Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beekay · 08-01-2002, 06:35 PM

The following letter was printed in one of my local papers. I did not see the previous letter that this one is referring back to. I would be interested in y'all's take on this person's point of view ...

Quote:

Mr. Lipscomb in his anti-Christian stance (I would venture from his letters doesn't object, to this description) has searched high and low to find any shred " of evidence to prove that Christianity; wasn't part of the founding of this great nation. His search has yielded an over ripened raspberry from the tree of history that he found on the ground.

The question is the same as Newton's first question: "How did it get to ground?" (paraphrase ). If he can find logical connection between objects and mass (Treaty of Tripoli and the founding of the nation) he will have discovered the law of gravity (his motherlode: Atheistic America). His only problem is his hypothesis,: That his fruit came from that tree.
The fruit doesn't bear out the context of the entire "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary."

Though Article 11 reads what Mr. Lipscomb wrote, but it was written in context of the rest of Article 11 and the whole treaty. The rest of Article 11,tells us that: ''as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws,' religion or tranquility 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." The whole context tells us that the foundation of America's treaty making is not exclusive to Christianity or to Christian countries but can me made and kept despite religious differences,

Not to quote the whole of the article but the other half is the receipt of the treaty..which begins "Praise be to God..." Interesting that an "atheistic" government issuing treaties would state such a thing.

So the context is not the pretext that Mr. Lipscomb has made it out to be.

If we were to pick and choose phrases from treaties; I would choose from this treaty that appeasement is the only way for U.S: to have a treaty with any other country (the receipt of the treaty 'includes a list of goods like you wouldn't believe!), Yet we know that isn't the issue in this treaty,..neither is the founding of this country.

His fruit must 'come from elsewhere since other fruit is found at the bottom of this tree. I remember even from Elementary School this country was founded upon the idea of religious freedom from persecution. They were not trying to escape religion itself. So the foundations of this great nation from Plymouth Rock probably presupposed Judeo-Christian values but in a freer practice than England. I didn't even have dig in a history book for that one nor treaties from the Barbary coast.

Your-other comment about whom God blesses is worth one comment. You or I don't get to decide who he blesses and for , what reasons. God does. God Bless America! God bless Mr. Lipscomb!

Toto · 08-01-2002, 09:10 PM

This letter writer is a legend in his own mind, with some sort of private analogy to Newton that doesn't make too much sense to me.

You can read the entire treaty here:

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

The receipt starting "Praise be to God &c-" was signed by the bey, a believing Muslim, not by the Americans.

The significance of this treaty is that it was passed by the Congress with no controversy over the clause that says "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" - and this had the force of law. This is a good indication of how our founding fathers thought about the relationship of this country to the Christian religion.

See the caveats about the meaning of this treaty on this page:

Does the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli say that "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion?" (Yes, but separationists need to be careful in explaining the historical background of this treaty. )

Buffman · 08-01-2002, 09:39 PM

His fruit must 'come from elsewhere since other fruit is found at the bottom of this tree.

Raspberries grow on bushes, not trees.

I remember even from Elementary School this country was founded upon the idea of religious freedom from persecution.

True. That's what most children were taught in public or Protestant schools. But is it an accurate fact?

They were not trying to escape religion itself. So the foundations of this great nation from Plymouth Rock probably presupposed Judeo-Christian values but in a freer practice than England.

First, the people who arrived on the Mayflower were not the first Europeans to arrive in North America.

http://www.bham.wednet.edu/colonial.htm

Second, these people were not fleeing religious persecution at the time they departed for North America. Here is some accurate history.

http://pilgrims.net/plymouth/history/index.htm

(Extract)
Pilgrims
The Pilgrims were English Separatists who founded (1620) Plymouth Colony in New England. In the first years of the 17th century, small numbers of English Puritans broke away from the Church of England because they felt that it had not completed the work of the Reformation. They committed themselves to a life based on the Bible. Most of these Separatists were farmers, poorly educated and without social or political standing. One of the Separatist congregations was led by William Brewster and the Rev. Richard Clifton in the village of Scrooby in Nottinghamshire. The Scrooby group emigrated to Amsterdam in 1608 to escape harassment and religious persecution. The next year they moved to Leiden, where, enjoying full religious freedom, they remained for almost 12 years. In 1617, discouraged by economic difficulties, the pervasive Dutch influence on their children, and their inability to secure civil autonomy, the congregation voted to emigrate to America. Through the Brewster family's friendship with Sir Edwin Sandys, treasurer of the London Company, the congregation secured two patents authorizing them to settle in the northern part of the company's jurisdiction. Unable to finance the costs of the emigration with their own meager resources, they negotiated a financial agreement with Thomas Weston, a prominent London iron merchant. Fewer than half of the group's members elected to leave Leiden. A small ship, the Speedwell, carried them to Southampton, England, where they were to join another group of Separatists and pick up a second ship. After some delays and disputes, the voyagers regrouped at Plymouth aboard the 180-ton Mayflower. It began its historic voyage on Sept. 16, 1620, with about 102 passengers--fewer than half of them from Leiden. After a 65-day journey, the Pilgrims sighted Cape Cod on November 19. Unable to reach the land they had contracted for, they anchored (November 21) at the site of Provincetown. Because they had no legal right to settle in the region, they drew up the Mayflower Compact, creating their own government. The settlers soon discovered Plymouth Harbor, on the western side of Cape Cod Bay and made their historic landing on December 21; the main body of settlers followed on December 26. The term Pilgrim was first used by William Bradford to describe the Leiden Separatists who were leaving Holland. The Mayflower's passengers were first described as the Pilgrim Fathers in 1799.
(End extract)

I didn't even have dig in a history book for that one nor treaties from the Barbary coast.

Toto has provided you with the Treaty information. Obviously this gentlemen "should" do a little digging in the history books.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

recovering xtian · 08-02-2002, 06:11 AM

Quote:

If we were to pick and choose phrases from treaties; I would choose from this treaty that appeasement is the only way for U.S: to have a treaty with any other country (the receipt of the treaty 'includes a list of goods like you wouldn't believe!), Yet we know that isn't the issue in this treaty,..neither is the founding of this country.

Here is what the Constitution has to say regarding the validity of treaties:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
(Article VI, Section II, United States Constitution)

Dark Jedi · 08-02-2002, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by recovering xtian:
<strong>

Here is what the Constitution has to say regarding the validity of treaties:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
(Article VI, Section II, United States Constitution)</strong>

Good info, that. I had failed to look for impact of law that treaties had.

Jamie_L · 08-02-2002, 08:02 AM

Is this writer's position that the phrase, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" is some kind of lie, half-truth or deception that was necessary to achieve a treaty with a Muslim nation?

If so, that doesn't sound all that "Christian" either.

Jamie

recovering xtian · 08-02-2002, 08:48 AM

I haven't ever drawn up a treaty, but imho, words and phrases are not put into a treaty without a specific purpose. I think in this case, it wasn't to appease the Muslim countries, it's purpose was to eliminate concerns that may have been raised in negotiations prior to the actual writing and ratification of the treaty. This is why it was necessary to point out the obvious.
I do not know if other 'xtian nations' had signed treaties with the Islamic countries between the Crusades and 1796, but I wouldn't think there were many due to many European countries having a state religion based on xtianity. The U.S. was in it's infancy, with no state religion, and a few assumptions would need to be dispelled for a treaty to be ratified by both countries.
I could be wrong though.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: recovering xtian ]</p>

Buffman · 08-02-2002, 11:56 AM

beekay

I believe that you, and everyone reading this string, will find this to be a most informative article. (I used it in my Essay of Indictment of the Library of Congress article.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/tripoli.html

(Extract)
A more important instance of the helpfulness of Article XI involved Oscar S. Straus (1850-1926) who was U.S. Minister to Turkey (1887-89 and 1898-1900) and Ambassador to Turkey (1909-10). In the Spring of 1899, at the beginning of the war with Spain, it was discovered that there were Moslems in the Philippines who might start a Holy War against the United States. Mr. Straus gained an audience with the Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Hamid, and requested him as Caliph of the Moslem religion to act against this possibility. The Sultan sent a message to the Sulu Moslems of the Philippines forbidding them to fight the Americans as no interference with their religion would be allowed under American rule. The move was successful, and President McKinley sent a personal letter of thanks to Mr. Straus saying he had saved at least 20,000 American troops in the field.

Mr. Straus in his autobiography, Under Four Administrations (1922, p. 147) told how he accomplished this important diplomatic achievement: "In order to be able to take up the matter very fully with the Sultan, I had anticipated all kinds of questions and armed myself with pertinent information. Among them I thought he might seek some assurance as to our Government's attitude toward Mohammedanism, and to reassure him I had come prepared with a translation into Turkish of Article XI of an early treaty between the United States and Tripoli, negotiated by Joel Barlow in 1796 . . . When the Sultan had read this, his face lighted up. It would give him pleasure, he said, to act in accordance with my suggestions, for two reasons: for the sake of humanity, and to be helpful to the United States." It was fortunate indeed that Mr. Straus had the English version of Article XI translated into Turkish for this occasion rather than submit to the Sultan the supposed Arabic version of this Article already in the treaty!
(End extract)

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

beekay · 08-02-2002, 01:34 PM

Excellent stuff, folks, thanks for your interest. I just know that we atheists tend to use the Treaty of Tripoli quite a bit (or at least it seems that way) and I wanted to be sure I was still on a strong foundation should I use the Treaty in debates myself.

Once again, thanks!

3DChizl · 08-05-2002, 04:10 AM

beekay-
Being from North Carolina and having an interest in the founders' thoughts on the subject, you might find the following interesting reading.
<a href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_Hm8I::" target="_blank">http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_Hm8I::</a>
edit - ok so the link won't work - I'll try to figure out how to make a link to this info ASAP
Look for the debate starting at the paragraph before page 192. It reads in part:

Quote:

Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions, Under the color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised. Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in themselves; that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind; and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit had been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other; and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably--that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society.

Who said that? James Iredell.

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: 3DChizl ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2002, 09:10 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This letter writer is a legend in his own mind, with some sort of private analogy to Newton that doesn't make too much sense to me. You can read the entire treaty here: Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 The receipt starting "Praise be to God &c-" was signed by the bey, a believing Muslim, not by the Americans. The significance of this treaty is that it was passed by the Congress with no controversy over the clause that says "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" - and this had the force of law. This is a good indication of how our founding fathers thought about the relationship of this country to the Christian religion. See the caveats about the meaning of this treaty on this page: Does the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli say that "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion?" (Yes, but separationists need to be careful in explaining the historical background of this treaty. )

08-01-2002, 09:39 PM	#3
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	His fruit must 'come from elsewhere since other fruit is found at the bottom of this tree. Raspberries grow on bushes, not trees. I remember even from Elementary School this country was founded upon the idea of religious freedom from persecution. True. That's what most children were taught in public or Protestant schools. But is it an accurate fact? They were not trying to escape religion itself. So the foundations of this great nation from Plymouth Rock probably presupposed Judeo-Christian values but in a freer practice than England. First, the people who arrived on the Mayflower were not the first Europeans to arrive in North America. http://www.bham.wednet.edu/colonial.htm Second, these people were not fleeing religious persecution at the time they departed for North America. Here is some accurate history. http://pilgrims.net/plymouth/history/index.htm (Extract) Pilgrims The Pilgrims were English Separatists who founded (1620) Plymouth Colony in New England. In the first years of the 17th century, small numbers of English Puritans broke away from the Church of England because they felt that it had not completed the work of the Reformation. They committed themselves to a life based on the Bible. Most of these Separatists were farmers, poorly educated and without social or political standing. One of the Separatist congregations was led by William Brewster and the Rev. Richard Clifton in the village of Scrooby in Nottinghamshire. The Scrooby group emigrated to Amsterdam in 1608 to escape harassment and religious persecution. The next year they moved to Leiden, where, enjoying full religious freedom, they remained for almost 12 years. In 1617, discouraged by economic difficulties, the pervasive Dutch influence on their children, and their inability to secure civil autonomy, the congregation voted to emigrate to America. Through the Brewster family's friendship with Sir Edwin Sandys, treasurer of the London Company, the congregation secured two patents authorizing them to settle in the northern part of the company's jurisdiction. Unable to finance the costs of the emigration with their own meager resources, they negotiated a financial agreement with Thomas Weston, a prominent London iron merchant. Fewer than half of the group's members elected to leave Leiden. A small ship, the Speedwell, carried them to Southampton, England, where they were to join another group of Separatists and pick up a second ship. After some delays and disputes, the voyagers regrouped at Plymouth aboard the 180-ton Mayflower. It began its historic voyage on Sept. 16, 1620, with about 102 passengers--fewer than half of them from Leiden. After a 65-day journey, the Pilgrims sighted Cape Cod on November 19. Unable to reach the land they had contracted for, they anchored (November 21) at the site of Provincetown. Because they had no legal right to settle in the region, they drew up the Mayflower Compact, creating their own government. The settlers soon discovered Plymouth Harbor, on the western side of Cape Cod Bay and made their historic landing on December 21; the main body of settlers followed on December 26. The term Pilgrim was first used by William Bradford to describe the Leiden Separatists who were leaving Holland. The Mayflower's passengers were first described as the Pilgrim Fathers in 1799. (End extract) I didn't even have dig in a history book for that one nor treaties from the Barbary coast. Toto has provided you with the Treaty information. Obviously this gentlemen "should" do a little digging in the history books. [ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

08-02-2002, 08:02 AM	#6
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Is this writer's position that the phrase, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" is some kind of lie, half-truth or deception that was necessary to achieve a treaty with a Muslim nation? If so, that doesn't sound all that "Christian" either. Jamie

08-02-2002, 08:48 AM	#7
recovering xtian Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: texas Posts: 37	I haven't ever drawn up a treaty, but imho, words and phrases are not put into a treaty without a specific purpose. I think in this case, it wasn't to appease the Muslim countries, it's purpose was to eliminate concerns that may have been raised in negotiations prior to the actual writing and ratification of the treaty. This is why it was necessary to point out the obvious. I do not know if other 'xtian nations' had signed treaties with the Islamic countries between the Crusades and 1796, but I wouldn't think there were many due to many European countries having a state religion based on xtianity. The U.S. was in it's infancy, with no state religion, and a few assumptions would need to be dispelled for a treaty to be ratified by both countries. I could be wrong though. [ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: recovering xtian ]</p>

08-02-2002, 11:56 AM	#8
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	beekay I believe that you, and everyone reading this string, will find this to be a most informative article. (I used it in my Essay of Indictment of the Library of Congress article. http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/tripoli.html (Extract) A more important instance of the helpfulness of Article XI involved Oscar S. Straus (1850-1926) who was U.S. Minister to Turkey (1887-89 and 1898-1900) and Ambassador to Turkey (1909-10). In the Spring of 1899, at the beginning of the war with Spain, it was discovered that there were Moslems in the Philippines who might start a Holy War against the United States. Mr. Straus gained an audience with the Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Hamid, and requested him as Caliph of the Moslem religion to act against this possibility. The Sultan sent a message to the Sulu Moslems of the Philippines forbidding them to fight the Americans as no interference with their religion would be allowed under American rule. The move was successful, and President McKinley sent a personal letter of thanks to Mr. Straus saying he had saved at least 20,000 American troops in the field. Mr. Straus in his autobiography, Under Four Administrations (1922, p. 147) told how he accomplished this important diplomatic achievement: "In order to be able to take up the matter very fully with the Sultan, I had anticipated all kinds of questions and armed myself with pertinent information. Among them I thought he might seek some assurance as to our Government's attitude toward Mohammedanism, and to reassure him I had come prepared with a translation into Turkish of Article XI of an early treaty between the United States and Tripoli, negotiated by Joel Barlow in 1796 . . . When the Sultan had read this, his face lighted up. It would give him pleasure, he said, to act in accordance with my suggestions, for two reasons: for the sake of humanity, and to be helpful to the United States." It was fortunate indeed that Mr. Straus had the English version of Article XI translated into Turkish for this occasion rather than submit to the Sultan the supposed Arabic version of this Article already in the treaty! (End extract) [ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

08-02-2002, 01:34 PM	#9
beekay Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Western North Carolina Posts: 121	Excellent stuff, folks, thanks for your interest. I just know that we atheists tend to use the Treaty of Tripoli quite a bit (or at least it seems that way) and I wanted to be sure I was still on a strong foundation should I use the Treaty in debates myself. Once again, thanks!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.