Banned
That's been my main focus, that this new country was made up of primarily Christians, and that influenced both the writing of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine
If that's halfway, I can live with that for the sake of this debate.
Banned
OK, how about the ever present "In God We Trust" on just about everything to do with our government? Or "In The Day Of Our Lord?"
Fair enough. Sorry, it isn't "your" war on Christianity. I'll rephrase that to "the secularists war on Christianity.
I'm just going to take it for granted here that you already know.
On the authority bestowed on me by GOD!
Senior Member
You make some very good points. On the boldened area above I would point out that the Constitution wasn't ratified until after the Bill of Rights were added. There was a war going on between the Federalists and the Anti Federalists which is a good part of the theme of this thread... check out this link: http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm
Also when the Federal Government was established it was to the states like the European Union is to the European States and it was never considered to have much power. The US Federal Government got it's power through the Buck Act, a trick to bypass the states to deal direct with state citizens... the Social Security Card is a state citizens contract with the federal government according to that act that makes the citizen federal property. Check out this link http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html the entire link is a two week read but the Buck Act is at the bottom of the page (about an inch and a quarter on your scroll) from the bottom.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Hahaha! LULzzzzz
The states are beholden to the Federal Constitution. The federal government can't make laws that restrict state rights that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but they sure as hell can regulate on those that are. And the reason Mass. is no longer a theocracy? Because it's unconstitutional. Constitutional law and the rights guaranteed therein trump state laws. The Judicial system agrees and always has. States cannot make laws respecting an establishment of religion because they violate the first amendment of the Federal Constitution. Blue laws are unconstitutional. BUT, there's a loophole. They get around this trivial little unconstitutionality by giving secular reasoning for it such as saying it's in the state's interest to not sell alcohol for atleast one day a week, which happens to coincide with the Christian Sabbath.It's the same thing as so-called "Intelligent Design." It's just creationism with a pseudo-scientific name. Religious nuts trying to enforce their agenda on the unsuspecting public. Luckily the courts saw through that bit of creationism nonsense, but some fall through the cracks. Like the fact that some self-righteous pricks in the state congress think they can dictate when I can buy a six-pack. It's an outrage.
Last edited by Hagbard Celine; 11-26-2007 at 04:53 PM.
Extra Heavy
As you have resorted to this desperate denial of reality, it is patently clear that you have lost this debate. You may now post your emoticon of defeat.
The fact that the Founders translated the Latin "Anno Domini" to the plain English "In the Year of Our Lord" speaks only to their intent to use plain English. "Anno Domini" is nothing but an idomatic expression that helps precisely establish the date of the document; it does not prove that Christianity is the basis of their society any more than using the same calandar proves Christianity to be the basis of Bhuddist societies; using A.D. to express a date is not the same thing as declaring one's faith; it does not make a statement of principle; it does not establish a Constitutional foundation in Christ.
Since you haven't produced one of these Judeo-Christian values you claim are so foundational, I suspect you are arguing an unrelated point.
"... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner
Senior Member
The First Amendment was not intended to not recognize Christianity it was intended to state that the Federal Government would not endorse a denomination of religion making it more powerful than another denomination. The Wall of Separation always quoted referring to Jefferson was a conversation Jefferson had with a Baptist Minister that thought perhaps another denomination would get power at the hands of the government. Christianity was the only religion and I would dare to say there were no Catholics at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights in America... it was a guarantee that a single denomination of the Protestant faith would gain political favor. The Justice System ruled wrong on the spirit and intent of the First Amendment.The states are beholden to the Federal Constitution. The federal government can't make laws that restrict state rights that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but they sure as hell can regulate on those that are. And the reason Mass. is no longer a theocracy? Because it's unconstitutional. Constitutional law and the rights guaranteed therein trump state laws. The Judicial system agrees and always has. States cannot make laws respecting an establishment of religion because they violate the first amendment of the Federal Constitution. Blue laws are unconstitutional. BUT, there's a loophole. They get around this trivial little unconstitutionality by giving secular reasoning for it such as saying it's in the state's interest to not sell alcohol for atleast one day a week, which happens to coincide with the Christian Sabbath.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Hahaha! LULzzzzz
Nope, you're wrong. Catholics came over in droves with the Spanish who settled in the Americas--including the North American South. And it's widely-known that Jefferson, if not others kept a copy of the Quran in his personal library at Monticello. He was an avid reader and writer and in addition to the Muslims, he mentioned the Hindus in his many, many letters and essays as well. The founders were perfectly aware of religions other than Christianity and the First Amendment was written to reflect this fact.
Extra Heavy
These aren't influences on our founding. "In God We Trust" wasn't plastered all over everything by our Founding Fathers--you're about a century off the founding of this nation, and you're also conspicuously non-denominational about it too. I don't know what you are referring to with "In The Day Of Our Lord?", unless your referring to the idiom, "In the Year Of Our Lord" which (as discussed elswhere) is plain English for the Latin "Anno Domini" or A.D. used with dates.
Secularists aren't at war with Christianity either. The Christian ones in particular are trying to save Christianity--from the government.
You take a great deal for granted. And you take much more for granted from the Founding Fathers who were first-hand witnesses to various Faiths and Nations, all validly claiming to be Christians, killing each other in Europe over who subscribed to the True Faith, and who were just filthy heretics. Members of all these same Christian Faiths fled their various "Christian" nations to live here in relative peace (for the most part).I'm just going to take it for granted here that you already know.
So answer the question Pale Rider, which were the really, real Christians? Whose really, real Christian values were the influence? How do you know it wasn't the influence of the filthy heretics--or God fucking forbid; SECULARISTS!
"... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner
Senior Member
Then there is the treaty of tripoli that states we are not a religious based nation.
A chance for a new beginning, like a dawn of reconciliation.
Senior Member
All the copies got lost just like the Indian Treaties... It was, as we say in the Army, field expediency.
From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli... If the Jews circumcised Allah would Muslims then have to bow down to Allan?
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
---Thomas Jefferson (or as Al Sharpton calls him: Grandpappy)
Senior Member
Sorry, not so. The reason Mass. is no longer a theocracy (actually it never was, it was a democracy which legislated a state religion, but that's a subject for a different debate), is because the people of Massachusetts didn't want it to be one any more.
The 1st amendment ban against supporting or banning any particular religion, was carefully applied to CONGRESS (that is, the Fed govt) only, not to the states. Notice the first word of the amendment text - it's that way for a reason. OTOH, the 2nd amendment is not restricted to Congress, so it applies to all governments in the US - Fed, state, local. That was the intention of the people who wrote the amendments. They were mostly lawyers and very experienced politicians, trying to get it exactly right. The phrasing is not accidental.
The reason the 1st was applied only to the Fed, is precisely because several states (Mass. being one of them) had official state religions when the BOR was ratified, and the Framers were taking pains not to upset that. It was only much later, that the Supreme Court began a misguided attempt to incorporate the BOR, or "apply all the amendments to the states as well". They ignored the fact that the framers had already "incorporated" the ones they thought should apply to the states, by explicitly writing it into the text.
Technically, Nebraska could vote to be officially a Catholic state, or Muslim, or whatever, and they would not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court would disagree, but they would be mistaken as far as the actual text and intention of the Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) are concerned.
BTW, Classact, the Constitution was ratified (without amendments) many years before the Bill of Rights was ratified. Many states demanded a BOR as a condition of their ratifying the Constitution, but took the Framers' word for it that one would be added. Years later, the Framers kept their promise. But the Constitution, as ratified, had no Bill of Rights. It did not mention Freedom of the Press, religion, right to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc., anywhere in its text when it became law.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 11-26-2007 at 07:09 PM.
Gunny's nightmare
You don't appear to have addressed my points.
Senior Member
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=340
The library of congress has a copy! It reads as follows;
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary?
Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor
of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved.
John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
Annals of Congress, 5th Congress
Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of
America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both
parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.
Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be
loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall
be made to take or detain them.
Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a
prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at
liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.
Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be
known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date
of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers,
belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.
Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the
other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a
sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a
proper passport.
Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions
or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put
in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and
re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her
cargo.
Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance
shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the
disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their
country.
Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts
of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized
on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to
sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after
her departure.
Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to
merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in
each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with
those of the most favored nations respectively.
Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory
consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and
friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same,
according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of
the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of
which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further
payments is ever to be made by either party.
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
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.
Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no
appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the
Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same,
an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the
parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty,
engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true
interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the
same.
Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211—
corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by
JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.
Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by
HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,
And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,
JOEL BARLOW.
This being after the Constitution was ratified
In the early part of the 19th century the regency at Tripoli, owing to its piratical practices, was twice involved in war with the United States. In May 1801, the pasha demanded an increase in the tribute ($83,000) which the US government had been paying since 1796 for the protection of their commerce from piracy. The demand was refused, and a naval force was sent from the United States to blockade Tripoli. The First Barbary War dragged on for four years, the Americans in 1803 losing the frigate, Philadelphia, the commander (Captain William Bainbridge) and the whole crew being made prisoners. The most colourful incident in the war was the expedition undertaken by William Eaton with the object of replacing the pasha with an elder brother living in exile, who had promised to accede to all the wishes of the United States. Eaton at the head of a motley crew of 500 US Marines and Muslim Mercenaries marched across the desert from Alexandria. Egypt, and with the aid of American ships, succeeded in capturing Derna. Soon afterwards, on June 3, 1805, peace was concluded. The pasha ended his demands and received $60,000 as ransom for the Philadelphia prisoners.
A chance for a new beginning, like a dawn of reconciliation.
Gunny's nightmare
You quoted a obsolete version. The Treaty was renegotiated in 1805 and Article 11 was removed.
Senior Member
So the fact that the first treaty had article 11 and then a second treaty was negotiated that did not have the inclusion of the contents of article 11 from the prior treaty invalidates nothing. That treaty was accepted and signed. That another treaty was negotiated after the first was violated only shows that the bounty wasn't high enough for our people. So the Bay of Tripoli just started capturing Americans again for ransom.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/s...7/secular.html
This may help you understand what I cannot get through to you.
A chance for a new beginning, like a dawn of reconciliation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote