Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Buffman · 12-14-2002, 01:59 AM

Radorth

(12 Dec. 9:31 PM)

I never use "Barton's" quotes. I've never read Barton. I don't trust Barton, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I sometimes refer to Federer, (as you should if you want to claim to know all) except when he sources Barton and nobody else.

<a href="http://members.aol.com/rcorron/franklin.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/rcorron/franklin.html</a>

(Now compare the following extract with Radorth, 11 Dec. 9:35 AM)

Franklin's rebuff rearranged the priorities of the delegates -- they indeed did stop to pray. The adjourned, and for almost three days they prayed, attended church, and listened to ministers challenge and inspire them. Dod those three days have any effect on the Convention? Did the prayer make any difference? According to private writings of delegates who attended the Convention, those three days were the turning point in the success of their deliberations. When the reassembled, delegate Jonathan Dayton explained:

Every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of reconciliation had been cultivated.

After failing in their previous efforts, and then having heeded Franklin's rebuke, how successful were they after reconvening?

"We the people of the United States ..." Thus begins what has become the oldest written constitution still in effect today ... the greatest legal minds of two centuries have continued to marvel at it as being almost beyond the scope and dimension of human wisdom. When one stops to consider the enormous problems the Constitution somehow anticipated and the challenges and testings it foresaw, that statement appears more understated than exaggerated. For not even the collective genius of the fledgeling United States of America could claim credit for the fantastic strength, resilience, balance, and timelessness of the Constitution. And most of them knew it.

David Barton: America: To Pray or Not To Pray?

Please come back. I will be adding more information. [Buffman edit: I believe this to be an inserted comment from the person posting the page who then goes on to cite the source.]

This is a sampling from:
America's
God and Country
Encyclopedia of Quotations
By:
William J. Federer
(End extract)

Apparently Federer used David Barton's book "America: To Pray or Not To Prey" as his source document for the Jonathan Dayton quotes. Are you claiming that you were not aware of that fact when you wrote what you did above? What original sources did Barton use?

You still need to apologize.

If the information I post disturbs you, I apologize for publicly revealing it. However, I plan to continue to publicly provide the information as I find it.

Radorth · 12-14-2002, 09:01 AM

Quote:

So you concede the point that the principles embodied in the Constitution do not have their antecedent in the Bible? If you do, then why do you continue to try by throwing out scriptural references?

And what other kind of fact is there than an objective one?

I' just making the badly needed case that nobody was going around screaming "The Bible Says NO" to the Constitution, as though God were somehow fighting human rights. That is certainly the impression atheists would like to leave.

BTW, I totally forgot Proverbs Ch 31, which quite objectively refutes the idea that women should have little or no power.

Rad

Radorth · 12-14-2002, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Are you claiming that you were not aware of that fact when you wrote what you did above? What original sources did Barton use?

You don't get it do you? (Entirely because of your cynicism and reading between the lines I assure you)

Maybe Federer does take ques from Barton. How would I know that? I use Federer simple to save me from reaing 50,000 pages of documents on my own which you would have me do, but not your atheist buddies.

Did you ignore what I said or are you just incurably cynical? I said I don't read Barton, and WHEN I SEE HIS NAME ATTACHED TO ONE OF FEDERER'S REFERENCES, I DON'T USE IT UNLESS THERE IS ANOTHER MORE RELIABLE SOURCE ATTACHED

In other words, I see Barton's name as a red flag. Get it now?

Oh by the way, the quotes from yesterday came off a Library of Congress website, and a skeptics website which was quoting from both sides. I doubt you have it in your database.

Quote:

You still need to apologize.

If the information I post disturbs you, I apologize for publicly revealing it. However, I plan to continue to publicly provide the information as I find it.

Fine, and I will remind people that you LIED about what I said about Washingtons beliefs, and that while you preach daily on the subject of quoting in context and accurately, you yourself do not do so, nor do you harass skeptics who regularly fail to do so.

Rad

Radorth · 12-14-2002, 09:23 AM

Skeptics debate rule no 11:

When you are losing the quote war, bring up Barton.

Criminy

Rad

Radorth · 12-14-2002, 09:26 AM

BTW Buffman, I presume you read my SKEPTIC's website, being a lover of historical truth and riddles. So how did the "not a Christian nation" phrase get into the treaty, and why was it removed? Your sites shed no light on it that I could find. In fact they glossed over the problem, and I had to research elsewhere.

Rad

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth · 12-14-2002, 09:46 AM

Here is the most interesting extract from the site I found, in case anyone found the size of it intimidating.

Quote:

Unfortunately, no record of the negotiations leading to the treaty exist. It's not known how Article 11 found its way into the document. Other treaties negotiated at the same time with Algeria and Tunis do not contain similar clauses. This has led to speculation that the provision may have been inserted at the insistence of officials in Tripoli, who wanted some assurance that the United States would not use religion as a pretext for future hostilities.

The Muslim regions of North Africa would have good reason to be concerned about this issue, given the centuries-long conflict between Islam and Christianity. Muslim leaders resented their treatment at the hands of the officially Christian countries of Europe. Tripoli's leaders may have viewed the United States as a mere extension of "Christian" Great Britain and expected similar tensions over religion.
To be sure, Islam was considered an exotic religion to most Americans at this time.

Although Jefferson celebrated the fact that his Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom extended its protections to "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination," the fact is that Muslims were rare in 18th century America—if there were any at all—and most Americans continued to view Islam as a strange, even sinister, faith.
For their part, North Africa's Muslims had little love for Christianity. In 1784, Barbary pirates captured the U.S. schooner Maria and took the crew and passengers to Algeria, where they were paraded through the streets and jeered as "infidels" before being imprisoned.

In 1793, Algerian pirates captured the cargo ship Polly, plundered it and imprisoned the 12-man crew. The Algerian captain informed the American captives they could expect harsh treatment "for your history and superstition in believing in a man who was crucified by the Jews and disregarding the true doctrine of God's last and greatest prophet, Mohammed."

I don't know what other proof one needs that the phrase was inserted out of desperation or to appease another country. We basically had to bribe them with a huge payment of $800,000 and then pay them another $20,000 a year to get them to stop. Late payments resulted in the resumption of state-sanctioned robbery.

Does anyone here think the phrase was removed 4 years later because they quit being pirates? I any case, it's clear it was not put in as an advertisement that we were a purely secular nation, and it was not used elsewhere, even with other Muslim countries, to my knowledge.

Also, it is entirely reasonable to think it was put in because of the Pollyincident to help protect sailors from religious persecution. I think I would have voted for it with a slight change of wording, if it meant less abuse of sailors

Given all the facts, I think it's inclusion was later thought to be disingenuous.

Rad

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Toto · 12-14-2002, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
<strong>

I' just making the badly needed case that nobody was going around screaming "The Bible Says NO" to the Constitution, as though God were somehow fighting human rights. That is certainly the impression atheists would like to leave.

BTW, I totally forgot Proverbs Ch 31, which quite objectively refutes the idea that women should have little or no power.

Rad</strong>

The constitution is literally godless. The original motto of this country was secular - E Pluribus Unum. The nation was formed in rebellion against the divinely appointed King of England with total disregard of Paul's admonition in Romans that all government comes from God, and the Declaration claimed rights given by "Nature's God" - a formula that was used at the time to refer to the God of Deism and not the God of Christianity.

It took some while for Christians to start agitating to put In God We Trust on money, and it was not until the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950's that the motto was changed to IGWT, and there have been numerous attempts to amend the Constitution to declare this a Christian nation, which have all failed.

I recognized from the start that this was a trap for Radorth. There are no Biblical precepts in the US Constitution.

And regarding Proverbs 31, the wife whose value is greater than rubies - that wife has no inalienable rights of her own, only value to her husband. And it is her husband who "is resepcted at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land." Not that the US Constitution of 1782 gave women a much higher status.

Toto · 12-14-2002, 10:41 AM

I think this thread close to its natural end. Radorth has admitted he can't answer the opening query, and we're about to go off onto that Library of Congress display, which he thinks none of us know about but will actually allow Buffman to wipe the floor with him.

I'll give it another 12 hours or so, then you can start a new topic on any remaining issues.

In the meantime, here is a previous thread with some useful discussion and links on the Treaty of Tripoli:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000558&p=" target="_blank">Treaty of Tripoli rebuke </a>

Here's an archived thread on the Library of Congress exhibit, with other links:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000319&p=" target="_blank">founder opinions</a>

and this:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000118" target="_blank">Buffman on Library of Congress exhibit</a>

12-14-2002, 11:58 AM

Quote:

I' just making the badly needed case that nobody was going around screaming "The Bible Says NO" to the Constitution, as though God were somehow fighting human rights. That is certainly the impression atheists would like to leave.

For the ten-trillionth time: the argument is not whether there were Christians involved in the founding of this country;it is whether the principles enshrined in the Constitution have their antecedent in the Bible.

We know that most - if not all - of the founders were either Christians or Deists . I don't know of many atheists who dispute this assertion, certainly not I. However, just because a Christian happens to support something doesn't mean that that support is based on Christian principles. You name any major social or political movement of the last 250+ years, I'm sure you will find Christians who came down on either side of the issue, whether it be slavery, suffrage, etc. You seem to selectively focus on those Christians who advocated democracy while ignoring their counterparts who worked against it. You have brought up the Quakers in regards to their pro-abolitionist sentiments, but you seem to forget other groups of Christians who used the Bible to attempt to justify slavery...not to mention the continued repression of women and the attempted "conversion"(i.e. extermination) of the native populace.

BTW, if your god was so concerned about human rights, why did he allow his "word" to be used as a tool of repression for over a thousand years in Europe? I guess your god "divinely inspired" the forgers of the Constitution, but not the monarchies of Europe, is that it?

Golly, that Yahweh is such a rapscallion.

But I digress. All of this is off-topic.

Quote:

BTW, I totally forgot Proverbs Ch 31, which quite objectively refutes the idea that women should have little or no power.

Wait a sec, back the horse cart up. First you imply that mfaber's list of Biblical quotes aren't applicable because they come from the Old Testament...and now you're supplying an OT reference?

Radorth, I think you are a deeply confused little primate.

And I have to agree with Toto here: Proverbs 31 seems nothing more than some exhortation for the wife of a "noble character" to do her "womanly duties" to bring honor and glory to her husband.

So what is this, the sixth or seventh scripture you've referenced that has absolutely no bearing to the topic?

Perhaps I should float these "proofs" of yours in Biblical Criticism and Archaeology to see what the more knowledgeable scholars have to say....

Buffman · 12-14-2002, 12:59 PM

(Before we close...and off the original issue)

Radorth

Oh by the way, the quotes from yesterday came off a Library of Congress website, and a skeptics website which was quoting from both sides. I doubt you have it in your database.

Please provide the URL for the site that gives the Jonathan Dayton quotes. Thank you.

Fine, and I will remind people that you LIED about what I said about Washingtons beliefs, and that while you preach daily on the subject of quoting in context and accurately, you yourself do not do so, nor do you harass skeptics who regularly fail to do so.

The entire dialogue between us is available for everyone to read and decide for themselves. I posted the reference string earlier in this topic. Additionally, I believe that it is important for everyone, whether theist or non-theist, to be as accurate with their quotes as possible. The fact that you are selective in which URLs, I provide, to research the information provided at them, sounds like a personal problem....which you constantly admit that you have when doing research....A lack of time. I can appreciate that and why I will often select an extract from the site to help with passing on the information. However, I try to provide the URL first so anyone can go and read for themselves. You fail to do that. You simply make statements without providing specific verifiable references.

BTW Buffman, I presume you read my SKEPTIC's website, being a lover of historical truth and riddles. So how did the "not a Christian nation" phrase get into the treaty, and why was it removed? Your sites shed no light on it that I could find. In fact they glossed over the problem, and I had to research elsewhere.

I honestly do not recall if I read "your" SKEPTIC's website. Would you please provide the URL hyperlink?

I gave you several URL's which go into all that is known about how that phrase got into that "specific" treaty. It wasn't "removed" from the future treaties. It simply did not appear in them any more than the people who draft one treaty are necessarily the same people who draft a new treaty with different Articles in it. The point that disturbs you appears to be that it wasn't removed from the English translation copy that was approved by Pres. Adams and the entire Senate. How many times would it have to be repeated before having the force of law and the consent of our government? I can find no Treaty claiming that we "are" a Christian Nation. Can you? --- However, here is the most definitive information, other than the Rob Boston article, that I can find on the issue.

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n6" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n6</a>

However, you seem to be saying that the President, with the unanimous affirmative vote of the Senate, never heard/read the Article 11 opening line. They did! It doesn't matter what previous, or future, treaties did or did not include in their texts. That line was included in this one. If you wish me to speculate why it did, I will be only too happy to do so. However, it would only be my best guess...not documented fact. (I am hard pressed to accept your belief that Yale University "glossed over" anything concerning this specific treaty.)

Does anyone here think the phrase was removed 4 years later because they quit being pirates? I any case, it's clear it was not put in as an advertisement that we were a purely secular nation, and it was not used elsewhere, even with other Muslim countries, to my knowledge.
Also, it is entirely reasonable to think it was put in because of the Pollyincident to help protect sailors from religious persecution. I think I would have voted for it with a slight change of wording, if it meant less abuse of sailors

I agree!

Given all the facts, I think it's inclusion was later thought to be disingenuous.

I have no way of knowing. We are both speculating when we attempt to guess what each individual was thinking at the time they ratified the treaty. I did find the following information interesting, though I have not confirmed its accuracy. If accurate, Mr. Straus used that specific treaty to save a great many lives. For that reason alone, I would find the statement to be of immense value to the families of those who might have died had it not been there.

<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/tripoli.html" target="_blank">http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/tripoli.html</a>

My personal guess is that Barlow placed that statement there because he had converted from Christianity to Deism. If you research his life and writings, you can see where he came under the influence of men like Jefferson, Paine, Madison and Monroe. If that is true, then it was probably more of a religious philosophy statement than a political one. Even so, it would have suited the economic and political climate of the times. I think you will find that Jefferson was against paying tribute to these pirates for safe passage. However, England and France had been doing so for quite some time and America simply did not have the Navy with which to enforce its will in those earlier years.

<a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html" target="_blank">http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html</a>

(Extract)
On 4 November 1796, near the end of George Washington's second term, a treaty with the "Bey and People of Tripoli" was signed, promising cash and other considerations to Tripoli in exchange for peace. Leading the negotiations for the U.S. at that point was Joel Barlow, a diplomat and poet (he wanted very much to be remembered as America's epic poet). Barlow was a friend of Thomas Jefferson and of Thomas Paine (Paine hurriedly entrusted the manuscript of the first part of the Age of Reason to Barlow when Paine was suddenly arrested by the radicals of the French revolution).

Barlow was very likely by 1796 a deist, though he had served earlier as a military chaplain. There is considerable dispute about whether the Arabic version of the treaty read and signed by the representatives of Tripoli even had the famous words included (they are not present, as was discovered in about 1930, in the surviving Arabic version). No one knows why. The treaty remained in effect for only four years, replaced, after more war with Tripoli, with another treaty that does not have the famous words included. One or two later treaties even allude to the Trinity. *If* the major claim of separationists regarding the treaty were a legal one, these facts might be fatal. But no one claims that the treaty was the basis for our government being non-Christian--it is the godless Constitution, which calls on no higher power than "We the People," that is the necessary and sufficient legal basis. What the treaty does is to powerfully reaffirm what the Constitution and First Amendment intended. (The references in one or two later treaties to things such as the Trinity occurred in treaties with Great Britain and Russia, both officially Christian nations at the time; no declarations that the U.S. is a Christian nation were included.)
(End extract)

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

12-14-2002, 01:59 AM	#251
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Radorth (12 Dec. 9:31 PM) I never use "Barton's" quotes. I've never read Barton. I don't trust Barton, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I sometimes refer to Federer, (as you should if you want to claim to know all) except when he sources Barton and nobody else. <a href="http://members.aol.com/rcorron/franklin.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/rcorron/franklin.html</a> (Now compare the following extract with Radorth, 11 Dec. 9:35 AM) Franklin's rebuff rearranged the priorities of the delegates -- they indeed did stop to pray. The adjourned, and for almost three days they prayed, attended church, and listened to ministers challenge and inspire them. Dod those three days have any effect on the Convention? Did the prayer make any difference? According to private writings of delegates who attended the Convention, those three days were the turning point in the success of their deliberations. When the reassembled, delegate Jonathan Dayton explained: Every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of reconciliation had been cultivated. After failing in their previous efforts, and then having heeded Franklin's rebuke, how successful were they after reconvening? "We the people of the United States ..." Thus begins what has become the oldest written constitution still in effect today ... the greatest legal minds of two centuries have continued to marvel at it as being almost beyond the scope and dimension of human wisdom. When one stops to consider the enormous problems the Constitution somehow anticipated and the challenges and testings it foresaw, that statement appears more understated than exaggerated. For not even the collective genius of the fledgeling United States of America could claim credit for the fantastic strength, resilience, balance, and timelessness of the Constitution. And most of them knew it. David Barton: America: To Pray or Not To Pray? Please come back. I will be adding more information. [Buffman edit: I believe this to be an inserted comment from the person posting the page who then goes on to cite the source.] This is a sampling from: America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations By: William J. Federer (End extract) Apparently Federer used David Barton's book "America: To Pray or Not To Prey" as his source document for the Jonathan Dayton quotes. Are you claiming that you were not aware of that fact when you wrote what you did above? What original sources did Barton use? You still need to apologize. If the information I post disturbs you, I apologize for publicly revealing it. However, I plan to continue to publicly provide the information as I find it.

12-14-2002, 09:23 AM	#254
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Skeptics debate rule no 11: When you are losing the quote war, bring up Barton. Criminy Rad

12-14-2002, 09:26 AM	#255
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	BTW Buffman, I presume you read my SKEPTIC's website, being a lover of historical truth and riddles. So how did the "not a Christian nation" phrase get into the treaty, and why was it removed? Your sites shed no light on it that I could find. In fact they glossed over the problem, and I had to research elsewhere. Rad [ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

12-14-2002, 10:41 AM	#258
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think this thread close to its natural end. Radorth has admitted he can't answer the opening query, and we're about to go off onto that Library of Congress display, which he thinks none of us know about but will actually allow Buffman to wipe the floor with him. I'll give it another 12 hours or so, then you can start a new topic on any remaining issues. In the meantime, here is a previous thread with some useful discussion and links on the Treaty of Tripoli: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000558&p=" target="_blank">Treaty of Tripoli rebuke </a> Here's an archived thread on the Library of Congress exhibit, with other links: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000319&p=" target="_blank">founder opinions</a> and this: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000118" target="_blank">Buffman on Library of Congress exhibit</a>

12-14-2002, 12:59 PM	#260
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	(Before we close...and off the original issue) Radorth Oh by the way, the quotes from yesterday came off a Library of Congress website, and a skeptics website which was quoting from both sides. I doubt you have it in your database. Please provide the URL for the site that gives the Jonathan Dayton quotes. Thank you. Fine, and I will remind people that you LIED about what I said about Washingtons beliefs, and that while you preach daily on the subject of quoting in context and accurately, you yourself do not do so, nor do you harass skeptics who regularly fail to do so. The entire dialogue between us is available for everyone to read and decide for themselves. I posted the reference string earlier in this topic. Additionally, I believe that it is important for everyone, whether theist or non-theist, to be as accurate with their quotes as possible. The fact that you are selective in which URLs, I provide, to research the information provided at them, sounds like a personal problem....which you constantly admit that you have when doing research....A lack of time. I can appreciate that and why I will often select an extract from the site to help with passing on the information. However, I try to provide the URL first so anyone can go and read for themselves. You fail to do that. You simply make statements without providing specific verifiable references. BTW Buffman, I presume you read my SKEPTIC's website, being a lover of historical truth and riddles. So how did the "not a Christian nation" phrase get into the treaty, and why was it removed? Your sites shed no light on it that I could find. In fact they glossed over the problem, and I had to research elsewhere. I honestly do not recall if I read "your" SKEPTIC's website. Would you please provide the URL hyperlink? I gave you several URL's which go into all that is known about how that phrase got into that "specific" treaty. It wasn't "removed" from the future treaties. It simply did not appear in them any more than the people who draft one treaty are necessarily the same people who draft a new treaty with different Articles in it. The point that disturbs you appears to be that it wasn't removed from the English translation copy that was approved by Pres. Adams and the entire Senate. How many times would it have to be repeated before having the force of law and the consent of our government? I can find no Treaty claiming that we "are" a Christian Nation. Can you? --- However, here is the most definitive information, other than the Rob Boston article, that I can find on the issue. <a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n6" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n6</a> However, you seem to be saying that the President, with the unanimous affirmative vote of the Senate, never heard/read the Article 11 opening line. They did! It doesn't matter what previous, or future, treaties did or did not include in their texts. That line was included in this one. If you wish me to speculate why it did, I will be only too happy to do so. However, it would only be my best guess...not documented fact. (I am hard pressed to accept your belief that Yale University "glossed over" anything concerning this specific treaty.) Does anyone here think the phrase was removed 4 years later because they quit being pirates? I any case, it's clear it was not put in as an advertisement that we were a purely secular nation, and it was not used elsewhere, even with other Muslim countries, to my knowledge. Also, it is entirely reasonable to think it was put in because of the Pollyincident to help protect sailors from religious persecution. I think I would have voted for it with a slight change of wording, if it meant less abuse of sailors I agree! Given all the facts, I think it's inclusion was later thought to be disingenuous. I have no way of knowing. We are both speculating when we attempt to guess what each individual was thinking at the time they ratified the treaty. I did find the following information interesting, though I have not confirmed its accuracy. If accurate, Mr. Straus used that specific treaty to save a great many lives. For that reason alone, I would find the statement to be of immense value to the families of those who might have died had it not been there. <a href="http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/tripoli.html" target="_blank">http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/tripoli.html</a> My personal guess is that Barlow placed that statement there because he had converted from Christianity to Deism. If you research his life and writings, you can see where he came under the influence of men like Jefferson, Paine, Madison and Monroe. If that is true, then it was probably more of a religious philosophy statement than a political one. Even so, it would have suited the economic and political climate of the times. I think you will find that Jefferson was against paying tribute to these pirates for safe passage. However, England and France had been doing so for quite some time and America simply did not have the Navy with which to enforce its will in those earlier years. <a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html" target="_blank">http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html</a> (Extract) On 4 November 1796, near the end of George Washington's second term, a treaty with the "Bey and People of Tripoli" was signed, promising cash and other considerations to Tripoli in exchange for peace. Leading the negotiations for the U.S. at that point was Joel Barlow, a diplomat and poet (he wanted very much to be remembered as America's epic poet). Barlow was a friend of Thomas Jefferson and of Thomas Paine (Paine hurriedly entrusted the manuscript of the first part of the Age of Reason to Barlow when Paine was suddenly arrested by the radicals of the French revolution). Barlow was very likely by 1796 a deist, though he had served earlier as a military chaplain. There is considerable dispute about whether the Arabic version of the treaty read and signed by the representatives of Tripoli even had the famous words included (they are not present, as was discovered in about 1930, in the surviving Arabic version). No one knows why. The treaty remained in effect for only four years, replaced, after more war with Tripoli, with another treaty that does not have the famous words included. One or two later treaties even allude to the Trinity. If the major claim of separationists regarding the treaty were a legal one, these facts might be fatal. But no one claims that the treaty was the basis for our government being non-Christian--it is the godless Constitution, which calls on no higher power than "We the People," that is the necessary and sufficient legal basis. What the treaty does is to powerfully reaffirm what the Constitution and First Amendment intended. (The references in one or two later treaties to things such as the Trinity occurred in treaties with Great Britain and Russia, both officially Christian nations at the time; no declarations that the U.S. is a Christian nation were included.) (End extract)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.