AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

[BigLouie]

"AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION."
The Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - Signed Unanimously by Congress

The Treaty states clearly that America was not founded upon the Christian religion, a treaty having the unanimous endorsement of the U.S. congress, a congress filled with the founding fathers. The treaty was ratified unanimously by Congress and signed by then President John Adams.

By simply quoting the Treaty of Tripoli, the Backyard Skeptics should successfully silence those Christian historical revisionists who attempt to pervert U.S. history by claiming somehow this is a country founded upon Christianity.

Indeed, as children of the enlightenment, the founding fathers would probably be surprised by the number of Americans still clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible 200 years later, something their educated contemporaries had for the most part abandoned as religious superstition and ignorance.

Nevertheless, the founding fathers would probably be proud of the efforts of freethinkers and others to fight for and maintain that glorious wall of separation between church and state. Despite the efforts of a few misguided and/or nefarious religious extremists, America remains for the most part a secular nation, free from any established religion.

[I B Hankering]

Intellectually-lazy, atheistic activists (BigLouie, Little Stevie, etc.,) commonly cite Article XI of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, and they do so without providing historical context. They trust they can beguile the ignorant who know no better.

“THE ORIGINAL [Tripoli] TREATY

“The first to be noted is that which contains the original treaty. It is a book in the literal sense. There are fourteen pages of Arabic text; all of these are right-hand pages. In the Arabic order, the first of them is the ‘note’ of the money and presents, mentioned, according to the Barlow translation, in Article 10 of the treaty; the second is the ‘receipt,’ also mentioned in that article, and this page, like the first, is sealed with the seal of the Dey of Algiers. Then come the twelve pages of the treaty; the preamble is on the first of these with Article 1; and there is one article on a page, except that the script on the page between Articles 10 and 12, is, as fully explained in the annotated translation of 1930, not an article at all. The last of those twelve pages has also the seals and superscriptions, of which there are eleven In all, including one for the Dey of Algiers. The fourteen pages of Arabic text are reproduced above in left-to-right order of pagination; but the twelve treaty pages come first and then the ‘receipt’ and then the ‘note.’”

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp#n1

There is an interesting debate about the origins and veracity of Article XI. These Yale authors don’t dismiss the article out of hand, but they do say it is suspect. Furthermore, the authors point out that when the treaty is updated eight years later, it contains no equivalent text.


Once again: what the Founding Fathers established was a nation without a state sanctioned religion; not a nation without Christianity. What people today forget, or don’t know, is the intolerance Catholics had towards Protestants (14th thru 19th centuries), and vice versa. Likewise, the Anglicans despised the Methodists, and vice versa. This back-and-forth persecution was what the Founding Fathers sought to avoid. But even without a state sanctioned religion, the U.S. had an undeniable religious tradition, and that religious tradition is founded in Christianity. The current debate about whether Sharia Law should be permitted in the U.S. is a public admission by all parties that U.S. laws are based on a Christian heritage that is different from non-Christian nations. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a point worth mentioning.

The United States declared itself a free and independent nation on 4 July 1776 with this statement:

“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Here it’s very clear that the Founding Fathers, in this nation’s foundation document, are citing a higher power, God, as justification and cause for the founding of a new nation.



The true purpose for Article XI in the treaty of Tripoli was to establish that the mutual differences between the two countries, the U.S. and Tripoli—which did result in war—were not based on religion. This article made it clear to all parties that a “natural state of war” need not exist between the U.S. and Tripoli because of differences in religion. Again, the norm until that time in history was quite the reverse. Furthermore, Article XI would help insure that U.S. captives were not horribly tortured and/or mutilated, since that was the common fare for prisoners of religious wars at that point in time in history.

Article XI was written as part of the Treaty of Tripoli to re-establish peace between two warring states. The document’s title more than suggests as much. Article XI was not written to prove that the U.S. had no Christian heritage at its founding, or surely it would have been so entitled.

John Adams, the president at the time of the treaty, is similarly declaimed as being anti-Christian. However, John Adams biographer, David McCullough, writes: “On Sunday’s, the one day of respite from Congress, he [John Adams] was at church most of the day, attending service twice, even three times. With numerous denominations to choose from (everything except Congregational), he tried nearly all, the Anglican Christ Church, the meetinghouses of the Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, the German Moravians – and passed judgment on them all, both their music and the comparative quality of their preaching.” Once he even attended mass at a Roman Catholic Church where he was awe struck by the majesty of the service and was left wondering how the Reformation ever succeeded (pp 83-84, John Adams, by David McCullough).

Here are some other documents written by John Adams attesting to his position on Christianity and the founding of the United States, please read:

“Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.

"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 Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

"Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

"The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

"Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.”

Source: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon, 1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.

One last document for you to look at is the Massachusetts’s Constitution written in 1780 (still in effect) by John Adams: @ http://www.malegislature.gov/laws/constitution. Make sure you read it through to Chapter VI, “Oaths And Subscriptions.”


The First Amendment does prohibit the Federal government from establishing a religion and requiring that all citizens subscribe to that same religion. The Founding Fathers rightly sought to prohibit; thus, avoid excesses similar to those wrought by Henry VIII, Bloody Mary and Cromwell in the name of a “state” religion. However, the First Amendment in no manner prohibits an individual’s right to worship, but instead guarantees that individual the right to express his religion through speech and the right to assemble with others to worship. This is a formal recognition by the state that religion has an important place in the society of its citizens. and that that right shall not be abridged by the state. If you doubt me, please read the First Amendment.


*The italicized and bold emphasis were my own except where grammatically required.

[CuteOldGuy]

I don't think BL is arguing that the Founders weren't men of faith and conviction, he's more worried about right wing attempts to establish an evangelical Christian theocracy under the pretense of liberty. While likely not Christian by today's definition, the Founders did find a lot of comfort and guidance in the Christian Scriptures, but seemed to hold a more metaphysical view of the writings, rather than literalist.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I don't think BL is arguing that the Founders weren't men of faith and conviction, he's more worried about right wing attempts to establish an evangelical Christian theocracy under the pretense of liberty. While likely not Christian by today's definition, the Founders did find a lot of comfort and guidance in the Christian Scriptures, but seemed to hold a more metaphysical view of the writings, rather than literalist.

BL, et al, use the Treaty of Tripoli, and cite it out of context, in order to support their false contention that the Founders were irreligious and/or this country had no religious foundation. It is important to note that Civil Law, let alone Treaty Law, was/is much less relevant to Christianity and its practice in this country - or any Western country - than custom in law; hence, BL's argument is invalid from the outset. If that is not enough, as the scholars at Yale discuss, Article XI of that treaty that BL is so keen to cite and support, was not included in any of the subsequent contemporary revisions and updates to that treaty.

[Iaintliein]

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find support for the idea that the US was founded on any religion. But, many point out, correctly that it was founded on "Judea-Christian Values", and that is a very big difference.

The "values" of the cults of Judaism and Christianity are for the most part, positive, so I have no real issue with them.

As for fear of "right wing theocracy" the fear I have is that the religious right will continue to drive independents into the arms of the Marxists (no less a religious cult), with their puritanical views on the so called "social issues". The "Theocracy" we need to fear is one based on the religion of communist-socialism, because it's getting real close to reality.

No matter if it's founded on the mythological creatures or the mytology of class struggle, fairytale ideologies divorced from reality and proven success are expensive distractions with the world is full of real problems.

[Laz]

Religion was very important to the founders of this nation. The right to follow their faith without government interference was crucial to them which is why they specifically stated that the government cannot interfere with any religion. However, all of the laws we have are not based on a religious belief but on what is in the best interest of society. The fact that those laws are in line with judeo christian values simply reflcts that those values typically are beneficial for society. I suspect that most of our laws would also be supported by the sharia. The exceptions would be those laws that are more radical that, unlike the similar statements that are no longer considered appropriate in the judeo christian religions, some would still want to inforce.

One thing I think some people have misinterpreted about the intent of the bill of rights is that there is not a desire to eliminate religion from the public sector but to eliminate any governmental or legal imposition of religion. Tolerence of others faiths means that you must allow others to display their faith without restraint as long as that display does not interfere with your rights. For the record there is no right that you have to be shielded from seeing any display of religion in public.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I don't think BL is arguing that the Founders weren't men of faith and conviction, he's more worried about right wing attempts to establish an evangelical Christian theocracy under the pretense of liberty. While likely not Christian by today's definition, the Founders did find a lot of comfort and guidance in the Christian Scriptures, but seemed to hold a more metaphysical view of the writings, rather than literalist.

Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were not formally religious but did believe in God. They were diests, which means they believed that God created the universe, but does not get involved in day to day affairs.

The vast majority of the rest of the founders were extremely devout. Many of them had degrees from seminaries. The first amendment states that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The so called establishment clause was intended to prevent the federal government from forming an official national religion.

In the last fifty years, the establishment clause has been deliberately misinterpreted by liberal judges to mean that the federal government requires a separation of church and state.

I think the country was founded on Judeo-Christional values and Biblical principles but is at the same time secular, in that it allows for people to be religious or not without coersion from the government.

[IIFFOFRDB]

G_F_CK___RS_LF- Hey Louie want to pick some vowels.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

♠
In the last fifty years, the establishment clause has been deliberately misinterpreted by liberal judges to mean that the federal government requires a separation of church and state.

I have to take issue with that comment. The federal government is required to have separation of church and state.

where the mis-interpretation (I'd have to say its deliberate) comes is in state governments. There's no requirement for state governments for a separation of church and state according to the 1st amendment. I believe judges got around this by using the 14th amendment to justify their ruling.

there was many states that had official religion that served a requirement for goverance. it wasn't even an issue until 1950's lawsuit, but by then a majority of the states had separation ♠of church/state laws in place.

When you have that many state govt. having religious requirement before 1900, you know the country was founded on Judeo-christian values.

[joe bloe]

Can you tell me where in the constitution it states that "the federal government is required to have separation of church and state"

I think most rulings regarding separation of church and state are based on case law. Once a ruling is made on the issue, then additional rulings are made based on the prior ruling; it's what the courts call stare decisis.

I think liberals have repeated this mantra of separation of church and state for so long that people just sort think it must be true. It's sort of like most people think America is a democracy because that's what they've always been told.

I'm posting a link to a great article on the subject of separation of church and state.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/050720

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Can you tell me where in the constitution it states that "the federal government is required to have separation of church and state"

I think most rulings regarding separation of church and state are based on case law. Once a ruling is made on the issue, then additional rulings are made based on the prior ruling; it's what the courts call stare decisis.

I think liberals have repeated this mantra of separation of church and state for so long that people just sort think it must be true. It's sort of like most people think America is a democracy because that's what they've always been told.

I'm posting a link to a great article on the subject of separation of church and state.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/050720

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't say it out right, but by implication. the inclusion of the word "Congress" along with make no law establishing religion, is basically separation of church/state as it can't favor one religion over another.

[joe bloe]

The first congress in 1789 (the one that just voted on the Constitution) hired chaplains for the congress paid for with public money. This is clearly not consistant with today's view that a strict wall of separation of church and state was the intention of the founders.

http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rf_chap.html

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't say it out right, but by implication. the inclusion of the word "Congress" along with make no law establishing religion, is basically separation of church/state as it can't favor one religion over another.

While I'm anything but a fan of middle eastern mythology, the fact that the government can't favor one vs another is not justification for blatantly ignoring the "free exercise thereof" portion of the establishment clause.

There is just no way to read into this that the prohibition of voluntary prayer in schools or any other government supported venue is Constitutional.

As I recall, the "separation of church and state" was a statement made by one of FDR's justices who was also, according to legend, probably drunk at the time he said it.

Meanwhile, when a "religion" intentionally interjects itself into politics and presents itself as an alternate form of government, why the hell can't we take away it's Constitutional protection by re-defining it as a political rather than "spiritual" organization? It's bad enough that some individual congregations and "ministers" can ask their mythological creature to "damn the United States" while other entire sects are based at their core on overthrowing secular government, without also giving the bastards tax breaks.

[WTF]

Religion is nothing but politics. You can not seperate the two. You also can not ignore that we are no different from say Iran in that regard. The religious folks have a strangle hold in that country. I do not want that here nor do I want religion outlawed.

This is a healthy debate that all should hope no one wins. Both sides lose if one side wins.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Meanwhile, when a "religion" intentionally interjects itself into politics and presents itself as an alternate form of government, why the hell can't we take away it's Constitutional protection by re-defining it as a political rather than "spiritual" organization? It's bad enough that some individual congregations and "ministers" can ask their mythological creature to "damn the United States" while other entire sects are based at their core on overthrowing secular government, without also giving the bastards tax breaks.

I agree completely with this.

As for those that want to exercise there right to practice their faith in public settings I agree that they should be allowed. However, what you allow for one religion must be allowed for all religions. That can become less desirable very quickly and from a practical standpoint it could become a hindrance to the primary objective of the public event.