NationStates Jolt Archive

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams, 2nd President of the USA

As the government of the United States 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] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), the English version of which was carried unanimously by the Senate, signed into law by John Adams, and translated into Arabic (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)

What's your point? You need to have one or your thread will be DOOMED!

What's your point? You need to have one or your thread will be DOOMED!

Clearly, the point is that Adams was a jihadist :p

The fact that the USA is NOT a christian nation is clear.

Signed by the 2nd president of the USA and approved unanimosly by the congress.

This document should be enough to put an end to the radical christians claiming that the separation of church and state is a myth, with no basis in law. Also to the lie that the founding fathers were Christians or supported a chirstian nation.

The fact that the USA is NOT a christian nation is clear.

Signed by the 2nd president of the USA and approved unanimosly by the congress.

This document should be enough to put an end to the radical christians claiming that the separation of church and state is a myth, with no basis in law. Also to the lie that the founding fathers were Christians or supported a chirstian nation.

Do you think their insane psychosis will be stopped by something as simple as reality?

NO. I just want to hear their argument.

NO. I just want to hear their argument.

I'm not quite sure this is the appropriate place, I haven't seen many Christian fundamentalists around this site. It's pretty relaxed. :o

The fact that the USA is NOT a christian nation is clear.

Signed by the 2nd president of the USA and approved unanimosly by the congress.

This document should be enough to put an end to the radical christians claiming that the separation of church and state is a myth, with no basis in law. Also to the lie that the founding fathers were Christians or supported a chirstian nation.

(not intended as direct criticism of your point, but arises from it) Does it really matter what the founding fathers intended? Surely argument should centre around what is right now, not what was thought to be right over two centuries ago in a very different context? I don't really see why both sides should turn a debate over what policy is best for now into a history lesson. People could sometimes do with properly debating the issues rather than hiding behind a document. This is from a supporter of church-state separation, by the way

The fact that the USA is NOT a christian nation is clear.

Is it? Might it not have been the case that President Adams chose the language he did to placate and reassure the Muslims of Tripoli that there was no religious prejudice involved in the terms of the treaty?

You'd check this by reading things that President Adams wrote that were not designed to be read and accepted by Muslims engaged in piracy or warlike actions in the Mediterranean Sea, thus affecting trade which was vital for a new nation to establish.

Context is your friend.

Signed by the 2nd president of the USA and approved unanimosly by the congress.

Yup. Over two hundred YEARS ago. How many more extra-Constitutional policies, procedures and reckonings from the 18th century would you have us take as gospel?

This document should be enough to put an end to the radical christians claiming that the separation of church and state is a myth, with no basis in law. Also to the lie that the founding fathers were Christians or supported a chirstian nation.

If it hasn't since 1797, what on Earth makes you think it will now? Fundamentalists can find just as many Adams writings that feature the words "God" or "creator" in them. This is old, weak sauce. Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but I've seen this particular angle dodged too many times to ever give it credence again.

Many christian radicals had argued that the USA is a christian nation because that was the original intention of the founding fathers.

I use this document to prove them wrong. The so called founding fathers were more like Deists, not christian.

I agree that we shouldnt base our current laws by what was done 200 years ago. I think in that time women werent allowed to vote....on the other hand that may not be such a bad idea...:p

I thought this was related to Monopoly. Y'know, Monopoly, Dipoly, Tripoly...

Yup. Over two hundred YEARS ago. How many more policies, procedures and reckonings from the 18th century would you have us take as gospel?
Not to be picky, but I seem to recall seeing the occasional US-based poster banging on about some kind of 'Constitution' thingy from time to time, which could be fairly said to fall into the same bracket.

Is it? Might it not have been the case that President Adams chose the language he did to placate and reassure the Muslims of Tripoli that there was no religious prejudice involved in the terms of the treaty?

I'm pretty sure this doesn't matter. Treaties are as much law as the constitution, IMS.

The fact that the USA is NOT a christian nation is clear.

Signed by the 2nd president of the USA and approved unanimosly by the congress.

This document should be enough to put an end to the radical christians claiming that the separation of church and state is a myth, with no basis in law. Also to the lie that the founding fathers were Christians or supported a chirstian nation.

Yeah.. This has been tried for YEARS. It doesn't slow them down, not even slightly. You have to remember, these folks believe that their ever loving god is fucking torturing them for giggles and they still worship it. The words of mere men have no chance against such lapses of sanity.

Not to be picky, but I seem to recall seeing the occasional US-based poster banging on about some kind of 'Constitution' thingy from time to time, which could be fairly said to fall into the same bracket.

Yeah, that was my oversight. I fixed the post to read "extra-Constitutional" policies, etc. The Constitution is...a whole 'nother thread.

I'm pretty sure this doesn't matter. Treaties are as much law as the constitution, IMS.

If we were debating whether or not the Treaty of Tripoli had any bearing on the separation of Church and State as it is enshrined in US law, you'd be right. But this language was used in a treaty designed to stop Muslim privateers from interdicting US trade in the region, thereby ending the hostilities that were used to stop them (a "sorta war", if you will). The mention of the US as not being a Christian nation is clearly not the focus of the document, but a preparatory clause to set up the agreement with Tripoli.

Descriptive language that mentions something in order to preface the aim of the treaty or law is not necessarily part of the law itself.

I thought this was related to Monopoly. Y'know, Monopoly, Dipoly, Tripoly...

*Polypoly groans*

(not intended as direct criticism of your point, but arises from it) Does it really matter what the founding fathers intended? Surely argument should centre around what is right now, not what was thought to be right over two centuries ago in a very different context? I don't really see why both sides should turn a debate over what policy is best for now into a history lesson. People could sometimes do with properly debating the issues rather than hiding behind a document. This is from a supporter of church-state separation, by the way

To take this idea and run with it: yes, it matters a great deal. It matters for a very simple reason: we still take the document they wrote as the supreme law of the land. If we don't feel like honoring the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, then we should repudiate the document and write our own. So long as we don't, what they've said about what they've written and what they've intended counts for a lot.

I'm hitting this point hard because, although I don't know how much you personally subscribe to it, I've heard increasingly this wierd meme that we should ignore the Constitution because it's really, really old; they remind me of Dennis Miller circa 2003 talking about how the Constitution was written back in the days we churned butter with barrels. To which the usual, ineffectual reply is: "But the founding fathers were really smart people". A much better reply is: "Do you really think that human nature has changed in 230 years, or that the Constitution never properly reflected the relationship between the government and the governed?" Because that is what the subject should really be about: either the Constitution allows us to govern ourselves or it doesn't, or government by consent is fundamentally flawed. Either of these two reasons is a sufficient justification with ignoring the Constitution. If these reasons aren't adequate, then the fact that Madison wrote a document 230 years ago or 230 minutes ago that both reflect the proper way that government and the people should interact are irrelevant, because the truth value of the Constitution is identical in either case.

To take this idea and run with it: yes, it matters a great deal. It matters for a very simple reason: we still take the document they wrote as the supreme law of the land. If we don't feel like honoring the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, then we should repudiate the document and write our own. So long as we don't, what they've said about what they've written and what they've intended counts for a lot.

I'm hitting this point hard because, although I don't know how much you personally subscribe to it, I've heard increasingly this wierd meme that we should ignore the Constitution because it's really, really old; they remind me of Dennis Miller circa 2003 talking about how the Constitution was written back in the days we churned butter with barrels. To which the usual, ineffectual reply is: "But the founding fathers were really smart people". A much better reply is: "Do you really think that human nature has changed in 230 years, or that the Constitution never properly reflected the relationship between the government and the governed?" Because that is what the subject should really be about: either the Constitution allows us to govern ourselves or it doesn't, or government by consent is fundamentally flawed. Either of these two reasons is a sufficient justification with ignoring the Constitution. If these reasons aren't adequate, then the fact that Madison wrote a document 230 years ago or 230 minutes ago that both reflect the proper way that government and the people should interact are irrelevant, because the truth value of the Constitution is identical in either case.

Yeah, I agree. But that's the Constitution, not a treaty. Anyone who says they're the same is really ignorant of history.

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams, 2nd President of the USA

As the government of the United States 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] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), the English version of which was carried unanimously by the Senate, signed into law by John Adams, and translated into Arabic (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)

So, why did you mispell the name of Tripoli in your thread title?

Yeah, I agree. But that's the Constitution, not a treaty. Anyone who says they're the same is really ignorant of history.

I guess it depends how you're meaning it. Insofar as the Treaty of Tripoli was written by the same men who wrote the Constitution, and it offers an opinion on the nature of the Constitution as ratified by these men, then it's a pertinent piece of evidence to bring up. If you just mean that an unconstitutional treaty is not a treaty (for instance, say, a treaty with Japan that agreed that Hawaii should no longer have a republican form of government would violate Article IV of the Constitution, which stipulates that all states in the union are required a republican form of government), then absolutely. In cases of dispute, it is the Constitution itself and not the treaty that is the supreme law of the land.