Treaty of Tripoli: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded o

Link

I though this was incredibly interesting. I never came across this before and would like to discuss Art. 11.

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 Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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.

Controversy of the translation aside. Even back in 1797 many viewed the separation of church and state as very important. And it's also important that the treaty was what was presented and ratified by the senate.

So how do those that say this is a christian nation feel that we have a treaty, from the founding days of the country, that contradicts that notion?

Simply put, the US was founded by people smart enough to put aside their personal beliefs in favor of the rule of law.

They understood that lack of separation of faith from the governing of a nation could lead us down a wrong path.

I myself am christian, yet I would not want someone running this country that could not separate their personal beliefs from the rule of law.

doesn't makes sense.

if article 11 was included to alleviate the fears of the pasha of tripoli, that the united states wasn't in itself a Christian nation, then why wasn't it included in the arab text which the pasha of tripoli ratified.

its for his benefit, it should be in his copy of the treaty.

You can put as much proof as you want that America isn't a Christian nation and there will be people that won't believe it. The main reason why people think this is because the words creator and lord is in the constitution. Except for one notable instance none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.

America is founded upon the sacred Constitution, that guarantees the freedom of religion.

A nation's religious make-up is based solely upon its citizens, and 95% of americans are christians, and thus its beliefs for society's moral and ethical behaviour are largely based upon progressive christian teachings.

It would be the same for another country, such as Malaysia or Indonesia, which are secular nations, guarantees the freedom of religion, but majority of its citizens are muslims, and thus its beliefs for society's moral and ethical behaviour are largely based upon progressive Islamic teachings.

The religious make up is fully dependent upon the citizenry's beliefs.

Should one day the religious demographics changed, such that muslim makes up the majority of american citizens, or christians make up the majority of malaysian or indonesian citizens, so too will be the behaviours be re-aligned to the majority's beliefs.

BUT being secular nations, it is ruled by Constitutional laws still and no one will be left behind, or force against his will, for minorities DO have that guarantee of religious freedom.

For all the parsing and hair splitting, may all realizes that in the end, the vital and critical CENTRAL TENETS of the Bible and the Koran are the same, and we mankind had only been worshipping the same Creator who is known by many names across time and space.

Gnostics and atheists too , are only children of our common Creator, our fellow humans, only have yet to know Him on their own free will. Secularity gives them time to be aware of the truths of religion - which is not just about man made rituals, but only the civilisation guides for moral and ethical progress and evolution of mankind that they too had been adopting the more critical tenets in their daily lives.

reply to post by randomname


Because it wasn't written for his benefit, it was written for the benefit of future generations of Americans to prevent the exploitation of religion as a means of forcing the minority religions into behaving or believing in one thing or the other.

A lot of people get the Constitution confused with the Declaration of Independence, which does have the word "creator" in it, as well as "God".

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.

What a lot of people also don't understand about the DoC is that it wasn't meant to create independence of a nation, but of people that had been living under tyranny (whether actual or perceived). As a good portion of people had come to the colonies to escape religious persecution and to be able to worship, or not worship, God or Gods that they wanted to, this verbiage was appropriate.

But it did not create a nation...the Constitution did, and a secular one at that. Which is as it should be. I am not a Christian per se, but a follower of Christ, yet I can readily realize that a nation created under religion would be as oppressive as any U.S.S.R., North Korea, or China...or any of the several Middle Eastern nations today.

/TOA

Just out of curiosity, if a treaty was to turn up significantly mentioning God, would that show we were founded as a Christian nation? How about two?

Here's the point of America.

This country was founded on the idea that the PEOPLE should govern this great nation, and they shouldn't be beholden to laws dictated by any religion.

The right wingers in this country want a theocracy like Iran. As history will show you time and time again, theocracies don't put a whole lot of freedoms into the people's hands, instead the freedoms go to the clergy.

All religions have their place. And this country has a great investment in freedom of religion so that a person can choose their own path to whatever god they believe in.

But religion should not be in our government, and we should be very wary of those who wish to get elected based on their faith instead of their promise to do the bidding of the people.

I believe that if a person tells you that they will listen to their god over the constituents that they want to elect them. That person is completely unfit for any political office.

reply to post by HauntWok

The right wingers in this country want a theocracy like Iran. As history will show you time and time again, theocracies don't put a whole lot of freedoms into the people's hands, instead the freedoms go to the clergy.

I suppose there might be a small number of people found who will believe in any position you can imagine. But, I'm nearly certain that fery few people, if any, from the right want anything near an Iranian-style theocracy.

I'm so surprised by that statement that I'd like to take a look at the source of it. I'm assuming that by "right-wingers" you mean at least 50% of conservatives or Republicans.

reply to post by charles1952

I suppose there might be a small number of people found who will believe in any position you can imagine. But, I'm nearly certain that fery few people, if any, from the right want anything near an Iranian-style theocracy.

Just look at any of these candidates, look at the one I linked:

“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

There's a theocracy for you. Instead of trying to be the voice of his constituency in congress, he instead wants to listen to biblical law and allow that biblical law to dictate to him how to vote, and what to do with our tax payer dollars.

Don't you see the slippery slope this is? When a candidate listens to his faith instead of listening to the people that elected him, there's a problem a very serious problem.

I'm so surprised by that statement that I'd like to take a look at the source of it. I'm assuming that by "right-wingers" you mean at least 50% of conservatives or Republicans.

I am talking about those that want to usurp this great nation and install a government run by cannon law instead of the Constitution. Those that hold their religion above the will of the governed. That in my opinion isn't right. And if a candidate has the view that their religion should be above anything else. They shouldn't be in politics.

reply to post by buster2010


The court system still uses "day of our lord" till this very day, all across the US.

Do you guys really need a second line? Really?

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by charles1952

 

I suppose there might be a small number of people found who will believe in any position you can imagine. But, I'm nearly certain that fery few people, if any, from the right want anything near an Iranian-style theocracy.

Just look at any of these candidates, look at the one I linked:

“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

There's a theocracy for you. Instead of trying to be the voice of his constituency in congress, he instead wants to listen to biblical law and allow that biblical law to dictate to him how to vote, and what to do with our tax payer dollars.

Don't you see the slippery slope this is? When a candidate listens to his faith instead of listening to the people that elected him, there's a problem a very serious problem.

I'm so surprised by that statement that I'd like to take a look at the source of it. I'm assuming that by "right-wingers" you mean at least 50% of conservatives or Republicans.

I am talking about those that want to usurp this great nation and install a government run by cannon law instead of the Constitution. Those that hold their religion above the will of the governed. That in my opinion isn't right. And if a candidate has the view that their religion should be above anything else. They shouldn't be in politics.

"That in my opinion isn't right. And if a candidate has the view that their religion should be above anything else. They shouldn't be in politics."

Is not politics religion itself? By definition of course.

What is the difference between politics and religion?

When the political system brings charges against you in this Country, it does so at the behest and command of the State. A fictitious entity that controls everything and sees everything. Omnipotent.

Sounds like God to me.

Politics and religion are so closely correlative, that Im not sure there is a difference.

Definition for religion:

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Definition for Politics:

1. (used with a sing. verb)
a. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
b. Political science.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
a. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.) "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" (Jeffrey Archer).
b. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?
3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political life: studied law with a view to going into politics; felt that politics was a worthwhile career.
4. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive.
5. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes and positions: His politics on that issue is his own business. Your politics are clearly more liberal than mine.
6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.
Usage Note: Politics, although plural in form, takes a singular verb when used to refer to the art or science of governing or to political science: Politics has been a concern of philosophers since Plato. But in its other senses politics can take either a singular or plural verb. Many other nouns that end in -ics behave similarly, and the user is advised to consult specific entries for precise information.

Both are centered around code, rituals, and governing of lives. And God of course.

There is no difference between religion and politics, and never has been.

reply to post by HermitShip

There is no difference between religion and politics, and never has been.

That's not correct. Government is there by a mandate from the masses, not the dictates from singular individuals demanding a code of conduct or suffer the wrath of an unseen entity.

We the People are this government. Though, some of us seem to forget that fact.

reply to post by HauntWok

Dear HauntWok,

You've raised an important question, and while I can try to answer it, I'll probably be a bit fuzzy. I'm sure someone will do a better job.

“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate

I assume that the part you object to is "I will endeavor to follow Him . . . in every position I advocate." Forgive me, but here comes the fuzzy, disorganized part.

Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world. He did not have any particular interest in writing one kind of a law over another. He was intensely personal, not organizational. He wanted to rule hearts, not countries.

What were Jesus' principles? Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. What laws did Jesus require other than those? I'm not offended by a politician who says he will follow those principles. I hope you don't believe that following Jesus means he will vote for a law banning the consumption of pork, or the stoning of adultresses.

Listening to his faith requires him to listen to his constituents. He would probably say, "God has called me to this position to serve the people who elected me. If I fall short of that I would be doing wrong."

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Unfortunately, code of cannon law is a fundamental aspect of the Christian Faith.

It would be as outrageous as someone trying to be elected by saying. "I will follow only Sharia Law in everything I do and every position I advocate."

Would you be likely to vote for someone who advocates Sharia law?

Don't get me wrong, it's fine that he has faith in something. I really don't care what he personally believes in. But the second he crosses the threshold into our government, he, and any other candidate needs to leave their personal beliefs at home and focus on working for the American people who elected them.

That shouldn't be a problem. If it is, they shouldn't be in politics.

reply to post by HauntWok

Unfortunately, code of cannon law is a fundamental aspect of the Christian Faith.

The Code of Cannon law only applies to the rules of the Catholic Church and it's members. It doesn't have anything to do with any other Christians, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the country.

Besides, that politician said he was going to follow God, he didn't say he would follow the laws for the management of the Catholic Church.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." -Thomas Paine

reply to post by HauntWok


I AM the people--the mob--the crowd--the mass.

reply to post by charles1952


Federally Admin'd or not... There are 3 powerful city-states dotted around the globe. Take a few guesses: