Posted on 09/16/2007 10:28:46 PM PDT by goldstategop
John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, appointed by George Washington, wrote to Jedidiah Morse Feb. 28, 1797 (the same year the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified), "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
John Adams, America's second President and the same one who signed and sent the Treaty of Tripoli to the Senate, just one year later delivered these words in a military address Oct. 11, 1798, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
And to what religion is Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote Thomas Jefferson June 28, 1813, "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. ... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united." ...
John Quincy Adams, America's sixth President, spoke at an Independence Day celebration in 1837, "Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity…?
Andrew Jackson, our seventh President, pointed to a Bible as he lay sick near death in 1845 and said, "That book, sir, is the rock on which our republic rests."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
B T T T
I hate it when important stuff like this hits at just before 2 a.m. on the East Coast. And it is important. I’ve made this same point dozens of times here. Ironically, atheist Christopher Hitchens agrees that the Treaty of Tripoli was,as I’ve said, our first appeasement treaty.
One other thing, I happened to catch part of Lauren Green on FNC today. She did make one error when she said all of our founding fathers were Christian. They were not. But they did believe in the God of the Christians (and Jews). Jefferson said he was a true Christian, but that was because he believed Christ had the best and most important message of all time. What was unique about Lauren’s report, however, is that she pointed out that the “separation of church and state thing” had to do with Christianity and the FACT that Jefferson (et al) was referring to problems between denominations, which he’d had it up to his eyeballs with. (And who could blame him for that?)
I don’t know what’s up (again) with the # of views being unavailable, but coupled with that and the time of night, I’d like to request that you be allowed to repost this in the a.m.
Yes...Jefferson did not believe in the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus, and wrote of “the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.”
Separation of church and state had to with Christian (Protestant) denominations that existed at the time of the country’s founding.
That’s what Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he used the expression.
We had a few thousand Catholics and a handful of Jews in the country at the time.
Justice Hugo Black let the cat out of the bag with his anti-Catholic ruling in the 1947 case using the phrase.
After that it was picked up again and again to outlaw anything Christian under the “separation of church and state” label becoming the mythological “separation clause” of the Constitution.
The topic of whether we are a Christian nation was foremost on CNN’s Cafferty File the other night — I haven’t ever heard such vile mockery and anti-Christian rhetoric on TV — made me think Jack Cafferty is more than an athiest — he must be a satan-worshipper.
Yes, it looks like something very odd went on with Article 11--the key article discussed by Mr. Norris--and it's disappointing that he doesn't address--or even mention--the discrepancy.
Annotation of translation of Article 11 by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, of Leiden:
The eleventh article of the Barlow translation [The English version the US has considered official and reprints, with "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." --Gondring] has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic. The Arabic text opposite that article is a letter from Hassan Pasha of Algiers to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. The letter gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation. Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch their real meaning. Here the only thing to be done by a translator is to try to give the reader an impression of the nonsensical original:Oh, those wacky Muslims...pulling fast ones on Yankees for 200 years! How about that "overthrowing" part? (BTW, there are indications that problems with the translation were known within, at most, the first few years, but nothing seems to have been done about it.)
Praise be to God, who inspires the minds of rulers with causes of well-being and righteousness! The present matter may be in the interest of the land and the servants [of God], in order that things may be put in their place. This whole affair has been opened [by omission of one letter the Arabic reads "victories" instead of "opened"] by the intermediary of the exalted, honored Prince, the Lord Hassan Pasha, in the protected [by (rod] Algiers, may God strengthen him and give him victory and help him in accomplishing good things; thus in the beginning and in the end, and may the acquiescence in his order take place by considering all his affairs, and may his endeavor repose on the fitness of his reflection. So may God make it, the beginning of this peace, a good and graceful measure and an introduction having for result exaltation and glorification, out of love for our brother and friend and our most beloved, the exalted Lord Yussuf Pasha, [here follows the same word as in Article 10: al-munshi?, "residing" or "governing"] in the well-protected [by God] Tripoli, may God strengthen him by His grace and His favor, amen! Because our interests are one and united, because our aim is that acts may succeed by overthrowing justice, and the observance [of duty?; of treaties?; of the Sacred Law?] becomes praiseworthy by facts entirely, amen ! by making successful safety and security by permanence of innumerable benefits and pure and unmixed issue. Prosperity accompanies highness and facilitation of good by length of the different kinds of joy makes permanent. Praise be to God for the comprehensive benefit and your perfect gifts, may God make them permanent for us and for you, thus till the day of resurrection and judgment, as long as times last, amen!
Further, if there are American people coming to the well-protected Tripoli, they wish to be, by your carefulness, honored [and free] from all disagreements as are, Indeed, all the [Christian] nations, so that nobody molests them and no injury befalls them; and likewise people from Tripoli, if alley proceed to the country of the Americans, they shall be honored, elevated upon the heads, nobody molesting or hindering them until they travel [homeward] in good state and prosperity. Thus. And greetings!
These issues are central to Mr. Norris' claims, yet he doesn't mention them at all. But at least Mr. Norris not using the David Barton quotes. I have to give him credit for that! :-)
Please provide support for that contention.
Mr. Norris gives his June 28, 1813, quote of John Adams: "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. ... And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united" but omits what "these Sects" of the "beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen" were:
Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]."
In other words, he's pointing out that the country was founded by those of many different faiths--not just Protestants, and not even just Christians--but the ideals of Christianity were universal among them, regardless of one's actual faith.
One side thing that I do find very interesting with the letter to the Danbury Baptists is how liberals will point to it for Separation of Church and State issues, but not for the basic Constitutional issue it was about. President Jefferson wrote it to tell the people that he couldn't step into the state's jurisdiction from the Federal executive. Also, what's interesting is that the Danbury Baptists understood this issue very clearly, as shown in part of their request to which he was responding:
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Boy, they lay it on thick, don't they? :-)Of course, another "subversive" part of Pres. Jefferson's reply is: "Believing with you...that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions..." Oh, how we have gone away from that!
I believe we are a Christian nation and I will toss a bone to include my Jewish friends and say Judeo-Christian since I like them and know we share the same God and traditions.
I don’t care much for any other religions getting much of a toehold here.
So shoot me.
Everson was where that abomination of a ruling got traction.
I bet the average brainwashed school kid thinks that lingo is in the Constitution...not
We hold that those in this country must conduct themselves in their public affairs responsibly and in accordance with laws derived in good part from Christian commandments.
We do not dictate a man's private beliefs or his religious observances. Atheists, Muslims, and Hindus are all welcome, so long as they behave themselves. Our government does not dictate our faith. But it does enforce laws on enough aspects of public behavior to maintain an orderly community and commerce, and to provide for the common defense. These laws are derived from Christianity, not Islam or Communism or God knows what else.
It happens that the Jewish commandments for public behavior are closer fit than most to the Christian ones on which our heritage and laws are based, so Jews have a long tradition of fitting in here better than some.
But to call this Judeo-Christian is to confuse the key point. This is not about a man's religion, but about his responsible public behavior, obeying a set of expectations and laws on public behavior that come in good part from the Christian religion.
The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U. S.
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
-snip-
But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html
Not to forget that the wee little book Jefferson put together was never called the Jefferson Bible by the man
himself—but was titled the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth and was intended to introduce Christianity to the
indians. ANd as President Jefferson insisted the Bible and Watts Hymnal be taught from in every classroom in D.C.,
and as President Jefferson had the USMC Band provide music for the Christian church that met every Sunday in the US Capitol (without offending the President who supposedly gave us the “Wall of separation”
Might study the 1833,and later editions of the Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States of
America by Joseph Story or the readily available abridgement of those commentaries -A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States —by Joseph Story
1840 and 1859 (from which Regnery republished in 1976,1997 and ?) See also John Eidsmoe -Christianity and the Constitution (chapter 1 pp17-26 )Baker Books paperback,1995. See also Benjamin Frankin -Those Who Would
Remove to America(pp235-243)Frankllin ,Library of America
J.A.Leo LeMay
The reality was pretty much as I said in terms of population
based on denomination.
I’m not trying to write off Catholics or Jews but in my perception of Mr. Jefferson writing his letter I would think of him wanting to separate denominations from government.
Its hard for me to be in Jefferson’s head but I think he was concerned about the Congregationalist, Baptist, Presbyterian or Episcopalian denominations being tied to government.
Those were the kinds of denominations most prominent at the time, most powerful and most likely to attain power nationally.
Your quotation of Adams describes the soldiers themselves and I have no doubt they encompassed all the groups he mentioned, but not all those groups were as prominent as the ones I mentioned above and most likely to influence government.
I take your quotation as a true statement but I see the Protestant groups as being the big denominations-churches that Jefferson was concerned with in his letter about the “separation of church and state.”
The humanists have done so much to tear down the Roman Catholic Church through the centuries that many fundamentalist-evangelical Christians have been led to imitate their hatreds.
The RC Church has historically held to traditional values in the face of amoral and immoral humanist ideas.
In the last 30 years many evangelical-fundamentalist Christians have come to see the RC Church as an ally instead of an adversary and have more respect for Catholics and the Catholic faith.
Its something that is past due.
Cafferty is just a drunken moron.
I’m in agreement, wardaddy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.