The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[Foxfyre]

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!

You've struck on the absolute core center of the whole concept in this debate/discussion/food fight. Some do not wish to ackinowledge the thought processes, debates, discussions, and concepts that went into first the Declaration of Independence which, after a long and bloody war, resulted in a people free to form whatever sort of nation they wanted. Those concepts were further developed in more thought processes, debates, discussions, and new concepts that became the fundamental purposes written into the U.S. Constitution.

It wasn't done in back rooms or under the cloak of darkness. It was done openly in the bright light and hidden to no one. It took twelve long years from the signing of the declaration to the ratification of the Constitution. When the Revolutionary War ended giving them time to work on it, they took six years of careful consideration before offering the final document for ratification.

There have been many human failings, many mistakes made, many miscalculations, many injustices, and many horrendous acts in the history of our country. And NONE of those negate in any way that it was the Christian principle of unalienable rights given by God and untouchable by man that gave us the Constitution and the nation we have.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

No I don't believe I said anything of the sort nor attempted to.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Our current government is established by the Constitution...

You're working very hard to change that, though.

 

[TheBrain]

LOL @ you guys thinking Bode will EVER concede anything in a thread. SHe had her mind made up before she even posted and that's that.

I pray that she meets the Lord soon and discovers how awesome He really is.

 

[Gadawg73]

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

No one ever said we "were divorced from God". Why do you make stuff up?
You damn well know, if you can read which I am seriously wondering about your abilties there as I have posted NUMEROUS TIMES:
1. The nation was/is Christian.
2. Christianity influences society in a positive way then/now/ALWAYS
3. The Founderswere primarily Christian.
So your bull shit "were divorced from God" holds no weight with any of my arguments.
And your claim that our laws are based on Biblical values? LOL, man that is so off base it is absurd. An eye for an eye? Stoning to death for adultery?
Lonestar, like I have told you time and time again, give it up, your arguments are so out there is is far beyond credibility.
Thomas Jefferson was a Founder. Minsters ALL OVER THE COLONIES HATED HIM.
Well DUH, guess why? They labeled him as a "true infidel"because of his ANTI CHRISTIAN WRITINGS EVERYWHERE.
But you ignore that like the plague as you vote, do business, believe and worship only WHAT YOU HEAR OTHERS SAY, not what they do with their actions and their written word.
Because your Christian ideology forces you to ignore all facts in support of your ideology.
Thomas Jefferson wrote numerous papers concerning his disdain for Christianity: "There is not one redeeming feature of our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half of the world fools".
And you folks claim with a straight face that this man founded the nation on Christianity?
Why? Because your own superstitions and ideology FORCES YOU TO.
Ignore the facts and follow fables, superstition and IDEOLOGY.
Preachers all over the colonies condemned Jefferson and many of the Founders for their writings about Christianity and the negative influences it had on government: Pastor William Linn "Jefferson does not believe in the divine revelation and wants to introduce immorality and destroy religion. Jefferson is the true infidel."
He led the charge of CHURCHES AND PREACHERS OPPOSED to Jefferson in the damn election!
And you folks claimed these Founders founded the nation on Christianity when it was the churches and preachers opposing them.
Words mean more than actions.
Ideology over practice. You folks are closet liberals.

 

[AllieBaba]

That has nothing to do with anything, as you've been told before.

More garbage.

Again, I'm asking...Bod what is the highest grade you've completed? And Gdog too...

 

[TheBrain]

That has nothing to do with anything, as you've been told before.

More garbage.

Again, I'm asking...Bod what is the highest grade you've completed? And Gdog too...

I disagree with GDog on a few things , but he comes across as at MINIMUM twice as smart as Bode, one assumes she dropped out of the 7th grade, so that would make him a junior college grad at MINIMUM.

 

[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

No one ever said we "were divorced from God". Why do you make stuff up?
You damn well know, if you can read which I am seriously wondering about your abilties there as I have posted NUMEROUS TIMES:
1. The nation was/is Christian.
2. Christianity influences society in a positive way then/now/ALWAYS
3. The Founderswere primarily Christian.
So your bull shit "were divorced from God" holds no weight with any of my arguments.
And your claim that our laws are based on Biblical values? LOL, man that is so off base it is absurd. An eye for an eye? Stoning to death for adultery?
Lonestar, like I have told you time and time again, give it up, your arguments are so out there is is far beyond credibility.
Thomas Jefferson was a Founder. Minsters ALL OVER THE COLONIES HATED HIM.
Well DUH, guess why? They labeled him as a "true infidel"because of his ANTI CHRISTIAN WRITINGS EVERYWHERE.
But you ignore that like the plague as you vote, do business, believe and worship only WHAT YOU HEAR OTHERS SAY, not what they do with their actions and their written word.
Because your Christian ideology forces you to ignore all facts in support of your ideology.
Thomas Jefferson wrote numerous papers concerning his disdain for Christianity: "There is not one redeeming feature of our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half of the world fools".
And you folks claim with a straight face that this man founded the nation on Christianity?
Why? Because your own superstitions and ideology FORCES YOU TO.
Ignore the facts and follow fables, superstition and IDEOLOGY.
Preachers all over the colonies condemned Jefferson and many of the Founders for their writings about Christianity and the negative influences it had on government: Pastor William Linn "Jefferson does not believe in the divine revelation and wants to introduce immorality and destroy religion. Jefferson is the true infidel."
He led the charge of CHURCHES AND PREACHERS OPPOSED to Jefferson in the damn election!
And you folks claimed these Founders founded the nation on Christianity when it was the churches and preachers opposing them.
Words mean more than actions.
Ideology over practice. You folks are closet liberals.

Did I say anyone made that claim?

NOOOOO!!

Why do you use Old Testament law in your examples?

You do know that when Jesus arrived a new covenant was made.

If you agree that this nation was founded on Christian principles, why are you arguing with me?

Jefferson was hated? I'd have to see some evidence of that.

President Thomas Jefferson was a Protestant. Jefferson was raised as an Episcopalian (Anglican). He was also influenced by English Deists and has often been identified by historians as a Deist. He held many beliefs in common with Unitarians of the time period, and sometimes wrote that he thought the whole country would become Unitarian. He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department, August 1997 [URL: http://www.monticello.org/resources/interests/religion.html].

Jefferson was one of many founding fathers the majority of which were Christian.

 

[AllieBaba]

Bod also thinks there was a huge persecution of Quakers in this country.

When in actuality, the Puritans executed 4 more than a hundred years before the DOI.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's what happens when you consider Nora Roberts books "history".

 

[Gadawg73]

That has nothing to do with anything, as you've been told before.

More garbage.

Again, I'm asking...Bod what is the highest grade you've completed? And Gdog too...

Bachelor of Business Administration UGA Double major Finance and Business Law
Masters of Business Administration GSU Tax accounting, management and finance
Forensics Certification Georgia Board of Private Detectives
Agency License Georgia Board of Private Detectives
Investigated over 5000 criminal and civil cases since 1979.
Tesfitified in over 500 cases
Wrote the Georgia Private Detective Agency License Test with 4 others in 2009.

You?

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't believe it. Nobody who can't distinguish fact from fiction could have those creds.

 

[Gadawg73]

Bod also thinks there was a huge persecution of Quakers in this country.

When in actuality, the Puritans executed 4 more than a hundred years before the DOI.

The Puritans persecuted my ancestors and anyone that reads history knows that.
I have Terhune journals that have the details.

Persecution of Quakers in Colonial New England

And the Founders, that owned slaves persecuted Quakers as Quakers were majority anti slavery and helped slaves escape. Many Quakers were IMPRISONED for that up until the Civil War.
Are you advancing to 5th or 6th grade next year? Good luck.

 

[TheBrain]

Bod also thinks there was a huge persecution of Quakers in this country.

When in actuality, the Puritans executed 4 more than a hundred years before the DOI.

The Puritans persecuted my ancestors and anyone that reads history knows that.
I have Terhune journals that have the details.

Persecution of Quakers in Colonial New England

And the Founders, that owned slaves persecuted Quakers as Quakers were majority anti slavery and helped slaves escape. Many Quakers were IMPRISONED for that up until the Civil War.
Are you advancing to 5th or 6th grade next year? Good luck.

Persecuted might be a little strong. And yes they were imprisoned for breaking the law at the time. Obviously the whole slavery system was wrong, and so to were laws that made it illegal to aid escaped slaves......

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't believe it. Nobody who can't distinguish fact from fiction could have those creds.

Ask Sonny Perdue, former governor of Georgia who he appointed to write the test for Agency License Holder.
Go to the Georgia Secretary of State's Professional Licensing Board and see where I was licensed in 1982 and then in 1985 my FULL AGENCY LICENSE with every other license here is from them, the top tier license.
How about we put up $50,000 a piece if you do not believe my credentials.

BBA and then finished up at GSU in 1985.

How about you call all of the top trial lawyers all over Georgia and ask them who has been their investigator since 1982?

Typical Allie, she is embarrased by her lack of any education and is jealous of anyone and everyone that does have one.
You are a closet LIBERAL.

$50,000.??

 

[Gadawg73]

Bod also thinks there was a huge persecution of Quakers in this country.

When in actuality, the Puritans executed 4 more than a hundred years before the DOI.

The Puritans persecuted my ancestors and anyone that reads history knows that.
I have Terhune journals that have the details.

Persecution of Quakers in Colonial New England

And the Founders, that owned slaves persecuted Quakers as Quakers were majority anti slavery and helped slaves escape. Many Quakers were IMPRISONED for that up until the Civil War.
Are you advancing to 5th or 6th grade next year? Good luck.

Persecuted might be a little strong. And yes they were imprisoned for breaking the law at the time. Obviously the whole slavery system was wrong, and so to were laws that made it illegal to aid escaped slaves......

When one is jailed for their religous beliefs HOW IS CALLING IT PERSECUTED "A LITTLE STRONG"?
No offense Brain, but damn, please think next time.

 

[TheBrain]

The Puritans persecuted my ancestors and anyone that reads history knows that.
I have Terhune journals that have the details.

Persecution of Quakers in Colonial New England

And the Founders, that owned slaves persecuted Quakers as Quakers were majority anti slavery and helped slaves escape. Many Quakers were IMPRISONED for that up until the Civil War.
Are you advancing to 5th or 6th grade next year? Good luck.

Persecuted might be a little strong. And yes they were imprisoned for breaking the law at the time. Obviously the whole slavery system was wrong, and so to were laws that made it illegal to aid escaped slaves......

When one is jailed for their religous beliefs HOW IS CALLING IT PERSECUTED "A LITTLE STRONG"?
No offense Brain, but damn, please think next time.

Meh, when I think of persecuted I think of the way Christians were treated in the early days of the Roman empire. Or I think of the way Jews were treated in NAZI Germany, or the way blacks were treated in this country until around the early 1970s. I just think persecuted is a term that is thrown around all too often.

That doesn't mean I think that people can't be treated poorly and unfairly without it being persecution though, so don't get me wrong on that point. It's just a matter of degrees that I disagree with you about.

 

[AllieBaba]

The Puritans persecuted my ancestors and anyone that reads history knows that.
I have Terhune journals that have the details.

Persecution of Quakers in Colonial New England

And the Founders, that owned slaves persecuted Quakers as Quakers were majority anti slavery and helped slaves escape. Many Quakers were IMPRISONED for that up until the Civil War.
Are you advancing to 5th or 6th grade next year? Good luck.

Persecuted might be a little strong. And yes they were imprisoned for breaking the law at the time. Obviously the whole slavery system was wrong, and so to were laws that made it illegal to aid escaped slaves......

When one is jailed for their religous beliefs HOW IS CALLING IT PERSECUTED "A LITTLE STRONG"?
No offense Brain, but damn, please think next time.

It was more than a hundred years before the Revolution. Our founding fathers weren't even alive.

What complete lunacy.

 

[AllieBaba]

Any minute now High Gravity or whatever his name is will come along whining about how people who don't hire out of work losers are worse than racists.

It's completely irrelevant to this convo, besides being ridiculous in and of itself. Quakers did very, VERY well in this country.

 

[AllieBaba]

"By the close of the seventeenth century, persecution of Quakers, both legal and social, had essentially ceased. Tolerance legislation ended the legal persecution, and the Quakers’ own entrepreneurial success won them social respect as well. "

Quakers in America: From Persecution through Toleration to Domination

Can we please stop with the stupid Quaker straw man now?