US Constitution based on Secular or Judeo-Christian values

[glockmail]

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.

Removal of Article 11 shows that appeasement was tried and later rejected. Democrats like yourself have failed to learn this lesson, which is why we are still fighting Muslims, and probably always will be.

[Classact]

Removal of Article 11 shows that appeasement was tried and later rejected. Democrats like yourself have failed to learn this lesson, which is why we are still fighting Muslims, and probably always will be.

Here is another conclusion of what happened http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

[glockmail]

Here is another conclusion of what happened http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

Thanks. I had a similar site book-marked at one time, then lost the link. There are so many "skeptic" sites that it was impossible for me to find using google. Of particular interest:
"Readers should note that at this point, 1795, America was following the line of the other world powers in appeasing the pirates rather than fighting them."

[April15]

Removal of Article 11 shows that appeasement was tried and later rejected. Democrats like yourself have failed to learn this lesson, which is why we are still fighting Muslims, and probably always will be.

The point that keeps eluding you is colored red, but read the part before as it is a good preface for the highlighted piece.

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. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added 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.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

[glockmail]

The point that keeps eluding you is colored red, but read the part before as it is a good preface for the highlighted piece.

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. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added 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.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

That's merely one's opinion. If you read classact's link in its entirety, it puts the document in a more thou rough perspective, and has a different, and arguably more justifiable opinion.

[Jeep Driver]

My idea was to debate the idea that the founders were just a bunch of rich guys looking to get richer and they wrote a constitution that the people rejected... the people refused to ratify it. Later the people, the religious people, ratified it after removing much of the power from the federal government while protecting the power of the people from the government. The very fact that 99.9% of the population were Christians including the rich fat white powerful folks running things would indicate this is a Christian nation and the Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights reflects the religious values of "the people". How does it do it without saying cause God says so... it does it by the amendments associated with common law and judge by jury... Christians will make the moral laws they like and they will be the determining judge of fact and not a rich fat white powerful government official. I would like everyone to consider that there is a possibility that the founders did not have the people's best interest at heart at that time.

Look at the historian Charles Beard. and look at rebellions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion and now look at this guys prospective... http://americareads.blogspot.com/200...rigins-of.html

Is everyone aware that the first printing of the American bible was authorized and printed by the first Congress of the US? It is a matter of Law. The American version of the King James Bible... Government Printing Office...

I have to agree with your intent to expose commerce as the priority.
The stamp act got most of the Revolution started in the first place.
And had it not been for
Shay's rebellion We would not even have a Bill of Right's .
Shay's was over money as well. Farmers being thrown into jail
because of unfair taxes.
Religion did to some degree help to unite the colonies ( States) .
But it was commerce that drove the rebellion .

It takes me a while to reply sometimes . I have only one good hand to type with.

[diuretic]

I think that the Constitution was founded on ideas that sprang out of the Enlightenment and that would mean that religious (or as it was put, Judeo-Christian values) wouldn't have been the philosophical underpinning given that the Enlightenment was a reaction against the stifling hand of religion.
It was a realisation that humans were rational, thinking creatures and not pushed around willy nilly by an interventionist god or a monarch who claimed to have derived authority from a god. So I reckon it was secular.

[Hobbit]

I think that the Constitution was founded on ideas that sprang out of the Enlightenment and that would mean that religious (or as it was put, Judeo-Christian values) wouldn't have been the philosophical underpinning given that the Enlightenment was a reaction against the stifling hand of religion.
It was a realisation that humans were rational, thinking creatures and not pushed around willy nilly by an interventionist god or a monarch who claimed to have derived authority from a god. So I reckon it was secular.

That's a myth. The Enlightenment was was a religious movement, and all of the figures portrayed as rebelling against the church weren't rebelling against Christianity, just the dogmatic Catholics. What inspired the Enlightenment was that God gave us an intellect and curiosity to unravel the mysteries of the universe and that it was high time we use it. Those pioneers of the movement weren't rejecting God. On the contrary, their desire to know God better drove them to great discoveries.

The atheist movement, as well as the secular movement, on the other hand, didn't really gain steam until the 20th century. Until then, most people believed in some kind of god and nobody obsessed over trying to extract all traces of God from certain things.

[diuretic]

That's a myth. The Enlightenment was was a religious movement, and all of the figures portrayed as rebelling against the church weren't rebelling against Christianity, just the dogmatic Catholics. What inspired the Enlightenment was that God gave us an intellect and curiosity to unravel the mysteries of the universe and that it was high time we use it. Those pioneers of the movement weren't rejecting God. On the contrary, their desire to know God better drove them to great discoveries.

The atheist movement, as well as the secular movement, on the other hand, didn't really gain steam until the 20th century. Until then, most people believed in some kind of god and nobody obsessed over trying to extract all traces of God from certain things.

The Enlightenment was not a religious movement, it was a movement of secular rationality. It wasn't about atheism either, It is entirely possible to be religious, to believe in a deity and yet allow that humans are capable of rationality and that not everything is moved by a god. That's the driving intellectual force behind the Enlightenment. It was a force that moved humans away from being dominated by superstition and into rationality. Remember it was Nietzsche who declared God was dead, but that wasn't until much later. The Enlightenment was a rejection of the terrible fatalism that some religions visit upon their faithful. The struggle was to prove that humans could exercise rationality and free will and weren't subject to the overwhelming influence of the unholy alliance between church and state.

There is no "atheist movement". There have always been voices sceptical of gods and the claims made about them. It's just that these days the punishment for being an atheist is much less harsh than it used to be (well in secular liberal democracies anyway).

[Hobbit]

The Enlightenment was not a religious movement, it was a movement of secular rationality. It wasn't about atheism either, It is entirely possible to be religious, to believe in a deity and yet allow that humans are capable of rationality and that not everything is moved by a god. That's the driving intellectual force behind the Enlightenment. It was a force that moved humans away from being dominated by superstition and into rationality. Remember it was Nietzsche who declared God was dead, but that wasn't until much later. The Enlightenment was a rejection of the terrible fatalism that some religions visit upon their faithful. The struggle was to prove that humans could exercise rationality and free will and weren't subject to the overwhelming influence of the unholy alliance between church and state.

There is no "atheist movement". There have always been voices sceptical of gods and the claims made about them. It's just that these days the punishment for being an atheist is much less harsh than it used to be (well in secular liberal democracies anyway).

You missed the entire point of the Enlightenment. The movement that people were capable of logical, rational, scientific thought may have been a rejection of traditional Catholic dogma, but it was not a rejection of religion altogether. There's a difference. If I say "the Baptist church has this all wrong, I'm going to do things differently," I'm not rejecting Christianity, just what the Baptist church teaches. Those who moved the Enlightenment forward did so out of a desire to get closer to God and explore his creation. Newton, Galileo, and all of the other major scientific pioneers of the time drew their motivation to discover more of the world around them from their faith in God.

As a side note, an extensive historical study by the Chinese done within the past few years was done with the goal of determining why, out of all other civilizations, Europe was the first (and only, for quite a while) region to develop chemistry, physics, accurate astronomy, etc. from the more ancient traditions of alchemy, astrology, etc. Their conclusion was that Christianity was the deciding factor and was what drove these early scientists to discover the true workings of the universe. Remember that this was done by Chinese scientists who, prior to this conclusion, believed that no good came from religion.

[Little-Acorn]

It was a realisation that humans were rational, thinking creatures and not pushed around willy nilly by an interventionist god or a monarch who claimed to have derived authority from a god.

That's more or less what I said, but about the Constitution itself, not the ENlightenment. The Framers wrote it to provide the maximum of freedom while leaving the Fed govt enough power to do what it needed to... and then LIMITING the govt to those powers only.

So I reckon it was secular.

"Secular" only in the sense that the Constitution did not put any kind of religious facet into law. But the purpose of doing that was not to EXCLUDE religion from society or even from government. It was to leave people free to choose whatever religion they wanted, if any.

There's a lot of that in the Constitution - many things not addressed, so as to leave people free to decide them for themselves.

Later the 1st amendment was added, expressly forbidding the Fed govt from imposing or restricting any particular religion.

[diuretic]

You missed the entire point of the Enlightenment. The movement that people were capable of logical, rational, scientific thought may have been a rejection of traditional Catholic dogma, but it was not a rejection of religion altogether. There's a difference. If I say "the Baptist church has this all wrong, I'm going to do things differently," I'm not rejecting Christianity, just what the Baptist church teaches. Those who moved the Enlightenment forward did so out of a desire to get closer to God and explore his creation. Newton, Galileo, and all of the other major scientific pioneers of the time drew their motivation to discover more of the world around them from their faith in God.

As a side note, an extensive historical study by the Chinese done within the past few years was done with the goal of determining why, out of all other civilizations, Europe was the first (and only, for quite a while) region to develop chemistry, physics, accurate astronomy, etc. from the more ancient traditions of alchemy, astrology, etc. Their conclusion was that Christianity was the deciding factor and was what drove these early scientists to discover the true workings of the universe. Remember that this was done by Chinese scientists who, prior to this conclusion, believed that no good came from religion.

Firstly I didn't argue that the Enlightenment was a rejection of Christianity. I argued that religion lost its overwhelming influence. If we hadn't experienced the Enlightenment then we'd still be living in the shadows, frightened of natural phenomena that we ascribed to acts of the gods. You and I wouldn't be communicating from the other side of the world to each other, such communication being mediated by computers. The Enlightment was about putting religion into perspective, that is, allowing it to inhabit the spiritual world rather than controlling the temporal world.

Secondly, regarding the research. That's interesting. I'm just finishing The Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill (a really good read). It seems to me that Europe owes it pre-eminence in the sciences as you've indicated from the monotheism of the Jews. And of course we have to acknowledge the efforts of the Islamic scholars and the Jewish scholars in what we call the Dark Ages in keeping alive the knowledge of the ancient Greeks. It's an interesting discussion, not that I know a lot about it, I just find it interesting.

[diuretic]

That's more or less what I said, but about the Constitution itself, not the ENlightenment. The Framers wrote it to provide the maximum of freedom while leaving the Fed govt enough power to do what it needed to... and then LIMITING the govt to those powers only.


"Secular" only in the sense that the Constitution did not put any kind of religious facet into law. But the purpose of doing that was not to EXCLUDE religion from society or even from government. It was to leave people free to choose whatever religion they wanted, if any.

There's a lot of that in the Constitution - many things not addressed, so as to leave people free to decide them for themselves.

Later the 1st amendment was added, expressly forbidding the Fed govt from imposing or restricting any particular religion.

I can take all your points but I do think that the Founders wanted to avoid the mix of state and religion. They had experienced the corrupting influence of religion in government under the British, who had and have a state religion (albeit that its influence is now greatly diminished). Yes, religious tolerance is a must for a free society, people should be free to worship as they wish so long as their worship doesn't transgress the secular laws.

[Roadhouse158]

Sadly enough, if the founding fathers were alive today to say that the constitution was based on Christian values it wouldn't matter. It's the Judges that decide what was meant by laws. Not the legislators. Legislators just write the laws. The judicial system tells the legislation what is meant by those laws (). Makes me want to pay more attention to how I vote for judges. I don't know about you.

[Hobbit]

Firstly I didn't argue that the Enlightenment was a rejection of Christianity. I argued that religion lost its overwhelming influence. If we hadn't experienced the Enlightenment then we'd still be living in the shadows, frightened of natural phenomena that we ascribed to acts of the gods. You and I wouldn't be communicating from the other side of the world to each other, such communication being mediated by computers. The Enlightment was about putting religion into perspective, that is, allowing it to inhabit the spiritual world rather than controlling the temporal world.

Secondly, regarding the research. That's interesting. I'm just finishing The Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill (a really good read). It seems to me that Europe owes it pre-eminence in the sciences as you've indicated from the monotheism of the Jews. And of course we have to acknowledge the efforts of the Islamic scholars and the Jewish scholars in what we call the Dark Ages in keeping alive the knowledge of the ancient Greeks. It's an interesting discussion, not that I know a lot about it, I just find it interesting.

Ok, I think the problem is that you're using 'religion' and 'The Catholic Church' interchangeably. Religion caused the Enlightenment. The Catholic Church tried to stop it.