Reply
Tue 29 May, 2007 12:21 pm
One of the biggest lies touted by the religious right is that the United States was founded on Christian ideals. This has been one of the bedrock principles that they have used to attack abortion rights, gay rights, and stem cell research. And it has no place in our politics.
You don't have to look far to see Christian leaders preaching that separation of church and state is a lie, and that religious interference in politics is a mandate. But evidence for their claims that the USA is a Christian society is questionable at best.
Evidence that our founding fathers wanted to protect this country from a religious agenda, however, is far more impressive.
Particularly, article 11.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
I have to agree but would like to add an addendum. The "founding fathers" or more specifically Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin amongst others were more outspoken as Deists. Believers in a creator that made the world but then left it to its own devices.
They didn't believe in the sanctity of the bible, Jesus' divinity or even divine intervention. In fact Jefferson was fervently anti-established religion. In a letter to Haratio Spafford Jefferson wrote, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes."
Hardly a glowing review of established religion as one to base a government upon.
BDoug wrote:I... and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes."
And what do you suppose he was referring to as 'the purest religion ever preached'?
Another point is that the Bible specifically forbids people from rebelling against the King.
True Christians would not have joined a revolution.
JPB wrote:BDoug wrote:I... and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes."
And what do you suppose he was referring to as 'the purest religion ever preached'?
Im assuming he's refering to Deism, a spiritual philosophy he promoted and was popular amongst the intelligentsia of the time. I'm pretty positive he was not referring to Christianity.
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
um, no he was referring to the teachings of Jesus.
Many of Jefferson's thoughts on religion, Christianity, and Jesus can be found in the introduction to "The Jefferson Bible - The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth".
Discussion of the introduction (including letters) can be found
here
While there is no reason to state that the United States was established as a Christian nation, in history it is always important to view these events in context. From long before the foundation of the United States until 1816, the Muslim petty rulers of the North African littoral preyed upon shipping, and many, many nations, including especially England and France, tried a number of means to fend off the predatory corsairs of these nations. After the foundation of the United States, American merchantmen found themselves to be preferred prey of the Barbary pirates because they did not enjoy the protection of the Royal Navy or the French fleet. The most important task of the United States Navy in its early years was dealing with piracy, and in particular, in the early years, in dealing with the Barbary pirates.
The treaty referred to here has been brought up at this site on numerous previous occasions. It does not surprise me to see this member treat this as though it were news. But the context of the treaty is important. If the petty Muslim rulers of Algiers and Tunisia could claim that they waged holy war against the infidel, then Christian seamen taken prisoner could be murdered out of hand or sold into slavery with religious impunity by the Barbary pirates, who needed little excuse to do so anyway, but found that a means to claim to be acting piously for the greater glory of Islam.
It was a stroke of diplomatic policy to assert in the treaty with Algiers that the United States is not a Christian nation, because the United States could thereby avoid the imputations of holy war on the part of Muslims, and condemn in international law the seizures of American ships and crew as acts of piracy. Whether or not those who promulgated the treaty, and those in the Senate who approved it were sincere in stating that the United States is not a Christian nation cannot be inferred from the treaty--it only provided a basis upon which to deny that the Algerine and other Muslim pirates were waging holy war.
The United States, like the Royal Navy and France, all tried a mix of paying tribute, signing treaties, and waging war on the Barbary pirates to end the depredations. Eventually, after 1815, with those three nations no longer at war with one another, and the United States having built up their navy in response to the War of 1812 with England, all three nations turned their attention to the problem, and ceased to pay tribute or to negotiate, and instead waged relentless war on the Algerines and Tunisians. The eventual result was that by 1816, piracy on the Barbary coast was no longer supported by the local ruling authorities. It was a decade before it was eradicated completely, but state-sponsored piracy ended then.
The treaty referred to by the author had a very specific context for denying that the United States was a Christian nation.
But he's still approaching it from a deist perspective by removing all references to miracles and supernatural events. I would say to be a true christian you would have to believe that Christ was born by supernatural intervention and was the son of god. In fact he states it plainly he doesnt believe this, "it is not to be understood that I am with Him [Jesus Christ] in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., "
The way JT describes it, Christ was a philosopher and reformer of Judaism. He appreciates and agrees with Christs ideas but does not subscribe to the spiritual side of Christianity.
Quote:
The eventual result was that by 1816, piracy on the Barbary coast was no longer supported by the local ruling authorities. It was a decade before it was eradicated completely, but state-sponsored piracy ended then.
And, sadly, this was the beginning of global warming.
ebrown_p wrote:Quote:
The eventual result was that by 1816, piracy on the Barbary coast was no longer supported by the local ruling authorities. It was a decade before it was eradicated completely, but state-sponsored piracy ended then.
And, sadly, this was the beginning of global warming.
I see you must have read the thoroughly convincing argument advanced by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Setanta wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Quote:
The eventual result was that by 1816, piracy on the Barbary coast was no longer supported by the local ruling authorities. It was a decade before it was eradicated completely, but state-sponsored piracy ended then.
And, sadly, this was the beginning of global warming.
I see you must have read the thoroughly convincing argument advanced by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Ahhh..All have been touched by his noodily appendages! lol
BDoug wrote:I have to agree but would like to add an addendum. The "founding fathers" or more specifically Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin amongst others were more outspoken as Deists. Believers in a creator that made the world but then left it to its own devices.
They didn't believe in the sanctity of the bible, Jesus' divinity or even divine intervention. In fact Jefferson was fervently anti-established religion. In a letter to Haratio Spafford Jefferson wrote, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes."
Hardly a glowing review of established religion as one to base a government upon.
Another gem from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to Samuel Kercheval, 1810:
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man .... perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind... a mere contrivance [for the clergy] to filch wealth and power to themselves."
Setanta wrote:Whether or not those who promulgated the treaty, and those in the Senate who approved it were sincere in stating that the United States is not a Christian nation cannot be inferred from the treaty...
Um, don't we have to take people at their word on this one?
And does the absence of a single dissenting vote not convince us that they were sincere?
The problem is, our modern-day collective consciousness has been sufficiently poisoned by the religious right that, given modern circumstances, there is no way in HELL such a treaty would pass in the year 2007 (evidence of how many steps backward we've taken thanks to the Christian movement). Can you even
imagine the brouhaha this would cause today?
Allow me to put "Article 11" into a modern day context:
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 against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Iran; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against Iran, 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.
If such a treaty were proposed today, it would be a lie. It would have the same appeasing tone behind its authorship. But Jerry Falwell's army would be
up in freaking arms if such a document hit the floor of our Senate.
So I think we have no choice to take unanimous support for the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence of where our leaders stood on the issue.
stlstrike3 wrote:Setanta wrote:Whether or not those who promulgated the treaty, and those in the Senate who approved it were sincere in stating that the United States is not a Christian nation cannot be inferred from the treaty...
Um, don't we have to take people at their word on this one?
And does the absence of a single dissenting vote not convince us that they were sincere?
My point is simply that you take the treaty out of its historical context. Even if it were so that the treaty was unanimously approved in the Senate, that is not evidence that it were anything more than a diplomatic expedient. Now, it is entirely possible that absolutely no member of the Senate at that time considered the United States to be a Christian nation--but you have no evidence that this were the case.
What is your basis for your claim that there were no dissenting votes? The site which you linked makes that claim, but it does not come from the Library of Congress site from which the makers of that site got the text of the treaty. So, first, we only have your word, and the word of a site with an agenda that it was unanimously approved; second, even if it were, we can only state with certainty that it was a diplomatic expedient--it is not a means to see into the consciences of the members of the Senate in 1797.
On the topic of the character of a religious war as it was seen by the Barbary pirates, General William Eaton, who was the military commander of United States forces in North Africa, wrote to Thomas Pickering, Adams' Secretary of State, and referring to the Barbary Muslims:
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, their inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful. (Charles Prentiss, Life of the Late General William Eaton, Brookfield, Massachusetts, 1813.)
Whether or not one alleges that the United States were a Christian nation, the point i am making is that this was a diplomatic expedient.
You're as a much a wild-eyed fanatic as any christian whom you condemn.
Setanta wrote:Whether or not one alleges that the United States were a Christian nation, the point i am making is that this was a diplomatic expedient.
You're as a much a wild-eyed fanatic as any christian whom you condemn.
"Prove that there weren't any dissenting votes."
"Prove that they believed a document that they signed their name to."
So, what, they were just kissing ass? Dipolmatic expedient or not, I think it's sorta low to call these guys liars.
=============================================
And I tire of the comparisons people draw between those passionate about the truth and religious zealots.
Call me whatever names you like, but I am not a "fanatic".
fa·nat·ic (fə-năt'ĭk)
n.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Some of the most vehement opposition to religious doctrine rebutts religion's self-proclaimed ability to trump "reason" with "faith".
faith (fāth) n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
But that is a discussion for another thread.
I have no reason to question that you are obsessed by an "extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm" to criticize religion and religious people. You're positively whacky about it.
Actually, the Founders were overwhelmingly Christians, and the country at large was even more heterogeneously Christian in the last half of the 18th century. Washington regarded himself as a Christian, and was a regular contributing member to his congregation. Jefferson and Franklin were probably the least religious of the well-known Founders, and it could be rightly that even Jefferson was a Christian who only despised organized dogma.
On the other hand, one of the contributing factors in the settlement of North America was by refugees fleeing the religious wars of Reformation and Counter-Reformation in northern Europe. The English Civil War that brought Oliver Cromwell to power, was as much a struggle about religious freedom as it was between the powers of King and Parliament. Henry's expulsion of the Catholics and seizure of their wealth made England the darling of European Protestants, but it only grudgingly permitted a wee bit of religious freedom to most commoners. Religion cost King Charles his head, and after the restoration, it drove the last Catholic British monarch (James) from his throne. Those who arrived in the New World were mostly determined to set up their own religious dictatorship, though Rhode Island resisted that trend.
The Founders were Christians, but they belonged to a wide range of denominations. To avoid religious turmoil between Christian sects, and to guarantee that the Federal government never, ever adopt a single state religion the Constitution formalizes the separation of Church and State. Still the great majority of the Founders strongly believed that religion was an important, perhaps essential foundation for stable and humane government. The Founders never foresaw a time when other religions would be followed by significant numbers of our citizens.
The drift away from Christianity is really quite recent. Prior to the middle of the 20th century, the overwhelming majority of Americans were Christians or Jews. Now around fifty years later, Christians and Jews still predominate. The number of Catholics has increased along with the number of immigrants from the South and the number of Muslims has also increased. Illegal immigrants have brought their Catholicism north with them from Meso-America. The number of Buddhists has grown as well over the last 50 years, even as the number of devout Christians has languished.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace