PDA

View Full Version : Religion suck it, xtians


Douche Baggins
08-30-2009, 08:06 PM
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion." '

- George Washington

jjjayb
08-30-2009, 08:34 PM
You're all class gochiefs. :shake:

Mojo Jojo
08-30-2009, 08:50 PM
Good God/Lord whatever Clay can't even get a VERY simple quote correct. No wonder he pimps WPI.

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion." Is from (First) Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 (8 US at L 154).

Washington used the word..."doctrine."

Get it right, or you lose the argument.

Mr. Kotter
08-30-2009, 08:52 PM
R U drunk? :spock:

HolyHandgernade
08-30-2009, 10:27 PM
Just for accuracy, Washington didn't author it, but he did approve the language written in the Treaty. It wasn't ratified until the Adams administration, however. It was one of only two (I think) ratifications in the history of the U.S. that passed with an unopposed vote.

Technically, all signed treaties, per the Constitution, are incorporated as laws of the U.S. Apologists attempt to get around this in two ways:

First, they claim that the Arabic version of the treaty does not contain this article, and only includes a symbol that no one is able to translate. This is a red herring, however, since Congress didn't ratify the treaty with the Arabic symbol, but with the article in question fully legible in English.

Second, they claim that the Treaty was "rewritten" so as not to provide as forceful language but retaining the same intent. However, this is not entirely accurate. After the treaty was signed, hostilities broke out again and another treaty was signed that was similar to the first. The first treaty is not "replaced", however. A signed treaty must be repealed, and it never was. It still appears on the ledger of signed treaties.

If memory serves, I believe it was a man named Barton who was the author of the language in the treaty. It does, however, give good insight to the nature in which the young republic took towards religion in general. It was not hostile to any, but it was not founded on any of them either. The Revolution, at its heart, was about liberty, including the liberty of religious choice within a country structured on secular laws.

-HH

Mr. Kotter
08-30-2009, 11:29 PM
Just for accuracy, Washington didn't author it, but he did approve the language written in the Treaty. It wasn't ratified until the Adams administration, however. It was one of only two (I think) ratifications in the history of the U.S. that passed with an unopposed vote.

Technically, all signed treaties, per the Constitution, are incorporated as laws of the U.S. Apologists attempt to get around this in two ways:

First, they claim that the Arabic version of the treaty does not contain this article, and only includes a symbol that no one is able to translate. This is a red herring, however, since Congress didn't ratify the treaty with the Arabic symbol, but with the article in question fully legible in English.

Second, they claim that the Treaty was "rewritten" so as not to provide as forceful language but retaining the same intent. However, this is not entirely accurate. After the treaty was signed, hostilities broke out again and another treaty was signed that was similar to the first. The first treaty is not "replaced", however. A signed treaty must be repealed, and it never was. It still appears on the ledger of signed treaties.

If memory serves, I believe it was a man named Barton who was the author of the language in the treaty. It does, however, give good insight to the nature in which the young republic took towards religion in general. It was not hostile to any, but it was not founded on any of them either. The Revolution, at its heart, was about liberty, including the liberty of religious choice within a country structured on secular laws.

-HH

No one, with any real sense, claims the nation was "founded on" religious belief.

However, likewise....no one, with any real sense, claims the republic was NOT influenced and/or inspired by religious beliefs....either.

As usual, the lunatic fringe frames the debate....in disingenuous and self-serving ways.... :rolleyes: