The U.S. treaty with Tripoli 1796

[Ziploc Surprise]

I am reading Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" and learned about article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli that was signed in 1796. I suppose this may be old news for most people but it's new to me. I'd like to ask, what are your thoughts on this? Specifically I have questions below, but if you have any other input I'd be glad to hear it. First let me post the link: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html go to article 11 when you get there.

1) Why isn't this well known?
2)I assume if Richard Dawkins uses it then it must be legitimate. Why don't atheists use it to help refute the fundamentalist argument that the U.S. is a Christian country? I
3) If I were to use it to help me shut up my fundy friends on Facebook who constantly spam my page about how the U.S. is a Christian country and we all must return to god or god will punish us (blah, blah, blah) is there any hidden thing I need to know about it?

Finally what do you think about paragraph 5 of this: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buck...ipoli.html

[kılıç_mehmet]

U.S. *is* a Christian majority country. It's also heavily influenced by the christian religion, and has a christian tradition.
However, on a lawful base, and as what concernes state matters, the US has always been secular, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think there is much to be said about this.

[Rev. Rye]

1) Why isn't this well known?
Well, it's obscure because we're not as familiar with old trade agreements as we should be.
2)I assume if Richard Dawkins uses it then it must be legitimate. Why don't atheists use it to help refute the fundamentalist argument that the U.S. is a Christian country?
We do.
3) If I were to use it to help me shut up my fundy friends on Facebook who constantly spam my page about how the U.S. is a Christian country and we all must return to god or god will punish us (blah, blah, blah) is there any hidden thing I need to know about it?
One thing you need to know is that the real important thing is not just that the American Government stated (with wording approved by the Senate) that it's not a Christian nation, but that there wasn't a shitstorm about it from the common people when it came out. At most, there was a response of "unfortunate, but true."

[Phil]

1) Why isn't this well known?

Can't answer for others but in my experience it is well known among educated people.

2)I assume if Richard Dawkins uses it then it must be legitimate. Why don't atheists use it to help refute the fundamentalist argument that the U.S. is a Christian country?

It is used but most fundies claim it isn't true. There is (or was) a teaching (think it was very popular in the 80s) among fundies that Columbus actually came to the "New World" to evangelize the heathen (Indians) and that he was really a messianic Jew as his logs were written in Hebrew. It was also taught that all the founding fathers were closet Christians.

3) If I were to use it to help me shut up my fundy friends on Facebook who constantly spam my page about how the U.S. is a Christian country and we all must return to god or god will punish us (blah, blah, blah) is there any hidden thing I need to know about it?

The answer to #2.

[Minimalist]

I thought you'd all find it amusing to see how the "moral" xtians lie about this document.

http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/Tre...-Hide.html

If there is one thing about the Treaty of Tripoli which anti-Christians cannot escape, it is the fact that no matter how you cut it, the supposed “non Christian section” (Article 11) of that treaty cannot be validated.

Sadly for lying xtian fuckwads,

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. As to the ratification generally, see the notes. Proclaimed Jane 10, 1797.

Citations in law books count for much more than the rantings of lying jesus freaks.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Thanks for the links Min.

On a similar note any thoughts on The Treaty of Paris? "The Treaty of Paris of 1783begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... Ithaving pleased the Divine Providence” *"

I'm asking these questions because I have been marginally effective in debating on Facebook about the separation of church and state in the U.S. but I'd like a way, if possible, to shut them up a bit faster. I prefer to debate from a very extensive knowledge base. Most of the things I debate are topics that I believed before becoming an atheist. Other topics I have always gone along with because I didn't know the other side of the story. In the past I could only question them not debate them. Sadly, for these latter topics I have to sit in the background and bite my tongue due to lack of sufficient knowledge. Some of my friends and family are seasoned debaters and I don't like engaging them unless I have a lot of bullshit spray, so to speak.

BTW if anyone wonders why I debate it's because I love debating.

[Minimalist]

The second line makes clear that the document was written by or for George III.

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore,

Looks like the Limeys still believed in holy horseshit. No wonder they lost!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It is used but most fundies claim it isn't true.

That is because they are stuffwits or bare faced liars. The treaty of Tripoli is on public record and available to anyone who cares to look. It was ratified by the US senate on June 17 1797 and signed into law by president John Adams June 10 1797.


Article 11 is unambiguous. The arguments against it are spurious and disingenuous (to be polite) in my opinion..

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,[12] 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,[7] or that the quotation is based on an incomplete reading of Article 11.[14]
Article 11

Article 11 reads:

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 tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

[LiberalHearted]

I am reading Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion" and learned about article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli that was signed in 1796. I suppose this may be old news for most people but it's new to me. I'd like to ask, what are your thoughts on this? Specifically I have questions below, but if you have any other input I'd be glad to hear it. First let me post the link: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html go to article 11 when you get there.

1) Why isn't this well known?
2)I assume if Richard Dawkins uses it then it must be legitimate. Why don't atheists use it to help refute the fundamentalist argument that the U.S. is a Christian country? I
3) If I were to use it to help me shut up my fundy friends on Facebook who constantly spam my page about how the U.S. is a Christian country and we all must return to god or god will punish us (blah, blah, blah) is there any hidden thing I need to know about it?

Finally what do you think about paragraph 5 of this: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buck...ipoli.html

I do love Richard Dawkins and thank him and you for posting the US Treaty with Tripoli.

The Marines song also came from this, but yes I've known it and have on many occasions on other forums used the document as well as quotes from (our forefathers) that this is not a christian nation, and has not been set up to be so.

Maybe this site will give a better explanation: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/revision.htm

Of course the rush of the "fundies" xtians
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feature...ldman.html

An odd quote from the above:

Just as the Founding Fathers disagreed, so too did people of faith. Congregationalists and Episcopalians were the chief defenders of state-supported religion and more aligned with the views of Adams and Henry. It was the evangelicals who backed the more radical views of Jefferson and Madison. Leland, for instance, agreed with Jefferson's opposition to congressional chaplains. "If legislatures choose to have a chaplain, for Heaven's sake, let them pay him by contributions, and not out of the public chest," he once wrote. Indeed, as Rabbi James Rudin notes in his new book The Baptizing of America, "Leland was even against the Sunday closings of U.S. post offices, feeling this represented government favoritism by officially recognizing the Christian Sabbath."

[/quote]