The Treaty of Tripoli: The entirety of the text below was drawn from a review of the Treaty of Tripoli. I stumbled upon it in research of the early years of our Nation...slatten49...

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

The entirety of the text below was drawn from a review of the Treaty of Tripoli. I stumbled upon it in research of the early years of our Nation...slatten49

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its' origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. government to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty Of Tripoli. In Article 11, it 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."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as President). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat, served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the Revolutionary Army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later, he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the Secretary of State, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his Presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and it was officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams' signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through it's publication in the Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June, 1797.

So, here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect. 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

arvadaian

slatten49 wrote:

The entirety of the text below was drawn from a review of the Treaty of Tripoli. I stumbled upon it in research of the early years of our Nation...slatten49

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its' origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. government to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty Of Tripoli. In Article 11, it 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."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as President). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat, served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the Revolutionary Army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later, he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the Secretary of State, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his Presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and it was officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams' signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through it's publication in the Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June, 1797.

So, here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect. 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

The entirety of the text below was drawn from a re... (show quote)

Thank you!
Boy are you going to catch some s**t over this one.
This should give new meaning to the word apoplexy.

Tyster

slatten49 wrote:

The entirety of the text below was drawn from a review of the Treaty of Tripoli. I stumbled upon it in research of the early years of our Nation...slatten49

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its' origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. government to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty Of Tripoli. In Article 11, it 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."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as President). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat, served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the Revolutionary Army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later, he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the Secretary of State, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his Presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and it was officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams' signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through it's publication in the Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June, 1797.

So, here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect. 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

The entirety of the text below was drawn from a re... (show quote)

There can be too much read into those words however. It is true and the direction of the founding fathers that the government is not subject to Christian interpretation or reliant upon Christian precepts in its operations. They wanted to make it clear that religion is religion and government is government. Government should not interfere with religion and religion should not interfere with government.

But Christianity was a major influence on how the government was set up. The bicameral system for Congress is based on the structure of Presbyterian governance. Most of the founding fathers were religious, but sought a system where the government would and could not dictate religious practices.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Tyster wrote:

There can be too much read into those words howeve... (show quote)

Very well said, Tyster. :thumbup: There is no reason to argue your points made. Good response!

The point of my posting this was to get viable discourse going, and your post is a good start. :wink:

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

arvadaian wrote:

Thank you!
Boy are you going to catch some s**t over this one.
This should give new meaning to the word apoplexy.

Thank you for your response, sir, but.....

I would like to think that the posting of this article will get thoughtful discussion going. I trust the courtesy and intelligence of many on the OPP will keep the dialogue meaningful and respectful.

As I just said, Tyster's response is of the kind I had hoped for. :thumbup:

arvadaian

slatten49 wrote:

Thank you for your response, sir, but.....

I would like to think that the posting of this article will get thoughtful discussion going. I trust the courtesy and intelligence of many on the OPP will keep the dialogue meaningful and respectful.

As I just said, Tyster's response is of the kind I had hoped for. :thumbup:

So far so good. Rational discussion I hope we can keep it going.
I'm rather bemused as to why anyone would want to mix religion and politics. I like the idea of keeping them separate.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

arvadaian wrote:

So far so good. Rational discussion I hope we can keep it going.
I'm rather bemused as to why anyone would want to mix religion and politics. I like the idea of keeping them separate.

With many of the Founding Fathers, reportedly having been Free Masons, I find it interesting that one of the principles (not Tenents) of Free Masonry is to keep religion and politics out of discussion amongst members, both individually and collectively...as I understand it. Am I wrong :?:

MrEd Loc: Georgia

arvadaian wrote:

So far so good. Rational discussion I hope we can keep it going.
I'm rather bemused as to why anyone would want to mix religion and politics. I like the idea of keeping them separate.

There were two books used when they were writing the Constitution and that was the Bible and Vattels Law of Nations.

"During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican (as opposed to a monarchist) living in Europe sent three copies of Vattels Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklins letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:"

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/vattel/

The Bible, while not used in a religious sense, but was used to set up the government following God's laws as laid down in the old Testament on how a government should work.

Both of these books were used to write our Constitution, but neither of them were used to control the people by giving the government ways to make us do something that is against our best interest.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
What exactly does it mean when they say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There were established religions before and at the time of writing the Constitution and even after it was approved in 1789. States continued to have established religions, yet our Constitution seems to prohibit that practice. In point of fact, it does not, it only prohibits CONGRESS from establishing a religion, NOT THE STATES. While it is true that all the States have dropped established religions, there is no law that says they cannot do that today if they feel like it and the people v**e it in. Some State Constitutions forbid that act, but not all of them.

What pray tell, is an established religion? " The essential characteristic of established religion in England up to the time of the founding of our country was coercion by the civil government: The people were forced to practice the established denomination under pain of death, imprisonment & fines, and were forced to financially support the established church."
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/engel-v-vitale/
It really wasn't that different in the colonies.

In the end, while the Bible was used to help form our government, it was not used to control the people or to give them authority over how we use religion. It also keeps them from passing any laws that control religion in any way. When it says Congress shall make no laws, it means exactly that.

That applies also to the Supreme Court, only more so. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY LAWS. All their rulings about religion that have been taken as law are bogus and mean NOTHING. They have no force of law. States are free to establish a religion if they so choose and we are allowed to pray in school if we so choose. The government cannot stop us legally. In fact, it is illegal for them to try and that includes the Supreme Court. Just because the Supreme Court says something does not make it so.

Our Constitution was written to keep this government OUT of religion and to LIMIT what they were allowed to do. Until the people LEARN it, we have no hope of ever getting our country back.

arvadaian

MrEd wrote:

There were two books used when they were writing the Constitution and that was the Bible and Vattels Law of Nations.

"During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican (as opposed to a monarchist) living in Europe sent three copies of Vattels Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklins letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:"

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/vattel/

The Bible, while not used in a religious sense, but was used to set up the government following God's laws as laid down in the old Testament on how a government should work.

Both of these books were used to write our Constitution, but neither of them were used to control the people by giving the government ways to make us do something that is against our best interest.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
What exactly does it mean when they say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There were established religions before and at the time of writing the Constitution and even after it was approved in 1789. States continued to have established religions, yet our Constitution seems to prohibit that practice. In point of fact, it does not, it only prohibits CONGRESS from establishing a religion, NOT THE STATES. While it is true that all the States have dropped established religions, there is no law that says they cannot do that today if they feel like it and the people v**e it in. Some State Constitutions forbid that act, but not all of them.

What pray tell, is an established religion? " The essential characteristic of established religion in England up to the time of the founding of our country was coercion by the civil government: The people were forced to practice the established denomination under pain of death, imprisonment & fines, and were forced to financially support the established church."
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/engel-v-vitale/
It really wasn't that different in the colonies.

In the end, while the Bible was used to help form our government, it was not used to control the people or to give them authority over how we use religion. It also keeps them from passing any laws that control religion in any way. When it says Congress shall make no laws, it means exactly that.

That applies also to the Supreme Court, only more so. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY LAWS. All their rulings about religion that have been taken as law are bogus and mean NOTHING. They have no force of law. States are free to establish a religion if they so choose and we are allowed to pray in school if we so choose. The government cannot stop us legally. In fact, it is illegal for them to try and that includes the Supreme Court. Just because the Supreme Court says something does not make it so.

Our Constitution was written to keep this government OUT of religion and to LIMIT what they were allowed to do. Until the people LEARN it, we have no hope of ever getting our country back.

There were two books used when they were writing t... (show quote)

The plan also was to keep religion out of government.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

MrEd wrote:

There were two books used when they were writing the Constitution and that was the Bible and Vattels Law of Nations.

"During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican (as opposed to a monarchist) living in Europe sent three copies of Vattels Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklins letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:"

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/vattel/

The Bible, while not used in a religious sense, but was used to set up the government following God's laws as laid down in the old Testament on how a government should work.

Both of these books were used to write our Constitution, but neither of them were used to control the people by giving the government ways to make us do something that is against our best interest.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
What exactly does it mean when they say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There were established religions before and at the time of writing the Constitution and even after it was approved in 1789. States continued to have established religions, yet our Constitution seems to prohibit that practice. In point of fact, it does not, it only prohibits CONGRESS from establishing a religion, NOT THE STATES. While it is true that all the States have dropped established religions, there is no law that says they cannot do that today if they feel like it and the people v**e it in. Some State Constitutions forbid that act, but not all of them.

What pray tell, is an established religion? " The essential characteristic of established religion in England up to the time of the founding of our country was coercion by the civil government: The people were forced to practice the established denomination under pain of death, imprisonment & fines, and were forced to financially support the established church."
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/engel-v-vitale/
It really wasn't that different in the colonies.

In the end, while the Bible was used to help form our government, it was not used to control the people or to give them authority over how we use religion. It also keeps them from passing any laws that control religion in any way. When it says Congress shall make no laws, it means exactly that.

That applies also to the Supreme Court, only more so. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY LAWS. All their rulings about religion that have been taken as law are bogus and mean NOTHING. They have no force of law. States are free to establish a religion if they so choose and we are allowed to pray in school if we so choose. The government cannot stop us legally. In fact, it is illegal for them to try and that includes the Supreme Court. Just because the Supreme Court says something does not make it so.

Our Constitution was written to keep this government OUT of religion and to LIMIT what they were allowed to do. Until the people LEARN it, we have no hope of ever getting our country back.

There were two books used when they were writing t... (show quote)

"Many religious activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States Government derived from Christian foundations...that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.

Of course, many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity."

Mr. Ed, respectfully, unless you equal the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court, your interpretation of the Constitution does not hold water as law. Most all of what I read from your post indicates your opinion as to interpretation. Your argument regarding the Bible and Vattel's Law of Nations does not stand up to scrutiny, either, with regard to any significant contributions to the Constitution. This matter has been rebutted in previous posts to you over the same issue.

"The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: 'We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect...' The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Father's purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

'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.'

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment in his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non-religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention."

Original article by Jim Walker
Originated: 11 April 1997
Additions: 26 December, 2004

BTW, don't bring up the Declaration of Independence as 'proof' of a Christian America. It does not represent any law of the United States. Its' historical significance was that it announced the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various greivances with them.
It holds no legal power today, only that historical significance, which is certainly considerable.

Also, reread the original post's main thrust of argument. Refute that, if you will.