Article 11

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, [i]in any sense,[/i] founded on the Christian religion"

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, this is article 11 of a treaty sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation. [/quote]

questions, comments, words of wisdom?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]55. [It is an error to say that] The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors[/quote]

[Archangel]

Ironic. All the constitutions of the 50 states acknowledge God.

For example,

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the
favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following
Constitution ..

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to
those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to
Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful
to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

[qfnol31]

That's odd, I know for a fact that the fathers actually used religion when they were speaking...I used to have (maybe still do) some of the speeches by Washington.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm"]http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm[/url]
[quote]The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.[/quote]

[quote]Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them.[/quote]

questions, comments, words of wisdom?

[Guest Aluigi]

1st, it doesn't matter much to me. I'm not an American, I'm a Roman Amerigo Vespucci doesn't get to name me, I'd rather be named after the Eternal City

2nd, the Preamble to the Constitution mentions God.

[Guest Aluigi]

3rd the federal government was not supposed to endorse any religion.

4th states were, and DID, use their religion to make laws. Pennsylvania was Quaker and Maryland was Catholic et cetera.

[james]

It's a states rights issue. Many of the original 13 States had official state religions, all of them Christian. Maryland, named after our Blessed Mother, was a Catholic state.

Our Constitution is very clear on this issue. Unfortunately the people who today bear the responsibility of interpreting the constitution are not very clear headed. Not to mention the fact that they are placing less emphasis on the US Constitution and more emphasis on international law, Talmudic law and their own personal opinions.

Edited December 26, 2004 by james

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote]Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them.[/quote]

Someone is living in an alternate reality. Unless the revisionists have re-written the history books, the United States was officially founded on July 4, 1776, long before the U.S. Constitution. Our country has known when and upon what it was founded.

If we fast-forward to the Inauguration of George Washington (4/30/1789), it's interesting to constrast of the secularist (anti-religious) perspective against the text:

[quote name='George Washington' date=' 1789']Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.[/quote]

I suspect the ardant secularist would write off these words as "merely a personal statement." If so, I would question the intellectual honesty of the same people who try to establish a supposed "Constitutional wall of separation between church and state" by quoting a personal letter of Thomas Jefferson. It's a double-standard.

Merry Christmas (official US holiday, despite the alleged "wall").

[lifeteenchick527]

its irony to say there is a seperation of church and state, this is bc people who believe in God r going to make decisions based on the ideas that go along with their religion.

one of my friends always says this.... its freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion, and to me it makes no sense that some schools wont let their students read the constitiution bc it has GOD in it! thats part of the American history!! it makes me mad

God Bless
LTC

[Theoketos]

I think that article 11 means that the state is an independent subsiderary state and not a heteronimous theocracy.

[Mateo el Feo]

Just to add a bit, here's a few links from [url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22As+the+Government+of+the+United+States+of+America+is+not%22"]Google (link).[/url]:

There's a decent page on the Wikipedia, too:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli[/url]

I think the context of these words in the Treaty of Tripoli is interesting. For example, check out "Article 10":

[quote]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. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.[/quote]

The US's commercial ships were threatened by pirates. The British Navy stopped protecting American ships after the Revolutionary War--go figure! The new federal government had little money. It couldn't build a Navy. So, they paid the Muslim pirates off-- specifically, the dey (ruler) of the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis--so that his ships (aka pirates) wouldn't attack American ships.

The bribe lasted for less than five years before the dey resumed his attacks on Americans. The Wikipedia has some articles on the US's wars against the Barbary states.

I think that the wording of the treaty (i.e. disavowing a foundation upon Christianity) may have something to do with the fact that the Barbary states regularly enslaved Christians who were captured. I suspect that the Americans didn't want to provide their merchant sailors to the Barbary states as a new source of slaves. It was conciliatory language, used in an attempt to further placate a hostile power who clearly had the upper hand.

A side note: for about twenty years [i]after[/i] this treaty was written, the dey continued the practice of enslaving Christians. He had a change of heart in 1816, when the a British and Dutch fleet bombarded Algiers for nine hours.

Enjoy!

Edited December 27, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[Carnanc]

maybe even though the country were not founded on any specific religion, that fact should not limit the expression of religion by those who express it in publice. Making religion completly private by having all signs of it removed from public life denies everyone the right to something that is very human and important to all at some level, mainly some sort of search for God often expressed as religion in public.