Christianity in the public sector, politics, and government

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I see what you are saying, I just don't agree.

And I never mentioned athiesm, I said secular. Human secularism has been in America since it began.

Well, I'm not sure what secularism looks like, but if you wanted to put it on a building, I wouldn't mind.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

Why can't people read things within context?

Because it doesn't say what they want it to.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

No, it's not. Out of all of the Founding Fathers 0.00000000% were atheists.

I didn't say that any of them were atheists. I said that atheism has existed in this country since before it was a country, and therefore it's "historical" or whatever your argument was.

And I've pointed out the context of that treaty before. Context is everything. We were negotiating with Muslims. They would have not dealt with us if we were a Christian nation, like most of the European nations were. We weren't. We didn't have an official church or anything like that. We have freedom of religion. Muslims could come here and practice as they wanted to, unlike many European countries at that time. That is the context of the treaty. But what it doesn't mean is that Christianity had no influence on the Founding Fathers.

*AHEM*

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

How could that statement EVER be taken out of context? Context is everything. Show me how that statement could ever possibly have a double meaning? Show me the ambiguity. Explain how it's taken out of context. Explaining the purpose of the treaty does not prove how that statement is out of context.

Why can't people read things within context?

Yeah, kinda annoying, huh?

The Religious Right do it all the time to say that 100% of the Founding Fathers were Christians, which is false, and the atheists and the Left (I separated it this time, just for you dumpy ) to it to prove that Christianity had no influence on America, that all of the Founding Fathers were deists and that they hated Christianity.

Christianity influenced the Founding Fathers, but not this country. They separated their religion from their politics.

To recap, btw:
You're proven to me that John Adams more than likely believed in the Ten Commandments, but it's rather obvious that he would have never approved of putting it up in public buildings.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What do you mean by this? They were in there already and were taken out a long time ago. This isn't something new.

... way to avoid the issue.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

*AHEM*

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

How could that statement EVER be taken out of context? Context is everything. Show me how that statement could ever possibly have a double meaning? Show me the ambiguity. Explain how it's taken out of context. Explaining the purpose of the treaty does not prove how that statement is out of context.

After I mentioned taking it out of context, you then take it out of context?


This is the context:


That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Turkey) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation.

Throughout this long conflict, the five Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada).

In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, a "gift" frigate to Algiers, paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, etc.).

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:


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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have 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.


This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," and by John Adams as "rational." A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:


The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.


Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:


Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!


It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:


The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.


Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:


The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.


Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton’s official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:


Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims’] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.


Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:


[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.


In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:


He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation."


When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:


It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well."


And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:


April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!

May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it?


Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:


The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli


The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

After I mentioned taking it out of context, you then take it out of context?

My point is that the clause couldn't possibly be taken out of context. It's pretty fucking cut and dry.

"...the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

There is no way to misinterpret that. Saying that it's all about "context" is just silly. I mean, read that sentence for just one second and then think about how you're trying to skew it to be some BS "out of context" argument. It's rather impossible. Saying that it's a matter of context really makes it seem as though you're just grabbing at straws. Quite literally, it says that America was not founded on Christianity.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

My point is that the clause couldn't possibly be taken out of context. It's pretty fucking cut and dry.

"...the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

There is no way to misinterpret that. Saying that it's all about "context" is just silly. I mean, read that sentence for just one second and then think about how you're trying to skew it to be some BS "out of context" argument. It's rather impossible. Saying that it's a matter of context really makes it seem as though you're just grabbing at straws. Quite literally, it says that America was not founded on Christianity.

Wow, I can't believe you are actually being that intellectually dishonest.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

... way to avoid the issue.

But that is the issue. You say it's new. It's not.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But that is the issue. You say it's new. It's not.

The issue is whether or not it's okay. Try answering the questions in the first post.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

Wow, I can't believe you are actually being that intellectually dishonest.

So the Adams was just saying that to establish peace. He's such a kidder. Right?

[ballz2wallz]

[quote=Dumpy Dooby;37991]The issue is whether or not it's okay.[quote]Well post #2 also shows that one of your other statements leading into the questions is wrong. I figured if everything leading into those questions were wrong, then the questions themselves were a moot point. Sorry.

Try answering the questions in the first post.

I'd say I'm living in the wrong country, and it's time to go somewhere I belong. Much like the Chinese immigrants that come here via academic institutions; they dislike their government and the way their country is run, so they come here to a country that fits their belief system and desired way of life more closely. And that certainly isn't limited to Chinese students.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Well post #2 also shows that one of your other statements leading into the questions is wrong. I figured if everything leading into those questions were wrong, then the questions themselves were a moot point. Sorry.

I'd say I'm living in the wrong country, and it's time to go somewhere I belong. Much like the Chinese immigrants that come here via academic institutions; they dislike their government and the way their country is run, so they come here to a country that fits their belief system and desired way of life more closely. And that certainly isn't limited to Chinese students.

So basically, you're using the "If you don't like it, then get out" argument?

Well, at least you're honest about it.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

So basically, you're using the "If you don't like it, then get out" argument?

That's what everyone in the rest of the world does, and that's what I'd do.

But see, you don't see people leaving the US because they don't like it. The reason is that they know there is no better place they can go.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

So the Adams was just saying that to establish peace. He's such a kidder. Right?

He is saying we are not an official Christian Nation like UK.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

He is saying we are not an official Christian Nation like UK.

I was being sarcastic.

[imind]

Originally Posted by lew

After I mentioned taking it out of context, you then take it out of context?


This is the context:


That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Turkey) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation.

Throughout this long conflict, the five Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada).

In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, a "gift" frigate to Algiers, paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, etc.).

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:


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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have 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.


This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," and by John Adams as "rational." A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:


The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.


Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:


Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!


It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:


The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.


Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:


The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.


Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton’s official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:


Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims’] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.


Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:


[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.


In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:


He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation."


When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:


It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well."


And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:


April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!

May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it?


Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:


The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli


The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people.

have you got a link for this?