Our Judeo-Christian Nation [Archive] - Marine Corps

View Full Version : Our Judeo-Christian Nation

MOS4429

01-18-12, 12:55 PM

Congressman Forbes asks the questions "Did America ever consider itself a Judeo-Christian nation?" and "If America was once a Judeo-Christian nation, when did it cease to be?" on the floor of the US House.

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o

gkmoz

01-18-12, 01:54 PM

:thumbup::thumbup: My Double brother :)

TheReservist

01-18-12, 03:01 PM

MOS4429

01-18-12, 03:16 PM

The treaty of Tripoli

Art. 11. 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 Mussulmen; and, as the said States 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.

Thank you for posting this.

I posted the original thread as a historical document, would like to see it stay that way and not go political. The Treaty of Tripoli, however, is a historical writing.

What is the origin of the phrase “America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion”? What does it mean?
This quote comes from a line in the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797. While this line is regularly invoked by critics in a futile attempt to prove that America never was a Christian nation, this line is only a small incomplete portion of the full quote. It is taken from a 1797 treaty approved by America in the midst of our first War on Terror against Islamic terrorism. In it, the Muslims acknowledged that America was a Christian nation, and America reminded the Muslims that we were not a European Christian nation with an inherent hostility against Muslims – that is, that we were not a European, Middle-Ages type of Christian nation.

For more complete understanding and context on the Treaty of Tripoli, I will post a very good historical document below this post.

TheReservist

01-18-12, 03:16 PM

So you posted for states, the treaty of tripoli which was ratified by the congress and signed by the president, so the representing officials of the entire nation wanted a unified voice saying that we were not founded on christian principles. What has more power, federal or state?

Also, just saying god doesn't make it christian. It could be representative for muslims....

TheReservist

01-18-12, 03:19 PM

Thank you for posting this.

I posted the original thread as a historical document, would like to see it stay that way and not go political. The Treaty of Tripoli, however, is a historical writing.

What is the origin of the phrase “America is in no sense founded on the Christian religion”? What does it mean?
This quote comes from a line in the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797. While this line is regularly invoked by critics in a futile attempt to prove that America never was a Christian nation, this line is only a small incomplete portion of the full quote. It is taken from a 1797 treaty approved by America in the midst of our first War on Terror against Islamic terrorism. In it, the Muslims acknowledged that America was a Christian nation, and America reminded the Muslims that we were not a European Christian nation with an inherent hostility against Muslims – that is, that we were not a European, Middle-Ages type of Christian nation.

For more complete understanding and context on the Treaty of Tripoli, I will post a very good historical document below this post.[/left]

And the larger quote was that we were not founded a christian nation. Which we said to a bunch of muslims.

MOS4429

01-18-12, 03:19 PM

<TABLE id=Table4 class=mainTbl border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=767 align=center height=500><TBODY><TR><TD class="MainHeaders sIFR-replaced">Treaty of Tripoli </TD></TR><TR><TD class=bold>David Barton </TD></TR><TR><TD class=resources>
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent (http://shop.wallbuilders.com/Original-Intent-The-Courts-the-Constitution-and-Religion-Book-Paperback):

To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God; 1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible; 2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.) Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym. 4

Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious. 5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:

The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington's supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. 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. 6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) 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, 7 thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.
Throughout this long conflict, the four 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 8 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 9). 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. 10 (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships 11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates" – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.)
The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. 13 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, 14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers, 15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 16 etc. 17). 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. 18 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. 19
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. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.
Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent (http://www.wallbuilders.com/store/product2.html)), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.
Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. 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 latter 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," 20 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 21 and by John Adams as "rational." 22 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. 23
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! 24
Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. 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. 25
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. 26
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. 27
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. 28
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." 29
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." 30
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! 31 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? 32
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 33
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, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people. (Chapter 16 of Original Intent (http://www.wallbuilders.com/store/product2.html) will provide numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=112).)

Endnotes 
American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, s.v. "atheism."
Id., s.v. "agnostic."
Id., s.v. "deism"; see also American College Dictionary (1947), s.v. "deism."
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (1964), see synonym for "deist"; Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1963), see synonym for "atheism"; The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (1895), Vol. I, see synonym for "atheist"; Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language (1966), see synonyms for "skeptic."
Society of Separationists, "Did you know that these great American thinkers all rejected Christianity?" (Austin, TX: American Atheist Center); see also Los Angeles Times, August 3, 1995, p. B-9, "America's Unchristian Beginnings," Steven Morris.
Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, Claude A. Swanson, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. I, p. V.
Glen Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963), p. 127.
A General View of the Rise, Progress, and Brilliant Achievements of the American Navy, Down to the Present Time (Brooklyn, 1828), pp. 70-71.
Tucker, p. 50.
President Washington selected Col. David Humphreys in 1793 as sole commissioner of Algerian affairs to negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli and Tunis. He also appointed Joseph Donaldson, Jr., as Consul to Tunis and Tripoli. In February of 1796, Humphreys delegated power to Donaldson and/or Joel Barlow to form treaties. James Simpson, U. S. Consul to Gibraltar, was dispatched to renew the treaty with Morocco in 1795. On October 8, 1796, Barlow commissioned Richard O'Brien to negotiate the treaty of peace with Tripoli. See, for example, Ray W. Irwin, The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary Powers (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1931), p. 84.
J. Fenimore Cooper, The History of the Navy of the United States of America (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1847), pp. 123-124; see also A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1897, James D. Richardson, editor (Washington, DC: Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, pp. 201-202, from Washington's Eighth Annual Address of December 7, 1796.
See, for example, the treaty with Morocco: ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America: 1776-1949, Charles I. Bevans, editor (Washington, DC: Department of State, 1968-1976), Vol. IX, pp. 1278-1285; Algiers: concluded September 5, 1795; ratified by the U. S. Senate March 2, 1796; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 30 and July 6, 1815; proclaimed December 26, 1815, Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the United States of America and Other Powers Since July 4, 1776 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1889), pp. 1-15; Tripoli: concluded November 4, 1796; ratified June 10, 1797; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 4, 1805; ratification advised by the U. S. Senate April 12, 1806. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1785-1793; Tunis: concluded August 1797; ratification advised by the Senate, with amendments, March 6, 1798; alterations concluded March 26, 1799; ratification again advised by the Senate December 24, 1799. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1794-1799.
Gardner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905), pp. 33, 45, 56, 60.
Allen, p. 66.
Allen, p. 57.
Allen, p. 56.
See, for example, Report of the Committee of Claims, to Whom was Referred, on the Twentieth Instant the Petition of William Eaton (Washington, DC: A&G Way, 1804), pp. 6-34, “Statement Supported by Document Accompanying the Petition of William Eaton, presented the 20th of February, 1804,” Documents Respecting the Application of Hamet Caramalli, Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli (Washington, DC: Dwane & Son), pp. 53-54, letter from Secretary of State to James Cathcart, April 9, 1803, Documents Respecting the Application of Hamet Caramalli, Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli (Washington, DC: Dwane & Son), pp. 54-55, letter from the Secretary of State to Tobias Lear, June 6, 1804, Documents Respecting the Application of Hamet Caramalli, Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli (Washington, DC: Dwane & Son), pp. 71- 72, letter from Tobias Lear to James Madison, Secretary of State, July 5, 1805, Documents Respecting the Application of Hamet Caramalli, Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli (Washington, DC: Dwane & Son), pp. 80-81, letter from Tobias Lear to James Madison, July 5, 1805. All of these mention specific amounts paid to the Barbary powers for ransoms, as well as the numbers of ships and other supplies that was sent.
(See general bibliographic information from footnote 16 for each of these references) Morocco: see Articles 10, 11, 17, and 24; Algiers: See Treaty of 1795, Article 17, and Treaty of 1815, Article 17; Tripoli: See Treaty of 1796, Article 11, and Treaty of 1805, Article 14; Tunis: See forward to Treaty.
Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), pp. 43-44.
John Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p. 491, Address to the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society, May 8, 1823.
John Quincy Adams,An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 17.
John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. IX, p. 121, in a speech to both houses of Congress, November 23, 1797.
Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339.
Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster's Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and In Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard's Will (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1844), p. 52.
John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786.
John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in the United States' Army Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched from Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli (Brookfield: Merriam & Company, 1813), pp. 92-93, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering, June 15, 1799.
Prentiss, p. 146, from General Eaton to Mr. Smith, June 27, 1800.
Prentiss, p. 150, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering on July 4, 1800.
Prentiss, p. 185, from General Eaton to General John Marshall, September 2, 1800.
Prentiss, p. 325, from Eaton's journal, April 8, 1805.
Prentiss, p. 334, from Eaton's journal, May 23, 1805.
Prentiss. See also, Report of the Committee to Whom was Recommended on the Twenty-Sixth Ultimo A Resolution Respecting William Eaton (Washington, DC: A&C Way, 1806), January 8, 1806.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Marine1011

01-18-12, 03:22 PM

I thoght state constitutions are hist. documents too

TheReservist

01-18-12, 03:22 PM

So were any of those other quotes ratified by congress and signed off as official US words by the president?

SgtJane08

01-18-12, 03:27 PM

I believe, that state constitutions count for at least the intent and beliefs of the people of that time, do they not? or am I misreading the various preambles somehow

PJones64

01-18-12, 03:29 PM

My own Ohio seems to be founded on christien principles, says so in plain black n white, not suer what reservist is talking about

Marine1011

01-18-12, 03:32 PM

Seems plain english, as was stated, sure looks to me like this whole nation was made on the principals involved in JudeoChristian rules

MOS4429

01-18-12, 03:40 PM

I thoght state constitutions are hist. documents too

They absolutely are! Along with the U.S. Constitution.

MOS4429

01-18-12, 03:41 PM

What has more power, federal or state?

Neither. We have a Republican form of government and power is derived from the people.

Marine1011

01-18-12, 03:42 PM

Well can you help me out with this is reserve saying the treaty of Tripli outranks the constitution of this great country of ours, not sure what hes saying maybe he can come back on and tell, I'm not for sure what hes saying seems tripoli document would be less authoroty

gkmoz

01-18-12, 03:43 PM

My own Ohio seems to be founded on christien principles, says so in plain black n white, not suer what reservist is talking about

And Virginia too !

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other

MOS4429

01-18-12, 03:45 PM

Marine1011, it is a "treaty." It has no applicability to the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution and no jurisdiction on U.S. sovereignty. My post with the article from David Barton goes far in explaining it.

Mongoose

01-18-12, 05:04 PM

Great job, brother!

advanced

01-19-12, 09:31 AM

I have learned a great deal from this thread. Especially that Islam has been warring on us since our very beginning. Paying them off didn't work then, nor is it now. It seems that the only thing that Islam truly respects is the unleashing of a few good Marines.

Mongoose

01-19-12, 10:09 AM

awbrown1462

01-19-12, 11:10 AM

advanced

01-19-12, 11:33 AM

:thumbup::iwo::thumbup:

chulaivet1966

01-19-12, 11:56 AM

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible." "Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."

Wow...I'm a bit stunned by these historical quotes.

But, I do like history.

Carry on....

MOS4429

01-19-12, 12:33 PM

Wow...I'm a bit stunned by these historical quotes.

But, I do like history.

Carry on....

Wayne, I like His-story, too. This nation's history is replete with quotes referencing their devout belief in Christianity. For instance, Thomas Jefferson, critics say was a diest, other say, no, he was an agnostic, said of himself:

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man."

"The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses."

"I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others."

While many might claim Thomas Jefferson was a diest, rather than listening to modern claims, I find it most educational and useful to listen to his own words.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." Doesn't sound like a diest to me, and certainly not an agnostic.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson wrote a Primer intended for the Indians on the teachings of Christ entitled, "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." What Jefferson did was he took the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and published these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. When he was President of the United States, he signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians.

TheReservist

01-19-12, 02:01 PM

So were any of those quotes signed off by the President, ratified by the senate and then presented to the international community? No but the treaty of tripoli was...

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible. - Thomas Paine

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. - Thomas Jefferson

Zulu 36

01-19-12, 02:07 PM

TheReservist

01-19-12, 02:32 PM

It is apart of a collection of his letters, The Works, Vol. 1

The sentence is from a larger quote which is a part of an entire letter.

Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever, therefore, was adopted into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period, we have a tolerable collection, by Lambard and Wilkins; probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it; but none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons, to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians; and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption; we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. Another cogent proof of this truth is drawn from the silence of certain writers on the common law. Bracton gives us a very complete and scientific treatis of the whole body of the common law. He wrote this about the close of the reign of Henry III, a very few years after the date of the Magna Charta. We may consider this book as the more valuable, as it was written about the time which divides the common and statute law; and therefore gives us the former in its ultimate state

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=800&layout=html#chapter_85799

MOS4429

01-19-12, 04:13 PM

So were any of those quotes signed off by the President, ratified by the senate and then presented to the international community? No but the treaty of tripoli was...

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. - Thomas Jefferson

What is presented to the international community is irrelevant. What is before America is relevant. One quote in one treaty stated for one specific purpose ignores the volumes that speak otherwise.

The quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper from Monticello on Feburary 10, 1814, and of course was referring to The Common Law that existed in England. His argument at the time he wrote was that the common law existed in England 200 years before he believed Christianity arrived there, hence, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Ten years after his letter to Cooper, concerning the same subject, Jefferson blamed judges for promoting what he believed was the mistaken idea that there was a connection between Christianity and the law. He wrote, "The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed."

It is imporant to understand the context and mind set of Jefferson's mind at the time he wrote that quote, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

However, Joseph Story, a contemporary of Jeffersons,, also a U. S. Congressman and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice appointed by President James Madison disagreed and criticized Jefferson's letter. Story wrote, "It appears to me inconceivable how any man can doubt that Christianity is part of the Common Law of England." Years later, in a speech at Harvard University, he said, "There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations." In addition, Story writes, "One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations." "I verily believe that Christianity is necessary to support a civil society and shall ever attend to its institutions and acknowledge its precepts as the pure and natural sources of private and social happiness."

Who is wrong? Setting aside our "founding fathers," in recent years a federal appeals court in 1995 rules it was a "historical fact that the Ten Commandments served over time as the basis of our national law."

In 2000, a federal appeals court ruled that the Ten Commandments have had an "indisputable influence on the development of secular law."

In 2002, a federal appeals court ruled "what any sober student of history knows: for good or bad, right or wrong, the Ten Commandments did have an influence upon the development of United States law."

Segueing back to our Founding Fathers, John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a Judge, a Diplomat, of of two signers to the Bill of Rights, and 2nd President of the United States, said, "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.

"The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.

"Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.

"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.

"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!

"I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world."

The 1854 Congress wrote: "The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Benjamin Franklin, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a diplomat, a printer, scientist, signer of the U.S. Constitution, Governor of Pennsylvania wrote: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see."

In his eulogy that he wrote himself, he writes: "The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and guilding, lies here, food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beatiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author."

MOS4429

01-19-12, 04:21 PM

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible. - Thomas Paine

THOMAS PAINE. What took you so long to post a quote from Thomas Paine? I have been waiting with bated breath. :) Of ALL Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine was the least religious. Even though he was the least religious, in a speech he delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, Thomas Paine harshly criticized what the French were then teaching in their science classes-especially the philosophy they were using.

Interestingly, that same science philosophy of which Thomas Paine was so critical is identical to that used in our public schools today! Paine's indictment of that philosophy is particularly significant in light of the fact that all historians today concede that Thomas Paine was one of the very least religious of our Founders. Modernist like to say he was a deist, yet, even Paine could not abide teaching science, which excluded God's work and hand in the creation of the world and of all scientific phenomena. Below is an excerpt from that speech.

"Thomas Paine on "The Study of God"
Delivered in Paris on January 16, 1797, in a
Discourse to the Society of Theophilanthropists

"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.

"When we examine an extraordinary piece of machinery, an astonishing pile of architecture, a well executed statue or a highly finished painting where life and action are imitated, and habit only prevents our mistaking a surface of light and shade for cubical solidity, our ideas are naturally led to think of the extensive genius and talents of the artist. When we study the elements of geometry, we think of Euclid. When we speak of gravitation, we think of Newton. How then is it, that when we study the works of God in the creation, we stop short, and do not think of God? It is from the error of the schools in having taught those subjects as accomplishments only, and thereby separated the study of them form the Being who is the author of them. . . .

"The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of the creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of His existence. They labor with studied ingenuity to ascribe everything they behold to innate properties of matter; and jump over all the rest, by saying that matter is eternal."

Would that Paine were alive today! He would SLAM our public school system.

Thomas Paine frequently consulted Benjamin Franklin for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter is Franklin's response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.
<DIR>"To Thomas Paine
[Date uncertain.]

"DEAR SIR,

"I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

"But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

"I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,

"B. Franklin"
</DIR>Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will." Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, "[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States."

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was "absurd and impious"; Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion"; John Witherspoon said that Paine was "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith"; and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. 7 (http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/l%20FN7) Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as "the puny efforts of Paine."

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, "Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?" Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, "He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers." John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,"I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds." In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as "an outcast" in "social ostracism" and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.

(While Benjamin Franklin was serving in London as diplomat from the Colonies to the King, Franklin met Englishman Thomas Paine (born 1737, died 1809). Franklin arranged for him to move to America in 1774 and helped set him up in the printing business. In 1776, Paine wrote Common Sense, which helped fuel the separation of America from Great Britain. He then served as a soldier in the American Revolution. He returned to England in 1787, and then went to France in 1792 as a supporter of the French Revolution. In 1794, he published his Age of Reason, the deistic work, which brought him much criticism from his former American friends. Upon his return to America in 1802, he found no welcome and eventually died as an outcast.)

awbrown1462

01-19-12, 05:12 PM

Article 11
Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen such as David Barton claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty, that though the English phrase is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government, a number of the founders described America as a Christian nation, or that the quotation is based on an incomplete reading of Article 11.
The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been questioned, and it has been disputed whether Article 11 in the English version of the treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version. In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States' treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean to the United States' legal position in relationship with the rest of the world. According to Hunter Miller's notes, "the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all."
After comparing the United States' version by Barlow with the Arabic and the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that:

The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

TheReservist

01-20-12, 03:16 PM

MOS, so to clarify what you're saying is that Thomas Jefferson's quote was taken out of context because another man said so?

Also, Thomas Paine would be proud of the scientific discoveries of the 1700s when they have led to discoveries which has brought man to the moon, genetically alter fruits and vegetables, clone animals, allowed for human beings to live past 100 years old, nullify many of the diseases that once plagued society, brought the instruments that made the computer that you are typing on and the internet to which we are communicating with one another?