted an infinite number of times, all being examples of out of context statements being told and cherry picking through history to find evidence. John Fea would write in an article about how many Christian Nationalists are quick to point to examples in history to voice their political views such as author Johnathon Farewell demonstrated in his book, Listen America!, who would work through history with an examples ranging from the Pilgrims and the Civil war stating, “whenever an early settler or founder invoked the name of God in public discourse, made reference to the providential destiny of the United States, or defended the belief that religion was essential to the survival of the Republic.” (Fea 2) It can’t be denied the role Christianity played regarding the history of this country, but these Christian Nationalists make it adamant that it was the religion that was the foundation for this nation, which is entirely untrue. Despite evidence to the contrary, the influence these types of Nationalists have are real and cant be denied. You have politicians like Republican congressman Randy Forbes sponsoring House resolution 888, or rather American Religious History week to be passed which is backed by 31 other representatives. The resolution comes with a staggering amount of passages filled with out of context issues for example one resolution contends, “Whereas political scientists have documented that the most frequently-cited source in the political period known as The Founding Era was the Bible”. (Hedges 4) It should be told that this statement holds merit to its point, but its out of context where it is a fact that the bible was the most cited “book”, along with the rest of the statement of other sources such as enlightenment literature, WIG, and classical authors being cited twice as much when put together but when presented being cited separately, the bible held that notion. If you were to look for a true example of how devout Christians are seeing the United States having roots founded on Christianity, one must simply view the influence of American Evangelist David Barton who was named one of “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals”. Now Barton has been at the forefront presenting the view of America being founded as a Christian Nation, a view that spans to about 11 years ago when he was the Vice chair of the Texas republican party, the same organization that held the 2004 political platform that Fea would write in his article being “the United States of America is a Christian nation.” (2) Barton has since that time has gone on to promote this view through his website titled WallBuilders, whose goal is to present, “America’s forgotten history and heroes with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage” (2) as described by John Fea. What would follow after is noteworthy from appearing on television specials, radio interviews, speaking in public to large Evangelical crowds, even receiving endorsements by Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Michele Bachmann which in itself tells of the political influence he carries as well. Though as with House resolution 888 providing out of context statements so to has Barton with an example coming from his time on the April 9th edition of the Glenn Beck program in 2010. Barton brought on the program a bible that he stated had the full Congregational support of Congress in 1782, also saying that the bible was printed by Congress, where a statement in the congregational document read as “a neat addition of the holy scripture for the use of our schools”. (qtd. in Incitebytes) Something to mention is that this “congregational document” actually came from Atkins letter to Congress who proposed the idea whereas it would be placed in the records of the National Archives.. Going in depth as to what actually transpired from Bartons claim, it was more along the lines of a bail out for the publisher who sought to sell his bibles to Congress, with the latter refusing the notion. They would come to an agreement on behalf of the publisher, who went by Robert Aitken, to allow “the Chaplains of the congress to look into the bible so as to verify its authenticity by reviewing its translation and printing” (qtd. in Incitebytes). Here is the official Congressional Resolution:
“That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of the arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.” 
Psychology professor Warren Throckmorten would disassemble Bartons argument of the bible being printed by congress remarking, “Congress did not pay Aitken’s expenses, did not purchase or distribute the Bible and did not make Aitken the official government Bible printer”. (8) This excerpt presented here “of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work they recommend this edition of the Bible”, is basically what it means when Congress recommended Aitkens bible, of being proven authentic in its translation and printing.