Radorth

On another point raised by skeptics above, Federer, an admittedly tendentious reporter at times, says that the phrase "is in no sense a Christian nation" did not appear in at least one Arabic version of the treaty, and "appears to be an unauthorized insertion by Joel arlow, the American consul at Algiers..."

It does have an extremely political taint to it, so I would like to know the truth of the matter. Federer cites Charles Bevans Treaties and Other international Agreements of the United States of America (Washington D.C.,Dept of State, 1974)

If it was inserted, or later deleted by Congress, as Federer also asserts, Daggah will be busy doing damage control I presume.

Rad

hezekiah jones

"We assembled again; and ... every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated."

Perhaps Jesus and Paul's teachings about "mutual submission" which Hooker considered vital, had suddenly come to mind?

Or, since the unfriendly feelings were engendered by the inability of the smaller states to reconcile the issue of representation in Congress with the larger states, perhaps the so-called "Great Compromise" had come to mind? Why invoke your imaginary friends when Oliver Ellsworth will do?

Of course you shouldn't have too much trouble finding a "Biblical principle" or two supporting the idea that slaves only count as three-fifths of a person.

hezekiah jones

P.S. I don't recall the slaves being polled to ascertain their "mutual submission" to the idea of being enumerated as 60% human.

Living Dead Chipmunk

Funny, they were possible all over Europe for a very long time before America was founded... and are still possible in Europe, even though none of them have Constitutional safegaurds. Are you claiming that America is the only nation with Christians in it?

And yes, if Adams could get the Treaty of Tripoli ratified while still intending America to be based on Christianity, he's a liar. WWJD?

lpetrich

Ah, but Radorth has a very ingenious answer: the "true Gospel" was kept out of sight for most of those 1700 years.

Mageth

Maybe god was taking a nap.

Jeremy Pallant

Indeed. In addition True Christians (TM) should only read the True Bible (TM) in English. After all, if the King James Version was good enough for Paul, then it's good enough for True Christians (TM)...and yes, I have read an argument in support of that canard.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Jeremy Pallant ]</p>

mfaber

Is that your excuse for not posting any support for many of the assertions you have made here? I can see why you are so eager to slam website posting as "parroting", you have none to "parrot" (none that support your position)
Why should it be left up to Daggah to call "liars". If you think someone is not being honest, why don't YOU confront them? Or is the assertion that there are "new liars" here just another one of those "red herrings" you throw out, hoping to divert attention from the fact that you have yet to support your position,i.e., that the Constitution is founded on Biblical principles. So far the only "Biblical principles" in the constitution are support for slavery (<a href="http://www.aaregistry.com/detail.php3?id=552" target="_blank">(the "Three-fifths Compromise")</a>) and discrimination against women (no consideration of their rights a human beings, <a href="http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.html" target="_blank">reflected in the Bible</a>)

<a href="http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/usa.htm" target="_blank">Christian Bible Foundations of the U.S.A?</a>

No here is contending that the majority of the framers weren't theists of some kind and that most of the theist were Christians. What you cannot escape is the FACT that they did NOT encode their beliefs into the legal documents and make Chrisitianity (what flavor?) the law of the land. Pertinent to this discussion is the following exchange from the old thread:

To put is as simply as possible (again). I suspect it is because they wanted to avoid people doing what this fellow wants to do here:

(<a href="http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/thesis/Anarcho-Theocracy.htm" target="_blank">Anarcho-Theocracy:a Lousy label for a GREAT idea</a> )

Not to mention the Christian Reconstructionists <a href="http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html" target="_blank">like Rushdoony</a> and <a href="http://members.tripod.com/americantruthaz/new%20christians.htm" target="_blank"> James Kennedy et al </a> and other doyens of the Religious Reich (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, etc.)

Radorth never answered his own question, but responded this way....
Really, Radorth? What (circumstances, persons, events, etc.) stopped them from hardwiring Christianity into the Constitution? Do enlighten us about this or is this yet another unfounded assertion?

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: mfaber ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

[Sarcasm]

So now we're going to find Gott Mit Uns on military belt buckles? Watch out world! Americans are God's chosen people. We know this truth to be self-evident, because Radorth says so.

[/Sarcasm]

Wait, a thought occurs to me.

If Radorth is correct, and the Constitution is divinely inspired, then perhaps this in accordance with Ezekiel 20:25-26. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

Given that very few Biblical verses have been provided in support of the Constitution, and bearing in mind the Christians that do believe that the Constitution is unChristian, then the possibility exists that the Constitution really is a secular document, one given by god to teach the Americans a lesson.

See? I always knew America should return to the divinely appointed rule of the British monarchy. Anyone in Arizona can turn up in Tucson to surrender to me at any time.

Jamie_L

Radorth:

I think maybe you are trying to argue something different than we are trying to argue - and not the difference stated previously.

A thrust of your arguement currently seems to be that God had a hand in crafting the U.S. government system, and did so for a specific (i.e. Christian) purpose.

I don't think that really has bearing on the secularism we are trying to defend.

The general purpose of defending the secular nature of the U.S. is to prevent the influence of religion over government - in this case the influence of Christianity over government. The "Christian Nation" crowd (not necessarily you) tend to argue that we should not worry about, and even encourage, direct and over Christian influence over government, because that was the intent of the founders. The intent (the Christian Nation folks say) of the founders was to create a country based on Christianity. Since the Bible is really the uniting text that defines Christianity, the extention of the arguement is that being based on Christianity means this government was derived from the Bible.

This is the notion (I think) most of us are fighting in this thread and elsewhere. The truth (as I understand it) is that with regard to the important points of U.S. government, the Bible is either silent, places little emphasis on them, or even runs counter to them. Thus, the Christian Nation crowd (again, not necessarily you) is incorrect in saying the government is based on Biblical principles. Thus, their other arguement falls apart: separation of church is not a myth, and entanglement of religion and governing is to be avoided.

Even if God has guided the creation of the U.S. state, he has clearly guided it in such a way that it is not based on the Bible. This would bring up some interesting issues, though they are pretty well beyond the scope of this thread, I would think.

Jamie