Treaty of Tripoli, our founders say explicitly USA NOT founded

[oregonindy]

on the christian religion.


I love history. So much there, hard to re-write and all you have to do is want to dig for the truth.

The significance of this article that is often overlooked or ignored is that it stated categorically that the United States of America is not founded upon the Christian religion, and that this treaty, with that statement intact, was read before and passed unanimously by the United States Senate, and was signed by the President of the United States without a hint of controversey or discord, and remains a definitive statement from the "Founding Fathers" on the secular nature of American government

Preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 and ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797




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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

4 good sites on it.
The first one is the actual minutes taken from The Journal of the Senate including the Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate, John Adams Administration 1791-1801



http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm
http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html

[Kagemusha]

1. I guess the proper response is, "Well they lied to the Saracens."

I've decided that's going to be their response from previous times this old issue has come up... even though I very much disagree with that view personally.

[oregonindy]

10. the entire government lied to them? unanimously? thats a hard

to even begin to swallow.

[Swamp Rat]

21. So, respond by saying: "prove it!"

"Prove the entire government and every official lied, as well as all the newspapers/journalists and academicians. Prove EVERYONE in the USA lied to the Saracens."

My new favorite way of shutting up these dimwits is by saying "prove it!"

[rodeodance]

2. someone should put this in the box of all Congresspeople

[Midnight Rambler]

3. And treaties are as binding as any U.S. law, according to the Constitution

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[oregonindy]

5. thanks....I was getting ready to post that. :)

[banana republican]

18. help me understand this...

the priority is that treaties are the supreme law; then secondly is the constitution and third the laws of states.

Is that right???


If so what about the Geneva Convention????

If so what about treaties related to to torture???

or treaties relating to War Crimes???

or treaties....

am i confused?????

[electropop]

19. Constitution is supreme

unless Republicans are running the country; then it's every man for himself.

Think of it this way: it's the Constitution which defines the process for entering into treaties, so it takes precedence.

[underpants]

25. AND the US ratified (after signing it) all parts of the Geneva Convention

Except the last two protocols.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020212.html
In 1882, U.S. President Chester Arthur signed the treaty, making the U.S. the 32nd nation to do so. The U.S. Senate ratified it shortly thereafter. At the same time, the American Association of the Red Cross was formed (many nations had begun to create their own Red Cross organizations in concert with the first Geneva Convention).

The second Geneva Convention in 1907 extended protection to wounded armed forces at sea and to shipwreck victims. The third convention in 1929 detailed the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention in 1949 revised the previous conventions and addressed the rights of civilians in times of war. This convention is said to be the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law. It was amended in 1977 with two protocols that further protect civilians during wartime and address armed conflicts within a nation.

According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they're written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.

[oregonindy]

31. Heres a GREAT article on the constitution and god

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen

by BROOKE ALLEN



It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 .

more at the link.

[thefool_wa]

27. Correct me if I'm wrong...

<original post removed>

I stand corrected.

[Xithras]

28. Treaties don't override the Constitution.

But yes, anything that isn't unconstituional can be legislated by treaty with another nation. That's why these free trade treaties piss off environmental groups so badly. The US passes all kinds of laws to protect everything from workers rights to the environment, but one little treaty claiming that "no law shall be passed to inhibit trade" can overturn those laws if they're shown to impede trade. One big example of that is MTBE. California banned MTBE in 1999 after it was found in out groundwater and found to be a carcinogen. A Canadian company sued to overturn the law because it violated the free trade provisions of NAFTA, and they not only got mucho bucks in compensation, but we still have MTBE in our gasoline today (it's being phased out).

[wuushew]

4. Why did we go to war for private goods outside our waters?

Wasn't it just a 19th century version of wars for oil?

How many merchant men died for the ransoms of the Barbary states vs. the number of casualties both naval and marine when we invaded?

Is any human life worth an infinite amount of monetary or material good?

[dcfirefighter]

23. Is any human life worth . . . Yes.

It's done every day, when people vote to fund (or not fund) safety.

A certain amount of additional funding could save one life per year from:
disease
accident
fire
natural disaster
etc.

You can calculate the value of a human life, it follows a pattern:
Generally preventing a random death is worth more than one biased by personal choice
Generally preventing a long, drawn out death is worth more than a quick death
Generally preventing a young death is worth more than preventing an old death
Generally preventing a rich death is worth more than preventing a poor death.

Just by looking at public funding, or consumer spending, but the numbers range from 1/2 to several million, usually.

For example, preventing the death of an airplane passenger is given a much higher priority than preventing the death of an automobile passenger (who has more control of his destiny). It's all about fear, not rational choices.

[The Whiskey Priest]

6. Yes, but John Adams was a Dieist

So what do you expect....

[oregonindy]

7. and your point is?

what about the senators?

It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous! (The next time was to honor George Washington.)There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty.

the vote they cast was ordinary, routine, normal. It was, in other words, quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified, that "the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." After a bloody and costly civil war and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment determined that citizens of the United States cannot have their rights abridged by state or local governments either, religious liberty for all was established. Governmental neutrality in matters of religion remains the enduring basis for that liberty.


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

[The Whiskey Priest]

8. I dont have a point

Just dont want Foulwell and Robbersome mad at me.....

[oregonindy]

9. LOL...got it.

[madrchsod]

11. praise jesus!

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s




use your walmart card and receive jesus`s blessing

[Barad Simith]

12. recommended! (nt)

[NMDemDist2]

13. and the New Congress didn't "keep" Christmas either

The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a result, Christmas was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston. Anyone exhibiting the Christmas spirit was fined five shillings. By contrast, in the Jamestown settlement, Captain John Smith reported that Christmas was enjoyed by all and passed without incident.

After the American Revolution, English customs fell out of favor, including Christmas. In fact, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America's new constitution. Christmas wasn't declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/holidays/christmas/real3.html

[oregonindy]

14. Kewl. thanks for the link!

[Czolgosz]

15. Don't confuse the issue with "evidence" or your damned "original intent"

malarkey. Every good American knows that the Ouija board game of "spot the original intent of the framers" only works when you're trying to screw the worker or the consumer in favor of a right-wing jihadist or a corrupt corporation. If you don't believe me, just ask Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito.

[ck4829]

16. You know RW'ers aren't people who let little old facts get in their way.

[UTUSN]

17. Wingnuts igore JEFFERSON's "wall of separation"

I sent one this one, thanks.

[Karenina]

20. Kick!

:kick:

[oregonindy]

22. A little bit more from a friend who did some digging

Well, I had to look that one up for myself. Found the Treaty of Tripoli and Article 11 on the Library of Congress site.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=002/llsp002.db&recNum=23
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=002/llsp002.db&recNum=24

Also found this in the Library of Congress while looking for the treaty.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html
Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the “Mahamdan,” the Jew and the “pagan.” Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. “True freedom,” Lee asserted, “embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion.”

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature “rejected by a great majority” an effort to limit the bill’s scope “in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan.”

[rucky]

24. Thanks for looking this up! I heard it mentioned on the radio...

but forgot the name of the treaty by the time I got home.

:yourock:

[UTUSN]

26. Guess What My Local Pet Wingnut Replied to This.

Months ago I had sent him JEFFERSON's "wall of separation" piece. Now I sent him the O.P. He replied, "What problem do you have with Christianity? Do you consider yourself a Christian?"

I fell into the trap and responded with my thoughts on Spirituality vs Pharaseeism. Too late, I realized he had blurred the issues. I just responded again, "How, in your mind, does 'separation of church and State' EQUATE with 'being ANTI-CHRISTIAN'?"

[oregonindy]

29. good response at the end!

[oregonindy]

30. I'd like to save this discussion on my computer. Is there a way to do

that easily or do I have to cut and paste everything in word?