To re-hijack Iky's latest hijack attempt over in the politics forum, a few salient points:

The preamble of the Constitution invokes the people of the United States. It does not invoke any sort of God.

The Constitution forbids any religious test to hold office. A godless person is just as eligible as a godly one! (Article 6, Paragraph 3)

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, Lee v. Weisman, 1992

Those who wrote the preamble were very clear. "In God we trust?" No, in the people they trust.

This country was founded on the consent of the governed, NOT divine will.

204 years after the Constitution was ratified.

In 1799, merely 11 years after the Constitution was ratified, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote the Court's opinion in Runkel v. Winemiller which included:

"Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people.

By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty."





Hardly. Just because you spontaneously burst into flames whenever God and Christianiity are supported in posts, doesn't mean the thread was "hijacked".

This country was founded on the declared premise that all men are created equal by their Creator, a Creator who has endowed them with certain unalienable rights, whereas men have the right to alter or to abolish any government destructive to that premise.

Runkel v. Winemiller was a Maryland Supreme Court case, not a U.S. Supreme case, and Chase was a justice of the Maryland Supreme Court. His opinion may have be of great interest in Maryland in 1799, but it has no legal authority now, not even in Maryland.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.--Thomas Jefferson, 1808

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. --Thomas Jefferson, 1814

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." --Thomas Jefferson, 1816

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live. --Thomas Jefferson, 1820

No, they have the right to alter or abolish any government which is destructive to them. How we came to be is in no sense relevant.

Don’t mean to play one-upsman on you but the Treaty of Tripoli was read into the Senate by John Adams and approved by the Senate in 1797 (May 26, 1797 to be exact).

I’m sure you know the language from the treaty that states “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.

And yet fourteen years earlier John Adams signed the Paris Peace Treaty in which the British Crown recognized the United States to be independent, free, and sovereign.

Are you familiar with that preamble?

"The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America,..."

Why do you think deists would sign such a monumental treaty between the US and Great Britain beginning with "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity"?

Btw, the Treaty of Tripoli was rendered void, and its renegotiated replacement was ratified without Article 11.

Maybe because it was part of the salutation to the king of England, like the rest of your quote, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the nature or character of the government of the United States. A pathetic effort, Iky, really.



Actually it was only void because the Barbary Pirates broke it, and the "replacement" has a very similar but slightly differently-worded clause. Why would the actual Founding Fathers sign the original and ratify it unanimously if it wasn't true?

SQUIRREL!!!



It’s pretty clear you were working on a specific date. I shot one through the uprights and not gonna play Sisyphus if you’re going to move the goalposts around.



Ahh, yes, the Treaty of Tripoli (which by the way was unanimously approved by the Senate) ceased to be due to continued “problems”. The “Treaty of Peace and Amity” you refer to that was ratified by the Senate in 1806, does have the “christian religion” language removed but not retracted.

Compare the two Articles and their meaning and similarity. They pretty much say the same thing with the later Treaty not being so blunt about not being founded on the christian religion. As the nation itself has “no enmity” to another nation’s religion, and the prior language not retracted, that must mean we’re still a nation not founded on religion.

Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty of Peace and Amity:

Art. 14. As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations.

No treaty has since used this phrase. You would think that if it was as popular as you say, this would be used all the time.

It was used in the treaty to show that Mussulman had nothing to fear from the USA regarding religious issues.

We have a secular government, sure, by the design of the Constitution. But surely you acknowledge that through the worlds eyes we are a Christian nation. Same as France, if I'm not mistaken. Their government isn't Christian while you and I see the France as a Christian nation. For now, unless they get the Muslim immigration under control.

I said the treaty was unanimously approved by the Senate (which you can properly infer that they all agreed with the meaning of the statement), I didn’t say the language was “popular” and gonna be used as a template for every treaty since. That was a huge leap to connect apples with oranges.

Which is the underlying point of my statement. I’m a big fan of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution with the “Instituted among men… consent of the governed… we the people… to ourselves… do ordain and establish…”. Yes, very secular indeed.



I don’t bother to see the world so generically and definitely not though the eyes of approximately 7 billion people. Sure, out of all the different religions the US has mostly christians (made up of lots of different denominations with their own market on the absolute truth). That doesn’t mean this nation was created based on a particular religion. You agreed that our government is secular, which is exactly what my point was.

If so, they have the wrong impression. We are a secular nation in which some Christians live, but not, in any sense, a Christian nation.

Treaty of Tripoli

Ratified by the 23 senators present (9 senators were absent) on June 7th, 1797 to be exact.

Taking effect on June 10th, same year, after Adams signed it.

I stand corrected on the date, I was going off the date it was communicated to the Senate (May 26, 1797). Roughly two weeks later it was unanimously approved by all those present. Those who voted in the affirmative, are: Bingham, Bloodworth, Blount, Bradford, Brown, Cocke, Foster, Goodhue, Hillhouse, Howard, Langdon, Latimer, Laurance, Livermore, Martin, Paine, Read, Rutherfurd, Sedgwick, Stockton, Tattnall, Tichenor, and Tracy.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=002/llsp002.db&recNum=23

You're delusional.
There are no uprights nor goal posts in windmill tilting.


Denying this nation has a strong Judeo-Christian foundation and heritage only reveals an intellectual dishonesty, an atheistic agenda, and an aversion to historic truth.


In the beginning:








Do yourself a favor and lay down your lance.

Treaty with Tripoli 1796

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796e.asp


It's like the 1% back then told the 99% trade is more important than truth.

Too bad I’m not a programmer so you could follow the little bouncy ball that was showing the point of my argument that our form of government was not based on religion.



Disagreeing with you on the basis for our form of government made you come up with that conclusion to run with? Wow, run forest run!!!



And boom goes the dynamite. So the goalpost is moving again, how unexpected. That must be a terrible burden to carry. Always having to pick it up and move it again.




I need to keep a hold of it since I loan it to fundamentalist people who pluck out their own eye.

Speaking of following the bouncing ball...



What is the basis of your disagreement?
Where in this thread have I posted "our form of government" is "Christian"?

(Let's see how you can do with direct questions.)

The Arabic text of the original treaty is not the language in the treaty that was communicated to the Senate, voted on and approved by the Senate, and signed by the President. The one communicated, approved, signed, and in the Senate records states “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.

Do you know the difference in definition between the word "Government" capitalized and the word "nation" lower-case?

(Another direct question.)

It is like you our repeating things I have already read reviewing this matter on the internet.

However, you must understand that the treaty was written to appease the Mussulmen, who were demanding payment to not attack our ships or citizens. And from the Arab version of the treaty you ship that the Mussulman considered th USA a Christian Nation, which dealing with the Mussulman was not a go thing. So, a strong case could be made that to relieve the fears of the Mussulman, article 11 added to the treaty, to show them we are not a threat to their religion.

There is record of any discussion about the Treaty at the time, let alone article 11, so from that we can surmise, this wasn't a major policy setting statement.

My thought is this was just a blip added by Joel Barlow to try to show Tripoli we can work on the same side.

It was here when you quoted from Samuel Chase



In your defense these are not your words but they were words you appeared to be using to support what looked like your point was. Or did you mean to copy those words to say our form of government is not christian? (direct question)

Are you saying that you are defined by how others see you and not how you see yourself?

In an 1813 letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote. “who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Prepyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtist, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Athiests; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien [Protestants who believe nothing].”

Seems as though it was easy to identify that there were many different beliefs back in Adams day and so no need to throw one religious blanket over everyone. So I’ll take Adams more pluralistic view and not Tripoli’s view of who we are.

Direct Answer -Yes.

Do you care to provide examples of how you used those words to show that their meaning was clear by their associated words and the response was based on a different definition of the word? Or were you wanting to play word association?

Good...I won't have to explain the difference to you.




You are correct, those are not my words, yet I do use them to support my point that: "Denying this nation has a strong Judeo-Christian foundation and heritage only reveals an intellectual dishonesty, an atheistic agenda, and an aversion to historic truth."

The words in Chase's court decision are indicative of prevailing thought, and in many ways and instances practice, at that time in this nation's history.

Early State constitutions included religious tests for office-holders. In New Jersey, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, no atheist, no Jew, no Roman Catholic could become governor; specifically only Christians in Maryland, Massachusetts, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. Only people who acknowledged God and believed in eternal rewards or punishments could vote in South Carolina.

That's probably not taught in today's government schools, so perhaps I should add "ignorance" to my previous list.

I think I have provided sufficient support for my position, and I really don't have the time nor the desire to post every court decision quotation, Congressional Proclamation, and presidential quotes further supporting it. The quote from the Library of Congress should satisfy.

Is this a Christian nation? Are you kidding me? Do you watch the news for 60 seconds?

Is our "Government" Christian? No, it's a constitution based federal republic.

With that I will leave you with this, which I find funny, for a variety of reasons...most bringing certain people on this board to mind:

Obama, June 28, 2006 (prepared remarks): "Given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

Obama, June 28, 2006 (as delivered): "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."


I trust you can do the math to reach the implication and understand why I find humor in B.O.'s assertion.

Btw, when B.O. was sworn as President, did he swear with his hand on the Constitution or on Lincoln's Bible? Did he end his oath with "so help me Constitution"...or..."so help me God"?

No, I am saying that Joel Barlow, probably put article 11 in, to try to please the Bey.

The treaty was already agreed to, before Adams and the Senate approved it. It is not the usual way to negotiate a treat in todays age, but I guess back in 1796-7, it was how it was done.

"President George Washington appointed his old colleague David Humphreys as Commissioner Plenipotentiary on March 30, 1795, in order to negotiate a treaty with the Barbary powers. On February 10, 1796, Humphreys appointed Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson as "Junior Agents" to forge a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship". Under Humphreys' authority, the treaty was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and certified at Algiers on January 3, 1797. Humphreys reviewed the treaty and approved it in Lisbon on February 10, 1797."

My guess is that Adams and the senators had little choice but to accept it all or reject it all. With US trade in jeopardy, they signed off on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Just correcting what I wrote earlier,

So they rejected Jesus for 30 pieces of silver?

lol

That's pretty much it, and
in all reality, writing this in a treaty "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" did not change anything, in the USA.

As LJ said it was law, but it did not have any action to it. It did not do anything, besides appease the Mussulman.

So, if I understand you correctly, elected officials will say anything regarding religion for their political goals and so one should not consider any of it valid as it relates to religion. Is that correct?

If so, I totally agree. With 536 elected officials in DC, and only a couple declared atheists, I totally agree that a bunch of them are simply taking the easy way out and declaring a skygod predisposition, when in reality, they know it's hooey.

You and I are on the same page.

So in your opinion: liar or fool?

Are those the only two possibilities, or is a third, fourth and fifth choice possible?

According to Stash's post, he's either a liar for saying he believes in something he doesn't really believe in, or he's a fool because he believes in "hooey".

Or he's willing to do what it takes to accomplish his political goals, which makes him a politician.

So, using those criteria, would you consider yourself a fool, then? Or is it possible that Obama--like you--genuinely believes?

No, I am saying that article 11 was added by Joel Barlow, had no merit and was poorly worded, and what it did say didn't mean anything expect to the Mussulman. When they voted on it, it wasn't intended to make a statement to anyone but the Mussulman. It wasn't a document of any significant meaning in the USA expect for allowing trade in the area around north Africa.

Can you point to anything that was changed by this treaty except the trade in that area?

I am saying that my guess is, the senators and Adams, didn't think much of the statement, and did want to get the deal done.

BTW, the statement was never used again in any treaty ever, if it was meant to make a statement about USA, why wasn't use again?

Are you saying atheists are liars?

Religious folk do not have a lock on the liar market. Liars come in all stripes. Just like you don't have to have a god to be good, being an atheist doesn't guarantee it either.

It is difficult to get elected to national office in America without a picture of you and the family in the pew. I think many politicians have been deceptive regarding religion in order to placate those voters who demand it. As more and more atheists go public... and they will... it will be easier for future candidates to tell the truth.

I don't know. One cannot know for sure if another buys the hooey or is faking it for pragamatic reasons. I know he would never have been elected if he had said he was an atheist. Neither would Bush the Younger, or Clinton, or Bush the Elder, or RayGun, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Which does not negate Stash's inference that he's either a liar or a fool.




It's foolishness only to those who are perishing.




In his own power, it is impossible. But with God, it is possible.