Atheist soldier says Army punished him

[Shogun]

Nothnig you have posted addresses my argument.
Of course, of you had a cluse as to what I was arguing, you'd realize that.

But, instead of admitting I'm right and that you don't have a clue and then going back to see what my argument was, you'll continue with the pre-adolescent tripe you've been posting.

Be a man. Admit you dont know what I'm arguing, figure it out, and then address it.

Or, run away and prove me right.

Your call.

I told you.. I know exactly what you are arguing. But, say what you need to in order to exit stage left, dude... It's probably not clear just how far you will go to avoid addressing Tripoli while acting like the word Creator in the DOI means anything.

Like I said, dude... run away like a little girl and save as much E-rep as you think matters.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I told you.. I know exactly what you are arguing.

Nothing you have posted indicates anything of the sort.

You may now run away.
Or you can be a man.
Again, your call -- but I know which path you'll take, and so do you.

 

[Shogun]

Nothing you have posted indicates anything of the sort.

You may now run away.
Or you can be a man.
Again, your call -- but I know which path you'll take, and so do you.

HA!

yea, nothing I have posted that you keep running away from like a vampire at sunrise, eh?

poor guy...

so, if you can find such significance of a capitalized C in the word Creator then you MUST be daft enough to know what "The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the christian religion" meant to the congress and FF president that ratified the sentence, eh!

 

[BrianH]

Article 11 controversy
The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
This section has been tagged since February 2008.

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.[citation needed]


Article 11Article 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; 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.


[edit] Translation controversy

Miller's Investigation and NotesThe translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, and there is doubt whether Article 11 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's treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean in terms of the United States's legal position in relationship with the rest of the world.[18] 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."[19]

After comparing the United States's version by Barlow with the Arabic and even 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[19].

From this, Miller concludes: "A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts..."

I don't know enough about this whole concept to get a discussion going, but this is interesting. No one knows for sure

 

[BrianH]

"It's not known how Article 11 found its way into the document. Other treaties negotiated at the same time with Algiers and Tunis do not contain similar clauses. This has led to speculation that the provision may have been inserted at the insistence of officials in Tripoli, who wanted some assurance that the United States would not use religion as a pretext for future hostilities."

http://candst.tripod.com/boston4.htm

I'm not saying that the nation was founded upon christianity, cause we've already solved our disupute.

But Shog and M14's despute is still desputed at the historical level as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so, if you can find such significance of a capitalized C in the word Creator then you MUST be daft enough to know what "The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the christian religion" meant to the congress and FF president that ratified the sentence, eh!

Tell me how this is in any way relevant to my argument.

Hint: You need to first know what my argument is.
Since you dont know what my argument is, and since you refuse to even try to figure it out, you'll have a tough time explaining the relevance of what you posted.

You know this, and because you cannot admit you don't have a clue, you'll simply avoiding trying to show relevance.

Again.

 

[BrianH]

The English Version containing Article 11 was ratified unanimously however.

And so continues the never ending debate

 

[Shogun]

Tell me how this is in any way relevant to my argument.

Hint: You need to first know what my argument is.
Since you dont know what my argument is, and since you refuse to even try to figure it out, you'll have a tough time explaining the relevance of what you posted.

You know this, and because you cannot admit you don't have a clue, you'll simply avoiding trying to show relevance.

Again.

hey man.. make ANY excuse you need to make.. It's not like this is the first time people have commented on your avoidance in this thread.


it's cool, dude. go lick your wounds.. come back after you've had a chance to fabricate some nutty ******* theory about the capitolized words in the Treaty.

 

[midcan5]

M14Shooter,

But then he has the right? and if not, the sole difference is religion. Does he have that right?

Does this soldier have the same right as the other soldiers to discuss his particular belief? Please, Yes or No, and if No why?

 

[Shogun]

The English Version containing Article 11 was ratified unanimously however.

And so continues the never ending debate

Would you like to venture a guess on why those specific words passed congress and was validated by a FF president?

 

[M14 Shooter]

hey man.. make ANY excuse you need to make.. It's not like this is the first time people have commented on your avoidance in this thread.

I'll take this as you admitting you cannot show how any of what you said is relevant to my argument, because, clearly, if you could do so, you would have.

Thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14Shooter,
Does this soldier have the same right as the other soldiers to discuss his particular belief? Please, Yes or No, and if No why?

I have already asnwered this.

 

[BrianH]

No, haven't a clue. I'm just saying that we will never know the intentions of it. I'm not arguing your position on the christian founding of the U.S. We've established the religion in general played specific part (whether believed by the founding fathers or not).

My reasons to believe that we'll never know what it's intentions are is because there have been treaties with other nations at the same time that don't have Article 11 in them. They have no clue how Article 11 found its way into the treaty, because it wasn't in the original Arabic version of the treaty. And other documents do mention a higher power, and were signed by by Franklin, John Adams, etc...

I'll agree that it wasn't set up to be a Christian nation. But I don't believe the Treaty of Tripoli can actualy prove (to the highest extent)you're case, because it is still debated historically.

It kind of sounds like we were telling everyone what they wanted to hear. And I think this will end up being a never-ending discussion.

 

[Shogun]

I'll take this as you admitting you cannot show how any of what you said is relevant to my argument, because, clearly, if you could do so, you would have.

Thank you.

You can take it however you need to take it in order to facilitate your exit strategy. Lord knows it's not obvious to anyone reading the previous 3 pages how desperate you are to sidestep the primary documents...

 

[midcan5]

I have already asnwered this.

You have not, you have only changed the subject. Does he have the right, yes or no. And if no answer comes, I have to assume the answer is no.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can take it however you need to take it in order to facilitate your exit strategy.

You mean where I do nothing bu laugh at you because you clearly don't have the capacity to discuss how your responses have any relevance to my argument, due to the fact you dont know, nor do you want to know, what my argument is?



Here's a hint:
My first response to you was when you said:

if god is what gave us liberty then there would have been no need for a constitution since, like every other theocratic domination, your bible would suffice as well as any legal document.

My response was:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=658117&postcount=143

Now, please, allow us all to get a HUGE laugh at your expense, and tell me how the things you have posted have ANY relevance to that position.

Good luck.

 

[Shogun]

No, haven't a clue. I'm just saying that we will never know the intentions of it. I'm not arguing your position on the christian founding of the U.S. We've established the religion in general played specific part (whether believed by the founding fathers or not).

My reasons to believe that we'll never know what it's intentions are is because there have been treaties with other nations at the same time that don't have Article 11 in them. They have no clue how Article 11 found its way into the treaty, because it wasn't in the original Arabic version of the treaty. And other documents do mention a higher power, and were signed by by Franklin, John Adams, etc...

I'll agree that it wasn't set up to be a Christian nation. But I don't believe the Treaty of Tripoli can actualy prove (to the highest extent)you're case, because it is still debated historically.

It kind of sounds like we were telling everyone what they wanted to hear. And I think this will end up being a never-ending discussion.

Is it debated weather or not the treaty WITH that specific passage passed congress and was ratified by a FF president? no. it's not. Just like Jefferson's own words on the subject are not debated by people other than those who want really, REALLY bad to say that christianity spawned america.

So far in these threads i've seen one nutter insist that Jefferson was not a deist, one nutter insist that C in Creator from the DOI is more significant than the specific words of a primary source. I've seen a nutter insist that the DOI is legal precedent, nay, THE most significant law of the land. I've seen another nutter insist that the FF's were all christians. I've seen another nutter admit to a secular government... that is heavily influence by christiany. It's not an eternal debate. The facts are clear. You may not want to address the treaty of tripli but, at the end of the day, it's more indicative than some modern nutter hellbent on injecting more christian influence than there actually was. The revolution wasn't about dogma. Not at all. The Revolution was about liberty from England. There really is not debate.

 

[Shogun]

You mean where I do nothing bu laugh at you because you clearly don't have the capacity to discuss how your responses have any relevance to my argument, due to the fact you dont know, nor do you want to know, what my argument is?



you can laugh all you want, dude. It still won't erase the fact that you'd rather post 30 times using every method of avoidance within reach. Like I said, I know what your goofy arguement was just like I understand why you'd want to avoid the Treaty so desperatly. continue, by all means. You probably aren't the only one laughing here.



Here's a hint:
My first response to you was when you said:

My response was:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=658117&postcount=143

Now, please, allow us all to get a HUGE laugh at your expense, and tell me how the things you have posted have ANY relevance to that position.

Good luck.


HA!

wow, you really ARE that stupid, arent you? So, you see NO connection with YOUR arguement that the DOI stated that a creator imbues our rights with my primary source doc that states otherwise?

THAT is weak as ****, dude! HAHAHAHA!




Like I said.. It's probably NOT obvious as hell why you duck and dodge admitting that a ratified treaty sinks your claim regarding the DOI like a rock floating on surface tension.

 

[M14 Shooter]

wow, you really ARE that stupid, arent you? So, you see NO connection with YOUR arguement that the DOI stated that a creator imbues our rights with my primary source doc that states otherwise?

You clearly dont have the capacity to discuss anything other than your preconceived notions about what other say.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You have not, you have only changed the subject. Does he have the right, yes or no. And if no answer comes, I have to assume the answer is no.

Because you apparently didnt see them...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=658267&postcount=173
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=658594&postcount=197

Please let me know if you have any other questions.