Discussion in 'Politics' started by BDBoop, May 13, 2012.
I agree in part. I think his treaty provision went too far when it said "in NO sense."
Given the First Amendment, I agree that it is not founded AS a Christian nation -- or as a Jewish Nation -- or as a Deist Nation -- or as a Muslim Nation -- etc. Freedom of Religion means that no one religion is dominant or favored.
On the other hand, there IS a sense in which the founding of the Republic was premised -- at least in part -- upon our Judeo-Christian roots.
I can't wait to see how many people disagree with him. And why.
Then the pronouncement as written in the Declaration, and then later codified in the Constitution means squat...
Keep digging BD Barf.
It was not founded on the Christian religion, but that doesn't mean a default to no religion.
Be more specific, DrunkTard.
Why doesn't it? Should we go on which branch has the most people? Which religion? Catholics?
What is the majority?
Love it! Standing at one for each right now. Better get out there and vote, fundies!
200 something years later, this would have sunk him:
“But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.”–John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
That particular clause in the treaty was meant to appease the Muslims with whom the treaty dealt. It was meant as an assurance to them that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced.
Now, I do agree that one of the primary concerns of the Founding Fathers was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. I believe they felt that individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States.
So I guess my answer would be, based on your use of the Treaty of Tripoli to make the argument... I disagree.
But I also agree...
Separate names with a comma.