The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[Newby]

Also from what I've read, the treaty was only on the books for 8 years and then it was renegotiated and Article 11 was completely dropped from it.

 

[bodecea]

But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration, and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.

Loon.

I wonder if the original signed document is in the archives?

I don't think so.
We went through all this before. Bod is famous for getting pwned, then starting the exact same argument over again a couple of pages later as if it never happened, using all the same silliness.

You don't think so? Are you not aware that Official documents are required to be kept in our National Archives? Have you not seen the frequently linked article on the Treaty of Tripoli which had pictures of the original English language version of the Treaty?

First you say that the Declaration trumps the Treaty....wrong.

And now you say an official government treaty has not been kept archived by our government? Seriously?

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief what a dope you are.

 

[del]

 

[TheBrain]

Good grief what a dope you are.

You and Newby are wasting your time on that dope. I myself am merely awaiting that glorious day when Bode finds out for 100% certain that her hatred of Christianity was the wrong path. Oh what a glorious day that will be. The only thing that would be better is if I could somehow participate in the events that lead to her understanding that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I figured someone was smart enough and had the balls to ask and that would be you:
"As the government of The United States, is not, in any way founded on the Christian religion". This is a treaty, AN ACTION of the Founders.
Treaties ratified by The United States Senate would be ACTIONS by our politicians.
ACTIONS ALWAYS carry more weight, have more power, stand for what a nation is and was founded on.
This action, this treaty was passed UANANIMOUSLY with many of the Founders voting IN FAVOR OF IT.
Case closed. Thanks for asking. Actions, NOT RANK HEARSAY, is what nations are founded on. The protections we as citizens are guaranteed UNDER THE LAW is what nations are founded on, not political spittle from the mouths of politicians.

What treaty and who wrote it?

The Treaty of Tripoli...written by representatives of the U.S. government...unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams.

The treaty does not say we are divorced from God, that Biblical values are not the basis of American law, or that American Christians have no place in the public arena.

James Patrick Holding correctly observes that the so-called Article 11 does not say America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion; it says the government of the United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. The nation is not the same as the government. The nation was founded with the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the government was founded with the Constitution in 1787-89. Saying the government is not founded on the Christian religion is much different from saying the nation’s social/political network was not founded with Christian principles in mind.

But having said that, let me add that it is very doubtful that this language was ever part of the original Treaty. I make the following observations:

1. The clause does not appear in the Arabic version of the Treaty; it was inserted into the English translation. Please note the following entry from Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949, XI:1070:

“Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,’ does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”

A likely explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty to mollify concerns of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an “infidel” (non-Islamic) nation like the United States. The translator assumed this was part of the Treaty and translated it along with the rest of the document. Very likely the clauses of the original document were not numbered, so the translator numbered this Clause 11 between Clauses 10 and 12.

2. Translations of Treaties and other documents can differ greatly. Consider Barlow’s translation of Article 12:

“In case of any dispute arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Counsel residing at the place where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable reference shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers, the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he by virtue of his signature to this treaty engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observation of the same.”

However, in 1930 Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden prepared a more literal translation of Article 12:

“Praise be to God [Allah]! Declaration of the twelfth article. If there arises a disturbance between us both sides, and it becomes a serious dispute, and the American Consul is not able to make clear (settle) his affair, and (then) the affair shall remain suspended between them both, between the Pasha of Tripoli, may God strengthen him, in the well-protected Algiers, has taken cognizance of the matter. We shall accept whatever decision he enjoins on us, and we shall agree with this condition and his seal (i.e., the decision sealed by him); may God make it all permanent love and a good conclusion between us in the beginning and the end, by His grace and favor, amen!”

The differences between the two translations are obvious.

3. Joel Barlow, an American diplomat, was a key figure in negotiating the Treaty, and some credit him with the translation. Barlow had been a chaplain under General Washington during the War for Independence, but many believe that after the War he left Christian orthodoxy and became either a deist or an atheist. Some have speculated that Barlow’s religious unorthodoxy may have influenced his translation of the Treaty. However, it is uncertain whether Barlow translated the Treaty; some claim he did not know Arabic.

4. Those who believe the Treaty of Tripoli establishes the secular character of America argue that it doesn’t matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty says; it was the English version (Barlow translation) that was read and approved by the Senate. I believe it does matter. A treaty is a contract between two (or more) nations, and essential feature of any contract is an agreement on terms, commonly called a “meeting of minds.” If A contracts to sell his house to B, and A’s version of the contract lists a selling price of $200,000 while B’s version lists the selling price as $100,000, there obviously is no meeting of minds and therefore there is no valid contract. If the difference is over an essential element, this lack of a meeting of minds results in the invalidation of the contract; if the difference is over a non-essential element, then maybe only that provision of the contract would be invalid. At the very least, there was no meeting of minds between the United States and Tripoli concerning the alleged Article 11; therefore, at the very least, that article is invalid.

5. Piracy continued despite the Treaty, resulting in war with Tripoli in 1801. The Jefferson Administration negotiated and adopted a new treaty with Tripoli on April 17, 1806. The 1806 treaty does not include the so-called Article 11 of the old Treaty or any language remotely similar thereto.

All things considered, it is very unlikely that the so-called Article 11 is genuine, and even if it is genuine, it is a very frail reed on which to base an argument that America was not founded on Christian principles.

Finally, those who use the Treaty of Tripoli to prove that America is not a Christian nation, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The Treaty of Paris, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty England recognized American independence. And there is no question about the validity or the wording of the Treaty of Paris. It begins with the words: “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity… .”

Tripoli v. Paris: A Tale of Two Treaties « Firm Foundation

 

[bodecea]

What treaty and who wrote it?

The Treaty of Tripoli...written by representatives of the U.S. government...unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams.

The treaty does not say we are divorced from God, that Biblical values are not the basis of American law, or that American Christians have no place in the public arena.

James Patrick Holding correctly observes that the so-called Article 11 does not say America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion; it says the government of the United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. The nation is not the same as the government. The nation was founded with the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the government was founded with the Constitution in 1787-89. Saying the government is not founded on the Christian religion is much different from saying the nation’s social/political network was not founded with Christian principles in mind.

But having said that, let me add that it is very doubtful that this language was ever part of the original Treaty. I make the following observations:

1. The clause does not appear in the Arabic version of the Treaty; it was inserted into the English translation. Please note the following entry from Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949, XI:1070:

“Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,’ does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”

A likely explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty to mollify concerns of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an “infidel” (non-Islamic) nation like the United States. The translator assumed this was part of the Treaty and translated it along with the rest of the document. Very likely the clauses of the original document were not numbered, so the translator numbered this Clause 11 between Clauses 10 and 12.

2. Translations of Treaties and other documents can differ greatly. Consider Barlow’s translation of Article 12:

“In case of any dispute arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Counsel residing at the place where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable reference shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers, the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he by virtue of his signature to this treaty engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observation of the same.”

However, in 1930 Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden prepared a more literal translation of Article 12:

“Praise be to God [Allah]! Declaration of the twelfth article. If there arises a disturbance between us both sides, and it becomes a serious dispute, and the American Consul is not able to make clear (settle) his affair, and (then) the affair shall remain suspended between them both, between the Pasha of Tripoli, may God strengthen him, in the well-protected Algiers, has taken cognizance of the matter. We shall accept whatever decision he enjoins on us, and we shall agree with this condition and his seal (i.e., the decision sealed by him); may God make it all permanent love and a good conclusion between us in the beginning and the end, by His grace and favor, amen!”

The differences between the two translations are obvious.

3. Joel Barlow, an American diplomat, was a key figure in negotiating the Treaty, and some credit him with the translation. Barlow had been a chaplain under General Washington during the War for Independence, but many believe that after the War he left Christian orthodoxy and became either a deist or an atheist. Some have speculated that Barlow’s religious unorthodoxy may have influenced his translation of the Treaty. However, it is uncertain whether Barlow translated the Treaty; some claim he did not know Arabic.

4. Those who believe the Treaty of Tripoli establishes the secular character of America argue that it doesn’t matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty says; it was the English version (Barlow translation) that was read and approved by the Senate. I believe it does matter. A treaty is a contract between two (or more) nations, and essential feature of any contract is an agreement on terms, commonly called a “meeting of minds.” If A contracts to sell his house to B, and A’s version of the contract lists a selling price of $200,000 while B’s version lists the selling price as $100,000, there obviously is no meeting of minds and therefore there is no valid contract. If the difference is over an essential element, this lack of a meeting of minds results in the invalidation of the contract; if the difference is over a non-essential element, then maybe only that provision of the contract would be invalid. At the very least, there was no meeting of minds between the United States and Tripoli concerning the alleged Article 11; therefore, at the very least, that article is invalid.

5. Piracy continued despite the Treaty, resulting in war with Tripoli in 1801. The Jefferson Administration negotiated and adopted a new treaty with Tripoli on April 17, 1806. The 1806 treaty does not include the so-called Article 11 of the old Treaty or any language remotely similar thereto.

All things considered, it is very unlikely that the so-called Article 11 is genuine, and even if it is genuine, it is a very frail reed on which to base an argument that America was not founded on Christian principles.

Finally, those who use the Treaty of Tripoli to prove that America is not a Christian nation, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The Treaty of Paris, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty England recognized American independence. And there is no question about the validity or the wording of the Treaty of Paris. It begins with the words: “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity… .”

Tripoli v. Paris: A Tale of Two Treaties « Firm Foundation

Is the Treaty of Paris before or after our Secular Constitution went into effect?

Is the Treaty of Tripoli before or after or Secular Constitution went into effect?

 

[bodecea]

Good grief what a dope you are.

You and Newby are wasting your time on that dope. I myself am merely awaiting that glorious day when Bode finds out for 100% certain that her hatred of Christianity was the wrong path. Oh what a glorious day that will be. The only thing that would be better is if I could somehow participate in the events that lead to her understanding that.

Good morning. I see I'm still on your mind.

 

[TheBrain]

Good grief what a dope you are.

You and Newby are wasting your time on that dope. I myself am merely awaiting that glorious day when Bode finds out for 100% certain that her hatred of Christianity was the wrong path. Oh what a glorious day that will be. The only thing that would be better is if I could somehow participate in the events that lead to her understanding that.

Good morning. I see I'm still on your mind.

yep, as I said I pray everyday that you will soon find out that your views about Christianity are wrong.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Treaty of Tripoli...written by representatives of the U.S. government...unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams.

The treaty does not say we are divorced from God, that Biblical values are not the basis of American law, or that American Christians have no place in the public arena.

James Patrick Holding correctly observes that the so-called Article 11 does not say America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion; it says the government of the United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. The nation is not the same as the government. The nation was founded with the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the government was founded with the Constitution in 1787-89. Saying the government is not founded on the Christian religion is much different from saying the nation’s social/political network was not founded with Christian principles in mind.

But having said that, let me add that it is very doubtful that this language was ever part of the original Treaty. I make the following observations:

1. The clause does not appear in the Arabic version of the Treaty; it was inserted into the English translation. Please note the following entry from Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949, XI:1070:

“Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,’ does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”

A likely explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty to mollify concerns of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an “infidel” (non-Islamic) nation like the United States. The translator assumed this was part of the Treaty and translated it along with the rest of the document. Very likely the clauses of the original document were not numbered, so the translator numbered this Clause 11 between Clauses 10 and 12.

2. Translations of Treaties and other documents can differ greatly. Consider Barlow’s translation of Article 12:

“In case of any dispute arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Counsel residing at the place where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable reference shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers, the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he by virtue of his signature to this treaty engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observation of the same.”

However, in 1930 Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden prepared a more literal translation of Article 12:

“Praise be to God [Allah]! Declaration of the twelfth article. If there arises a disturbance between us both sides, and it becomes a serious dispute, and the American Consul is not able to make clear (settle) his affair, and (then) the affair shall remain suspended between them both, between the Pasha of Tripoli, may God strengthen him, in the well-protected Algiers, has taken cognizance of the matter. We shall accept whatever decision he enjoins on us, and we shall agree with this condition and his seal (i.e., the decision sealed by him); may God make it all permanent love and a good conclusion between us in the beginning and the end, by His grace and favor, amen!”

The differences between the two translations are obvious.

3. Joel Barlow, an American diplomat, was a key figure in negotiating the Treaty, and some credit him with the translation. Barlow had been a chaplain under General Washington during the War for Independence, but many believe that after the War he left Christian orthodoxy and became either a deist or an atheist. Some have speculated that Barlow’s religious unorthodoxy may have influenced his translation of the Treaty. However, it is uncertain whether Barlow translated the Treaty; some claim he did not know Arabic.

4. Those who believe the Treaty of Tripoli establishes the secular character of America argue that it doesn’t matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty says; it was the English version (Barlow translation) that was read and approved by the Senate. I believe it does matter. A treaty is a contract between two (or more) nations, and essential feature of any contract is an agreement on terms, commonly called a “meeting of minds.” If A contracts to sell his house to B, and A’s version of the contract lists a selling price of $200,000 while B’s version lists the selling price as $100,000, there obviously is no meeting of minds and therefore there is no valid contract. If the difference is over an essential element, this lack of a meeting of minds results in the invalidation of the contract; if the difference is over a non-essential element, then maybe only that provision of the contract would be invalid. At the very least, there was no meeting of minds between the United States and Tripoli concerning the alleged Article 11; therefore, at the very least, that article is invalid.

5. Piracy continued despite the Treaty, resulting in war with Tripoli in 1801. The Jefferson Administration negotiated and adopted a new treaty with Tripoli on April 17, 1806. The 1806 treaty does not include the so-called Article 11 of the old Treaty or any language remotely similar thereto.

All things considered, it is very unlikely that the so-called Article 11 is genuine, and even if it is genuine, it is a very frail reed on which to base an argument that America was not founded on Christian principles.

Finally, those who use the Treaty of Tripoli to prove that America is not a Christian nation, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The Treaty of Paris, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty England recognized American independence. And there is no question about the validity or the wording of the Treaty of Paris. It begins with the words: “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity… .”

Tripoli v. Paris: A Tale of Two Treaties « Firm Foundation

Is the Treaty of Paris before or after our Secular Constitution went into effect?

Is the Treaty of Tripoli before or after or Secular Constitution went into effect?

It doesn't matter. This country was founded before the Constitution was written.

Besides Article 11 is not in the Treaty of Tripoli.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yup, all these points (and they show Bod's understanding of history is basically nil quite well) were made before.

It's always like the first time for bod, though.

 

[TheBrain]

Yup, all these points (and they show Bod's understanding of history is basically nil quite well) were made before.

It's always like the first time for bod, though.

But but but, she has a degree in history. I think it was from the University of Third Reich.

 

[bodecea]

You and Newby are wasting your time on that dope. I myself am merely awaiting that glorious day when Bode finds out for 100% certain that her hatred of Christianity was the wrong path. Oh what a glorious day that will be. The only thing that would be better is if I could somehow participate in the events that lead to her understanding that.

Good morning. I see I'm still on your mind.

yep, as I said I pray everyday that you will soon find out that your views about Christianity are wrong.

Again. Hello.

 

[bodecea]

The treaty does not say we are divorced from God, that Biblical values are not the basis of American law, or that American Christians have no place in the public arena.

James Patrick Holding correctly observes that the so-called Article 11 does not say America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion; it says the government of the United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. The nation is not the same as the government. The nation was founded with the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the government was founded with the Constitution in 1787-89. Saying the government is not founded on the Christian religion is much different from saying the nation’s social/political network was not founded with Christian principles in mind.

But having said that, let me add that it is very doubtful that this language was ever part of the original Treaty. I make the following observations:

1. The clause does not appear in the Arabic version of the Treaty; it was inserted into the English translation. Please note the following entry from Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949, XI:1070:

“Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, ‘the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,’ does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”

A likely explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty to mollify concerns of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an “infidel” (non-Islamic) nation like the United States. The translator assumed this was part of the Treaty and translated it along with the rest of the document. Very likely the clauses of the original document were not numbered, so the translator numbered this Clause 11 between Clauses 10 and 12.

2. Translations of Treaties and other documents can differ greatly. Consider Barlow’s translation of Article 12:

“In case of any dispute arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Counsel residing at the place where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable reference shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers, the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he by virtue of his signature to this treaty engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observation of the same.”

However, in 1930 Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje of Leiden prepared a more literal translation of Article 12:

“Praise be to God [Allah]! Declaration of the twelfth article. If there arises a disturbance between us both sides, and it becomes a serious dispute, and the American Consul is not able to make clear (settle) his affair, and (then) the affair shall remain suspended between them both, between the Pasha of Tripoli, may God strengthen him, in the well-protected Algiers, has taken cognizance of the matter. We shall accept whatever decision he enjoins on us, and we shall agree with this condition and his seal (i.e., the decision sealed by him); may God make it all permanent love and a good conclusion between us in the beginning and the end, by His grace and favor, amen!”

The differences between the two translations are obvious.

3. Joel Barlow, an American diplomat, was a key figure in negotiating the Treaty, and some credit him with the translation. Barlow had been a chaplain under General Washington during the War for Independence, but many believe that after the War he left Christian orthodoxy and became either a deist or an atheist. Some have speculated that Barlow’s religious unorthodoxy may have influenced his translation of the Treaty. However, it is uncertain whether Barlow translated the Treaty; some claim he did not know Arabic.

4. Those who believe the Treaty of Tripoli establishes the secular character of America argue that it doesn’t matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty says; it was the English version (Barlow translation) that was read and approved by the Senate. I believe it does matter. A treaty is a contract between two (or more) nations, and essential feature of any contract is an agreement on terms, commonly called a “meeting of minds.” If A contracts to sell his house to B, and A’s version of the contract lists a selling price of $200,000 while B’s version lists the selling price as $100,000, there obviously is no meeting of minds and therefore there is no valid contract. If the difference is over an essential element, this lack of a meeting of minds results in the invalidation of the contract; if the difference is over a non-essential element, then maybe only that provision of the contract would be invalid. At the very least, there was no meeting of minds between the United States and Tripoli concerning the alleged Article 11; therefore, at the very least, that article is invalid.

5. Piracy continued despite the Treaty, resulting in war with Tripoli in 1801. The Jefferson Administration negotiated and adopted a new treaty with Tripoli on April 17, 1806. The 1806 treaty does not include the so-called Article 11 of the old Treaty or any language remotely similar thereto.

All things considered, it is very unlikely that the so-called Article 11 is genuine, and even if it is genuine, it is a very frail reed on which to base an argument that America was not founded on Christian principles.

Finally, those who use the Treaty of Tripoli to prove that America is not a Christian nation, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The Treaty of Paris, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty England recognized American independence. And there is no question about the validity or the wording of the Treaty of Paris. It begins with the words: “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity… .”

Tripoli v. Paris: A Tale of Two Treaties « Firm Foundation

Is the Treaty of Paris before or after our Secular Constitution went into effect?

Is the Treaty of Tripoli before or after or Secular Constitution went into effect?

It doesn't matter. This country was founded before the Constitution was written.

Besides Article 11 is not in the Treaty of Tripoli.

Our current government is established by the Constitution...it matters a great deal because that is the ACTION our country is based upon regardless of past WORDS.

 

[bodecea]

Yup, all these points (and they show Bod's understanding of history is basically nil quite well) were made before.

It's always like the first time for bod, though.

But but but, she has a degree in history. I think it was from the University of Third Reich.

Hello...er...how should I address you now?

 

[bodecea]

Yup, all these points (and they show Bod's understanding of history is basically nil quite well) were made before.

It's always like the first time for bod, though.

Points? How about actual LAWS (the Constitution, the Treaty of Tripoli). How about ACTIONS? Slavery, Indian Treatment, treatment of Mormons, etc.?

Not just WORDS. Tho, I suspect that you are easily led by just WORDS. All someone would have to do is SAY something that fits your preconceived notions and they'd be able to take you for all you are worth.

 

[AllieBaba]

You're a fucking idiot. You really are. What was the highest grade you achieved? I'm honestly curious.

 

[AllieBaba]

And negged for subjecting us to complete intellectual garbage.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Is the Treaty of Paris before or after our Secular Constitution went into effect?

Is the Treaty of Tripoli before or after or Secular Constitution went into effect?

It doesn't matter. This country was founded before the Constitution was written.

Besides Article 11 is not in the Treaty of Tripoli.

Our current government is established by the Constitution...it matters a great deal because that is the ACTION our country is based upon regardless of past WORDS.

Maybe so, but we're not talking about the founding of our government. We're talking about the founding of this Nation which preceded the formation of government.


Face it, you've been owned nine ways to Sunday on this thread. Give it up!

 

[bodecea]

It doesn't matter. This country was founded before the Constitution was written.

Besides Article 11 is not in the Treaty of Tripoli.

Our current government is established by the Constitution...it matters a great deal because that is the ACTION our country is based upon regardless of past WORDS.

Maybe so, but we're not talking about the founding of our government. We're talking about the founding of this Nation which preceded the formation of government.


Face it, you've been owned nine ways to Sunday on this thread. Give it up!

Wait...you are attempting to say the founding of our nation has nothing to do with our government, our constitution, the heart of what makes us what we are?

Seriously?