Notion of our Founding Fathers and Religion

[pinkocommie]

Welcome to the forum!  We actually have a thread that's currently active about this very topic - http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5278.

[Sophus]

In the 4 pages of comments, did I make the statement, "America is a Christian nation"?  If I did, point it out to me and I'll examine the context that I stated it.  I don't recall that I actually did though.

You seemed to be implying it, especially by disputing the Treaty of Tripoli. My apologies if you weren't. Are you saying you don't think it to be one?

Sophus, I would request that you go to my blog and check out the entries entitled "On Jesus and Jefferson parts 1-3" and then get back to me. Whenever you can get around to it.

Certainly. What is the url to your blog?  

Sophus, I don't speak for Dr Lillback. He has a blog. Might I suggest that you formulate your thoughts on the matter and post something there? You never know. Maybe he will answer it for you.

I was of the impression you agreed with and shared his views, hence the promoting of it. If your views are one in the same I see no reason why  you cannot offer a defense for them as well.

[JD Curtis]

It seems there are a lot of people who believe that America was founded as a Christian nation. What do you think?

To put a finer point on it,  the founding of the United Staes was much like was a giant, church relocation project.

I think that the First Amendment was intimately tied to The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.  What were the prevailing conditions like that gave rise to The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom? One writer put it thusly...

 "Prior to the Revolution, in 1768, Patrick Henry rode for miles on horseback to a trial in Spottsylvania county. He entered through the rear of a courtroom where three Baptist ministers were being tried for having preached without the sanction of the Episcopal Church. In the midst of the proceedings, he interrupted: "May it please your lordships, what did I hear read? Did I hear an expression that these men, whom you worships are about to try for misdemeanor, are charged with preaching the gospel of the Son of God?"

Keep in mind that this was at a time when the official religion of the state of Virginian was the Anglican church.

Even after the First Amendment was passed, some states continued to have their own state religion, like Massachusetts which remaind officailly Congregationalist until 1833.

Welcome to the forum! We actually have a thread that's currently active about this very topic

Thanks Pinko. I'll check it out sometime.

You seemed to be implying it, especially by disputing the Treaty of Tripoli. My apologies if you weren't. Are you saying you don't think it to be one?

Sophus, I don't think that it is catagorically false to say that the government of the United States was not founded upon the Christian religion. There would be morr of a mention of it in the Constitution if it were and besides.  I think that alot of the religions that were praciced freely on this side of the Atlantic were persecuted on the other side.  I don't think that they wanted any, one denomination to have an upper hand and thus, more secular wording in the the constitution.

What is the url to your blog?

http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com

I would consider posting a question to the Providence Forum's blog.

A special shout out to Recusant who posited some interesting questions and I would like to address them soon, I've been a bit busy as of late.

The thing is, alot of this subject matter is a bit complicated and cannot be reduced to a cute, one sentence, quick sound-byte.  I think we can all agree on that.

[JD Curtis]

And now on to some of Recusant's points...

Franklin's thoughts on religion reveal a character who is not easily categorized

Right.  And I would say the same about Jefferson who I think far too many people just say the word "Deist" and walk away without ever considering Unitarianism at all.  I'm not 100% sure, but I do not believe that Unitarians reject the idea of a personal God that is involved in the affairs of men.

Myself, I think he believed in a version of the 'God of Spinoza.' In other words, yes, basically a deist, but with his own personal take on the subject

In reference to Franklin this may be correct.  I really don't know though.

The treaty (of Tripoli) was written by the US; it was offering terms to Tripoli, not the other way around... Why would the pirates have any more respect for an infidel country that is not Christian? In fact, I think that as far as Islam is concerned, if you're not "People of the Book," you're even lower down on the totem pole.

One of the main reasons ships from Christian countries were being attacked is because they were from predominately Christian countries. I'm not sure how much Buddhist or Hindu shipping there was in the Med at that time as compared to that of Christian nations but feel free to provide the statistics here and I will check them out. Also...

"In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800." Link: http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm

[JD Curtis]

One thing that people forget is that between 1797 and 1799, the US was in a quasi-war with France at the time and relations with Britian werent good either as they harrased American shipping as well.

We had no Navy for all intents and purposes and yes, the United States was negotiating with Barbary pirates from a position of weakness.  This link provides some numbers on the situation and has more information than you could possibly hope for regarding that point of history. Link: http://www.history.navy.mil/biblio/biblio4/biblio4a.htm

[Davin]

We had no Navy for all intents and purposes and yes, the United States was negotiating with Barbary pirates from a position of weakness.

So like all good Christians they lied to benefit themselves?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not sure how much Buddhist or Hindu shipping there was in the Med at that time as compared to that of Christian nations but feel free to provide the statistics here and I will check them out.

This is disingenuous, given the fact that that the Suez Canal had yet to be built, and South Asian shipping had yet to traverse Gibraltar.  Certainly you know this.  

Additionally, you're ignoring the Arab pirates who operated in the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the wider Indian Ocean, preying on the locals, who were, I presume, largely non-Christian.

[JD Curtis]

given the fact that that the Suez Canal had yet to be built, and South Asian shipping had yet to traverse Gibraltar

Might this then lend support to the theory that the vast majority of shipping attacked by Barbary pirates was on vessels flagged by nations that were predominately Christian?

you're ignoring the Arab pirates who operated in the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the wider Indian Ocean, preying on the locals, who were, I presume, largely non-Christian

That might have been the case, but I am unaware of either Jefferson or Adams entering into negotiations and signing treaties with other nations outside of the Med in reference to such raids by Muslim pirates.  However if you are privy to such information, then I would be pleased to examine any evidence you would like to offer up on the topic.  

[Recusant]

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond, JD Curtis. I appreciate the fact that you are dealing with multiple answers to your posts, and that you won't necessarily have time to respond to every point raised by every interlocutor.

Franklin's thoughts on religion reveal a character who is not easily categorized.

Right.  And I would say the same about Jefferson who I think far too many people just say the word "Deist" and walk away without ever considering Unitarianism at all.  I'm not 100% sure, but I do not believe that Unitarians reject the idea of a personal God that is involved in the affairs of men.

According to one of the sites I linked to earlier, Religion and the Founding Fathers, both Franklin and Jefferson can be said to have been "Deist-Christian." I'll also include a paragraph on Unitarianism.  You're correct that Unitarians, both then and now, do not reject the idea of a personal God.

Deism - Deism has no church and no official organization, hence, it is not considered a religion. It is more a reason-based view of religion in general. Deism is sometimes referred to as a religious philosophy or a religious outlook. In general, Deism did not see Christ as the Son of God, did not believe in the Trinity, had no strong belief in miracles, and had no belief in atonement or resurrection. The Bible was not considered “sacred text” among most Deists, although most Deists were (like Franklin) Christian-friendly.

 Deism could fall into certain subcategories of Deist-Christian (i.e. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson) and Deist non-Christian (i.e. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen). Deist-Christians generally believed the Bible provided good lessons to live by and they attended church regularly. Deist non-Christians generally felt that Christianity was largely an impediment to growth and they did not attend church regularly.

 Unitarianism - In the 1700's, Unitarianism was an official recognized American religion. As a general rule, early American Unitarianism did not believe in the Trinity, believed the Christ was subordinate to God, and that salvation was largely through character. However, unlike Deists, Unitarianism might very well see Jesus as God’s messenger, and believe in the resurrection as well as the miracles reported in the New Testament. By the same token, reason and inquiry were highly esteemed - to the point where those features might supersede biblical teachings.

 Unitarianism was vastly different than any of the major religions practicing at that time due to the fact that it valued human reason so highly, even at the expense of Biblical authority, and because it had no belief in the Trinity. This religion had its coming-out party during the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment, and indeed, one-hundred fifty years earlier it would have likely had to operate under cover and under threat of persecution. John Adams was a Unitarian and Thomas Jefferson, although not an official Unitarian, believed it to be the best of the organized religions.

 Fitting the Deists and Unitarians into ideal separate definitions is not always a simple task since individual writings don’t always make for a convenient 21st century understanding.

The current Unitarian Universalist churches are pretty wide open in regards to acceptable beliefs:

Diverse beliefs about the existence of a higher power are welcome in Unitarian Universalist congregations. Unitarian Universalists may be Atheists, Humanists, Christians, Pagans, or identify with other theological and philosophical traditions.

The treaty (of Tripoli) was written by the US; it was offering terms to Tripoli, not the other way around... Why would the pirates have any more respect for an infidel country that is not Christian? In fact, I think that as far as Islam is concerned, if you're not "People of the Book," you're even lower down on the totem pole.

One of the main reasons ships from Christian countries were being attacked is because they were from predominately Christian countries. I'm not sure how much Buddhist or Hindu shipping there was in the Med at that time as compared to that of Christian nations but feel free to provide the statistics here and I will check them out.

Though the common term used by historians is "Barbary Pirates," in fact they are more accurately referred to as privateers. They were essentially free to prey on the shipping of any non-Muslim country with which their base country did not have a treaty. Their motivation, like that of any privateer, was profit.  The countries from which they operated may indeed have used the excuse that they were "making war on the infidels," but as with other countries which issued privateers their "passport" or Letter of Marque, the motivation was a combination of "patriotism and profit."  I would venture to say that while the "patriotism/religion" rhetoric might have been emphasized by the leadership and ambassadors of the country, in fact the major motivator was profit. The shipping was being attacked, not because it was Christian per se, but because it was non-Muslim.(=people it was acceptable to enslave=profit)

Barbary Pirates, a brief article by Pierre Tristam.  Note that in the article, Tristam says:

Privateering had two aims: to enslave captives, who were usually Christian, and to ransom hostages for tribute.

Muslims are generally not allowed to enslave fellow Muslims, so naturally the "pirates" attacked non-Muslim shipping.  My point earlier had to do with the fact that even if the US presented itself as "not a Christian nation," it's shipping, as that of a non-Muslim nation, would still be subject to attack. So trying to avoid attack with relevant phraseology in the 1795 treaty would be futile, and the authors of the treaty knew that. In fact, according to this letter from Idriss Jazairay, the Algerian ambassador in 2003:

Like these other countries, Algiers indeed targeted the cargo ships of countries with which it was at war -- those countries, according to its policy, with which it had not signed a peace treaty. Hence the 1795 treaty.

The Barbary Pirates attacked any non-Muslim shipping of any country with which their base country did not have a treaty. What did those treaties entail?  Essentially they were tribute agreements. According to the Wikipedia article:

...all traders of nations which did not pay tribute for immunity were liable to be taken at sea. This tribute, disguised as presents or ransoms, did not always ensure safety. The most powerful states in Europe condescended to pay the pirates and tolerate their insults.

So even having a powerful navy and paying tribute would not ensure the complete safety of your shipping.  Thus, the "America was negotiating from a position of weakness" theory, while technically correct, is actually irrelevant. The "not a Christian nation" phraseology is not meant to ensure the safety of the shipping in lieu of payment, nor because the US did not have a powerful navy. Because once the treaty was in effect, tribute would be paid, which, it was fondly hoped, would buy the pirates off. The ambassador that you quote made a nice speech about what was written in the Quran, but the Barbary Pirates were not motivated by religion, but by profit, as is easily seen from the reality of the day.  If their motivation had truly been religious, they would not have been able (usually) to have been bought off.

[JD Curtis]

Recusant. Thank you for your reply my friend.  Let us examine that which you have advanced.

The current Unitarian Universalist churches are pretty wide open in regards to acceptable beliefs

Yes, you do seem to be correct in this statement.  I would only add that this is akin to the rampant "Episcopaganism" that is now affecting the uber liberal branches of the Christian church today.  However you being an atheist, I would assume that this sort of subject matter would bore you though.

Though the common term used by historians is "Barbary Pirates," in fact they are more accurately referred to as privateers. They were essentially free to prey on the shipping of any non-Muslim country with which their base country did not have a treaty.

Which comes back to a question that I raised with Thumpalumpacus ( I get knocked down then I get up again!). I asked if "the vast majority of shipping attacked by Barbary pirates was on vessels flagged by nations that were predominately Christian?".  This would appear to be the case.  I cannot offer up any other comparative religions in this regard.

""There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel," says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the bastard," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws, whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million.

"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror." <a href="http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm">Link</a>

[JD Curtis]

I will try to address some of your other points soon. Good night!