Herman Cain Is Running For President!!!

[zeitgeist2012]

You are both wrong to a very large degree on the Founders, and it is always the case where progressive parrots and progressive courts try to misinterpret and redifine the Founder's intent, personal and political documents.... Again, read and learn the true words and intent of our Founders...

zeitgeist2012's Blog | New age Spartans? or New age global Babylon?

Nothing about being wrong my friend. It is written in stone.
I read verbatim from The Constitution. It is THE LAW that there is NO religous prereguisite to hold public office.
They wrote it that way for a reason. The reason: A few Founders WANTED a religous test.
They lost out and the Founders that wanted NO religous test for office won and that language was written in The United States Constitution.
Do not believe the myths taught about the Founders. The religous folks then were The Torries and the Anglican church which sided with The Monarchy.
Our side were the rebels. They made their own whiskey, were grand smugglers, bred with their own slaves and sold off their offspring, stated publicly their disdain for European governments with their religous influences and ran at every chance they could from those influences in thye writing of The United States Constitution. It mentions God no where.
The Founders were rather UnChristlike in many ways.

Again, very well said.

It all depends on how you understand what you read in its proper context...

Freedom of Religion{Not Freedom From}: The Founders Views

Freedom of Religion: The Founders Views | The Next Right

http://thefoundationforum.com/2007/06/importance-of-godly-education-to.html

http://transform-world.net/newsletters/2008/08/Qualification.pdf

The American Heritage Alliance a Christian Education Resource

Pastor Roger Anghis -- The Importance of History, Part 24

Our Founding Fathers

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Nothing about being wrong my friend. It is written in stone.
I read verbatim from The Constitution. It is THE LAW that there is NO religous prereguisite to hold public office.
They wrote it that way for a reason. The reason: A few Founders WANTED a religous test.
They lost out and the Founders that wanted NO religous test for office won and that language was written in The United States Constitution.
Do not believe the myths taught about the Founders. The religous folks then were The Torries and the Anglican church which sided with The Monarchy.
Our side were the rebels. They made their own whiskey, were grand smugglers, bred with their own slaves and sold off their offspring, stated publicly their disdain for European governments with their religous influences and ran at every chance they could from those influences in thye writing of The United States Constitution. It mentions God no where.
The Founders were rather UnChristlike in many ways.

Again, very well said.

Freedom of Religion{Not Freedom From}: The Founders Views

Freedom of Religion: The Founders Views | The Next Right

http://thefoundationforum.com/2007/06/importance-of-godly-education-to.html

http://transform-world.net/newsletters/2008/08/Qualification.pdf

The American Heritage Alliance a Christian Education Resource

Pastor Roger Anghis -- The Importance of History, Part 24

Our Founding Fathers

"Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

Are you going to get around to this?

 

[blu]

another big government social conservative who was for affirmative action

*snore*

 

[zeitgeist2012]

I, know you have not read one thing I have posted because you respond to fast to have read anything...

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent:

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Treaty of Tripoli

 

[zeitgeist2012]

You are both wrong to a very large degree on the Founders, and it is always the case where progressive parrots and progressive courts try to misinterpret and redifine the Founder's intent, personal and political documents.... Again, read and learn the true words and intent of our Founders...

zeitgeist2012's Blog | New age Spartans? or New age global Babylon?

Nothing about being wrong my friend. It is written in stone.
I read verbatim from The Constitution. It is THE LAW that there is NO religous prereguisite to hold public office.
They wrote it that way for a reason. The reason: A few Founders WANTED a religous test.
They lost out and the Founders that wanted NO religous test for office won and that language was written in The United States Constitution.
Do not believe the myths taught about the Founders. The religous folks then were The Torries and the Anglican church which sided with The Monarchy.
Our side were the rebels. They made their own whiskey, were grand smugglers, bred with their own slaves and sold off their offspring, stated publicly their disdain for European governments with their religous influences and ran at every chance they could from those influences in thye writing of The United States Constitution. It mentions God no where.
The Founders were rather UnChristlike in many ways.

Here are a couple research articles concerning oaths that may change your point of view...

The Battle For Religious Liberty in America

The Battle For Religious Liberty in America

Exposing Liberal Lies: America's Godly Heritage

The Constitution: A Secular Theocracy?

Christians for a Test Oath

The American Heritage Alliance a Christian Education Resource

The Deception Of The U.S. Constitution

The Deception Of The U.S. Constitution

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - God: Missing in Action from American History

Why a Christian Cannot Become an American

http://vftonline.org/TestOath/whynot.htm

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I, know you have not read one thing I have posted because you respond to fast to have read anything...

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent:

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Treaty of Tripoli

I read what you post on the site .. don't want to run around links and blogs for information. I'm working while I post.

The Treaty of Tripoli is VERY clear because they intentionally made it VERY Clear. There is no ambiguity in their words or purpose.

Surely any counter you have can be posted on this site.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

It is only clear in your own mind when you seperate the facts and events behind the construct of the treaty like most progressives who are attempting to undermine, and redifine our Founders, their intent or rationales behind their personal notes, letters, proclaimations and legal documents or laws post and pre-Constitutional....

Here is a good example of the facts and rationales you tend to ignor...however, history does not...

Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with

Jefferson, Adams declared:

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 25

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26

Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton's official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful. 27

Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:

[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians. 28

In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:

He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation." 29

The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people. (Chapter 16 of Original Intent will provide numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism.)

Here is another example of progressive historical revisionism...

Repeal the 17th Amendment
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/

http://repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/

SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY

http://www.liberty1.org/seven.htm

http://www.christianparents.com/preserve.htm

http://www.myheritage.org/news/celebrate-the-blessings-of-liberty/

 

[Gadawg73]

You are both wrong to a very large degree on the Founders, and it is always the case where progressive parrots and progressive courts try to misinterpret and redifine the Founder's intent, personal and political documents.... Again, read and learn the true words and intent of our Founders...

zeitgeist2012's Blog | New age Spartans? or New age global Babylon?

Nothing about being wrong my friend. It is written in stone.
I read verbatim from The Constitution. It is THE LAW that there is NO religous prereguisite to hold public office.
They wrote it that way for a reason. The reason: A few Founders WANTED a religous test.
They lost out and the Founders that wanted NO religous test for office won and that language was written in The United States Constitution.
Do not believe the myths taught about the Founders. The religous folks then were The Torries and the Anglican church which sided with The Monarchy.
Our side were the rebels. They made their own whiskey, were grand smugglers, bred with their own slaves and sold off their offspring, stated publicly their disdain for European governments with their religous influences and ran at every chance they could from those influences in thye writing of The United States Constitution. It mentions God no where.
The Founders were rather UnChristlike in many ways.

Here are a couple research articles concerning oaths that may change your point of view...

The Battle For Religious Liberty in America

The Battle For Religious Liberty in America

Exposing Liberal Lies: America's Godly Heritage

The Constitution: A Secular Theocracy?

Christians for a Test Oath

The American Heritage Alliance a Christian Education Resource

The Deception Of The U.S. Constitution

The Deception Of The U.S. Constitution

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - God: Missing in Action from American History

Why a Christian Cannot Become an American

Why a Christian Cannot Become an American

The Constitution states clearly "no prerequisite test based on religion for public office"

 

[Gadawg73]

You are both wrong to a very large degree on the Founders, and it is always the case where progressive parrots and progressive courts try to misinterpret and redifine the Founder's intent, personal and political documents.... Again, read and learn the true words and intent of our Founders...

zeitgeist2012's Blog | New age Spartans? or New age global Babylon?

Nothing about being wrong my friend. It is written in stone.
I read verbatim from The Constitution. It is THE LAW that there is NO religous prereguisite to hold public office.
They wrote it that way for a reason. The reason: A few Founders WANTED a religous test.
They lost out and the Founders that wanted NO religous test for office won and that language was written in The United States Constitution.
Do not believe the myths taught about the Founders. The religous folks then were The Torries and the Anglican church which sided with The Monarchy.
Our side were the rebels. They made their own whiskey, were grand smugglers, bred with their own slaves and sold off their offspring, stated publicly their disdain for European governments with their religous influences and ran at every chance they could from those influences in thye writing of The United States Constitution. It mentions God no where.
The Founders were rather UnChristlike in many ways.

Here are a couple research articles concerning oaths that may change your point of view...

The Battle For Religious Liberty in America

The Battle For Religious Liberty in America

Exposing Liberal Lies: America's Godly Heritage

The Constitution: A Secular Theocracy?

Christians for a Test Oath

The American Heritage Alliance a Christian Education Resource

The Deception Of The U.S. Constitution

The Deception Of The U.S. Constitution

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - God: Missing in Action from American History

Why a Christian Cannot Become an American

Why a Christian Cannot Become an American

The Constitution states clearly "no prerequisite test based on religion for public office"

That is the law. It is in the Constitution.
If they were so religous how come that is written as the law and God, Creator, Jesus, Lord is mentioned no where in the Constitution?
You have not covered that. How come?
Because they argued over that and the majority VOTED AGAINST ADDING ANY OF THAT.
The Founders were great men but their actions were not very Christlike.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

It is only clear in your own mind when you seperate the facts and events behind the construct of the treaty like most progressives who are attempting to undermine, and redifine our Founders, their intent or rationales behind their personal notes, letters, proclaimations and legal documents or laws post and pre-Constitutional....

Here is a good example of the facts and rationales you tend to ignor...however, history does not...

Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with

Jefferson, Adams declared:

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 25

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26

Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton's official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America.

For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:

Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful. 27

Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:

[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians. 28

In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:

He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation." 29

The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people. (Chapter 16 of Original Intent will provide numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism.)

Here is another example of progressive historical revisionism...

Repeal the 17th Amendment
Repeal the 17th Amendment – Tenth Amendment Center

Repeal the 17th Amendment

SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY

Seven Principles of Liberty

Preservation of Blessings

Celebrate the ‘Blessings of Liberty’ | myHeritage

I repeat, I will not go to links or blogs for information.

Again, your sense of history is distorted. George Washington SIGNED the document as President of the United States .. and unless you assume the Founders to be idiots, they clearly understood the language. It was read aloud on the Senate floor and passed UNANIMOUSLY with ALL of its language.

AND none suffered any political consequences from that action.

"The significance of this article (11) that is often overlooked or ignored is that it stated categorically that the United States of America is not founded upon the Christian religion, and that this treaty, with that statement intact, was read before and passed unanimously by the United States Senate, and was signed by the President of the United States without a hint of controversy or discord, and remains the earliest and most definitive statement from the United States Senate and the President of the United States, on the secular nature of American government."
Economist's View: The 11th Article of the Treaty of Tripoli

Additionally, most of the Founders were Deists, and Deism originated as a rejection of orthodox Christianity.

You can wiggle and you can squirm brother, but the language and history of the Treaty of Tripoli, along with the writings of the Founders, CLEARLY demonstrate that their goal was to create a secular nation free from the oppression of religion.

The writings of Jefferson demonstrate a contempt for religion in government.

 

[Gadawg73]

The very religous Colonialists of the day were Torries that supported the Crown.
The Bible told them not to rebel against the Monarchy.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

You can keep your progressive parrot blinders on, and rufuse to educate yourself to the truth in order to cling to a false and mis-leading interpretation of one of many a treaty during the US' vital first conflict wherein the young and vulnerable US lacked in Navy and arms and therefore delved into methods of appeasement in order to build up might and survive to fight another day....

Furthermore, this one treaty out of many does not negate the other 99% of what the Founders stated in hundreds of other documents, statements and laws.... You really need to read up all aspects of our history.... As my dad used to say...you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink....

In the appeasement of the Islamic scourge, all that was meant concerning Christiandom was the following...

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent:

To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God; 1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible; 2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.) Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym. 4

Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious. 5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:

The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington's supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, 7 thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.

Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen 8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada 9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. 10 (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships 11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates" – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.)

The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. 13 However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, 14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers, 15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 16 etc. 17). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. 18 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have 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. 19

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 20 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 21 and by John Adams as "rational." 22 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it. 23

Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land! 24

 

[BlackAsCoal]

You can keep your progressive parrot blinders on, and rufuse to educate yourself to the truth in order to cling to a false and mis-leading interpretation of one of many a treaty during the US' vital first conflict wherein the young and vulnerable US lacked in Navy and arms and therefore delved into methods of appeasement in order to build up might and survive to fight another day....

Furthermore, this one treaty out of many does not negate the other 99% of what the Founders stated in hundreds of other documents, statements and laws.... You really need to read up all aspects of our history.... As my dad used to say...you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink....

In the appeasement of the Islamic scourge, all that was meant concerning Christiandom was the following...

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent:
To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God; 1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible; 2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.) Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym. 4

Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious. 5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:

The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington's supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, 7 thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.
Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen 8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada 9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. 10 (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships 11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates" – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.)

The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. 13 However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, 14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers, 15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 16 etc. 17). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. 18 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have 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. 19
This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.
Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 20 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 21 and by John Adams as "rational." 22 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it. 23
Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land! 24

Dude, the treaty and its history are VERY CLEAR.

All your whining doesn't change that.

You owe a deep sense of gratitude for your religion to the PERSIANS.

Grow up and deal with truth.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Yeah, right, and you are really Egyptian...or is it Hebrew....

I think I made it all very clear except for in your progressively blinded mind...and all the whining in the world apparently wont help you....

 

[Gadawg73]

You can keep your progressive parrot blinders on, and rufuse to educate yourself to the truth in order to cling to a false and mis-leading interpretation of one of many a treaty during the US' vital first conflict wherein the young and vulnerable US lacked in Navy and arms and therefore delved into methods of appeasement in order to build up might and survive to fight another day....

Furthermore, this one treaty out of many does not negate the other 99% of what the Founders stated in hundreds of other documents, statements and laws.... You really need to read up all aspects of our history.... As my dad used to say...you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink....

In the appeasement of the Islamic scourge, all that was meant concerning Christiandom was the following...

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent:

To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God; 1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible; 2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.) Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym. 4

Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious. 5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:

The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington's supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, 7 thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.

Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen 8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada 9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. 10 (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships 11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates" – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.)

The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. 13 However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, 14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers, 15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 16 etc. 17). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. 18 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have 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. 19

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 20 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 21 and by John Adams as "rational." 22 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:

The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it. 23

Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land! 24

Your tired, old, worn out "progressive" label is Bull Shit.
I have been voting Republican since 1972, own 3 corporations and am a strict conservative.
Conservatives wrote the US Constitution.
Conservatives want NO PART of religion in government.

Nothing you write here has anything to do with The United States Constitution.

Founders being Christian which everyone knows is true HAS NOTHING to do with your false statements that there is a religous test here for public office.

England and the European countries had MONARCHIES and the monarcy stayed in power with RELIGION.
"I am appointed by God to rule and have that divine right" was their power base.
Does our country give power to our rulers THROUGH GOD?
Or does power arise FROM THE PEOPLE?
That is the difference and that IS THE LAW.
The facts are Founders of this great country WANTED NO PART OF RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT.
Guess which country on earth was the first to NOT have religous influences in their GOVERNMENT AND laws?
What religion influences our government? What preacher does our government take advice from?
Brother, THAT IS THE WAY IT WAS DONE IN ENGLAND and that is why we fought the revolution!
The United States of America. No preacher or religion runs our government.
And you claim that is not the case?
Thank God for your freedom.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their various religions.
Note: ALL religions are protected by The US Constitution, NOT JUST CHRISTIANITY.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

You can believe what you want even if it is wrong....

Another reason to vote for Mr. Herman Cain...

As for the poor and oppressed Thomas Jefferson said it best....

Famous Thomas Jefferson Quote

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."


Are You Prepared For The Coming Economic Collapse And The Next Great Depression?

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/

 

[Gadawg73]

You can believe what you want even if it is wrong....

If you do not know that Article VI, Paragraph 3 is the "Religous Test Clause" of The United States Constitution then you are in serious denial.

Again: This is THE UNITED STATED CONSTITUTION:
Article Three:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of The State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religous test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or public trust under THE UNITED STATES."
You know that is true, don't you? That is what was written in the Constitution.
Admit it as you know that is FACT.
"even if it is wrong"
What is wrong with that?
Sorry the facts do not go with your ideology but the facts are right in front of your damn nose and YOU choose to ignore THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Yeah, right, and you are really Egyptian...or is it Hebrew....

I think I made it all very clear except for in your progressively blinded mind...and all the whining in the world apparently wont help you....

Don't need help dude. The argument has already been won and you're just floundering looking to save face.

The treaty is VERY CLEAR.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Yes, I know what it says and repetition is inane. I posted the true rationales behind its construction.... Laws do not originate from thin air...they are founded upon rationales...and you can not seperate what is made from the maker and his intent behind what he makes....

All words have a connotative and denotative meaning or better yet more than one definition depending on the context one uses.... Progressives tend to redifine or take difinitions out of their true context or elaberate upon them which then turns it into pure fiction...PROPAGANDA....

Oh...God, did I just flounder...Yikes!

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Yes, I know what it says and repetition is inane. I posted the true rationales behind its construction.... Laws do not originate from thin air...they are founded upon rationales...and you can not seperate what is made from the maker and his intent behind what he makes....

All words have a connotative and denotative meaning or better yet more than one definition depending on the context one uses.... Progressives tend to redifine or take difinitions out of their true context or elaberate upon them which then turns it into pure fiction...PROPAGANDA....

So the true and documented words of the Founders are meaningless to you?

Forget what they said .. only you can interpret what they were really trying to say. You can speak better for them then they can.

That is really silly.

I'll stick to the authority of THEIR words, not your false ideological-driven interpretaion.