|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
ic0n0 
I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds
Group: Members
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jul. 20 2002,15:53 |
|
   |
"Is it true that George Washington said that the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion?"
No. The quotation often given is in fact from Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli (8 Stat 154, Treaty Series 358):
Article 11
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 or 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.
The text may be found in the Congressional Record or in treaty collections such as Charles I. Bevans' "Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949", vol. 11 (pp. 1070-1080).
The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in Tripoli on November 4th, 1796. The English text of the treaty was approved by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and ratified by President John Adams on June 10, 1797. It was recently discovered that the US copy of the Arabic version of the treaty not only lacks the quotation, it lacks Article XI altogether. Instead it seems to contain the text of a letter to the Pasha of Tripoli from the Dey of Algiers.
The person who translated the Arabic to English was Joel Barlow, Consul General at Algiers, a close friend of Thomas Paine -- and an opponent of Christianity. It is possible that Barlow made up Article XI, but since there is no Arabic version of that article to be found, it's hard to say. It seems unlikely, however.
In 1806 a new Treaty of Tripoli was ratified which no longer contained the quotation. The 1815 Treaty With Algiers contains a similar article, but does not state that the US government is not founded on religion, only that it is not incompatible with any religion.
Ignoring the question of the wording of the Arabic version of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, we can conclude that the wording of the English article XI fairly represents the opinion of the time, as it was passed and approved by both the US Senate and the President.
--------------
"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." (Isaac Asimov)
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Darth Liberus
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 22 2002,08:25 |
|
 |
| Quote (CatKnight @ 19 July 2002,11:28) | | shit I made a big big mistake. I meant our freedoms derive from god, not the government's power. I didn't realize what a slip-up that was until I tried to reply to your post. |
that's better 
substitute "Creator" for God, and you've got something just about everybody can agree on.
for religious folk, Creator = your God of choice.
for atheists and agnostics, Creator = Nature.
either way, the outcome is the same - freedom is the natural state of human beings. If you believe that a certain freedom should be restricted, the burden of proof is on you to show just cause.
that's the very heart of liberalism, by the way. as CK would point out, American "conservative" philosophy is actually the conservative branch of liberalism - they are "classical" or "traditional" liberals.
two main problems I have with classical liberalism:
1. By calling themselves "conservatives", classical liberals have unwittingly lended their authority and power to real conservatives, the ones who hate everything about liberalism and democracy - authoritarian Nazi types, the Aryan Nation, and Christian extremists. Modern liberalism has the left to deal with, but imho the radical right is far more dangerous than the left. Leftists like to shoot their mouths off a lot but they're usually pacifists (WTO protests excepted). The radical right has no problem with executing people they don't like - Jews, Muslims, niggers, abortion doctors, you name it.
2. This is 2002, not 1776. Some facets of traditional liberalism are timeless, but others don't make sense any more, or have been dramatically improved.
For example. Adam Smith's economic philosophy was an astounding breakthrough when he wrote it. But we've had over 200 years to study and improve on it, and some of those improvements have worked astonishingly well. Keynes, for example, observed that while the market will achieve equilibrium on its own, the equilibrium it reaches isn't necessarily good for anyone. It can stabilize at 25% unemployment and low productivity and sit there for decades, or until the unemployed take up arms and overthrow the government.
However, nothing stops us from tweaking the market's equilibrium to something that works better for all of us and dramatically improve the market's productivity in the process. It's not like the Invisible Hand is going to get pissed off at us or anything, and a well-tuned market will run circles around laissez-faire capitalism... so why should we stick with laissez-faire?
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
Dysorderia
Kryten 2X4B 523P
Group: Members
Posts: 1061
Joined: Jul. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 22 2002,13:42 |
|
|
i doubt that i will settle my grudge against you, CK, since you have such ignorant and flawed opinions on a lot of things(black unemployment, the conflict in the middle east) and that annoying predilection to bash liberals whereever possible.
p.s. it won't surprise me in the least if you don't answer this, so <^> o.o <^>
--------------
Sir? May I recommend I load myself into the reverse-thrust tubes and you use my body as decoy-fodder? This will, of course leave me splattered across deep space and unable to complete today's laundry, for which I apologise in advance.
[url=http://www.kr1cket.com]www.kr1cket.com[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
forumwhore
Fear Me, I Am Change.
Group: Members
Posts: 3282
Joined: Dec. 2001
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 22 2002,14:17 |
|
|
Mr Dys, having a grudge is a very dangerous thing.
I have several of them, I know.
You can look at ck and say, "well, he'll prolly do xxxx".
Or you can hate him in advance.
One of those will cost you.
--------------
Posting from; El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
Necromancer
Ace Rimmer
Group: Members
Posts: 419
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 22 2002,14:32 |
|
|
thought i'd waste my one post.
--------------
There'll be time for explanations later... and hopefully, some sex
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Dysorderia
Kryten 2X4B 523P
Group: Members
Posts: 1061
Joined: Jul. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 22 2002,16:07 |
|
|
| Quote (forumwhore @ 22 July 2002,09:17) | | You can look at ck and say, "well, he'll prolly do xxxx". |
he always has been an annoying fuckwad and i doubt he'll ever stop being that way
--------------
Sir? May I recommend I load myself into the reverse-thrust tubes and you use my body as decoy-fodder? This will, of course leave me splattered across deep space and unable to complete today's laundry, for which I apologise in advance.
[url=http://www.kr1cket.com]www.kr1cket.com[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 22 2002,21:42 |
|
|
| Quote | | 1. By calling themselves "conservatives", classical liberals have unwittingly lended their authority and power to real conservatives, the ones who hate everything about liberalism and democracy - authoritarian Nazi types, the Aryan Nation, and Christian extremists. Modern liberalism has the left to deal with, but imho the radical right is far more dangerous than the left. Leftists like to shoot their mouths off a lot but they're usually pacifists (WTO protests excepted). The radical right has no problem with executing people they don't like - Jews, Muslims, niggers, abortion doctors, you name it. |
fuck no DSL you are way off. i don't remember a lot about the history of the political parties but since the 1920's liberals have always been about big government and regulation. as for name-calling conservatives as nazi's and willing to execute anyone at will, you are again 100% backwards. the nazi's were the national socialists and were left-wing. and IMHO the radical left are far more dangerous because they recieve attention (and often praise) from the media.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
KitKat
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 22 2002,22:53 |
|
|
CK, do you masturbate?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
demonk
The other white meat
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: Aug. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 22 2002,22:56 |
|
|
KitKat, that is the absolute best response to CK! My respect for you just shot through the roof!
--------------
I'm just two people short of a threesome!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
Darth Liberus
Emperor of Detnet
Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: Jan. 1970
|
|
Posted on: Jul. 23 2002,12:33 |
|
|
I didn't call conservatives Nazis. I said that Nazis and Aryan Nation types feed off your power and authority. They think you guys are on their side and that they have a lot of support. Anyway it was a weak point.
btw the Nazis may have called themselves "socialists" but they were anything but. Hitler undoubtedly chose that term on the basis that the people would favor it... remember that most of the horrible shit the Nazis did was totally hidden from the Germans.
--------------
"let's travel around with our laptops, plug in, and destroy the very fabric of modern reality." -a2n3d7y
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
