How do Freepers respond to the Treaty of Tripoli (1797)?

[expatriot]

How can Freepers say that we are a Christian nation when the historical evidence to the contrary is SO strong. Regarding the question of whether we are a religious nation, the very first vote that was ever recorded as being unanimous in the Senate, Signed by John Adams read

"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 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."

Here is more background on the document

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 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 its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

[deadparrot]

1. How many freepers know what the Treaty of Tripoli is?

How many know what a treaty is?

How many know where Tripoli is?

:)

[trotsky]

2. Exactly.

It's a liberal lie. They'll ignore it and go on proclaiming what Rush told them.

[Clark2008]

23. They know Tripoli is in that Marine song!

Ahem: "From the halls of Montazuma to the shores of Tripoli..."

And they probably only know this from watching "Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C." :D

[Midnight Rambler]

3. They probably think it's a leftist/evolutionist conspiracy

Concocted by the Clintons and the Freemasons to legalize gay marriage and take their guns away.

[liberal43110]

14. And the communists

Don't forget the communists, OK? Especially since the treaty predates any political writings on communism, it would make sense for lunatics to claim that the treaty was a communist plot.

[paineinthearse]

4. How do Freepers respond?

I don't know. Try posting it there and see the reaction.

[expatriot]

6. I haven't been a troll there for a long time.

I used to have like 5 logins and they all got zapped and I never replenished them. I had one log in for a long, long time. Actually, I don't know if its been zapped or not. I am sure I have an active one somewhere.

[paineinthearse]

8. There has been a lot of "freeper activity reporting" tonight

Maybe someone who ventures to the dark side will convey this information.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Well, they are expert at ignoring FACTS.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Renew Deal]

11. lol

:toast:

[Renew Deal]

10. Which people exactly?

"You people are amazing sometimes."

[expatriot]

13. is that a compliment?

I can be amazing sometimes, yes. I like to think more than not.

[Debs]

22. Its called an education

I have known about the Treaty of Tripoli for an awfully long time. Why assume people are ignorant? Why the hostility? Am I sensing some projection here?

[Clark2008]

24. To be honest, I didn't know what it was until a few years back.

I certainly wasn't taught it in school.
Of course, I live in THE state that ratified women's right to vote by the thinnest of margins (and the yellow rose, red rose story is a GOOD story, too), but I wasn't taught that in school, either.
I didn't learn that until Gloria Steinem (imagine that) told me when I was in college.
You'd think a state that could lay claim to this would teach its students this, but, nope, wasn't on the curriculum, apparently. :eyes:

So, having an education isn't necessarily a catch-all - it's the ability to want to continue to learn. ;)

[Al-CIAda]

12. Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:

Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:

Thomas Jefferson:
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Jefferson again:
Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

More Jefferson:
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Jefferson's word for the Bible?
Dunghill.

John Adams:

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?

Also Adams:
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here's Thomas Paine:

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

Finally let's hear from James Madison:

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.


http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

[Old and In the Way]

15. This would make heads explode over at the FR.

Information like this could destroy some long held and cherished delusions on what they think this country was founded on.

[Al-CIAda]

17. The thing is, this is but a mere sampling...lots more available. -n/t

[LiberalFighter]

34. They didn't include the 10 commandments in the Constitution

They didn't require reading the Bible in the Constitution.

They didn't state that there was only one religion or one god in the Constitution or that worship was required.

They didn't require church attendance or set aside Sunday as a holy day in the Constitution.

They didn't put a Christian cross or other religious symbol on the flag.

They didn't name this country New Israel or some religious Christian name.

[mhr]

16. Kick

eom

[Cats Against Frist]

18. Here's how they respond:

They have a list of "pull quotes," rationalizations, revisionist historical "data," and a healthy dose of delusion.

And, most of the time, liberals are too stupid (sorry) to know that you don't get in the "pull quote" contest with them, but you explain the broader concepts of the Enlightenment (Rousseau, nature's god, reason, "self-evidence"), the compromise between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists -- and that some founders were Christians, others Deists -- others agnostics and athiests -- and that this nation was partially founded on Christian cultural beliefs, but that there were other principles upon which this nation was founded, which include egalitarianism, reason, materialism, and religious freedom.

The pull quote game is dangerous, because they just go and pull out-of-context quotes, and think they've won the game. You actually have to make them look like the stupid, ignorant assholes that they are, by providing a comprehensive argument. Of course, this only works if you can get them to sit still that long and quit thinking about Mammon Jesus, and what his NASCAR entry might look like.

I'm a LIBERAL Christian Libertarian -- send them to me.

[kenny blankenship]

19. Can't You Guess?

They'd say that it's perfectly moral to lie--to Infidels. After all, they're all going to Hell so you won't be seeing them in the next life.
And to foreigners in general. You can't tell me they are as Christian as we are--Church of England? Why not just worship the Pope of Rome! Catholicism? Why not just make pederasty a sacrament! No, the only real Americans are Christians and the only real Christians are Protestants who believe that most of their neighbors are predestined to Hell without possible reprieve.
And it's ok to lie to Liberals. That should be self-explanatory.
And, well, also whenever it's more convenient than to acknowledge some difficult facts.

So, the Godly Founding Fathers didn't really mean all that about America being a secular country with no bias against Islam or towards Christianity. They were just setting a trap for some Debbil Worshippin' dark-skinned savages. Which is what God would want them to do as Christian men safeguarding the creation of a Christian country.

The Constitution as they're fond of saying was never meant to be a suicide pact; but for that matter neither are the Ten Commandments at least where God's Elect are concerned. Those who are definitely Heaven bound may break any and all of them--and they'll surely have to many times in order to establish Christ's reign over all the Earth.

[WMliberal]

20. They call you a Musselman

:P

The only comeback I've ever heard on it is that since the Barbary states no longer exist, the treaty is null and void, consequently, so is everything written on it.
Of course, I brought up the fact that the statement that "the US is in no sense founded on the Christian religion" is a statement of known fact in the document, not a term of the treaty. The Freeper just changed the subject instead of replying.

[adwon]

21. Point of fact

The state/government is not the nation.

[Ediacara]

25. Point of fact

The wording is "the States" which is 1790s shorthand for The United States of America.

[adwon]

26. ?

My point was that the state (in the generic sense of government) is not the same as the nation. The nation is the people who inhabit the territory that the state is charged with governing.

If we're shooting to say the same thing, sorry for being redundant.

[Toots]

31. Actually the state is the nation and this was the first treaty ever writte

by the new nation the United States of America. It is/was as are all treaties "The Supreme Law of the Land"

[WMliberal]

40. No, the state is not the nation

according to my handy-dandy OED:
State-n. 3a. Political community under one government.

Nation-n. Community of people of mainly common descent, history, language, etc. forming a state or inhabiting a territory.


These two often coincide, but sometimes not. Iraq for example, is NOT a nation-state. It is a state inhabited by Kurds, Arabs, and Persians. The U.S. was not then and hardly is now a nation.

[NoodleBoy]

27. You know how they respond to it? Same way they respond whenever they're

proved wrong-- they don't.

They either leave the thread alone, or change the subject, and, once in a while, you get the really bright bulb who calls you a "ninny liberal" who "like(s) to argue with your emotions."

That always makes me smile. I've heard that response to gun control, the Schiavo case, choice, economics, etc, in one form or another. My favorite, though, was when I and others who agreed with me were called "ninny liberals." Mind you, this was from a supposed tough-guy conservative who really likes his guns who used the term "ninny."

[Al-CIAda]

28. Seems appropriate to kick this now-

[kodi]

29. How? You mean you really don't know?

"911 changed everything."

in future decades that phrase will be used as a metaphor for any drastic change in processes or events, real or not. it will be the equivalent to "shit happens"...."only nixon could go to china" ....."911 changed everything."

stop loving your wife? tell her "sorry, but 911 changed everything."

hit another car? tell the other driver "sorry, but 911 changed everything."

bank calls in your loan? tell them "sorry, but 911 changed everything."

literal proof that america is not a christian nation? "sorry, but 911 changed everything."

reckon its the most powerful forced ever known to mankind, since it can reach back in time and change the facts.


and the only reason i can understand it now is because.....911 changed everything.

[murielm99]

30. This gives you some idea of what they do.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

I found this website after my father told me there was no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

One of the astounding things they do is to use Isaiah 33:22, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king - He himself will save us."

They claim that that is the Biblical principle that was the basis of the three branches of our government.

This is nonsense. This part of Isaiah warns against foreign alliances, denounces social injustice, and anticipates the glory of the coming king, Zion restored.

Of course, they have an out-of-context Bible verse for everything.

They also claim that Secular Humanism is a religion.

A good website for understanding all sorts of religions, is http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/

They include all the court decisions regarding separation of church and state.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State also gives good suggestions on fighting these bogus arguments.

Quoting our founding fathers, or quoting scripture is a waste of time. They will just come back with their own quotes. Logic is often a waste of time, too. While it is possible that a few of them are still reachable, it is best to concentrate on making sure that other people are not swayed by their twisted arguments.

[Toots]

32. the Lord is our king -

One of the things that makes America great is that we are not subject to a nobility. We have no king as a nation. We are proud of that fact and in fact it is the main ingredient into our greatness. Please don't try and shove a king down our throats whether real of fictional.

[Al-CIAda]

33. That is just retarded.

Our nation was founded on the Greek ideas. Any true student and learned person knows this. What fucking retards!

The Christian Nation Myth
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html


And this is among the many dangers of these nutjobs-


The Godly Must Be Crazy:Christian-right views are swaying politicians and threatening the environment
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/

[Secular-Tool]

35. Look no further than David Barton

With funding from and promotion by the James Dobson cabal, pseudo-historian David Barton has been promoting the "America Is a Nation, Made By Christians, For Christians" for almost 20 years.

His "textbooks" are used widely in evangelical "Christian Academies." He earns big bucks speaking to Evangelical and fundamentalist organizations.

His books, videotapes, and educational materials sell by the millions to Dobson's and others of similar persuasion's followers.

He often is presented as "Dr. David Barton, Ph.D." His real educational background is a B.A. from Oral Roberts University and an honorary Ph.D from Liberty University--Falwell and the Moonie's college.

His "History" wouldn't stand the light of day in the legitimate History Profession. Not a single of his assertions could be upheld using the kinds of research methods employed by Historians for the past 100 years.

Of course, those in the history profession are part of the liberal conspiracy to turn the US into an atheist, secular nation.

My question is, Is Barton such a zealot that he actually believes that Ben Franklin was an "evangelical Christian" just like him in spite the actual words of Franklin to the contrary, or does he cynically exploit the fears of the evangelistic fundies to cash in?"

Who knows.

Here's some good links to learn more.

Barton's website: http://www.wallbuilders.com/

A good refutation of his "history" http://members.tripod.com/~candst/boston1.htm

[Al-CIAda]

41. Complete lunatics. -n/t

[Igel]

36. They have a fairly simple response.

The first war and treaty had to do with Islamists who justified pillaging Western ships as booty properly claimable by Muslims, while Europe sat on its behind afraid to deal with the Barbary pirates.

It was necessary to stipulate that the US was not a religious state in order to enter into the treaty; the bias and discrimination came from the other side. The US was not founded with a state religion, so it's a perfectly reasonable statement. Adams was able to say things like the US Constitution requires a religious and moral people, but that's not incompatible with saying that the the US wasn't founded as a Christian nation. It simply was one; the overwhelming majority of people were Christian of some stripe, albeit the upper echelons of society were dedicated to finding rationalistic explanations for laws that people two centuries before had given biblical explanations for. It's simply not possible to say that the population wasn't Christian; "Christianity" was, and still is, a rather diverse group of sects crossed with a diverse set of philosophies.

Conservatives, like progressives, are also a rather diverse lot. Many acknowledge the non-sectarian basis of the US government; many do not. But none have a problem with the realization that while the US wasn't founded with a state religion, individual states could--and frequently did--have either a state religion or deeply sect-based laws. But since the treaty wasn't, say, with Maryland, but with the US government, it's not a problem.

[Nikki Stone 1]

37. If you put that quote on a T-shirt, I will buy it

Seriously.

[Hosnon]

38. As will I

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

39. Whoa, good find

I knew about the Barbary Pirates but never knew the notion of freedom of religion and multidenominationalism was so explicitly spelled out in a treaty approved by the US government.