redneckmedic
Grandmaster
Sounds like discrimination to me!!!
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
We are no longer free to practice Christianity
- Thread starter Spot Me 2
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Sounds like discrimination to me!!!
Oh, I thought you were referring to someone specifically on this forum by the way you mentioned the rallying for gun-rights. Maybe I was mistaken.
There have been examples of people here on this Forum that have "bashed" Christians. I can only assume that they are pro 2nd as they are HERE, lol.
Always someone bashing someone. Human nature I suppose. Try not to get too offended... remember, your Christianity is not between you and them.
Always someone bashing someone. Human nature I suppose. Try not to get too offended... remember, your Christianity is not between you and them.
Oh, I agree totally. I am not so much offended as I am amused by the irony
Is it just me, or does it seem people have been a little more "on edge" here lately? Several threads recently have been a little more....intense...than normally.
Oh, I agree totally. I am not so much offended as I am amused by the irony
Is it just me, or does it seem people have been a little more "on edge" here lately? Several threads recently have been a little more....intense...than normally.
I think it's tense all over. I think the current state of politics and the economy has everyone on edge more than usual. It will only get worse before it gets better... isn't that something to look forward to!
Oh, I agree totally. I am not so much offended as I am amused by the irony
You want to laugh at some real irony...
Christians are always complaining about them being persecuted in some way, that their rights are somehow being violated, but...
Then they will turn around & claim that they are the majority in this country, that the country was founded on the Christian religion, Its OK for them to legislate their morality to the general population because they are in the majority, etc...
Which is it?
It seems to me that you complain about "discrimination" when the laws are applied equally to you as they are to others. Discrimination is wrong when its done to anyone so maybe you should stop discriminating against others when you know what it feels like on the very few occasions it happens (sucks, huh?).
BTW, the ACLU does take up pro-christian FoR cases when their rights have been violated (which overall, isn't that often compared to the other sides).
So, only "minorities" can be discriminated against? So then you are of the belief that say, an african american owned company that won't hire whites is not discriminating because african americans are a minority?
Allrightythen
..and just how exactly do I discriminate against anyone? or are you referring to Christians in general? If so, then you advocate generalizing and sterotyping entire groups based on the actions of a few? How very "Liberal" and open minded of you.
Sorry to burst your bubble here finity, and you can wish it away all you want, but the fact is that most of the founding Fathers were either Christians or Deists. Mentions of God, The Creator, etc are all over the writings of that day, including our founding documents. Our Founding Fathers felt religion and morality went hand in hand:
Should I go on? or like most Liberals, are you confused by too many facts?
No. Read my post. Where did I say that?
I even said discrimination by anyone is wrong.
I do believe that it is very difficult for a majority to be discriminated against by a minority. It happens but not often or systematically.
Just stating historical facts. If you don't like it then rewrite history(...again?). Generalizations happen all the time. It's not necessarily right & we should try to guard against it but it happens, nonetheless. Kind of like the "liberals have no morals" or "they are all anti-gun or anti-rights" statements I see here CONSTANTLY. Not all conservatives are anti-abortion or pro-gun, either.
Isn't the statement:
a generalization made by you?
I'm not saying all Christians discriminate. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying that since Christians are in the majority they will, by virtue of the numbers, do most of the discriminating & be discriminated against less, but will complain as much (or more) about discrmination when it happens to them as the other minority groups.
So?
The founders didn't base our system of government on the teachings of Christ (IOW, Christianity). Some (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin) were actually decidedly non-Christian. They were deists but that doesn't mean the country was founded on the Christian religion. They were adamantly 'freedom of religion' even if that religion was 'no religion'.
If the country was founded on Christianity tell me which part of the Constitution directs you to "honor thy mother & father" or to "have no other gods before me"? Hhmm..not there? My guess would be that the country was actually founded on British common law, which was based on the Roman Republic common law, mixed with a few Enlightenment ideas.
Really?
Ok here's some for you:
"I believe in one God, Creator of the universe.... That the most acceptable service we can render Him is doing good to His other children.... As to Jesus ... I have ... some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble." [SIZE=-1]- Benjamin Franklin[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2](Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94.)[/SIZE]
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." [SIZE=-1]- Thomas Paine [/SIZE][SIZE=-2](The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)[/SIZE]
Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." [SIZE=-1]- George Washington [/SIZE][SIZE=-2](Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)[/SIZE]
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." [SIZE=-1]- Thomas Jefferson[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2](letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)[/SIZE]
"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." [SIZE=-1]- Benjamin Franklin[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2](from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."[SIZE=-1]- Thomas Paine[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2](The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)[/SIZE]
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth." [SIZE=-1]- Thomas Jefferson [/SIZE][SIZE=-2](Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)[/SIZE]
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." [SIZE=-1]- James Madison[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2](Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)[/SIZE]
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?" [SIZE=-1]- John Adams[/SIZE]
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' [SIZE=-1]- James Madison[/SIZE] [SIZE=-2](Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)[/SIZE]
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [SIZE=-2]- (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)[/SIZE]
So Should I go on?
Sure why not? You can handle more facts, right?
Not necessarily devout Christians are they?
Yeah...I don't think anyone has ever said that the country was founded to be a church which seems to be what you think that IndyRoadie was trying to say. That being said, there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that it was founded on Christian and Biblical Principles. If you don't understand the difference in the two, I can't help you.
So, they were religious in their personal lives. They certainly weren't devout or overly pious & there are enough statements to show that they believed that the country was not founded on religion but on logic & reason. They even made it so that an atheist could hold public office (gasp!).
The Treaty of Tripoli (excerpted in my last post) specifically states that the country was not founded "in any sense" on the Christian religion. It was ratified by the Senate & signed by John Adams in 1797 less than 10 years after the Constitution was adopted.
Like I said before.
Our form of government (& laws based on it) is similar to the Roman Republic, which was in existance before Christianity was even thought of or Judaism was widespread.
It was modified by the evolution of common law through the Magna Carta, British common law & the Enlightenment.
Do you think that laws against murder, rape or theft haven't been in existence until Christianity? Do you think that the idea of 'rights' weren't known in ancient Greece & Rome?
Can you give me an example of a major law or tenet of our government that is "based on Christian principles" & didn't exist in law anywhere before the Christian religion was established by Rome in 400 AD?
I know the difference.
Yo Ho Ho and a Bottle of Flub?
What About Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli?
by James Patrick Holding
Years ago I had a great interest in the entire subject of the "Faith of the Founding Fathers" and a recent interchange has prompted me to get into the matter again. One of the favorite issues years ago, I found, is still around, though matters have progressed somewhat since I last checked. The issue? An item found in a treaty reached with certain Muslim pirates of the African coast, one part of which, Article 11, states:
Did Article 11 belong in the treaty at all? The evidence seems to indicate that it did not, crude attempts at textual criticism notwithstanding! However, several skeptical sites follow the lead of one linked above and say:
In order to address this issue, it will be helpful to lay out certain events in chronological order, as well as look further into the background of this treaty. Note these dates to begin:
British and French ships protected American ships from these pirates until 1783. Then:
Readers should note that at this point, 1795, America was following the line of the other world powers in appeasing the pirates rather than fighting them. As Earle notes, a single British ship of the line could have blown the pirates to the sky, but they and the other nations had other ideas. Another site on Arab history here notes why assembling a coalition with the other international powers was a bust:
With that said, it is well to note that when the Treaty was reworked 8 years later, Article 11 was conspicuously absent. In that context it is also well to note that by this time, America had the upper hand and was in a position to give the pirates the short end of the stick. The sites we have linked to tell the story. The following is a mixed and chronologized compilation of what they report:
So now we are led to a second question:
What was the meaning of this article in the first place? Let us grant that this article might have been a genuine part of the Treaty anyway, in spite of evidence that it did not belong and was only allowed to pass in the English, approved version because of pressing humanitarian, political and military concerns. By now it will be a good idea to revisit the Article:
Update July 2008: We had a visit from Jonn Eidsmoe, author of the book Christianity and the Constitution, and he had some nice things to say about this article, and graciously gave us permission to add some observations he made. Here they are.
****
1. Those who use the Treaty to prove that the United States is not founded upon Christianity argue that it it doesn't matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty said, because only the English version was read to and ratified by the United States Senate. I believe it does matter. A treaty is a contract between two (or more) nations, and an essential element of a contract is a "meeting of minds." If you contract to buy my house from me, and my copy of the contract lists the price as $200,000 and your copy lists the price as $150,000, we do not have a meeting of minds. On a major matter like the purchase price, this lack of a meeting of minds would probably mean the entire contract is invalid. On a less essential matter, it might mean only that the disputed provision is invalid. Likewise, the difference between the English and Arabic versions of the Treaty of Tripoli mean that, at the very least, the alleged Article 11 is invalid. However, I have to add that although the alleged Article 11 of the Treaty is invalid and has no legal force and effect, it might still be of some evidentiary value in understanding how the founders viewed the relationship between Christianity and the founding of the United States government.
2. You make an excellent point when you note that the disputed Article 11 says the government of the United States is not founded upon the Christian religion. The government is not the nation, and the government of the United States is not the same as the state and local governments. In adopting the First Amendment, the Founders clearly intended that there be no established religion at the national level, but they left the states free to have their own establishments. A primary reason for the adoption of the First Amendment establishment clause was the different establishments at the state level -- Congregationalists in New England, Anglicans in the South, Baptists in Rhode Island, Catholics in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, etc. If I had been a Senator at the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli, I might have raised my eyebrows at the wording of Article 11, but I probably wouldn't have considered the statement categorically false. The statement does not directly contradict my understanding that the United States was founded upon Biblical values that were brought to America largely by Christians.
3. You correctly note that the diplomat Joel Barlow was instrumental in the negotiation and drafting of the Treaty. My understanding is that Barlow was a religious skeptic, and he may have used this note from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli to insert this statement into the Treaty. I've also read that Barlow did not know Arabic.
4. I appreciate the fact that you list my book Christianity and the Constitution as recommended reading in your bookstore. Pp. 413-15 of the book is an appendix on the Treaty of Tripoli.
5. Those who cite the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence that this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783. This Treaty, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty Britian recognized the independence of the United States. The Treaty begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... ," and there is no dispute about its validity or its wording.
What About Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli?
by James Patrick Holding
Years ago I had a great interest in the entire subject of the "Faith of the Founding Fathers" and a recent interchange has prompted me to get into the matter again. One of the favorite issues years ago, I found, is still around, though matters have progressed somewhat since I last checked. The issue? An item found in a treaty reached with certain Muslim pirates of the African coast, one part of which, Article 11, states:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Years ago the "Christian nation" part of this was being passed around, falsely attributed as a saying of George Washington, but it looks like most skeptics have now wised up and avoided a Pope Leo fiasco. At any rate, we should start with some data that all parties seem agreeable on.- A full text of the treaty may be found here.
- All agree that there are vagaries involving the Arabic text of the treaty, which was translated into English by the American official, John Barlow. A skeptical site here offers the following:The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . 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 of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,' does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic]. 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.One skeptical site counters that "[t]he 'substitute' page was not discovered until 1930; what happened to the treaty before that time is unknown. The Article, if it was originally in the Arabic version, could have been lost at any time between 1797 and 1930. And there is certainly no reason to assume that Article 11 wasn't in the original Arabic version: A Muslim nation would surely have welcomed Article 11 as an assurance of American intentions with respect to religion." By the canons of textual criticism, this argument would be a dud: It is reminiscent of those who claim that early editions of the Gospel of Thomas could have existed and could have been lost anytime between 30 AD and the end of the second century, and true Thomist Christians would have welcomed it!
- The same site notes that, "When [James Leander] Cathcart, as the American Consul, arrived at Tripoli on April 5, 1799, . . . 'a ratified copy of the Treaty with Tripoli' [in the English language] was one of the enclosures with the instructions to Cathcart . . . very likely the ratification embraced the copy certified by Barlow under date of January 4, 1797, . . . [and] was delivered upon the settlement of April 10, 1799."
- Noted rather quietly is the point that the Treaty of Tripoli "remained on the books for eight years, at which time the treaty was renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped."
Did Article 11 belong in the treaty at all? The evidence seems to indicate that it did not, crude attempts at textual criticism notwithstanding! However, several skeptical sites follow the lead of one linked above and say:
The fact which completely destroys [the religious right's] argument is that none of the Senators who read, accepted, approved, and ratified the Treaty could read Arabic. The official and only 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which was read, accepted, approved, and ratified by the Senate of the United States was the one penned by Joel Barlow in the English language. And, whether the so-called "religious right" revisionists like it or not, Article 11 of the official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was in the Treaty in 1797 and is appropriately recorded in the official treaty book: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
And another site here adds:The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate clearly specifies that the treaty of was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and that copies of the treaty were printed "for the use of the Senate." Nor is it plausible to argue that perhaps Senators voted for the treaty without being aware of the famous words. the treaty was quite short, requiring only two or three pages to reprint in most treaty books today--and printed, in its entirely, on but one page (sometimes the front page) of U.S. newspapers of the day. The lack of any recorded argument about the wording, as well as the unanimous vote and the and the wide reprinting of the words in the press of 1797, suggests that the idea that the government was not a Christian one was widely and easily accepted at the time.
The question here is a good one. Assuming that this Article has the meaning skeptics ascribe to it -- see below -- why would the treaty be approved if it was not acceptable to the Congress and to the President?In order to address this issue, it will be helpful to lay out certain events in chronological order, as well as look further into the background of this treaty. Note these dates to begin:
- January 4, 1797 -- copy certified by Barlow
- April 10, 1799 -- settlement delivered in Tripoli
Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.
Another site here adds:Since the sixteenth century, corsairs from the Muslim states of North Africa had controlled the Mediterranean sea lanes by force. At the time the United States won its independence, the states of the Barbary Coast--Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco, and Tunis--had been preying on the world's merchant ships for three hundred years. The Barbary pirates' methods were fairly simple: cruising the Mediterranean in small, fast ships, they boarded merchant ships, overwhelmed the crew, and took them captive. The crews were held in captivity until their home countries agreed to pay ransoms for their release. If no ransom was forthcoming, the crews were sold into slavery. Over time, most countries found it expedient simply to pay a yearly tribute to the sultans, thereby buying their ships free passage through the Mediterranean.
Earle adds that the defining factor for the Moslem corsairs in attacking a ship was "that they worshipped a different God." [6] They were specifically after Christian shipping. To them, this was a "holy war" as much as the Crusades were. Keep this in mind for below.British and French ships protected American ships from these pirates until 1783. Then:
As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.
The site records the ideas of several Founders, notably Jefferson, to engage the pirates in war rather than paying their ransoms. Jefferson thought it would be easier to raise a fighting force than the money for ransoms, but other nations disagreed with the idea (see below), so the idea of an international coalition never came to pass. And so things got worse: "In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli."Readers should note that at this point, 1795, America was following the line of the other world powers in appeasing the pirates rather than fighting them. As Earle notes, a single British ship of the line could have blown the pirates to the sky, but they and the other nations had other ideas. Another site on Arab history here notes why assembling a coalition with the other international powers was a bust:
European powers had contended with the Barbary privateers for centuries, and nearly all of them were paying tribute to North African rulers to secure the safety of their fleets. In fact, Parker stated, the British and French were actively encouraging the privateers in order to limit commercial competition by smaller states. Foreign powers also issued slips of protection for other countries' ships, as well as licenses for raiding ships.
One other note about these key years should be mentioned. In this time the US was in some other difficulties, according to Kitzen [9, 24]:- The older nations were jealous of America's upstart successes; in 1785, Lord Sheffield of England actually opposed a free trade agreement with America and asserted that the pirates of the Barbary states had value because they kept down the competition from America!
- From 1796 to 1799, America was involved in a "Quasi-War" with France, in which the "debilitated" French navy was set against the "vastly outnumbered" American navy. America had a "cold war" going which could have turned "hot" in the blink of an eye.
With that said, it is well to note that when the Treaty was reworked 8 years later, Article 11 was conspicuously absent. In that context it is also well to note that by this time, America had the upper hand and was in a position to give the pirates the short end of the stick. The sites we have linked to tell the story. The following is a mixed and chronologized compilation of what they report:
In 1796, the tributes to the sultans were modest; Tripoli's, for example, was $56,000. But the pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli, believed he could demand higher tribute and sent a message to the United States demanding a new treaty. The demands arrived in March 1801, just after President Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated.
...[Jefferson] declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."
Jefferson sent a naval "squadron of observation" consisting of three frigates--the President, the Philadelphia, and the Essex--and the sloop of war Enterprise. The American fleet arrived in Gibraltar on July 1, 1801, under the command of Commodore Richard Dale. Upon his arrival, Dale was informed that Tripoli had declared war on the United States on May 10, 1801. With his mission now shifting from a cruise of observation to a state of war, Dale ordered the bulk of his squadron to Tripoli.
Lieutenant Andrew Sterrett, in command of the Enterprise, defeated the corsair Tripoli in an engagement on August 1, 1801. In the engagement, the Tripoli lost sixty out of eighty crew members, while the Enterprise sustained no casualties. This action demonstrated a major weakness of the Barbary pirates. Their light ships, manned by crewmen who were not well drilled in gunnery, were no match for naval vessels. However, though Sterrett's victory was clear, the United States had not yet officially declared war on Tripoli, and therefore could not claim the ship as a prize. The Tripoli was sent home after her guns were thrown overboard. The pasha greeted the defeated captain of the Tripoli with outrage. Upon returning to port he was publicly beaten, then forced to ride through the city backward on a donkey.
In April 1802, Commodore Dale returned to the United States and resigned from the navy. He was replaced by Commodore Richard Morris. Morris arrived in Gibraltar in June with an additional fleet of seven frigates and a sloop. Morris's arrival in the Mediterranean with his wife and child aboard his flagship indicated that he did not intend to actively pursue the war against Tripoli. Though his orders were to "proceed with the whole squadron under your command and lie off Tripoli," he chose to continue Dale's policy of acting as escort to American merchant ships sailing to various destinations around the Mediterranean. Morris's only move toward Tripoli was to send Captain Alexander Murray with the Constellation to Tripoli with orders to observe the port. In September 1803, Morris was recalled to the United States. Furious at his lack of initiative, Jefferson dismissed him from the navy when a court of inquiry censured him for lack of diligence.
The United States had now been at war with Tripoli for two years, without accomplishing much toward resolving the conflict. But the new commander of the Mediterranean Squadron would change the manner in which the U.S. Navy did business in Tripoli.
The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."
More detail from another of the sites:The first attack took place on August 3. As the American gunboats engaged the Tripolitan gunboat fleet, the bomb ketches were to shell the city while the Constitution attacked the shore batteries. The Tripolitans had eleven gunboats available to meet the American attack. Already outnumbered, the American force was cut in half as shifting winds allowed only three of the attacking gunboats to enter the harbor. For two and a half hours the battle raged as the Americans approached, fired on, and then boarded six of the enemy vessels. Three enemy gunboats were captured, and three more were sunk. The Constitution's guns silenced the shore batteries and then turned their force on the pasha's castle. In the entire day's action there were only fourteen American casualties. During the month of August, four more attacks were executed and the city was shelled for two nights, terrifying the inhabitants. After each assault Preble sent a message to Karamanli suggesting negotiations and offering payments of $40,000 and then $50,000 in exchange for the American prisoners from the Philadelphia. Karamanli remained adamant, and Preble continued his attacks.
Following a failed attempt to destroy pirate ships with a decoy ship loaded with explosives, there was a change in tactics:Commodore Barron continued the blockade of Tripoli, but stopped the attacks and developed a new approach to peace by undermining the authority of the pasha. The American consul in Tunis, William Eaton, suggested that they replace Yusuf Karamanli with his older brother Hamet, who was in exile in Egypt. Eaton assembled an army of mercenaries in Egypt, supported by a detachment of marines from the American ship Argus. After traveling five hundred miles, Eaton and Hamet reached the city of Derna in April. With the help of the Argus, the Hornet, and the Nautilus, Derna was captured and the back door to Tripoli was opened. Fearing that his overthrow was near at hand, Yusuf Karamanli agreed to negotiate a peace. On June 4, 1805, he accepted the last American offer of $60,000 for the release of the American prisoners and approved a new treaty that did not require tribute payments. Once the American objective had been accomplished, Hamet was left without support to continue the attempt to overthrow Yusuf Karamanli.
America did not stop paying tribute to all of the pirates completely until 1815. But it is clear enough that by this time, where Tripoli was concerned, they had the upper hand that they did not have years earlier. This suggests that the reworking of the treaty without Article 11 should be regarded as better reflecting American sentiments than the earlier version, regardless of who wrote or negotiated it. It may be further noted that no such verbiage as Article 11 is found in any of the treaties with the other Muslim pirate states -- which throws a wrench into the idea offered by the above skeptical site that it belonged in the text and would have been welcomed by Muslims.So now we are led to a second question:
What was the meaning of this article in the first place? Let us grant that this article might have been a genuine part of the Treaty anyway, in spite of evidence that it did not belong and was only allowed to pass in the English, approved version because of pressing humanitarian, political and military concerns. By now it will be a good idea to revisit the Article:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
A word to begin, for poor-reading skeptics: We do not argue that eliminating Article 11 is the same as proving that America was indeed "founded on the Christian religion" -- whatever that may mean. To what extent that may or may not be so is something we plan to look into in future essays. For the present, please note that:- The article as it stands merely says that the government of America is not founded on the Christian religion. This does not mean that the American social/political network was not founded with Christian principles of mind, or that the peoples of America were not Christian to some degree; it merely addresses the government of America. Why?
- It may occur to critics that the phrase "founded on the Christian religion" would have a certain meaning to those whose state were "founded on" the Islamic religion -- a "Mehomitan nation". The essential message would be that America was not a Christian theocracy, or a state where the church had political power, as the religious authorities in Muslim nations had power -- which is something no one argues for America.
Update July 2008: We had a visit from Jonn Eidsmoe, author of the book Christianity and the Constitution, and he had some nice things to say about this article, and graciously gave us permission to add some observations he made. Here they are.
****
1. Those who use the Treaty to prove that the United States is not founded upon Christianity argue that it it doesn't matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty said, because only the English version was read to and ratified by the United States Senate. I believe it does matter. A treaty is a contract between two (or more) nations, and an essential element of a contract is a "meeting of minds." If you contract to buy my house from me, and my copy of the contract lists the price as $200,000 and your copy lists the price as $150,000, we do not have a meeting of minds. On a major matter like the purchase price, this lack of a meeting of minds would probably mean the entire contract is invalid. On a less essential matter, it might mean only that the disputed provision is invalid. Likewise, the difference between the English and Arabic versions of the Treaty of Tripoli mean that, at the very least, the alleged Article 11 is invalid. However, I have to add that although the alleged Article 11 of the Treaty is invalid and has no legal force and effect, it might still be of some evidentiary value in understanding how the founders viewed the relationship between Christianity and the founding of the United States government.
2. You make an excellent point when you note that the disputed Article 11 says the government of the United States is not founded upon the Christian religion. The government is not the nation, and the government of the United States is not the same as the state and local governments. In adopting the First Amendment, the Founders clearly intended that there be no established religion at the national level, but they left the states free to have their own establishments. A primary reason for the adoption of the First Amendment establishment clause was the different establishments at the state level -- Congregationalists in New England, Anglicans in the South, Baptists in Rhode Island, Catholics in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, etc. If I had been a Senator at the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli, I might have raised my eyebrows at the wording of Article 11, but I probably wouldn't have considered the statement categorically false. The statement does not directly contradict my understanding that the United States was founded upon Biblical values that were brought to America largely by Christians.
3. You correctly note that the diplomat Joel Barlow was instrumental in the negotiation and drafting of the Treaty. My understanding is that Barlow was a religious skeptic, and he may have used this note from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli to insert this statement into the Treaty. I've also read that Barlow did not know Arabic.
4. I appreciate the fact that you list my book Christianity and the Constitution as recommended reading in your bookstore. Pp. 413-15 of the book is an appendix on the Treaty of Tripoli.
5. Those who cite the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence that this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783. This Treaty, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty Britian recognized the independence of the United States. The Treaty begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... ," and there is no dispute about its validity or its wording.
Last edited:
Wow, I DID confuse you with facts, even so much that you ignored most of my post. I SAID they were "Christians and Deists". The quotes I posted cited "religious" principles.
"We are endowed by our Creator..." nope, they weren't religious at all....oy
I think you just proved my point about anti-Christian sentiment in this country. I posted about "Christians and Deists" and "religious principles" and you immediately responded with an anti-Christians diatribe. You even implied that Christians rewrote history.
Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could.
What would be the point of that? Nobody is arguing that other societies haven't used some of the same principles of government.
Why do you use AD 400 as your starting point for Christianity? Christianity wasn't established by Rome, it was established by God, and was founded in Genesis 3:15, with His promise of Christ.
Just because they were used by other societies doesn't make them any less Biblical or Christian.
SavageEagle
Grandmaster
- Apr 27, 2008
- 19,568
- 38
THis pisses me off to no end.
Just another step closer the unthinkable happening in this Country.
Just another step closer the unthinkable happening in this Country.
I guess you can't so that is the point.
If you can't point to anything in our system of government that is not uniquely Christian then how in any logical sense can you say that our country is founded on Christian principles?
It would be just as true to say that our country was founded pagan on Buddhist principles because those countries all pretty much had similar laws as we do against societies ills & many of them had them before Christianity or Judaism was widespread. Sometimes thousands of years before.
I say that because things that are uniquely Christian (you know, for example the big one - "thou shall have no other gods before me") are conspicuously missing from our system of government (you know, from the Constitution) that tells me that we were founded on the principle of freedom of (or from) religion (you know, like it says in the FIRST Amendment).
If Christianity is "the one true religion" backed by the "one true God" then why do Christians have this overwhelming need to be legitimized by man's law in every country that it moves into? What are you so worried about?
The only problem with that theory is the historical fact that whenever Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) takes over a government bad things happen. I think you need to read a little about the effects of Christianity on that little time in world history known as the Middle Ages. Or see even now the effects that theocracies have on modern countries that haven't been able to move forward with the rest of the planet.
The only reason we are where we are now is due to the diminishing of religion in public life & government enabled by the Renaissance & the Enlightenment (of which our Founders were a product).
The unthinkable happens precisely because religion becomes the government. The ONLY reason we don't have similar problems is because our Constitution precludes religion from taking over power.
I never said they weren't religious. I even acknowledged that most were. The statement was made that the country was founded on "Christian principles". I offered evidence that not all the Founders were Christians (especially the most influential ones) & that our country was therefore not founded on Christianity but on common sense & humanism.
Let me clarify. I am not implying anything. I am say explicitly that Christian controlled government has rewritten history. Now that independent scholarship has started digging & the Christian churches authority is waning is the historical truth coming out. Interestingly the church is trying to provide damage control by saying that the scholars are the ones really rewriting history that they suppressed &/or rewrote originally. Oh, the irony.
Same to you.
Cpt Caveman
Master
Freedom is a uniquely christian principle, isn't it?
Nobody wants Christianity to "take over a government" here friend.
The fact is that our form of government ( a republic not a democracy) is suitable for a moral people and not suitable to an immoral one. Won't work without the individual's own moral guidance being in the fore. That's a far cry from where we are now.
In the end the people here in this country are given the right to worship as they choose or to not worship at all. The government should uphold that.
We still live in the greatest county on the planet, for that, we should all be grateful.
Nobody wants Christianity to "take over a government" here friend.
The fact is that our form of government ( a republic not a democracy) is suitable for a moral people and not suitable to an immoral one. Won't work without the individual's own moral guidance being in the fore. That's a far cry from where we are now.
In the end the people here in this country are given the right to worship as they choose or to not worship at all. The government should uphold that.
We still live in the greatest county on the planet, for that, we should all be grateful.
eatsnopaste
Expert
nice debate, good points on both sides....and we know that a few of us are really good at using the cut and paste buttons...can we cut that down a notch or two in the future, maybe just a couple quotes then a reference link? Juss say'in
Site Supporter
Members online
- rudyman
- BigBoxaJunk
- carsgunsandgirls
- jwamplerusa
- 3GLewie
- Creedmoor
- ABrad15
- Brandon
- acd1010
- DThurston
- Fire Lord
- Zeb
- ramick
- eric001
- Knight Rider
- JimH
- loudgroove
- DoggyDaddy
- snowwalker
- Marii79
- littletommy
- medavis428@
- Merk
- 45sRfun
- Bugzilla
- Born2vette
- Twinsen
- fro65
- Benjamin
- sumphead
- chadm
- mwg
- stale_ranch
- Jtrain
- snorko
- rb288
- Scoutmom
- backtrail540
- jcj54
- BeDome
- semperfi211
- oze
- ShawnC
- Jlasiter
- El Conquistador
- MikeHoncho
- Ncmich011
- Mgderf
- cgoodman21
- Leadeye