Notion of our Founding Fathers and Religion

[Sophus]

Insofar as the Treaty of Tripoi is concerned...

1) Was this treaty ratified when the US was a fledgling nation and thus negotiating from a position of weakness?


2) In 1805 when Commander William Eaton was ready to overthrow the pasha of Tripli with a force he had raised and the treaty was renegotiated, was there language included in the reworked treaty about the US not being in any way Christian?

What exactly is a "a Christian nation" suppose to mean anyways? No one ever explains it. Certainly they cannot be so ignorant as to imply the government was not intended to be secular.

Now are you trying to get at the Arabic version of the Treaty of Tripoli?

[T]he controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.

There was a unanimous vote.

[The Black Jester]

I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Given that the first permanent English settlers of this country actually did wade ashore (after three days of repentence and self examination) in Virginia in the year 1607, plant a large wooden cross and paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 15:13, stated "Every plantation, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” then it becomes clear that this nation was founded by Christians and dedicated to God.

To argue otherwise, one would have to take the matter up with the US National Park Service. Link: http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm

Interesting, but we will have to agree to disagree about the relevance of this fact of the actions of the members of a single colony.  It seems, from your first sentence above, that you credit your concept of "nation" over the actual government of the country.  You seem to be implying that the actions of a handful of religious devotees, because such actions as you describe above occurred sequentially before the founding of the Constitutional government of the United States, somehow trump all the agreements that came after during the actual founding of the US government.  If you so argue, you will have to take up the matter with the US Government (not to mention the State government where you reside).  

I can't help but wonder on what specifically your concept of "nation" is based, particularly since at the time such colonies were owned by the British government.  How could we have a separate nation and yet be under the rule of the British?  How did the actions of these colonists invalidate the rule of the British government in order to create a separate nation, prior to the actual rebellion of the colonies? And if they did, why could not the subsequent actions of the representatives of all 13 of the colonies not invalidate the actions of their predecessors?  What do you mean by "nation," then?  If you mean by that the cultural entity created by those who first arrive and claim an area, you will have several arguments to sort out with the Native American tribes that preceeded the English settlers by a fair amount of time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Given that the first permanent English settlers of this country actually did wade ashore (after three days of repentence and self examination) in Virginia in the year 1607, plant a large wooden cross and paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 15:13, stated "Every plantation, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” then it becomes clear that this nation was founded by Christians and dedicated to God.

To argue otherwise, one would have to take the matter up with the US National Park Service. Link: http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm

Again, appealing to the Founding Fathers is an Argument from Authority.  You have yet to show why any of us should care what they believed.

[elliebean]

Again, appealing to the Founding Fathers is an Argument from Authority. You have yet to show why any of us should care what they believed.

Because that's the question being discussed in this thread...

What do you all think?  What have you heard?  Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation?  Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?

...which JDC also seems to have forgotten.

[Recusant]

Hello, and welcome to HAF, JD Curtis.

...have you ever heard of the Treaty Of Paris?  It is a much more important historical document...

Which Treaty of Paris might that be, and in what way is the particular treaty to which you might be referring relevant to this discussion?

Treaty of Paris 1763?

Treaty of Paris 1783?

Treaty of Paris 1856?

Treaty of Paris 1898?

To name a few.

My guess is that you are referring to that of 1783, and the fact that the said document begins with reference to "the most holy and undivided Trinity."  It was fairly common to invoke the "Trinity" in the beginning of important treaties during that era.  Does that mean that the signatories of said treaties were theocracies, or even religiously based nations?  I think that it was merely a means of showing in a time-honored way that the signatories were serious. It does not mean that the US considered itself a Christian state as such. The 1783 treaty also  makes reference to George III, who is "by grace of God, king..."  Apparently the fact that George's power was given him by the grace of God was not important enough to stop the rebellion.  I wonder why that was?

Insofar as the Treaty of Tripoi is concerned...

1) Was this treaty ratified when the US was a fledgling nation and thus negotiating from a position of weakness?


2) In 1805 when Commander William Eaton was ready to overthrow the pasha of Tripli with a force he had raised and the treaty was renegotiated, was there language included in the reworked treaty about the US not being in any way Christian?

1) Are you trying to suggest that the government of the early US considered itself a Christian state, but chose to lie about it because it was "negotiating from a position of weakness?"  If not, what is your point here?

2)The fact that the government of the US had no form of religious dispute with the government of Tripoli was reaffirmed in the 1805 version of the treaty.  See Article 14.

I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Founding a colony is not founding a nation.  Even several colonies do not constitute a nation. I would suggest that there was no (non-Amerindian) nation on what is now the east coast of the US until the various colonies were forged into a nation during the war of rebellion against Britain.  Before that war began, there were various groups of varying loyalties.  Many of the people who eventually became members of the nation of Americans did not have any particular feeling of belonging to a nation beyond perhaps a vague sense of being a subject of King George.  It was during the war that the identity of "American" came into being, in the sense of a feeling of nationhood, and loyalty to that nation.  (Before that, "American" merely referred to a geographical designation, much as we today refer to "European."  There are many nations in Europe, even more nations than there are states, but no "nation of Europe.") The government which resulted from the founding of the nation was specifically, and for good reason, a secular government.  The nation which was born during the war was, although comprised largely of Christians, a secular nation.  In other words, the war was not fought for religious reasons, and thus the nation born of that war was not particularly religious in nature.

Just for the heck of it:

Vive la France!

[Whitney]

I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Given that the first permanent English settlers of this country actually did wade ashore (after three days of repentence and self examination) in Virginia in the year 1607, plant a large wooden cross and paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 15:13, stated "Every plantation, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” then it becomes clear that this nation was founded by Christians and dedicated to God.

To argue otherwise, one would have to take the matter up with the US National Park Service. Link: http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm

Or could argue that it was founded by Native Americans who were later mercilessly taken over by greedy Christians....

[Thumpalumpacus]

Again, appealing to the Founding Fathers is an Argument from Authority. You have yet to show why any of us should care what they believed.

Because that's the question being discussed in this thread...

Yes.  I'm pointing out the lack of support for his position.

[Reginus]

I think should be blatantly obvious to every Christian that the United States is not a Christian nation, at least not in the sense of it being a new Israel.

John 18:36 disproves any notion of this:
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

As other people have said, the violent nature of our history also disproves the idea of a Christian nation.  Paraphrasing one pastor: "Did the US become a Christian nation before or after the slaughter of millions of Native Americans?  Before or after we held millions of African Americans as slaves?"

John 18:10-11:
10Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)

11Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

Edit: Forgot to mention that the CIA used to kidnap people (usually terror suspects.)  I don't know if they're still doing it.

[Reginus]

double post

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not to mention "render unto Caesar" and all that stuff.

[Tanker]

the war of rebellion against Britain.  

Gotta say I love the English persective on that war.  In High School we were lucky enough to watch an English documentary on the American Revolution AKA the War of Independence. Very enlightening on the british view of that period of hitory versus our own. Sorry for the derail but I always get a smile when I see an example of it of it.

[JD Curtis]

"Certainly they cannot be so ignorant as to imply the government was not intended to be secular"

Sophus: I would say that the government being separate from any religious institution would be a good thing.  However I also think that there should be cordial, rather than antagonistic attitudes toward one another.


" You seem to be implying that the actions of a handful of religious devotees, because such actions as you describe above occurred sequentially before the founding of the Constitutional government of the United States, somehow trump all the agreements that came after during the actual founding of the US government."

Black Jester:  What agreements are you referring to? I was merely stating the historical fact that in 1605, men and  who were to become the first, permanent English settlement in the New World came ashore on Cape Henry, VIrginia, planted a rough hewn wooden cross (Not a cresent, Star of David or representation of Brahma) and Rev Robert Hunt declared in covenental language   “…from these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World, but the entire world.”

"Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation? Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?'

No.  And I think that is the best interpretation of the First Amendment.  Given the paltry church attendence figures in the countries of Scandinavia an the C of E on any given weekend, it appears the the Founding Fathers got it right.

"the said document begins with reference to "the most holy and undivided Trinity."


It does Recusant and I bet  that it gives chest pains to those who unquestioningly accept that signatory Benjamin Franklin was unquestioningly a Deist.

"Are you trying to suggest that the government of the early US considered itself a Christian state, but chose to lie about it because it was "negotiating from a position of weakness?" If not, what is your point here?"

In negotiating from a position of weakness, the fledgling nation had to accept whatever terms were offered being that their navy/armed forces were practically non-existant.  It was clear that Muslim pirates were attacking shipping from Christian countries (in part) due to the fact they were considered "infidels".

[Whitney]

JD Curtis, you need to learn how to use the quote tags...it's very easy to learn and makes it a ton easier for people to follow what you are saying and who you are replying to.

you can find a link to the tutorial under "Quotes" in the forum rules: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522

It looks like you might also need to be citing your sources...hard to tell since I can't make much sense of your last post without the quote tags.

Thanks.

[Recusant]

I bet that it gives chest pains to those who unquestioningly accept that signatory Benjamin Franklin was unquestioningly a Deist.

Franklin's thoughts on religion reveal a character who is not easily categorized.  He has been claimed by atheist and Christian alike.  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.

  Franklin was a consummate diplomat.  He knew that using the proper, accepted formula in the treaty would give it the gravitas which was required. Beginning an important treaty with a reference to "the Trinity" was an accepted  standard practice of the time. (Read the beginning of the Treaty of Paris 1763 for an example.) It's that simple. Franklin's (nor any other individual's) personal beliefs, quite rightly, did not enter into it.

In negotiating from a position of weakness, the fledgling nation had to accept whatever terms were offered being that their navy/armed forces were practically non-existant. It was clear that Muslim pirates were attacking shipping from Christian countries (in part) due to the fact they were considered "infidels".

The treaty was written by the US; it was offering terms to Tripoli, not the other way around.
 All non-Muslims are considered infidels. 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.
 The pirates were taking advantage of targets of opportunity: The shipping of any nation which had not paid tribute was liable to be attacked; why should they worry what variety of infidel shipping they are attacking, as long as they could get away with it?  So, Christian or generic infidel, it doesn't matter.  Thus, implying that the US hoped it's shipping would escape attack by declaring itself not a Christian nation is a non-starter. I would suggest to you that the "not a Christian nation" wording was included as a means of reassuring Tripoli that the US bore no religiously motivated ill-will. It was an honest statement of the secular nature of the government of the US. That sentiment was, as I made clear in my last post, echoed in the 1805 treaty, which was written when the US was not "negotiating from a position of weakness."  You failed entirely to address that issue.

[deekayfry]

"Certainly they cannot be so ignorant as to imply the government was not intended to be secular"

Sophus: I would say that the government being separate from any religious institution would be a good thing.  However I also think that there should be cordial, rather than antagonistic attitudes toward one another.

I have not experienced any antagonism.  I have not seen it on the HAF, either from theist or atheist.  There will be general antagonism from individuals who thrive on such attitudes, but this is true for any polarizing issue.

Black Jester:  What agreements are you referring to? I was merely stating the historical fact that in 1605, men and  who were to become the first, permanent English settlement in the New World came ashore on Cape Henry, VIrginia, planted a rough hewn wooden cross (Not a cresent, Star of David or representation of Brahma) and Rev Robert Hunt declared in covenental language   “…from these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World, but the entire world.”

We never disputed that the settlers were anything but Christian.  Nor did we dispute that earlier settlers fully intended for the New World to be Christian.  I highlight your given examples of the lack of other religious symbols for two reasons.  One, giving such examples this out was irrelevant and unnecessary.  You simply did not need to bolster the FACT that the early settlers were Christian. We all reasonably agree on this. Two, it makes me uncomfortable as it appears sarcastic and disrespectful.

"Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation? Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?'

No.  And I think that is the best interpretation of the First Amendment.  Given the paltry church attendence figures in the countries of Scandinavia an the C of E on any given weekend, it appears the the Founding Fathers got it right.

Again, my originally stated question leads to the First Amendment, but I never asked the question as an intention to be an interpretation of the First Amendment.  What does the Scandinavia church attendance figures have to do with our discussion?  What is C of E on any weekend?  What did the Founding Fathers get right?

"the said document begins with reference to "the most holy and undivided Trinity."
It does Recusant and I bet  that it gives chest pains to those who unquestioningly accept that signatory Benjamin Franklin was unquestioningly a Deist.

You are right, there are legal documents with religious references in them.  Some of them may have been a formality.  Some of them may have intended to push the nation to Christianity.

I speak for myself on this, but I don't get chest pains or any other physiological reaction knowing that Ben Franklin signed documents with religious references.  Pardon the pun, but quite Frankly, I don't care.

"Are you trying to suggest that the government of the early US considered itself a Christian state, but chose to lie about it because it was "negotiating from a position of weakness?" If not, what is your point here?"

In negotiating from a position of weakness, the fledgling nation had to accept whatever terms were offered being that their navy/armed forces were practically non-existant.  It was clear that Muslim pirates were attacking shipping from Christian countries (in part) due to the fact they were considered "infidels"

No, the pirates were attacking everyone, holding hostages, and demanding ransom.  Their policy was that they were at war with those who did not have a peace treaty and with that a sum of money.

Read the wiki article it addresses thoughts on Article 11, and it cites actual archive records in relation to this (ie it was read aloud in the Senate, a copy of the Treaty was given to all the Senators, and they were given a chance to debate it, etc.)

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