America an enemy of....?

[archidante]

I stubled upon this little doosey which should be plastered all over the media as an affront to some of the things said about America as an enemy of Islam, and America as a "Christian Nation". Of course, what President nowadays would dare point it out? 1797, wow...

[Advocat]

Here's a link to the full treaty (short) (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html). The item listed by archidante is Article 11

[joseftu]

Actually, I pointed it out in another thread! ;) But the thread got locked, the point got lost.

Thanks, Archidante and Advocat, for bringing it out again. At least it's getting plastered in this forum!

[cdw]

The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed.

Bribery...an American tradition, lol.

[Andy]

The entire treaty lasted only 4 years, and was broken by the pashti of Tripoli, resulting in the first and second Barbary wars. (This is where the Marines landing in Tripoli comes into play in the Marine Corps hymn.)
Hence, the entire treaty became null and void anyway.

Even way back then, we attempted to appease terrorists (then called pirates) by paying ransoms and making treaty (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1805t.htm) after treaty (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1815t.htm), after treaty (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1816t.htm), after treaty (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1824t.htm), after treaty (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1836t.htm) and look how far that got us then.

[SixofNine]

Bribery...an American tradition, lol.

It was more like extortion on their part - they were real pirates!

Brian

[joseftu]

The entire treaty lasted only 4 years, and was broken by the pashti of Tripoli, resulting in the first and second Barbary wars. (This is where the Marines landing in Tripoli comes into play in the Marine Corps hymn.)
Hence, the entire treaty became null and void anyway.While the treaty itself is null and void, the provision that (I think) was the point of Archidante's post:

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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen
does not depend on or arise from that treaty at all. It's mentioned in the treaty, which is interesting, but it certainly pre- and post-dates that treaty.

The second part of it ("as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen") has been repeatedly stated and re-affirmed (commendably) by President Bush. The first part is something we don't hear too often (as Archidante points out), but it's interesting to note that when the treaty was passed and publicized, that article received no particular notice or attention, and certainly no opposition.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

[Andy]

that article received no particular notice or attention, and certainly no opposition.
Prior to the 13th amendment, and the Civil War, the same could be said for slavery. Does that make it ok too?
If by pointing out this little known "fact" that was placed into a treaty to appease pirates is "proof" of our Nation being absolutely, positively, 100% "secular" I for one, am not biting. Our Government's minted legal tender tells me differently.

Besides, the entire treaty, which was considered "law of the land" by some could be considered unconstitutional merely by reading the first amendment...

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”
Yet Congress let this treaty, respecting the Muslim religon, pass certainly with no particular notice or attention, and certainly no opposition in an attempt to appease terrorists.

If it had not been broken by the very same peoples we were attempting to appease and was still "law of the land", I wonder how it would hold up to our present day standards of "separation of church and state"?

[joseftu]

Prior to the 13th amendment, and the Civil War, the same could be said for slavery. Does that make it ok too? Well, no, that could not be said for slavery. There was an active, vocal, abolitionist movement in this country for many years before the Civil War.
Besides, the entire treaty, which was considered "law of the land" by some could be considered unconstitutional merely by reading the first amendment...

Yet Congress let this treaty, respecting the Muslim religon, pass certainly with no particular notice or attention, and certainly no opposition in an attempt to appease terrorists. That article does not establish any religion in any way, it only says (quite factually, and quite admirably) that the United States is not at war with the Muslim religion. That's what our current president says, too. I hope it's what we all say!

[archidante]

Prior to the 13th amendment, and the Civil War, the same could be said for slavery. Does that make it ok too?
If by pointing out this little known "fact" that was placed into a treaty to appease pirates is "proof" of our Nation being absolutely, positively, 100% "secular" I for one, am not biting. Our Government's minted legal tender tells me differently.

Besides, the entire treaty, which was considered "law of the land" by some could be considered unconstitutional merely by reading the first amendment...

Yet Congress let this treaty, respecting the Muslim religon, pass certainly with no particular notice or attention, and certainly no opposition in an attempt to appease terrorists.

If it had not been broken by the very same peoples we were attempting to appease and was still "law of the land", I wonder how it would hold up to our present day standards of "separation of church and state"? You lost me there, I think the whole premise of the quote (in 1797 for heavens sake, not 1979!) was that even then it was clear that the United states was not founded on or set against this that or the other religious faith. In this instance Islam is mention because of the historical Christian crusades-the United States clearly did not want the conflict to bve defined in relgious terms, but secular ones, ie freedom of the seas. I think the treaty defines the seperation of church and state perfectly-respect religion, but do not define our secular institution in it's terms or frame of reference. The States reason for being still remains the protection of human liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and since humanity has nearly always defined itself and its existence in relationship to a larger "Higher being(s)", the protection of peoples rights to pursue their convictions in this matter (without lopping off others heads obviously) remains an important and just role of the state. There is a huge difference between respecting religion, and instituting it. I'm agnostic, but I'd fight and die for your right to believe in God.
It does, admittedly border on a paradox almost, and seem counterintuitive that a secular government should fight for the right of relgions to exist, but they are a protected freedom, like art and speech. Sure they can be dangerous and divisive and sometimes downright absurd, but so can art and speech.

[Andy]

That article does not establish any religion in any way!

That's not what I said.. I said exactly what the 1st ammendment says....
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

That treaty and it's specific article (a legaly bound law of the land passed by Congress?) respects the establishment of a current religon.

The same sentence can be interpreted in more than just "establishing a national religon", as the word "establishment" is also a noun, not just an adverb or adjective, and the religon in question is already established.

[joseftu]

You're mistaking the meaning of the word "respecting" in that sentence. In the context of the sentence, "respecting" means "about," "regarding," or "having to do with."

As for "establishment," it is always a noun. It can mean the "act of establishing something" (which is its meaning in this sentence), or "something which has been established." It's never an adverb or adjective.

The sentence means "Congress will not make any laws which will tend to establish a religion." It does not mean (without a tremendous, completely unjustified, distortion) "Congress will not make any laws which show respect to religious establishments." That's an interpretation I've never heard before, and it's not one that any legal or constitutional (or literary) scholar would claim the amendment supports.

[joseftu]

Now that I think of it, I was too hasty in my "never." Although "establishment" is generally a noun, there is the (much more recent) usage: "Greedy, vicious, establishment pigs" (in which the word does act as an adjective). But there's no way that usage is implied or intended in the first amendment, and in any case, such a usage is not what either of our interpretations would suggest.