Christian Nation

[Necrosis]

why do i hear fundies and repubs continue to say that america was founded on christianity, that this is a christian nation? do they not know the constitution or are they willingly lying and ignorant?

[Mr. Magoo]

nation of christians

not a christian nation

people confuse those two a lot.

[loco]

why do i hear fundies and repubs continue to say that america was founded on christianity, that this is a christian nation? do they not know the constitution or are they willingly lying and ignorant?

Founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but not a Christian nation.  And yes, of all developed nations, the USA has the most people claiming to follow Jesus Christ, attending church 1 to 4 times a week, and donating money, time and blood to help the needy.  No other developed nation comes even close. 

[tu_holmes]

Founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but not a Christian nation.  And yes, of all developed nations, the USA has the most people claiming to follow Jesus Christ, attending church 1 to 4 times a week, and donating money, time and blood to help the needy.  No other developed nation comes even close. 

Even the Vatican?

[loco]

Even the Vatican?

Yes, in so many ways!

[Necrosis]

Founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but not a Christian nation.  And yes, of all developed nations, the USA has the most people claiming to follow Jesus Christ, attending church 1 to 4 times a week, and donating money, time and blood to help the needy.  No other developed nation comes even close. 

what do you mean by founded on judeo-christian principles? where does it say that specifically?

everything i have read including the treaty of tripoli and the constitution says otherwise, what evidence do you have for your claim?

[tu_holmes]

Yes, in so many ways!

Interesting... I would have seriously thought that the Vatican would be higher by percentage.

[loco]

what do you mean by founded on judeo-christian principles? where does it say that specifically?

everything i have read including the treaty of tripoli and the constitution says otherwise, what evidence do you have for your claim?

There are many threads already discussing this.  I'll dig them up later.

[loco]

Interesting... I would have seriously thought that the Vatican would be higher by percentage.

You missed the part where I said American Christians who "donate" money, time and blood to help the needy.  The Vatican's population is not very large, and it is about 75% Clergy.  What they do is their job, and they get paid money, food, shelter, health care, etc., for doing their job. 

The Americans that I am speaking of are not clergy.  They "volunteer" their time and money to help the needy. 

Is the Vatican even considered a "developed" nation?

[tu_holmes]

You missed the part where I said American Christians who "donate" money, time and blood to help the needy.  The Vatican's population is not very large, and it is about 75% Clergy.  What they do is their job, and they get paid money, food, shelter, health care, etc., for doing their job. 

The Americans that I am speaking of are not clergy.  They "volunteer" their time and money to help the needy. 

Is the Vatican even considered a "developed" nation?

I'm sure it's considered developed... They have everything.

Also, I think being clergy in general is a volunteer thing... You certainly don't get paid anything for it.

You do it because you love th3 baby jesus.

[Necrosis]

I would refer you to the treaty of tripoli which states in art 11

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif

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.

the treaty was agreed on by majority and put forth by then president john adams.

Couldnt be more clear there, america is in no way founded on the christian religion and all it entails, ie morals, teachings etc.

[loco]

I'm sure it's considered developed... They have everything.

Also, I think being clergy in general is a volunteer thing... You certainly don't get paid anything for it.

You do it because you love th3 baby jesus.

Show me a list of developed countries where the Vatican is even mentioned.

How is the clergy volunteer work when they have to do it full time, while they get food, shelter, clothes, money, etc.?  They don't donate money, they take donations.

Most American devout Christians have jobs outside of the clergy and volunteer their time outside of work for free, and they volunteer their money too.

Stop trolling. 

[MCWAY]

I would refer you to the treaty of tripoli which states in art 11

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif

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.

the treaty was agreed on by majority and put forth by then president john adams.

Couldnt be more clear there, america is in no way founded on the christian religion and all it entails, ie morals, teachings etc.

That Treaty was modified, with that portion "United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" TAKEN OUT, less than 10 years later.

And, the only reason it was put there in the first place was because the Muslim pirates in eastern Africa accused Americans of trying to turn impose Christianity onto them.

[loco]

I would refer you to the treaty of tripoli which states in art 11

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif

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.

the treaty was agreed on by majority and put forth by then president john adams.

Couldnt be more clear there, america is in no way founded on the christian religion and all it entails, ie morals, teachings etc.

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133677.msg1901265#msg1901265

[Roger Bacon]

I thought that a lot of our founding fathers were interested in Christianity, but not exactly "Christians"?

[loco]

I thought that a lot of our founding fathers were interested in Christianity, but not exactly "Christians"?

That's incorrect.  Please follow the link above and see what the founding fathers said.

[loco]

I would refer you to the treaty of tripoli which states in art 11

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif

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.

the treaty was agreed on by majority and put forth by then president john adams.

Couldnt be more clear there, america is in no way founded on the christian religion and all it entails, ie morals, teachings etc.

"Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. 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."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp

[Necrosis]

"Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. 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."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp

wrong

you are going by hunter millers interpretation

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. Opponents claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty,[18], this is from miller, the link you posted.


However,
it is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.[18]
However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate.

your own link claims that the english version with art 11 is the one that is recognized, read aloud and voted on in a majority fashion. For whatever reason it was put in the text does not matter and i find it odd that mcways point "And, the only reason it was put there in the first place was because the Muslim pirates in eastern Africa accused Americans of trying to turn impose Christianity onto them" is somehow lost on him when extended to its logical conclusion.

[Necrosis]

did i mention the english version was the one unanimously ratified by the US senate?

[Mr. Magoo]

AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=133677.msg1901265#msg1901265

I don't have time to go into this but you're wrong. Thomas Jefferson was in no way a christian. He founded a university centered around a library, not a church. He didn't recommend his nephew reading the bible until 17 or so because he thought it was brainwashing to teach children religion. He edited the bible and took out the doctrine parts.The only place Ben Franklin mentioned religion in his autobiography was when he talked about how bored he got sitting in church. George Washington did not believe in Christianity the way that we understand the term today, see Edward Lengel's recent book on Washington. The only place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is no religious tests for political office holders, which we in no way respect today.

I could go into this for a long time but this debate has already been won. I'm sorry but this nation was not founded by Christians, it was not meant to be a solely Christian nation. Maybe that gives Christians today some validity in that they believe if so and so believed what they believed, and so and so were smart, then they themselves are smart for believing what they believe. It is not a virtuous act to tell lies in order to make what you believe more credible, I'm sorry.

Like I already said. We are a nation of Christians, NOT a Christian nation.

[loco]

wrong

you are going by hunter millers interpretation

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. Opponents claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty,[18], this is from miller, the link you posted.


However,
it is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.[18]
However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate.

your own link claims that the english version with art 11 is the one that is recognized, read aloud and voted on in a majority fashion. For whatever reason it was put in the text does not matter and i find it odd that mcways point "And, the only reason it was put there in the first place was because the Muslim pirates in eastern Africa accused Americans of trying to turn impose Christianity onto them" is somehow lost on him when extended to its logical conclusion.

The title of this thread, and your argument says "Christian Nation"

Your "proof" to the contrary says

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

The Government alone is not the Nation.  Got anything else other than article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli?

Treaty of Tripoli
 
by David Barton

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" seamen8 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 Granada9). 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 warships11 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.). 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.17 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.18
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, 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," 19 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 20 and by John Adams as "rational." 21 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.22
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!23
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. 24
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. 25
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.26 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.27
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." 28
When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:
It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well." 29 And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:
April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!30 May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it?31
Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:
The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli32
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.)

Endnotes
1. American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, s.v. "atheism."
2. Id., s.v. "agnostic."
3. Id., s.v. "deism"; see also American College Dictionary (1947), s.v. "deism."
4. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (1964), see synonym for "deist"; Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary(1963), see synonym for "atheism"; The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia(1895), Vol. I, see synonym for "atheist"; Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language (1966), see synonyms for "skeptic."
5. Society of Separationists, "Did you know that these great American thinkers all rejected Christianity?" (Austin, TX: American Atheist Center); see also Los Angeles Times, August 3, 1995, p. B-9, "America’s Unchristian Beginnings," Steven Morris.
6.Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, Claude A. Swanson, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. I, p. V.
7. Glen Tucker,Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963), p. 127.
8. A General View of the Rise, Progress, and Brilliant Achievements of the American Navy, Down to the Present Time(Brooklyn, 1828), pp. 70-71.
9. Tucker, p. 50.
10. President Washington selected Col. David Humphreys in 1793 as sole commissioner of Algerian affairs to negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli and Tunis. He also appointed Joseph Donaldson, Jr., as Consul to Tunis and Tripoli. In February of 1796, Humphreys delegated power to Donaldson and/or Joel Barlow to form treaties. James Simpson, U. S. Consul to Gibraltar, was dispatched to renew the treaty with Morocco in 1795. On October 8, 1796, Barlow commissioned Richard O’Brien to negotiate the treaty of peace with Tripoli. See, for example, Ray W. Irwin, The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary Powers (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1931), p. 84.
11. J. Fenimore Cooper,The History of the Navy of the United States of America (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1847), pp. 123-124; see also A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1897, James D. Richardson, editor (Washington, D. C.: Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, pp. 201-202, from Washington’s Eighth Annual Address of December 7, 1796.
12. See, for example, the treaty with Morocco: ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America: 1776-1949, Charles I. Bevans, editor (Washington, D. C.: Department of State, 1968-1976), Vol. IX, pp. 1278-1285; Algiers: concluded September 5, 1795; ratified by the U. S. Senate March 2, 1796; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 30 and July 6, 1815; proclaimed December 26, 1815, Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the United States of America and Other Powers Since July 4, 1776 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1889), pp. 1-15; Tripoli: concluded November 4, 1796; ratified June 10, 1797; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 4, 1805; ratification advised by the U. S. Senate April 12, 1806. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1785-1793; Tunis: concluded August 1797; ratification advised by the Senate, with amendments, March 6, 1798; alterations concluded March 26, 1799; ratification again advised by the Senate December 24, 1799. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1794-1799.
13. Gardner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905), pp. 33, 45, 56, 60.
14. Allen, p. 66.
15. Allen, p. 57.
16. Allen, p. 56.
17. (See general bibliographic information from footnote 17 for each of these references)Morocco: see Articles 10, 11, 17, and 24; Algiers: See Treaty of 1795, Article 17, and Treaty of 1815, Article 17; Tripoli: See Treaty of 1796, Article 11, and Treaty of 1805, Article 14; Tunis: See forward to Treaty.
18. Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), pp. 43-44.
19. John Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p. 491, Address to the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society, May 8, 1823.
20. John Quincy Adams,An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 17.
21. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. IX, p. 121, in a speech to both houses of Congress, November 23, 1797.
22 Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339.
23. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and In favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), p. 52.
24. John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786.
25. John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
26. Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched from Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli (Brookfield: Merriam & Company, 1813), pp. 92-93, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering, June 15, 1799.
27. Prentiss, p. 146, from General Eaton to Mr. Smith, June 27, 1800.
28. Prentiss, p. 150, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering on July 4, 1800.
29. Prentiss, p. 185, from General Eaton to General John Marshall, September 2, 1800.
30. Prentiss, p. 325, from Eaton’s journal, April 8, 1805.
31. Prentiss, p. 334, from Eaton’s journal, May 23, 1805.
32. Prentiss.

[Necrosis]

more on christian revisionist history

1.Did Article 11 belong in the treaty at all?
The evidence seems to indicate that it did not, crude attempts at textual criticism notwithstanding. However, several Skeptical sites follow the lead of one linked above and say:

The fact which completely destroys [the religious right's] argument is that none of the Senators who read, accepted, approved, and ratified the Treaty could read Arabic. The official and only 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which was read, accepted, approved, and ratified by the Senate of the United States was the one penned by Joel Barlow in the English language. And, whether the so-called "religious right" revisionists like it or not, Article 11 of the official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was in the Treaty in 1797 and is appropriately recorded in the official treaty book: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

2.The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate clearly specifies that the treaty of was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and that copies of the treaty were printed "for the use of the Senate." Nor is it plausible to argue that perhaps Senators voted for the treaty without being aware of the famous words. the treaty was quite short, requiring only two or three pages to reprint in most treaty books today--and printed, in its entirely, on but one page (sometimes the front page) of U.S. newspapers of the day. The lack of any recorded argument about the wording, as well as the unanimous vote and the and the wide reprinting of the words in the press of 1797, suggests that the idea that the government was not a Christian one was widely and easily accepted at the time.

The ratified agreement included article 11 and it was unanimously agree on, what argument can be made? it doesnt matter if the original arabic conversion is accurate, it may of been scholars contend (more likely not) the one that was presented to the senate was the Barlow version.

[loco]

I don't have time to go into this but you're wrong. Thomas Jefferson was in no way a christian. He founded a university centered around a library, not a church. He didn't recommend his nephew reading the bible until 17 or so because he thought it was brainwashing to teach children religion. He edited the bible and took out the doctrine parts.The only place Ben Franklin mentioned religion in his autobiography was when he talked about how bored he got sitting in church. George Washington did not believe in Christianity the way that we understand the term today, see Edward Lengel's recent book on Washington. The only place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is no religious tests for political office holders, which we in no way respect today.

I could go into this for a long time but this debate has already been won. I'm sorry but this nation was not founded by Christians, it was not meant to be a solely Christian nation. Maybe that gives Christians today some validity in that they believe if so and so believed what they believed, and so and so were smart, then they themselves are smart for believing what they believe. It is not a virtuous act to tell lies in order to make what you believe more credible, I'm sorry.

Like I already said. We are a nation of Christians, NOT a Christian nation.

Thomas Jefferson

Notes on Virginia, 1782:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.




John Adams

Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1812
"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion."

Letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June 1776:
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.

Letter to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore.

Diary, 26 July 1796:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity.

Address to the Military, 11 October 1798:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.

[loco]

I don't have time to go into this but you're wrong. Thomas Jefferson was in no way a christian. He founded a university centered around a library, not a church. He didn't recommend his nephew reading the bible until 17 or so because he thought it was brainwashing to teach children religion. He edited the bible and took out the doctrine parts.The only place Ben Franklin mentioned religion in his autobiography was when he talked about how bored he got sitting in church. George Washington did not believe in Christianity the way that we understand the term today, see Edward Lengel's recent book on Washington. The only place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is no religious tests for political office holders, which we in no way respect today.

I could go into this for a long time but this debate has already been won. I'm sorry but this nation was not founded by Christians, it was not meant to be a solely Christian nation. Maybe that gives Christians today some validity in that they believe if so and so believed what they believed, and so and so were smart, then they themselves are smart for believing what they believe. It is not a virtuous act to tell lies in order to make what you believe more credible, I'm sorry.

Like I already said. We are a nation of Christians, NOT a Christian nation.

George Washington

Circular letter of farewell to the Army, 8 June 1783:
I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.

First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789:
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789:
The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.

Letter to General Assembly of Presbyterian Churches, May 1789:
While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives, and the beneficence of their actions: for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.

Farewell Address, 1796:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.… And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.… Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

[loco]

I don't have time to go into this but you're wrong. Thomas Jefferson was in no way a christian. He founded a university centered around a library, not a church. He didn't recommend his nephew reading the bible until 17 or so because he thought it was brainwashing to teach children religion. He edited the bible and took out the doctrine parts.The only place Ben Franklin mentioned religion in his autobiography was when he talked about how bored he got sitting in church. George Washington did not believe in Christianity the way that we understand the term today, see Edward Lengel's recent book on Washington. The only place religion is mentioned in the Constitution is no religious tests for political office holders, which we in no way respect today.

I could go into this for a long time but this debate has already been won. I'm sorry but this nation was not founded by Christians, it was not meant to be a solely Christian nation. Maybe that gives Christians today some validity in that they believe if so and so believed what they believed, and so and so were smart, then they themselves are smart for believing what they believe. It is not a virtuous act to tell lies in order to make what you believe more credible, I'm sorry.

Like I already said. We are a nation of Christians, NOT a Christian nation.

Benjamin Franklin

Letter to Messrs, the Abbes Chalut, and Arnaud, 17 April 1787:
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
 
Constitutional Convention, 1787:
In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.… and have we not forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: “that God governs in the affairs of man.” And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? …

I believe farther that this [new government under the Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.