your reference to "FAT", is it some how associating Jesus to a filing system, or are you implying that he was overweight?

For MS. Notice nothing is speculated upon here because the actual article sums up exactly what the intentions of these Founding Fathers were. Your explanation was taken form an "evangelical Christian" website and is simply implying that these men were liars and not saying what they truly felt to be the truth. I would disagree. They said what they meant and meant what they said.


The Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"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 Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

MS your information came from CHUCK NORRIS????

It was directed towards this comment.

Reposted this...so you can read it again, Krimsa....(these are hardly words spoken by Norris....he didn't live at the time our founding fathers spoke these words).

Once more .... we are a Christian nation.

I am only saddened that you live in the USA, and don't even know this.

MS, the SITE in which you copied and pasted this information is owned by CHUCK NORRIS.

As to when was the last time I prayed at work,, I even prayed in school when we supposedly couldn't, I pray daily, where and when I want, for to speak with our heavenly father doesn't require that we say any words. He knows our hearts and minds, we can pray silently with as much meaning as if the words were audible. That is why I don't understand why people care wether or not man says they can pray in school or one place or another. We can pray anytime, anywhere,

The key wording there being "supposedly couldn't". If we allowed children or employees to pray to the Christian god of the bible and observe those sacraments, then what about the Jewish students? What about the Islamic students? What about the Wiccans at work? Where does it end? You cant observe one religion over another.

well said MS,

So is anyone going to address these points or sit there and not read what anyone else has posted and compliment "your team"?

A little more about the Treaty with Tripoli and I think this is a VERY fair assessment and is not favoring one side or the other really. Its just basically a historical viewpoint.

In 1797, six years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the United States government signed a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli that contained the following statement (numbered Article 11 in the treaty):

As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.

So far as we can tell, the inclusion of these words in the treaty had no negative political ramifications for the treaty whatsoever. On the contrary, the treaty was approved by President John Adams and his Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, and was then ratified by the Senate without objection. According to an information sheet provided to us by Ed Buckner of the Atlanta Freethought Society:

The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate clearly specifies that the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and that copies of the treaty were printed "for the use of the Senate." Nor is it plausible to argue that perhaps Senators voted for the treaty without being aware of the famous words. The treaty was quite short, requiring only two or three pages to reprint in most treaty books today--and printed, in its entirely, on but one page (sometimes the front page) of U.S. newspapers of the day. The lack of any recorded argument about the wording, as well as the unanimous vote and the and the wide reprinting of the words in the press of 1797, suggests that the idea that the government was not a Christian one was widely and easily accepted at the time.

Accomodationists frequently note that Article 11 appeared only in the English version of the treaty; in the Arabic version a letter-like page of gibberish appears where Article 11 should be. The Arabic version was translated by Joel Barlow, the diplomatic representative that negotiated the treaty on behalf of the United States. Barlow was a good friend of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and James Monroe, and was most likely a deist or atheist. It is almost certain that he authored Article 11 in the English version. Many accomodationists seem to think that the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version has something to do with Barlow, and that this absence should somehow blunt the separationist impact of the English Article 11.

In point of fact, we have no idea if Barlow is connected to the page of gibberish in the Arabic version. The "substitute" page was not discovered until 1930; what happened to the treaty before that time is unknown. The Article, if it was originally in the Arabic version, could have been lost at any time between 1797 and 1930. And there is certainly no reason to assume that Article 11 wasn't in the original Arabic version: A Muslim nation would surely have welcomed Article 11 as an assurance of American intentions with respect to religion.

More generally, we can't imagine how the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version effects the separationist argument. It was the English version of the treaty that was approved by President Adams and Secretary Pickering, and this version unquestionably contained Article 11. Similarly, when the Senate ratified the treaty, they did so knowing full well that the English version declared that the United States was not a Christian nation. The separationist implications of the treaty can't be escaped by arguing that the Arabic version may not have contained Article 11; the President, Secretary of State, and Senate thought it did, but approved the treaty anyway.

One can pray anytime anywhere is all I am saying, You can pray and no one know you are doing it. Now, some like to make a big show, and be seen to observe rituals or be holy men somehow and like to do things to be seen of men, that is not effective prayer in that case anyhow. My point was that as a youth, when the laws of man said you can no longer pray in school came about, and I was in school then, we use to pray every morning as a class and say the pledge. It didn't change anything for me as far a praying if I felt the desire to. It sure caused a lot of controversy though. This country was founded on FREEDOM of choice and the pursuit of happiness and of how one wants to worship or not. Our forefathers didn't have anything against God, it was the way the church of england tried to run everything and say they were the only true church and stuff, that is what they wanted to avoid, not the mention of God

God Bless Chuck Norris

(( Krimsa ))

(( Morningsong ))


guys

Thats not what we are discussing though. I realize anyone can "pray" to whatever deity they choose in private. Thats not the point. I am speaking of our Founding Fathers and why they felt it important to create this "Wall of Separation" between church and state. Clearly they felt it was necessary in light of the potentiality of Christian bias being imposed on this new nation. Can you blame them? They were Deists. At least 6 of the higher profile members were.

That is what I am speaking of.

Not whether or not you are capable of praying silently. Anyone can do that.

aww c'mon Krimsa, Chuck is right up there with Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and (takes hat off) Randolph Scott (puts hat back on)

just sat down with some coffee, still reading and catchin up, wasn't trying to bash what you were saying, just felt like throwin that in,

Its probably not actually Chuck Norris but just has the same name. I thought it was funny is all.

It could be Chuck Norris though. Isnt he an outspoken Christian?

who's team am I on?

I believe he is a Christian, not sure, he seems to be a decent person at least his public side, one doesn't have to be christian to be decent though