America has reached a breaking point; therefore, what are Christian Patriots to do? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




America has reached a breaking point; therefore, what are Christian Patriots to do?

Debate Information

America has reached a breaking point, what are Christian Patriots to do? Where is our leadership?

America's Constitutional Republic was created specifically for a moral and religious people and it is wholly inadequate to govern those who choose to follow Satan, his WOKENESS agenda, represented by the Democrat - Progressive - Marxist Party of the United States.

Our Founders collaborated with the intent of constructing and implementing a very limited form of Federal Government, a representative republic or representative democracy where the tentacles of Government were prohibited, by design, from intruding into the personal lives of the citizenry thereby permitting every man, woman, child, maximized freedom to pursue their God-given talents as contributing members of a capitalistic society with the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

Our Founders were fully cognizant of the fact that a limited Government exercising limited intrusion into the personal lives of the citizenry mandated that an overwhelming majority of the citizenry be morally and ethically constrained by the indwelling Spirit of God; hence, the presence of a Church steeple visible from almost every quadrant of early townships throughout the Colonies.

Our Founders, many represented by Christian men who possessed an abiding faith in Jesus Christ, understood that unless Jesus was King and the Holy Spirit was the logistical support in constraining the sin-nature of man through sanctification via the "new-nature" in Christ, the American experiment of maximized freedom for the individual and maximized restraint upon Government intrusion would ultimately fail and be replaced by tyranny e.g., subservience to totalitarianism.

Beginning in the late 1800’s-early 1900’s under the leadership of progressive nitwits like John Dewey AKA “the father of modern education,” a radical shift from freedom of the individual to conformity to the the group was introduced first into the American classroom and proved successful as a form of control over the thoughts of the individual who was coerced into acquiescing to the will of authoritarianism, the “elite” in society, a subtle form of the bourgeoisie who found Progressivism a valuable tool for power, control, over the newly forming proletariat comprised primarily of lower-to-lower middle class American students.

Subsequently, Dewey and Darwin and Marx and Sanger were slowly infused into the heart and minds of American youth via education/biological sciences-humanities, Hollywood, print media, the GRU/KGB post WWII, the Democrat Party that whored itself to Marxism and Darwinism-Atheism and Racism.

Today, in America, the Progressive-Marxist-Democrat Party of WOKEISM has finally captured the hearts and minds of Gen-X, Millennial’s and Gen-Z far too many of whom represent the Devil via societal immorality and these are the antithesis of sustainable American values; therefore, America has finally reached a breaking point where either a day of reckoning resembling America’s war with the Democrat Party from 1861-1865 is repeated and the Democrat Party is systematically dismantled, reorganized as a political party espousing some form of American values or America dies in apostasy, abortion, perversion, confusion, atheism. Christian Patriots will stand now or our posterity will suffer in unconscionable tyranny until our Lord's 2nd-Advent. Where are our Christian leaders?

This current breech in American values is nothing less than the war between good v. evil and though Jesus is our victory our Nation and our posterity are our responsibility, do we surrender our posterity to Satan or do we fight?


PlaffelvohfenJoeKerr
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 216 Pts   -   edited May 11
    Argument Topic: America Is Not A Christian Nation

    The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

    In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written during Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

    We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

    The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

    Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase "separation of church and state" to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

    Ignoring history, law, and fairness, fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Right-wing Protestants and Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes from uniting church and state.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • @RickeyD

    You should really stop quote-mining Adams...


    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -  
    When this is the mainly proposed alternative to the "wokeism", is it really surprising that so many people gravitate towards the latter? The "woke" people are absolutely insane, but when someone is told that the only viable alternative to begin "woke" is to embrace a 3,000 year old fantasy ideology and reject the last 500 years of scientific and philosophical development, then I can see how many people will choose the former just to distance themselves as much as possible from this stone age stuff.

    Rickey is the best advocate for the extreme leftism. Reading his posts, it is hard not to think, "I want to be as far away from this kind of people as possible; might as well go all the way to the opposite end of the spectrum".
    SkepticalOne
  • @JulesKorngold
    I don't disagree...
    I just can quite agree yet either to what you say.

    The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" 

     We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    This is a collection of self-evident truth as directions to legislation a state of the union to guide the written of law...
    It is a way of presentation so laws does not shelter the idea of alibi or vengeance.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "   If it is impossible for congress to so for the senate, and President must conspire to pas such law as well as well.

     Set context of time the quote had been written..King and English Parliment had proven the deed can be acomplished. 

    There is also proof held in Congress of John Adams and Christianity history to human abuse by invasion of privacy and use of such conduct in politics. 


  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne ; I do wish you atheists would STOP the nonsensical talking points of your fellow demons and understand the Treaty of Tripoli was America's attempt to garner peace with the Barbary Powers, Muslims-Islam, and your quote is out of context and irrelevant. What Adam's is telling the Muslim warriors is truth...America is not a theocracy but a Constitutional Republic...not a Christian Nation per se but a Government based upon Christian principals that in no way advocated for war with Islam but sought peace, unlike the theocracy of the Church of England and other such institutions in Europe.

    If not for Christianity, there would be no America if your ilk is allowed to exist here running amuck with the Devil, America will cease to exist.


  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 11
    @John_C_87 @JulesKorngold Note that the Declaration declares our Creator, Elohim, and the Constitution is signed in "The Year of our Lord" giving complete authority and credit for both Documents to Jesus Christ.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -   edited May 11
    RickeyD said:
    @John_C_87 @JulesKorngold Note that the Declaration declares our Creator, Elohim, and the Constitution is signed in "The Year of our Lord" giving complete authority and credit for both Documents to Jesus Christ.
    Interesting interpretation. So the name of an occasion automatically gives someone authority? I suppose then that on the Black History Month black people gain authority over Rickey's life and get to do how they please with him with no legal consequences. Poor Rickey... Dug himself into a hole.

    As for "The Year of our Lord" specifically, it is fairly well known that this phrase did not appear in the drafts of the Constitution that were discussed publicly by the Founding Fathers. In this interesting piece, for example, the author argues that it may have been a deliberation of the scribe and had nothing to do with the intent of the Founding Fathers who very openly spoke about complete separation of church and state: https://www.amazon.com/Founders-God-Government-Daniel-Dreisbach/dp/0742522792

    The US Constitution is one of the most secular documents in human history. For someone to see it as establishing the US as a "Christian Nation" is to be very deeply stuck in their narrow echo-chamber.

    From Treaty of Tripoli, by George Washington:
    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 (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) 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.
  •  Note that the Declaration declares our Creator, Elohim, and
    Only if you hold admissable proof that GOD must only be a religion and not a numerical axiom...

     the Constitution is signed in "The Year of our Lord" giving complete authority and credit for both Documents to Jesus Christ. The self-evident truth is that Jesus Christ is a convicted criminal with a felony record who was sentenced to capital punishment, outside United States of American Constitutional law. For any number of possible crimes, you are conspiring to be part of by admitting and making the connection of sin your own and mine, not his alone. It is this issue that under GOD describes a truth why Christians are punished in record high numbers all over the world, much higher than any other religion. Not that I know as fact that Jesus is guilty of any crime, he does however in writing shared a common sin with lucifer under "GOD" as a religious entity or not. The similarities in what I have read and what I have heard explained back towards me brings question if I or innocent as a person. Am I to be a man who serves a "GOD" or a man who must serve another man posthumously as GOD?


  • @RickeyD
    "The Year of our Lord" giving complete authority and credit for both Documents to Jesus.

    In self-evident truth they are giving complete credit to the documents to the timeframe set by a due served punishment after conviction of crime as justice, even with an imposed threat of higher powers looming close at hand. It has no impact on the Congress as a Christians if they agreed or did not with the past convictions of the man in the pasts. It is an act of independence as bravery not compliance.


  • @Plaffelvohfen

    It is not a fallacy it is a truth........
    However, before the courts of law a truth still rests below the principle of whole truth. While whole truth is not a self-evident truth which GOD may be held as. Self-evident truth is built to hold a united states as inalienable right making, right harder to be found easily wrong.

    It is not my argument to say your disagreement with the principle is without reason Under American Constitution the more perfect union is not addressed by simply crying out fallacy, we must as a people add to be weighed a union as united state to law ourselves...


  • @RickeyD

    What Adam's is telling the Muslim warriors is truth...America is not a theocracy but a Constitutional Republic...not a Christian Nation per se but a Government based upon Christian principals

    Adams is signing a document that explicitly says the United States government is not in any way founded on the Christian religion. This means America is not a Christian Nation nor is it based on Christianity. Do you think he disagreed with that statement when he signed his name to the document? 

    Out of curiosity, what exclusively Christian principles do you think America is built upon?

    JulesKorngoldPlaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @MayCaesar
    The US Constitution is one of the most secular documents in human history.

    The united States constitution is not secular. What American Constitution does is explains a religion which is held inalienable as a united state by applying religion itself to self-evident truth. This before the First Amendment was even an idea to be ratified or held by the people.

    I agree that RickyD's legal claim that Christianity has ownership of the American United States Constitution is wrong, even a lie, and in more than just one way. The action of building an inalienable point of law is a complicated subject matter but is also the binding force which holds all Americans a Republicans as a legal precedent of law. As it is designed around the game of Royalty and establishment at one time, Chess..

  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; @SkepticalOne Without Christianity, America would not be.  It is God the Father who has set-apart the United States to take-up where Israel failed in their rejection of the New Covenant and their responsibility to proselytize the World in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our Declaration declares the sovereignty of our Creator, Jesus Christ, and the Constitution is signed in the Year of our Lord...Jesus Christ.

     
    The Treaty of Tripoli
    A line from this treaty embodies the counter charge most frequently invoked (and most heavily relied upon) by critics in their attempt to disprove what history overwhelmingly documents. Asserting that America never was a Christian nation, they invoke a clause from Article XI of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that declared:

    The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion . . .

    On its face, that clause appears to be nondebatable and final, but what the critics fail to acknowledge is that they have lifted eighteen words out of a sentence that is eighty-one words long, thereby appearing to make it say something that it does not say when replaced in the full sentence. Significantly (and much to the chagrin of the critics), when the borrowed segment is placed back into the full sentence, and when the full sentence is placed back into the full treaty, and then when the circumstances that caused the writing of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli are presented, the portion of a line that they invoke actually strengthens rather than weakens the claim that America was a Christian nation.

    The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli was one of several negotiated with during the “Barbary Powers War,” a war against Muslim terrorists that began toward the end of the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. 1 During America’s original “War on Terror,” five Muslim countries (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Turkey) were making indiscriminate terrorist attacks against what they claimed to be five “Christian” nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). The conflict so escalated that in 1801, Tripoli formally declared war against the United States, 2 thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation.

    The Barbary Powers (called Barbary “Pirates” by most Americans) attacked American merchant ships (but not naval ships) wherever they found them. (Prior to the Revolution, American shipping had been protected by the British navy, and during the Revolution by the French navy; but after the Revolution, there was no protection, for America lacked a navy of its own.) These unprotected American merchant ships, built for carrying cargoes rather than for fighting, were easy prey for the warships of the Barbary Powers. The cargo of these ships was seized as loot and their “Christian” seamen 3 were enslaved in retaliation for what Muslims claimed that Christians had done to them (e.g., during the Crusades, Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada, 4 etc.). So regular were the attacks that in 1793, Algiers alone seized ten American merchant ships and enslaved more then one hundred sailors, holding them for sell or ransom. 5

    In an attempt to secure a release of the kidnapped seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate terms with those Muslim nations. 6 They reached several treaties of “Peace and Amity” with the Muslim Barbary 7 powers to ensure “protection” of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean, 8 but because America had no navy and no threat of any power against the Muslims, the terms of the treaties were particularly unfavorable for America. Sometimes she was required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (tens of millions in today’s money) of “tribute” (i.e., official extortion) to each Muslim country to receive a “guarantee” of no attacks. Sometimes the Muslims also demanded additional “considerations” – such as building and providing a warship as a “gift” to Tripoli, 9 a “gift” frigate to Algiers, 10 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 11 etc.

    In those treaties, America inserted various declarations attempting to convince the Muslims that as Christians, we were not pursuing a “jihad” against them – that we were engaged in a war on the basis of our religion or theirs. For example, in the 1784 treaty negotiated by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that eventually ended Moroccan hostilities against the United States, three separate clauses acknowledged the conflict as being one between Muslim and Christian powers; 12 and the 1795 Treaty with Algiers contained similar acknowledgments. 13 In fact, a subsequent treaty with Algiers even stipulated what would occur if captured America (or European) Christian seamen escaped from Algiers and found refuge on any of our ships:

    If . . . any Christians whatsoever, captives in Algiers, make their escape and take refuge on board any of the ships of war, they shall not be required back again nor shall the consul of the United States or commanders of said ships be required to pay anything for the said Christians. As the government of America has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of any nation, and as the said states have never entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility except in defense of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations; and the consuls and agents of both nations hall have liberty to celebrate the rites of their respective religions in their own houses. 14

    America regularly attempted to assure the Muslims that as Christians, we had no religious hatred of them – that we had “no enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility” of the Muslims, and that our substantial differences of “religious opinions shall [n]ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations.” Furthermore, we inserted specific clauses into the treaties to ensure that our Christian diplomats in their Muslim nations could practice their Christian faith, just as their Muslim diplomats in America could practice their Muslim faith. 15 Very simply, using multiple clauses, we attempted to reassure them that we were not like the Period II Christian nations that had attacked them simply because they were Muslims; America was not – and never had been – a party to any such religious war.

    The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was just one of the many treaties in which each country recognized the religion of the other, and in which America invoked rhetoric designed to prevent a “Holy War” between Christians and Muslims. 16 Article XI of that treaty therefore 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 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. 17

    Critics end the sentence after the words “Christian religion,” thus placing a period in the middle of a sentence where no punctuation currently exists, stopping the sentence in mid-thought. However, when Article XI is read in its entirety and its thought concluded where the punctuation so indicates, then the article simply assures Tripoli that we were not one of the Christian nations with an inherent hostility against Muslims and that we would not allow differences in our “religious opinions” to lead to hostility.

    (Significantly, even if Article XI contained nothing more than what the critics cite – i.e., “the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” – this still would not refute America being a Christian nation since the article only refers to the federal government. Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they also included a constitutional prohibition against any official federal establishment of religion. Therefore, if Article XI is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States did not establish the Christian religion, such a statement does not repudiate the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. However, the history of the Treaty, of the treaties negotiated before and after it, and the circumstances of the conflict discounts even that reading.)

    Even though clauses such as Article XI in the 1797 treaty clearly demonstrate America’s efforts to distinguish itself from the historical European Christian nations that hated Muslims, the diligent diplomatic efforts proved unsuccessful – especially in the case of Tripoli (today’s Muslim Libya); terroristic attacks against American interests continued largely unabated.

    The extortion payments became a significant expense for the American government. In fact, in 1795, payments to Algiers, including the ransom payment to free 115 American seamen, totaled nearly one million dollars 18 – a full sixteen percent of the entire federal budget for that year! 19 And Algiers was just one of the five Barbary Powers. Not surprisingly, American presidents and citizens resented remitting such extortion payments simply to enjoy rights already guaranteed them under international law. Preparations were therefore begun for a military remedy, thus embracing President George Washington’s axiom that:

    To be prepared for war is onto the most effectual means of preserving peace. 20

    In the final year of his presidency, Washington urged Congress to undertake the construction of a U. S. Navy to defend American interests. 21 President John Adams vigorously pursued those naval plans, earning him the title of “Father of the American Navy.” 22 Nevertheless, Adams shied from a direct military confrontation and instead pursued a more pacific approach to the ongoing Barbary Powers encroachments.

    By 1800, however, extortion payments to the Muslim terrorists accounted for twenty percent of the federal budget; so when Thomas Jefferson became President in 1801, he refused further payments and decided that it was time to take military action to end the two-decades-old terrorist attacks. Jefferson took General William Eaton (who had been appointed as “Consul to Tunis” by John Adams in 1799) and elevated Eaton to the post of “US Naval Agent to the Barbary States,” with the assignment to lead an American military expedition against Tripoli. Using the brand new American Navy to transport the U. S. Marines overseas, General Eaton led a successful campaign that freed captured American seaman and crushed the Muslim forces. After five years, in 1805 Tripoli signed a treaty on America’s terms, thus ending their aggressions.<,/p>

    It is from the Marine’s role in that first War on Terror that the U. S. Marines derive part of the opening line of their hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli . . .” Two centuries later, the Marines were again ordered into action in that same general region of the world in America’s second “War on Terror,” again fighting Muslim terrorists. By 1807, Muslim Algiers had resumed attacks against American ships and sailors, and eventually declared war on America, but Jefferson was distracted with efforts to keep from going to war against Great Britain or France. When President Madison took office, he, too, became rapidly preoccupied with the issues that led to the war of the War of 1812, and also was unable to respond with military force against the attacks. With the end of that War, in 1815, Madison dispatched warships and the military against three Muslim nations: Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. Beginning first with Algiers, America quickly subdued them and brought them to the peace table where in July 1815 they ratified a treaty that freed all Christians and ended future slavery of Christians. 23 The American fleet then departed for Tunis, to deal with them; promptly after the Americans departed, Algiers renounced the peace treaty. However, two of the other Christian nations being harassed by Muslim terrorist attacks (the British and the Dutch) brought their fleets against Algiers and attacked and subdued them. In 1816, Algiers signed a new peace treaty in which the Muslims agreed that “the practice of condemning Christian Prisoners of War to slavery is hereby and forever renounced.” 24 Significantly, when the treaty was signed, it acknowledged the date according to both the Christian and Muslim calendars:

    Done in duplicate, in the warlike City of Algiers, in the presence of Almighty God, the 28th day of August, in the year of Jesus Christ, 1816, and in the year of the Hegira, 1231, and the 6th day of the Moon Shawal. 25

    In the meantime, the American fleet and Marines had subdued Tunis, who signed a treaty ending the Christian enslavement and terrorist attacks. The Americans then signed another treaty Algiers in December 1816, replacing the one Algiers had renounced, in which the Muslims agreed to end the slavery of Christians. 26 This conflict ran the course of some thirty-two years, and it involved multiple incursions of the American military into the region, remaining there almost seven years, before the attacks against America ebbed.

    Interestingly, there are many parallels between America’s two Wars on Terror. Perhaps U. S. Army Colonel Brian Birdwell – a decorated veteran of the modern War on Terror, later crucially-burned during the terrorist attack on the Pentagon – best explained the philosophy behind both Wars on Terror. Birdwell noted that America had only two options in the terrorists war of attrition against the United States: continue to deal with the mosquitoes coming out of the Middle East swamp, or go drain the swamp and thus prevent future mosquitoes from coming out of it. In both 1801 and 2003, America had endured two decades of mosquitoes prior to its decision to go drain the swamp. Many Americans today forget that the 2003 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was preceded by the 1983 Muslim terrorist attacks on the Beirut Embassy and the Marine Barracks; the 1985 Muslim terrorist attack on TWA flight 847; the 1985 attack on the Achillo Lauro cruise ship; the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers; the 1996 attacks on the Khobar Towers and multiple African Embassy bombings; the 2000 attack on the U. S. S. Cole, and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. Thousands of Americans across the world had been killed in those earlier two decades of terrorist attacks before America tired of dealing with the mosquitoes and decided to drain the swamp – just as did President Jefferson in 1801 after two decades of similarly harassing attacks.

    Significantly, not only the numerous treaties from the Barbary Powers conflict but also all of the official correspondence from the twenty year conflict leading up first to Jefferson’s and then to Madison’s attack on the Muslim Barbary Powers affirms that it was always viewed by both sides as a conflict between Muslim nations and a Christian one. For example, the writings of General William Eaton both in his early role as a diplomatic envoy under Adams and then in his later role as military theatre commander under Jefferson provide irrefutable testimony of this fact.

    Eaton, when writing to President Adam’s Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, 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 [i.e., the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims’] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful. 27 (emphasis added)

    Eaton also explained why the Muslims found American targets so inviting. For example, when the American cargo ship “Hero” arrived in Tunis, the Muslims immediately noted that the heavy-laden ship was protected by only two tiny four-pound cannons. According to Eaton:

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

    Very simply, this type of weakness invited continued attack – and thus the need (to that point) to negotiate the often extortive treaties to keep peace. Eaton told Secretary Pickering how pleased one of the Barbary rulers had been to receive the payments promised him by America in one of the treaties:

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

    When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State in 1800, Eaton promptly 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.” 30 (emphasis added)

    When General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli at Jefferson’s order, 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 [Muslims]. We have a difficult undertaking! 31 (emphasis added)

    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? 32 (emphasis added)

    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 Tripoli 33 (emphasis added)

    The numerous documents and treaties surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Furthermore, the one line from Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli singled out by critics does not disprove that America was a Christian nation; to the contrary, when that line is reinstated back into the full sentence and its context, it proves exactly the opposite.

    https://wallbuilders.com/treaty-of-tripoli/

    Atheism is a people of evil intent and moral-less defilement.



     

    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -  
    So, can anyone find any reference to "Christian nation" anywhere in the Founding Fathers' writings or speeches, or in any of the official documents? I do not think that anyone can reasonably deny that Christianity has played an important role in the formation of the US, but there is a large difference between Christianity playing an important role in it, and in the US being a Christian nation. Among other things that heavily influenced the formation of the US was farming, for instance, but saying that the US is "farming nation" would be absurd.
    excon
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1427 Pts   -   edited May 11
    @RickeyD

    Youve plagiarized directly from Wallbuilders which was founded by psuedo-historian David Barton. Tsk tsk.

    As an idea of how bad Barton is at history, his Christian publishing company ended publication and distribution of his "The Jefferson Lies" because it was historically bogus. (It really is an awful book). Their exact words were "basic truths just were not there." This man is NOT a historian and his goal is about pushing a founding myth/Christian nationalism rather than accurately telling history. Are you interested in what's actually true? If so, you should get off the Barton wagon.
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne ; Truth is reality irrespective of the one who speaks it, lives it, writes it. Do you really expect a foundational-less atheist to publish "truth?"

    America is a Christian Nation that cannot survive under the filth of atheism...you misfits have been given far too much leeway. America will only be saved when another civil war is declared and the Democrat-Atheist-Perverse-Marxist Party is dismantled.

    The world of humanity is characterized by irresoluble disagreement. The religious, political, and ideological divisions that exist among the seven billion people on the planet are staggering. These differences are not due simply to misunderstanding, or the need for further education and clarification. Truth may most certainly be known, and every human being has the God-given ability to weigh evidence and conduct himself in a rational matter, arriving at only the truth (cf. Warren, 1982; Miller, 2011). Yet, sadly, most people have arrived at their beliefs for other reasons than a desire to be right and accurate. They have an agenda, ulterior motives, and personal circumstances that mean more to them than truth. Hence, they are not actually interested in coming to correct comprehension or understanding.

    THE ATHEIST’S CONTENTION

    This state of affairs manifests itself in the matter of the origins of the Republic. Atheists and skeptics, as well as social and political liberals, of the last half century have made it one of their missions in life to indoctrinate the public with the notion that America was not intended to be a “Christian nation,” and that the Founders were deists who advocated religious pluralism and political correctness (see Miller, 2005). They have spouted the party line that our founding documents, especially the Constitution, are strictly secular in nature, and that the God of the Bible and the Christian religion were not formative influences on the Founders’ thinking. One would think that these critics are parroting Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf with its recommendation that “in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation…more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie…. [B]y an able and persistent use of propaganda heaven itself can be presented to the people as if it were hell and, vice versa” (1939, 1.10:185,216).

    For example, in an article titled “Our Godless Constitution,” Brooke Allen states: “Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent…. The Founding Fathers were not religious men” (2005; cf. Kramnick and Moore, 1996). Such brazen exclamations, though common and widespread, are outrageous, inexcusable, and completely untrue. Such shameless claims might be forgiven if the allusions to Christianity by the Founders were rare, scattered, ambiguous, or subject to alternative interpretations—but they are not.

    The Founders’ commitment to the God of the Bible and Christian principles was so pervasive and endemic that indications literally permeate the mass of organic utterances from the founding era. These expressions repeatedly articulate their conviction that Christianity lies at the foundation of the Republic. One simple, but decisive, example is the fact that during the eight tumultuous years of the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the Continental Congress, representing more than 200 quintessential Founders of the Republic, issued 15 proclamations to the American population. Those proclamations are literally replete with allusions to God, Christ, Christianity, and the Bible (see Miller, 2009). They provide intimate insight into the very religious character of the vast majority of the Founders, and their absolutely unhesitating willingness to weave their religious convictions into their political expressions. Lest the reader doubt this bold contention, consider a portion of just one of those proclamations, issued by the entire Continental Congress to the American people on March 19, 1782:

    Continental Congress Proclamation
    March 19, 1782

    The goodness of the Supreme Being to all his rational creatures, demands their acknowledgments of gratitude and love; his absolute government of this world dictates, that it is the interest of every nation and people ardently to supplicate his favor and implore his protection…. The United States in Congress assembled, therefore, taking into consideration our present situation, our multiplied transgressions of the holy laws of our God, and his acts of kindness and goodness towards us, which we ought to record with the liveliest gratitude, think it their indispensable duty to call upon the several states, to set apart the last Thursday in April next, as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, that our joint supplications may then ascend to the throne of the Ruler of the Universe, beseeching Him to diffuse a spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens; and make us a holy, that so we may be an happy people…that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas (Journals of…, 22:137-138, emp. added).

    This one official organic utterance by the supreme political body of the United States is sufficient to refute and completely dispel the popular contention of atheists that the Founders were not religious men, or that they did not couple their political pronouncements with their religious beliefs.

    Hence, the allegations of skeptics (who seek to expunge the Founders’ clearly Christian orientation by floating isolated allusions that seemingly discount this orientation), logically, cannot be interpreted as carte blanche dismissals of the role of Christianity in the founding of America. Indeed, they must be viewed as isolated and exceptional in contrast with the myriad declarations to the contrary (see Miller, 2008). And, to be fair, an honest attempt ought to be made to harmonize the exceptional with the typical.

    THE 1796 TREATY OF TRIPOLI

    Despite the fact that transparent expressions of religious attachment by the mass of the Founders are legion, a battery of revisionist historians, liberal educators, skeptics, and atheists have been working feverishly for over half a century to perpetuate their unconscionable allegation that the bulk of the Founders were irreligious men. One, if not the most, prominent ploy used to propagate the secularist’s propaganda is the Treaty of Tripoli. Atheists and skeptics, using their Web sites and books, routinely seek justification for their denial of America’s Christian roots by decontextualizing the words of this political document (e.g., Harding, 2011; Walker, 1997; Allen, 2005; Buckner, 1997; Buckner and Buckner, 1993). For example, in his book The God Delusion, British atheist Richard Dawkins declares:

    The religious views of the Founding Fathers are of great interest to propagandists of today’s American right, anxious to push their version of history. Contrary to their view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli (2006, p. 40, emp. added).

    In an article on Dawkins’ Web site, titled “The Enigma of America’s Secular Roots” (Haselby, 2011), Sam Haselby parrots the same sentiment. He attempts to paint as irreligious the American envoy who negotiated and signed the treaty, Joel Barlow, on the basis of Barlow’s book Advice to the Privileged Orders (1793). [NOTE: As President Washington’s appointed envoy (in 1793) to negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli, and Tunis, Colonel David Humphreys ultimately delegated his responsibilities to junior agents, including Joel Barlow as well as Joseph Donaldson (Irwin, 1931, p. 84; “Treaty of Peace…,” 1846a, 8:156).]

    Joel Barlow
    American Consul at Algiers 1795-1797

    Regardless of Barlow’s personal religious sentiments, Haselby unquestionably misrepresents Barlow’s writing. He fails to recognize that Barlow was not condemning human religion carte blanche, let alone espousing the atheistic viewpoint—as do Dawkins and his fellow atheists. Rather, he was decrying false religion, as well as perversions and abuses of Christianity (e.g., Catholicism—pp. 60,62,69, et al.). More particularly, he condemned the “state-establishment of religion…[w]hen the Christian religion was perverted and pressed into the service of Government, under the name of the Christian Church” (pp. 61,68, italics in orig., emp. added). In the commencement of his denunciation of “The Church,” Barlow included a footnote to eliminate the very misunderstanding that atheists seek to perpetrate on others. He explained:

    From that association of ideas, that usually connects the church with religion, I may run the risque [sic] of being misunderstood by some readers, unless I advertise them, that I consider no connection as existing between these two subjects; and that where I speak of church indefinitely, I mean the government of a state, assuming the name of God, to govern by divine authority; or in other words, darkening the consciences of men, in order to oppress them. In the United States of America, there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a Church; and yet in no country are the people more religious… (pp. 53-54, italics in orig., emp. added)

    Though America has always been filled with Christian churches, yet, as a nation, Barlow insisted that we have no church? How so? He meant that we have no one Christian sect assuming the role of a state church—the very malady that afflicted Britain. Yet, Christianity has been the singularly supreme religion that has always characterized the vast majority of Americans—including the vast majority of the Founders. In referring to Christianity in America, Barlow added: “they have ministers of religion, but no priests” (p. 54, italics in orig.). So according to Barlow, the problem is not religion; rather, problems arise when a corrupted form of Christianity is given the power of the federal government to persecute opposing Christian sects. He specifically affirmed that the bulk of the population of the country—including the Founders—were religious. Indeed, according to Barlow, Americans were unsurpassed in the world for their commitment to religion.

    Barlow, therefore, did not use the word “church” as a blanket condemnation of the Christian church or religion. In fact, after providing an initial definition of his specialized use of the term, he repeatedly went out of his way to reiterate that definition’s very restricted meaning: “By church I mean any mode of worship declared to be national, or declared to have any preference in the eye of the law” (p. 61, italics in orig., emp. added; cf. “as I have before defined it”—p. 70). After citing the history of the Roman Catholic Church as exemplary of the kind of coercive religion that he condemned, he observes that such cruelty “has given rise to an opinion, that nations are cruel in proportion as they are religious” (p. 66). Ironically, Barlow’s observation represents the opinion of today’s atheist. However, Barlow disagreed with that opinion. In contrast, he stated: “But the observation ought to stand thus, That nations are cruel in proportion as they are guided by priests”—again accentuating the distinction between the positive and rightful influence of Christianity on society, and the unchristian cruelties inflicted by Catholic priests who are handed the reins of government (pp. 66-67, italics in orig.).

    Barlow then concluded his chapter on the church by explicitly restating his specialized use of the term “church”:

    In the United States of America there is no church; and this is one of the principal circumstances which distinguish that government from all others that ever existed; it ensures the un-embarrassed exercise of religion, the continuation of public instruction in the science of liberty and happiness, and promises a long duration to a representative government (pp. 75-76, emp. added).

    Observe that when Barlow made his remarks, America, then as now, was saturated with churches from one end of the country to the other. Hence, his declaration that in America “there is no church” meant that there is no state religion, there is no religion (specifically, any one Christian denomination) that has been elevated by the federal government to the status of the state church. Observe further that Barlow listed as one of the positive, distinguishing characteristics of America the guarantee of “the unembarrassed exercise of religion”—the very thing that Dawkins, Haselby, and their atheistic associates constantly seek to expunge from society.

    What Barlow and the Founders sought to communicate to the world was the fact that the newly established federal government had no direct religious ties to any one Christian sect; it did not establish a state church, as did England and other European countries. As Supreme Court Justice and Father of American Jurisprudence, Joseph Story, succinctly explained in his comments on the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution:

    The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (1833, 3.44.728.1871, emp. added).

    This premiere Founder and expounder of the original intent of the Constitution fully recognized what the mass of the Founders believed—that Christianity fits “hand-in-glove” with the Republic they established, and its perpetuation throughout the nation was indispensable to the survival of the Republic:

    [I]n a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty…. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation (3.44.724-726. 1867-1868, emp. added).

    John Adams’ letter to Thomas Jefferson
    June 28, 1813

    Even John Adams, under whose presidency the Treaty of Tripoli was finalized and sanctioned by Congress, and then signed by Adams himself, forthrightly affirmed the role of Christianity in the founding of the Republic. In a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813, he explained that the great foundation of the nation is Christianity:

    The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite…. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now 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 (“John Adams to…,” n.d., emp. added).

    While serving in his official capacity as President of the United States, John Adams issued a proclamation to the entire nation that sets forth his indisputable views regarding Christianity and the nation:

    John Adams’ Presidential Proclamation
    March 6, 1799

    I do hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the 25th day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come…and that he would extend the blessings of knowledge, of true liberty, and of pure and undefiled religion throughout the world (Adams, 1799, emp. added).

    Such admonitions concerning Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Christian religion (i.e., Adams’ allusion to James 1:27) did not come from an irreligious man who rejected any connection between Christianity and the nation.

    To summarize, while the Founders strenuously opposed the formation of a state-sponsored religion, i.e., the elevation of one Christian denomination above another, they firmly believed that the general principles of Christianity were part and parcel of the fabric of America, including her political and social institutions. This realization is indisputable and undeniable. We know that the Founders did not interpret the phrase in the Treaty of Tripoli the way skeptics and liberals do today, since we have a host of explicit declarations, statements, and affirmations to the contrary from the Founders themselves (Miller, 2008). But how, then, do we account for the apparent denial of this broad-based fact in the Treaty of Tripoli? Let us see.

    The Wording of the Treaty Itself

    Having dispelled the attempt to characterize the Treaty of Tripoli as a patent denial of the Christian character of America, we now turn to the Treaty itself in an effort to understand its originally intended meaning. The treaty is dated November 4, 1796. The disputed portion of the treaty is Article 11, which reads in full:

    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 Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846a, 8:155, emp. added).

    At first glance, the initial declaration is startling and seemingly straightforward. How does one harmonize the mountain of evidence of America’s religious moorings with this treaty’s bold declaration that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”? The answer lies in an objective consideration of the rest of the article, recognizing that the subsequent phrases clarify, define, and explain the true intent of the initial declaration.

    Observe, first, that the Treaty of Tripoli in general, and Article 11 in particular, pertains specifically and exclusively to the federal government—not to the state governments or the rest of America’s social or political institutions (cf. Barton, 2000). The Founders’ discussions of the First Amendment make it very clear that the federal government was not to meddle in religious affairs, i.e., it was never to be allowed to interfere with the free exercise of the Christian religion. The Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason, confirms this appraisal of the historical context when he offered the following wording of the First Amendment:

    [A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).

    While Mason’s wording did not make the final cut, it nevertheless demonstrates the historical setting of the discussions, and the specific variables with which the Founders were grappling. The point is that the treaty was assuring the Tripolitan Muslim warlord that the government of the United States would never show hostility toward his country based on America’s intimate affiliation with Christianity.

    Second, notice that while the punctuation found throughout the article varies in the published forms that have come down through history, nevertheless, none place a period after “the Christian Religion.” The article clearly intends for the reader to gain clarification regarding the import of the first clause by including the subsequent clauses. The rest of the article, in fact, elaborates and expounds on the wording in the first clause. The rest of the article answers the question: In what way or ways is the government of the U.S. not founded in any sense on the Christian religion? Answer: (1) It has no disposition to show hatred toward Muslims, their laws, religion, or peaceful status; (2) The U.S. has never waged war against a Muslim nation; and (3) Therefore, it is clear that the U.S. would never attack a Muslim country solely on the grounds of religion, i.e., the differences that exist between Christianity and Islam.

    The average Muslim, even today, has difficulty reconciling America’s worldwide reputation as a “Christian nation” with her concomitant refusal to forcibly impose its religious orientation on the rest of the world—as Muslim countries, themselves, have consistently sought to do throughout history. The Bey of Tripoli, along with the pashas of the other Barbary States, unquestionably viewed American ships as fair game—legitimate objects of their attacks on the high seas—for the simple and obvious reason that America was a Christian nation. No Muslim country would have accepted as true such a sweeping repudiation of America’s intimate affiliation with Christianity. If such were the intent and meaning of Article 11, the Bey would have instantly dismissed the validity of the treaty, and such a claim would be seen as a laughable and ludicrous denial of what was obviously the case, i.e., that America was inhabited by a population of people, the vast majority of whom openly professed Christianity, and manifested that profession in all its civil and social institutions. [NOTE: The term “Bey” is a title of Turkish origin that refers to a tribal chieftain, equivalent to the English term “lord.” The similar term “Dey” was used specifically to refer to the rulers of Algiers and Tripoli. “Pasha” or “bashaw” was a comparable title of rank in the Ottoman Empire.]

    Abundant historical evidence verifies this understanding. Ten years earlier, authorized by Congress to negotiate with the Barbary pirates, who continually raided American ships off the coast of North Africa, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met in London in 1786 with the Ambassador from Tripoli. On March 28, they wrote the following letter to John Jay, who was serving as the U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, reporting their conversation with the ambassador.

    American Peace Commissioners’
    letter to John Jay
    March 28, 1786

    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran 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 who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise (“American Peace…,” 1786).

    The Tripoli ambassador clearly reflected the attitude of the Bey and his fellow citizens toward non-Muslim countries, an attitude that must be taken into account as the backdrop of the wording of Article 11 in the treaty a decade later. [NOTE: Interestingly, the only known surviving Arabic copy of the Treaty of Tripoli lacks the allusion to America not being a Christian nation.]

    The Other Treaty of Tripoli

    Even more telling proof that the phrase in Article 11 is misconstrued by atheists is seen in Article 14 of the subsequent treaty made with Tripoli on June 4, 1805, which reads in full:

    Art. 14th. As the government of the United States of America has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said states never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two nations. And the consuls and agents of both nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his religion in his own house. All slaves of the same religion shall not be impeded in going to said consul’s house at hours of prayer. The consuls shall have liberty and personal security given them, to travel within the territories of each other both by land and sea, and shall not be prevented from going on board any vessel that they may think proper to visit. They shall have likewise the liberty to appoint their own drogerman and brokers (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846b, 8:216, emp. added).

    The first two clauses are taken verbatim from the 1796 treaty—to the exclusion of the clause regarding America not being a Christian nation. Consequently, they do precisely what the Christian nation clause was intended to do in the earlier treaty: assure the Muslim pasha that America’s Christian orientation would not be the cause of hostilities directed against him. Tripolines were obligated not to attack Americans on account of America’s Christian connections, and the U.S. was not to attack Tripolines on account of their Islamic beliefs.

    Article 14 even expresses concern that “consuls and agents of both nations” be permitted to practice their religion in their own homes. In other words, a consul or agent of Tripoli should not be hindered from engaging in Islamic worship in the diplomatic residence he occupies while in America. Similarly, any American consul or government agent living in Tripoli was not to be hindered from practicing his religion while residing in Tripoli. Pray tell—what religion would that be? Certainly not Islam, since he would hardly be hindered from practicing Islam in an Islamic nation. Obviously, both parties to the treaty automatically understood that American consuls and government agents would naturally practice Christianity.

    Treaties with the Other Barbary States

    This conclusion is verified further by the comparable treaties that were made with the Muslim rulers of the other Barbary States—

    • Two with Tunis, on August 17, 1797 and March 26, 1799 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846e, 8:157-161), as well as the “Altered Articles” on February 24, 1824 (1846, 8:298-300).
    • Two with Morocco, on January 1787 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846c, 8:100-108) and September 16, 1836 (“Treaty with Morocco…,” 1846, 8:484-487).
    • Two with Algiers, on September 5, 1795 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846d, 8:133-137) and June 30 and July 6, 1815 (1846f, 8:224-247), as well as a “Renewed Treaty” on December 22-23, 1816 (1846g, 8:244-248).

    Not one of these treaties contains the reference to America not being a Christian nation. All omit altogether any reference to the Islamic-Christian tension that naturally existed between the two nations—with one exception. Article 15 of the June 30 and July 6, 1815 treaty with Algiers addresses the issue in the following words:

    As the government of the United States has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of any nation, and as the said States have never entered into any voluntary war, or act of hostility, except in defence of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared, by the contracting parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two nations; and the Consuls and Agents of both nations shall have liberty to celebrate the rites of their respective religions in their own houses (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846f, 8:224-247, emp. added).

    This article paraphrases the previous two treaties with Tripoli. Like the second treaty with Tripoli, it omits the “not a Christian nation” clause. Once again, observe that the agreement inherently presupposes that the religion of Algiers is Islam and the religion of America is Christianity. But the treaty intends to reassure the Dey that America’s Christian orientation will never be the cause of hostilities on the part of America. Indeed, America’s history proves that her wars have typically been reactive and defensive, and they have pertained to non-religious matters.

    The Other Treaties Include Religion

    Even more historical confirmation is seen in the fact that not only do all the other treaties that were made with the Barbary States omit the allusion to America not being a Christian nation—including the other Tripoli treaty—they actually contain allusions to Christianity. For example, the January 1787 treaty with Morocco (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846c, 8:100-108) contains the following references: “In the Name of Almighty God” and “trusting in God” (p. 100). It also refers to “the Christian powers” (in Article X, p. 102), “any Christian power” (in Article XI, p. 102), “the other Christian nations” (in Article XVII, p. 103), and “any of the Christian powers” (in Article XXIV, p. 104)—the last two references clearly implying that America is among them. Article XXV states: “This treaty shall continue in full force, with the help of God, for fifty years” (p. 104, emp. added). Several times the treaty alludes to “Moors”—the term used to refer to “a Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent” in northwest Africa (American Heritage…, 2000, p. 1142)—in Article VI (p. 101), Article XI (p. 102), and Article XXI (p. 103). Article XI places “Moors” in juxtaposition to “Christians” (Article XI, p. 104), and the “Additional Article” contrasts “Moorish” with “Christian Powers” (p. 104). The September 16, 1836 treaty with Morocco contains essentially the same contrasts.

    The September 5, 1795 treaty with Algiers—made just 14 months before the 1796 treaty with Tripoli that contains the “not a Christian nation” expression—includes in Article XVII assurance that the “consul of the United States of North-America…shall have liberty to exercise his religion in his own house” (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846d, 8:135). This treaty was authorized by the same President who initiated the 1796 treaty with Tripoli—George Washington. In addition to the evidence provided by Article 15 of the June 30 and July 6, 1815 treaty with Algiers mentioned above, Article 14 of the same treaty secures the right of captive Christians in Algiers, who are able to escape and make their way to any U.S. ships, to remain on board unscathed, and no remuneration must be paid “for the said Christians” (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846f, 8:246).

    The August 17, 1797 treaty with Tunis begins with the words “God is infinite” and refers to “the most distinguished and honored President of the Congress of the United States of America, the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah” (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846e, 8:157). This unmistakable declaration of commitment to the religion of Christ refers to President John Adams—the very President whose act of signing the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, the skeptics claim proves that he and the Congress repudiated Christianity! Article IX of the same treaty states: “If by accident and by the permission of God, a vessel of one of the contracting parties shall be cast by tempest upon the coasts of the other…” (p. 158, emp. added). The treaty concludes with an affirmation that the two contracting parties shall observe the terms of the treaty “with the will of the Most High” (p. 161—an expression used in both the Quran and the Bible), and the treaty is dated in both Islamic and Christian reckoning: “in the present month of Rebia Elul, of the Hegira one thousand two hundred and twelve, corresponding with the month of August of the Christian year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven,” followed by the signatures and seals of the Muslim leaders (p. 161). The accompanying verification by the American representatives, William Eaton and James Cathcart, claims authority for their actions on the basis of President John Adams, and closes with these words: “Done in Tunis, the twenty-sixth day of March, in the year of the Christian era one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, and of American independence the twenty-third” (p. 161, emp. added).

    To summarize, the treaties made with the Barbary States are literally riddled with religious allusions and transparent indications of the Christian orientation of the United States in contradistinction to the Islamic orientation of the Barbary States. This fact alone proves that no treaty ever ratified by the United States would deny the Christian connections that have characterized the nation from its birth. The very idea is absurd—and such a declaration would be an outright falsehood. Those who so construe the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli are guilty of shoddy historical investigation at the very least, and outright dishonesty and flagrant bias at the very worst.

    CONCLUSION

    It is sad when any people become so biased in their belief system that they will latch onto a handful of misleading incidents and exploit them in an effort to legitimize that belief system. Atheists are guilty of the very malady they insist Christians suffer from—an irrational, prejudicial, mindless commitment to discredited ideas. The evidence is mammoth and decisive: the God of the Bible exists, and the Christian religion (in its pure, New Testament form) is the only belief system that He has authored for people living today (see www.apologeticspress.org). The Founders of the American Republic, with few exceptions, understood these facts and embraced them. As John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams and 6th President, declared:

    From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct (1821, p. 26, emp. added).

    With this Christian worldview firmly fixed in their minds, they launched what indisputably has become the greatest nation in human history.

    REFERENCES

    Adams, John (1799), “By the President of the United States of America. A Proclamation,” Library of Congress, http://tinyurl.com/Adams1799.

    Adams, John Quincy (1821), Address Delivered at the request of a Committee of the Citizens of Washington on the Occasion of Reading the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, 1821 (Washington: Davis & Force), http://digital.library.umsystem.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=b80c023f0 007f89b5b95e4be026fa267;c=jul;idno=jul000087.

    Allen, Brooke (2005), “Our Godless Constitution,” The Nation, February 3, http://www.thenation.com/article/our-godless-constitution.

    “Altered Articles of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Between the United States and the Bashaw Bey of Tunis, February 24, 1824” (1846), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

    American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

    “American Peace Commissioners to John Jay” (1786), The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress, March 28, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib001849.

    Barlow, Joel (1793), Advice to the Privileged Orders (London: J. Johnston), third edition, http://tinyurl.com/Barlow1793.

    Barton, David (2000), “Treaty of Tripoli,” Wallbuilders, http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125.

    Buckner, Ed (1997), “Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?” http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html.

    Buckner, Ed and Michael (1993), “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church,” Internet Infidels, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html#I.

    Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press).

    Harding, Ken (2011), “Our Founding Fathers Were Not Christians,” BibleTrash.com, July 5, http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html.

    Haselby, Sam (2011), “The Enigma of America’s Secular Roots,” The Guardian, January 3, http://richarddawkins.net/articles/572948-the-enigma-of-america-s-secular-roots; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/03/america-secular-roots-treaty-tripoli.

    Hitler, Adolf (1939), Mein Kampf, Project Gutenberg, http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt.

    Irwin, Ray (1931), The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary Powers (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press).

    “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813” (no date), The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence, 1651-1827, Library of Congress, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib021451.

    Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.

    Kramnick, Isaac and R. Laurence Moore (1996), The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (New York: W.W. Horton).

    Miller, Dave (2005), “Deism, Atheism, and the Founders,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1654&topic=31.

    Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=51.

    Miller, Dave (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=45.

    Miller, Dave (2011), “Is Christianity Logical? (Part I),” Reason & Revelation, 31[6]:50-59, June 3, https://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977&article=1499.

    Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

    Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.), http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm.

    “Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America, and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, November 4, 1796” (1846a),The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown), http://tinyurl.com/TreatyTripoli1846a.

    “Treaty of Peace and Amity, Between the United States of America, and the Bashaw, Bey, and Subjects of Tripoli, in Barbary, June 4, 1805” (1846b), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

    “Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of Morocco, January, 1787” (1846c), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

    “Treaty of Peace and Amity Between the Dey of Algiers and the United States of America, September 5, 1795” (1846d), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

    “Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Tunis, August, 1797, March 26, 1799” (1846e), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

    “Treaty of Peace and Amity, Concluded Between the United States of America and His Highness Omar Bashaw, Dey of Algiers, June 30, and July 6, 1815” (1846f), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

    “Treaty of Peace and Amity, Concluded Between the United States of America and the Dey and Regency of Algiers, December 23 and 24, 1816” (1846g), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

    “Treaty with Morocco, September 16, 1836” (1846), The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).

    Walker, Jim (1997), “The Government of the United States of America is Not, in Any Sense Founded on the Christian Religion,” NoBeliefs.com, April 11, http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm.

    Warren, Thomas B. (1982), Logic & the Bible (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).


    https://apologeticspress.org/the-treaty-of-tripoli-and-americas-founders-4520/







    SkepticalOnePlaffelvohfen
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1427 Pts   -   edited May 11
    @RickeyD

    Truth is reality irrespective of the one who speaks it, lives it, writes it

    Well, Barton wasn't speaking truth, that's why his book was pulled from shelves. 

    As for the rest of your post, you've plagiarized directly from Apologetics Press. Are you unable to defend your views with your own words? 
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 11
    @SkepticalOne ; You don't believe me; therefore, I provide you with words that are under girded by a plethora of "source" material for your review; personally, it angers me to even communicate with you, my enemy and the enemy of my Nation and my Lord. I find your ilk loathing and reprehensible....I don't like you. The article is sourced at the bottom with a hyperlink...try again, atheist.
    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne
  • @RickeyD

    ...so that's a "no"?

    Seriously, this isn't linkwarz, my friend. It is debate. When was the last debate you watched where one person drops a link for the audience to read and his opponent to rebut? 
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @RickeyD

    I have asked one question which you have not answered: what exclusively Christian principles do you think America is built upon?

    I only ask because many exclusively (Judeo)Christian values are antithetical to principles found in US government. Maybe you know of a Christian cornerstone I haven't considered though....
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne ; Please articulate what Judaeo-Christian values you "believe" are antithetical to the principles found in the US Government; that is, a government that is adhering to the Constitution? Please be succinct...list them with clarity so I can respond.


  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 11
    @SkepticalOne ; What principles of Christianity under gird the US Constitution and Declaration you ask? Here are a few:...................................

    “In order to form a more perfect union…”

    Genesis 2:24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    Matthew 19:6 - What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    Psalms 133:1 BEHOLD, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

    “Establish justice…”

    Psalms 82:3 - Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

    Proverbs 1:3 - To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;

    Proverbs 21:3 - To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

    Ezekiel 45:9 - Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD.

    Acts 10:34 - Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

    “Ensure domestic tranquility…”

    Leviticus 26:6 - And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.

    “Promote the general welfare…”

    1 Chronicles 22:13 - Then shalt thou prosper, if thou takest heed to fulfil the statutes and judgments which the LORD charged Moses with concerning Israel: be strong, and of good courage; dread not, nor be dismayed.

    Joshua 1:8 - This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

    Proverbs 31:20 - She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

    “Provide for the common defense…”

    Hebrews 11:32- 34 - And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

    Luke 14:31-32 - Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

    “Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”

    Genesis 45:7 - And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance.

    Daniel 2:44 – 45 - And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

    Galatians 5:1 - STAND fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    Article I of the United States Constitution

    “All legislative power shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”

    Exodus 19:7-8 - And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

    1 Samuel 8:10-18 - And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

    “…which shall consist of a Senate…”

    Numbers 11:16-17 - And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

    “…and a House of Representatives.”

    Deuteronomy 1:12-16 - How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife? Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

    Article I, Section 8 “The Congress shall have the power to…”

    “… lay and collect taxes…but all…shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

    Leviticus 27:30-33 - And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD. And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

    Malachi 3:8-10 - Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

    “…to coin money…and fix the standard of weights and measures;”

    Leviticus 19:35-36 - Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.

    Psalms 19:7 - The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

    https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/parallel-concepts-between-the-u-s-constitution-the-bible




    Plaffelvohfen
  • @RickeyD

    You provided nothing that is exclusively Christian. 

    I was thinking of the core components of Christianity like, say, the commandments, vicarious redemption, original sin, etc.

    The 1st commandment is 'Thou shall have no other gods before me' which is the antithesis of American religious freedom. Vicarious redemption is the opposite of personal responsibility which is required for our legal system to function. Original sin is the opposite of a presumption of innocence built into our system of justice.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Christianity. People are entitled to their religious beliefs. It's just that Christianity as the inspiration for American government is an absurd suggestion because the two are so far apart ideologically. 
    JulesKorngoldPlaffelvohfenexcon
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1779 Pts   -  

    Vicarious redemption is the opposite of personal responsibility which is required for our legal system to function. 
    You're correct that personal responsibility is required by our justice system, but it's opposite is social justice, not vicarious redemption. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • CYDdharta said:

    Vicarious redemption is the opposite of personal responsibility which is required for our legal system to function. 
    You're correct that personal responsibility is required by our justice system, but it's opposite is social justice, not vicarious redemption. 
    I suppose you're trying to be cute or score some sort of dig, but having another person take responsibility for your transgressions is quite literally the opposite of personal responsibility.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1779 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    Close, but no.  Blaming another person instead of taking responsibility for your transgressions is quite literally the opposite of personal responsibility.
    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne
  • @CYDdharta

    It's a crucial distinction you're making, no doubt.




    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold ; The US Constitution is a secular document methodically outlining checks and balances for the construction of a limited form of government dependent wholly upon a people whose sin-nature is constrained and restrained by the Holy Spirit working through them in sanctification subsequent faith in Messiah Jesus as Lord and covenant relationship established with the Father. Loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself are foundational to America's founding and sustainability (Matthew 22:36-40). There is no other Way for America, the Nation set-apart by our Heavenly Father for His eschatological purposes, to be a blessing to the World and prepare the heart, mind and body of the masses for service to our Father and our fellowman.

    You, the secular humanist, Darwinist, represent the Devil among the people...you represent evil in our midst and your worldview i.e. atheism is the antithesis of sustainable mores, values, ethics, norms, essential for the longevity of our Nation and the health, welfare, happiness, security, of our posterity.

     
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne The US Constitution is a secular document methodically outlining checks and balances for the construction of a limited form of government dependent wholly upon a people whose sin-nature is constrained and restrained by the Holy Spirit working through them in sanctification subsequent faith in Messiah Jesus as Lord and covenant relationship established with the Father. Loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself are foundational to America's founding and sustainability (Matthew 22:36-40). There is no other Way for America, the Nation set-apart by our Heavenly Father for His eschatological purposes, to be a blessing to the World and prepare the heart, mind and body of the masses for service to our Father and our fellowman.

    You, the secular humanist, Darwinist, represent the Devil among the people...you represent evil in our midst and your worldview i.e. atheism is the antithesis of sustainable mores, values, ethics, norms, essential for the longevity of our Nation and the health, welfare, happiness, security, of our posterity.



  • RickeyD said:
    Interesting.You have no response to my previous post?

    You provided nothing that is exclusively Christian. 

    I was thinking of the core components of Christianity like, say, the commandments, vicarious redemption, original sin, etc.

    The 1st commandment is 'Thou shall have no other gods before me' which is the antithesis of American religious freedom. Vicarious redemption is the opposite of personal responsibility which is required for our legal system to function. Original sin is the opposite of a presumption of innocence built into our system of justice.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Christianity. People are entitled to their religious beliefs. It's just that Christianity as the inspiration for American government is an absurd suggestion because the two are so far apart ideologically. 
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @RickeyD

    The US Constitution is a secular document methodically outlining checks and balances for the construction of a limited form of government dependent wholly upon a people whose sin-nature is constrained and restrained by the Holy Spirit working through them in sanctification subsequent faith in Messiah Jesus as Lord and covenant relationship established with the Father. Loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself are foundational to America's founding and sustainability (Matthew 22:36-40). There is no other Way for America, the Nation set-apart by our Heavenly Father for His eschatological purposes, to be a blessing to the World and prepare the heart, mind and body of the masses for service to our Father and our fellowman.

    You didn't get that from the Constitution - it makes no mention of gods. It mentions religion twice, and both times the word 'no' is involved. Your entire speil isn't in-line with the word or even the spirit of the document. 

    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 12
    @SkepticalOne ; The Constitution is summed up in "the Year of our Lord"....and our Lord, concerning the Framers, is Jesus Christ. The Constitution was not constructed for YOU and your skeptical ILK...you are an anathema...you, as an atheist - secular humanist, are the malignancy that defiles the Documents that under gird America's greatness...you are an enemy to all that is good, holy, sustainable, the soul of America. Civil War and the removal of your ideology of death and suffering is the only solution left to those who love God and love America. If the declaration is to manifest, I will be one of the first to volunteer.

     
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    "The Year of our Lord" just refers to the year in which the Constitution was signed. It has nothing to do any kind of an official acknowledgement of the Christian god, let alone the nation being somehow determined by it. If this sentence is the sole basis behind your claim that "America is a Christian nation", then your argument is weak indeed.

    Good thing that you finally showed your true colors and called for a civil war against atheists. I do not think that your jihad will succeed though, as you probably will find fewer comrades than the ISIS fighters did. Most of even the most hardcore Christian fundamentalists will fight against the jihadists like you.
    exconJulesKorngoldPlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    I have muted MayCeaser...not worthy of the time.
  • @RickeyD
    Without Christianity, America would not be.  It is God the Father who has set-apart the United States to take-up where Israel failed in their rejection of the New Covenant and their responsibility to proselytize the World in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our Declaration declares the sovereignty of our Creator, Jesus Christ, and the Constitution is signed in the Year of our Lord...Jesus Christ.

    Umm...The opening arguments of the document appeal to the peoples’ God given rights.....( Declaration of Independence) notice I verbal state American before DOI.

     You should understand there are multiple Declarations of Independence which had been written and signed the number legally established GOD. Under a numerical axion of self-evident truth…

    Recognition of existence does not describe ownership…

    The fact is all United States of America is a religion of Republican...before all others then whichever god "you" call out to compel you to prevail in the search for a more perfect union of law and liberty. A united state of belief can be seen as "our," which unlike a court argument of united state constitution does not hold at liberty a united state all men, women, and child.


  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 12
    @John_C_87 ; The Declaration and the Constitution give a man or woman the freedom to serve their god or God but as far as our founding is concerned, there is but ONE God to whom America owes its genesis, Jesus Christ, and ONLY by serving Him through laws that uphold and reflect His holiness will America be sustained and our posterity enjoy life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.


  • exconexcon 454 Pts   -   edited May 12

    America has reached a breaking point; therefore, what are Christian Patriots to do?


    Hello R:

    Good question.. Only, I ask it this way:  What is an American patriot to do?  You see, there's only one kind of American patriot, and you ain't it. 

    That you'd suggest I'm NOT a patriot because I'm Jewish, is HIGHLY offensive.  Where did you serve?  So, lemme offer this kindly suggestion:  America - Love it or Leave it.  Your beliefs are antithetical to democracy, and if you utter them on the street, or in my presence, you'll get pummeled.  For your own safety, Sir.  You can't stay here.

    Now, of course, you'll quote some verse from Paul, or something, because you're unable to address me in English..

    excon







    Plaffelvohfen
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1779 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    It's a crucial distinction you're making, no doubt.


    Indeed it is. It's the difference between social justice and vicarious redemption. 

    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1779 Pts   -  
    @excon

    Just curious, but where did you serve, ExCon; Lompoc?
  • exconexcon 454 Pts   -   edited May 12
    CYDdharta said:
    @excon

    Just curious, but where did you serve,  Lompoc?
    Hello C:

    Good guess..  I served 5.5 years in the US Navy ( blockaded Cuba), and 3 in Lompoc for a lousy pound of pot.. 

    Of the many federal prisons, why did you pick Lompoc??  I was the camp driver.

    excon





  • @RickeyD

    You are just confirming the connection made between favoring religious, lawyer, and state legal assemblies of the time that triggered the American War of Independence? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and others who go on to sign an American United Sates Constitution had bear witness in person to a qusitonable connection by religon and parliment..

    He was a post- colonial Governor of Virginia and became a lawyer during the War of independence. His religious ties became insurmountable to his service to the country and had shortly after the War of Independence was against the ratification of the American United States Constitution itself.

    Keep in mind by filing of grievance for a search of perfection in liberties state of the union with freedom has little or nothing to do with ties made to Patrick Henry.


  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1427 Pts   -   edited May 12
    @RickeyD

    The Constitution is summed up in "the Year of our Lord"

    Uh huh, and every time you say Thursday you're admitting your belief in Thor.

    Do you not know how ridiculous your argument is? The Constitution is Godless, my good man.

    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 12
    @SkepticalOne ; No...YOU'RE Godless as a servant of the Devil...the Constitution is NOT. You have no business in America and if you're here, you're a foreigner and an enemy of the people.




  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne ; No...you are absent God as a servant of the Evil One...the Constitution is NOT. You have no business in America and if you're here, you're a foreigner and an enemy of the people.




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -  
    I think we are dealing either with a random phrase generator here, or with an incredible intellect outlier. This creature does not appear to acknowledge 99% of the things it is responding to, just rehashing the same set of random religious lines constantly.
    SkepticalOne
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    I have muted @MayCaesar as irrelevant and a servant of the devil.
  • MayCaesar said:
    I think we are dealing either with a random phrase generator here, or with an incredible intellect outlier. This creature does not appear to acknowledge 99% of the things it is responding to, just rehashing the same set of random religious lines constantly.
    Perhaps...
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1779 Pts   -  
    @excon

    I couldn't imagine you being from anywhere other than California.
  • @RickeyD

    If "year of our lord" (Anno Domini) conveys beliefs in Jesus Christ, then each day of the week along with January, March, May, and June convey belief in other gods. You yourself, by your own reasoning, believe in at least 12 gods besides the Biblical one. I've never met anyone who believes in Mars....what led to your belief in the God of War?


    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch