The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[8atman]

Explaining that Treaty of Tripoli is a puzzlement tho.

Oh, I agree --puzzling in ways you may not even realize.

There is no original Treaty of Tripoli in existence in any language and there has not been for well over 200 years. The English version ratified by Congress was a copy of an Arabic version, which in itself was a copy of the Arabic original (which we do not have).

Article 11 contains the non-Christian nation phrase. There is no Article 11 in the Arabic copy. While it is not known where Article 11 comes from, it is suspected John Barlow himself inserted it into the treaty on his own accord. (Barlow was anti-Christian.)

At that point in time, George Washington, John Adams, and the Senate probably would have signed a document saying the moon was made of Swiss cheese if it meant saving the lives of American hostages at the hands of the Barbary Coast pirates. They weren’t going to take the time to re-draft the treaty and send it through all the diplomatic channels again.

The Spanish version of the treaty actually refers to Christian nations (meaning the United States in this case).

Even Barlow’s English version states several times, “Praise be to God.”

Perhaps most telling, when the treaty was re-negotiated in 1805 and 1806, the non-Christian phrase had been conspicuously removed.

Finally, the Treaty of Tripoli is not a founding document for the United States of America. By contrast, The Treaty of Paris, by which the government of Britain formally recognized the US as an independent nation and predates the Treaty of Tripoli, very much is a founding document.

The Treaty of Paris, 1783, opens with these words:
“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...”

 

[8atman]

I see the Hounds are still baying.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, that's what you think of Marines. Color me surprised.

I said nothing of Marines, we're talking about YOU, little feral one...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, I agree --puzzling in ways you may not even realize.

Wow, that's going to leave a mark...



Well done.

 

[peach174]

No shit, genius. It's all derived from the Sumerians.

The entire Jewish creation myth is nothing more than the Cliff Notes edition for those too lazy to read the full Sumerian history.

You have proof of this?
Did they find some new archeology digs that prove the Sumerian Pentateuch came before the Hebrew Pentateuch?

 

[Foxfyre]

No shit, genius. It's all derived from the Sumerians.

The entire Jewish creation myth is nothing more than the Cliff Notes edition for those too lazy to read the full Sumerian history.

You have proof of this?
Did they find some new archeology digs that prove the Sumerian Pentateuch came before the Hebrew Pentateuch?

I wonder which creation myth JB is referring to? The one which is one of the oldest manuscripts we have of the ancient Hebrews making it one of the world's oldest manuscripts we have period, or the one that is among the most recent manuscripts that we have before what Christians refer to as the "Old Testament" was first canonized and closed about 200 years prior to the birth of Christ?

 

[peach174]

I got no idea

 

[bodecea]

No shit, genius. It's all derived from the Sumerians.

The entire Jewish creation myth is nothing more than the Cliff Notes edition for those too lazy to read the full Sumerian history.

You have proof of this?
Did they find some new archeology digs that prove the Sumerian Pentateuch came before the Hebrew Pentateuch?

Well, Abram (Abraham) came from Ur, a Sumerian city.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, Abram (Abraham) came from Ur, a Sumerian city.

Well there you go;

Who could ask for more?

 

[peach174]

No shit, genius. It's all derived from the Sumerians.

The entire Jewish creation myth is nothing more than the Cliff Notes edition for those too lazy to read the full Sumerian history.

You have proof of this?
Did they find some new archeology digs that prove the Sumerian Pentateuch came before the Hebrew Pentateuch?

Well, Abram (Abraham) came from Ur, a Sumerian city.

Ur was of the Chaldean's

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, Abram (Abraham) came from Ur, a Sumerian city.

Well there you go;

Who could ask for more?

Many modern Bible scholars now question whether the Ur in the Abraham story was indeed the southernmost Ur on ancient maps which would be in Sumerian country or was one of several other places known as Ur, most particularly one near Haran in Babylon. A careful reading of the text makes the Ura near Haran more likely, most especially when it refers to Abraham leaving and crossing the Euphrates into Canaan. If he was in the northern area, he indeed would have needed to cross the Euphrates. If in the southern(Sumarian) Ur, that would have been an illogical route and he would not have crossed the Euphrates.

Interesting stuff to speculate and not really pertinent to the story other than technical interest. Whether from Sumaria or Babylon, regional pagan gods were worshipped and no doubt Abraham and his family were part of that. But after his encounter with YHWH (God) all that was moot and a new people and a new religion was born.

Christians embrace the story of Abraham and the context of the Old Testament because it is impossible to understand much of the New Testament without a good grounding in the Old Testament. All that stuff was common knowledge to the folks of that time and they were writing for each other and not for the benefit of us thousands of years later.

 

[8atman]

Yes and no. Most of the NT was written to congregations Paul had visited and on the surface level, that is probably how those epistles were viewed. On the other hand, the apostles were not unaware of their own divine inspiration and would have been cognizant their writings had the potential for being Scripture. In particular, the book of Revelation was prophecy written down both to warn and uplift the church regarding future events. It was certainly understood to be divinely inspired and Scripture from the beginning.

I wonder which creation myth JB is referring to? The one which is one of the oldest manuscripts we have of the ancient Hebrews making it one of the world's oldest manuscripts we have period...

People like to refer to the Sumerian code since it is believed those documents predate OT manuscripts. They then jump to the conclusion that the OT must borrow from it. The fact of the matter is all these accounts were orally passed from generation to generation before being written. Who happened to write them down first is in no way a sign of which account is the original and which is the derivation. It is only indicative of...who happened to write them down first. (This is all assuming we even have the very first copies that were ever written down. We don't know that, either.)

 

[Gadawg73]

As soon as the ink dried on the Constitution most of the states passed laws banning mandatory tithing, taxes to build and maintain church buildings and property, all government aid to religous schools, reglious tests to hold public office and no establishment of religion.
Why did they do that?

 

[8atman]

And you're under the impression that somehow corroborates the notion the Founders didn't base the Constitution on Judeo-Christian precepts? What is your evidence they lied? Perhaps more to the point, do you understand the Founders' conception of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?

Secondly, to answer your question, many of the states were going headlong toward creating another Church-state; la large portion of what you mentioned was intended to address that. Much of the rest of what you cited was intended to give the government limited power over the church.

 

[8atman]

“As soon as the ink dried on the Constitution most of the states passed laws banning mandatory tithing...”

I’d like to invite anyone reading this to contrast what is being suggested above with this:

On the third of December, 1803, President Jefferson (almost two years **after** his Danbury Baptist letter) ordered the extension of the 1787 Congressional land act that designated the use of federal land “for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity.” That’s right, “promoting Christianity” at the behest of the federal government. Exactly how does that jive with what we’re spoon-fed today on this topic? Why didn’t Jefferson view this as a violation of his own “separation of church and state”?

And it doesn’t stop there. Jefferson ordered the same thing for the Wyandotte Indians in 1806. Then he did it again for the Cherokees in 1807.

Apparently the ink on the Constitution had not yet dried.

 

[Gadawg73]

And you're under the impression that somehow corroborates the notion the Founders didn't base the Constitution on Judeo-Christian precepts? What is your evidence they lied? Perhaps more to the point, do you understand the Founders' conception of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?

Secondly, to answer your question, many of the states were going headlong toward creating another Church-state; la large portion of what you mentioned was intended to address that. Much of the rest of what you cited was intended to give the government limited power over the church.

You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.
Not the other way around.
Had an influence, and a positive one at that, but did not found the nation.

 

[Foxfyre]

And you're under the impression that somehow corroborates the notion the Founders didn't base the Constitution on Judeo-Christian precepts? What is your evidence they lied? Perhaps more to the point, do you understand the Founders' conception of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?

Secondly, to answer your question, many of the states were going headlong toward creating another Church-state; la large portion of what you mentioned was intended to address that. Much of the rest of what you cited was intended to give the government limited power over the church.

You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.
Not the other way around.
Had an influence, and a positive one at that, but did not found the nation.

I look at it a bit differently. The Constitution ensured that the government would not be the Church, yes, and the government would never dictate what anybody's religious beliefs must be.

The Founders never intended that the government not 'promote' religion. That concept has been the courts' corruption of original intent. The Founders intended, however, that no one be denied their own convictions which fell into the area of unalienable rights, and that no government entity would have power to reward or punish anyone based on their beliefs.

"Promotion" of and "establishment" of religion are two entirely separate things. There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit promotion of religion. Jefferson's 'wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists that Batman mentioned did not affirm 'separation of Church and State' in the way it is usually interpreted these days. It rather was intended to assure the Danbury Baptists that they had nothing to fear from their government.

The government operated under this congenial relationship with the Church for more than a hundred and fifty years and no theocracy developed or even threatened to develop. And what theocracies existed among the colonies soon phased out under the banner of human freedom. But with the advent of organizations like the ACLU egged on by Atheist organizations and judges who somehow never fully understood or cared about original intent, we have been slowly, bit by bit, losing our rights to religious freedom and expression.

 

[Gadawg73]

And you're under the impression that somehow corroborates the notion the Founders didn't base the Constitution on Judeo-Christian precepts? What is your evidence they lied? Perhaps more to the point, do you understand the Founders' conception of civil law vis-à-vis Divine Law?

Secondly, to answer your question, many of the states were going headlong toward creating another Church-state; la large portion of what you mentioned was intended to address that. Much of the rest of what you cited was intended to give the government limited power over the church.

You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.
Not the other way around.
Had an influence, and a positive one at that, but did not found the nation.

I look at it a bit differently. The Constitution ensured that the government would not be the Church, yes, and the government would never dictate what anybody's religious beliefs must be.

The Founders never intended that the government not 'promote' religion. That concept has been the courts' corruption of original intent. The Founders intended, however, that no one be denied their own convictions which fell into the area of unalienable rights, and that no government entity would have power to reward or punish anyone based on their beliefs.

"Promotion" of and "establishment" of religion are two entirely separate things. There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit promotion of religion. Jefferson's 'wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists that Batman mentioned did not affirm 'separation of Church and State' in the way it is usually interpreted these days. It rather was intended to assure the Danbury Baptists that they had nothing to fear from their government.

The government operated under this congenial relationship with the Church for more than a hundred and fifty years and no theocracy developed or even threatened to develop. And what theocracies existed among the colonies soon phased out under the banner of human freedom. But with the advent of organizations like the ACLU egged on by Atheist organizations and judges who somehow never fully understood or cared about original intent, we have been slowly, bit by bit, losing our rights to religious freedom and expression.

If they were to promote religion then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.
You also have it backwards. No where is there any evidence that the Constituion promotes religion.
They did it that way in the Colonies. The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing. This government was not founded on religion and one only has to look at how the Founders lived their lives to know that Christian principles were not what motivated them. Slavery, indentured servants, women as 2nd class citizens, smuggling, trafficking in slavery, whiskey making (Washington was the largest liquor distributor in the Colonies) and flogging and forcing women out of societies for out of wedlock pregnancies are not Christian tenets.

 

[Foxfyre]

You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.
Not the other way around.
Had an influence, and a positive one at that, but did not found the nation.

I look at it a bit differently. The Constitution ensured that the government would not be the Church, yes, and the government would never dictate what anybody's religious beliefs must be.

The Founders never intended that the government not 'promote' religion. That concept has been the courts' corruption of original intent. The Founders intended, however, that no one be denied their own convictions which fell into the area of unalienable rights, and that no government entity would have power to reward or punish anyone based on their beliefs.

"Promotion" of and "establishment" of religion are two entirely separate things. There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit promotion of religion. Jefferson's 'wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists that Batman mentioned did not affirm 'separation of Church and State' in the way it is usually interpreted these days. It rather was intended to assure the Danbury Baptists that they had nothing to fear from their government.

The government operated under this congenial relationship with the Church for more than a hundred and fifty years and no theocracy developed or even threatened to develop. And what theocracies existed among the colonies soon phased out under the banner of human freedom. But with the advent of organizations like the ACLU egged on by Atheist organizations and judges who somehow never fully understood or cared about original intent, we have been slowly, bit by bit, losing our rights to religious freedom and expression.

If they were to promote religion then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.
You also have it backwards. No where is there any evidence that the Constituion promotes religion.
They did it that way in the Colonies. The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing. This government was not founded on religion and one only has to look at how the Founders lived their lives to know that Christian principles were not what motivated them. Slavery, indentured servants, women as 2nd class citizens, smuggling, trafficking in slavery, whiskey making (Washington was the largest liquor distributor in the Colonies) and flogging and forcing women out of societies for out of wedlock pregnancies are not Christian tenets.

Using tax dollars to promote religion SHOULD be beaten back every time it is offered. Why? Because once you start rewarding (with money) or punishing (by withholding money) any religious group or project, the government has established religion. To allow tax exemptions for all religious and charitable institutions, to allow religious symbols, customs, celebrations and holidays and a 'day of rest' on Sunday, without mandating observance of such days doesn't cost a dime of the people's money nor does it establish religion. But it sure promotes religion in a non coercive manner.

Look at how much of those kinds of freedoms we have lost over the last 30 or 40 years.

 

[AllieBaba]

You have it backwards. The Constitution ENDED the church's domination over the population and government as it had been here and in Europe.
Not the other way around.
Had an influence, and a positive one at that, but did not found the nation.

I look at it a bit differently. The Constitution ensured that the government would not be the Church, yes, and the government would never dictate what anybody's religious beliefs must be.

The Founders never intended that the government not 'promote' religion. That concept has been the courts' corruption of original intent. The Founders intended, however, that no one be denied their own convictions which fell into the area of unalienable rights, and that no government entity would have power to reward or punish anyone based on their beliefs.

"Promotion" of and "establishment" of religion are two entirely separate things. There is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit promotion of religion. Jefferson's 'wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists that Batman mentioned did not affirm 'separation of Church and State' in the way it is usually interpreted these days. It rather was intended to assure the Danbury Baptists that they had nothing to fear from their government.

The government operated under this congenial relationship with the Church for more than a hundred and fifty years and no theocracy developed or even threatened to develop. And what theocracies existed among the colonies soon phased out under the banner of human freedom. But with the advent of organizations like the ACLU egged on by Atheist organizations and judges who somehow never fully understood or cared about original intent, we have been slowly, bit by bit, losing our rights to religious freedom and expression.

If they were to promote religion then how come the Patrick Henry wing that wanted to promote religion with tax dollars LOST?
Their support was beaten back. They wanted tax dollars to fund churches and religous schools. They stated the nation was founded on Christian tenets and the Founders disagreed and ran them off.
You also have it backwards. No where is there any evidence that the Constituion promotes religion.
They did it that way in the Colonies. The Founders knew that the best way for a government to run was to stay out of religion altogether.
Religion is a personal thing, not a government thing. This government was not founded on religion and one only has to look at how the Founders lived their lives to know that Christian principles were not what motivated them. Slavery, indentured servants, women as 2nd class citizens, smuggling, trafficking in slavery, whiskey making (Washington was the largest liquor distributor in the Colonies) and flogging and forcing women out of societies for out of wedlock pregnancies are not Christian tenets.

Unfortunately for your ridiculous premise, the founding fathers left a lot of material behind putting the lie to all your ridiculous posturing.

Unless you are suggesting they were liars, that they were all involved in a spectacular conspiracy to mislead their families and the rest of their acquaintance.....

Is that what you are suggesting? Because that is what you are saying.

Retard.