Talk:Treaty of Tripoli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject_Libya This article is part of WikiProject Libya which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to Libyan history, language and culture. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.
Portal:Libya
 Libya Portal

Contents

[edit] NPOV arguments

I have attempted to write that there is a dispute about the significance of Article 11 without going into each argument, mainly because MOST of the arguments offered (citing other treaties, gainsaying a previous opposing argument by parsing words, etc.) reduce the entire entry's value.

Please, let us note that there is a dispute between those who argue for the "Christian Nation" or the "Secular Nation" theories, describe the dispute briefly, but keep the POV arguments out of the entry itself, as it inevitably will degenerate into another edit war. --- Couillaud 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] First Treaty?

Wasn't this the first treaty signed by the US with a foreign power?--iFaqeer 02:57, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

No, see List of United States treaties or [1]. older ≠ wiser 10:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My bad. And it wasn't even the first of the treaties with the Barbary States, it seems. Hmm. There was something about that war that was the first something--first overseas war, maybe? Anyways.--iFaqeer 20:07, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Was the Treaty written by President George Washington?

Was the Treaty written by President George Washington?

[edit] Bias regarding Article XI

I have been doing some research on article XI, due to the controversy surrounding it, and I find the current text in the Wikipedia article to be misleading. My information has been taken from the Avalon project (conducted at Yale), see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796e.htm for the annotated 1930 translation and also Hunter Miller's Notes: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n3):

1) Hunter Miller's notes specify that Captain Richard O'Brien Negotiated the treaty, and brought it to Joel Barlow to have the English translation prepared and authorized. Joel Barlow does not appear to have much to do with the actual negotiation, nor the wording of the treaty since it had already been agreed upon in the Arabic prior to his translation and signature. Maybe this point is irrelevant to Article XI.

2) The treaty was originally drafted in Arabic. The annotated 1930 translation from the Avalon project notes the strange gibberish in Article XI, but in no way suggests that the original Arabic article was altered later on (as the Wikipedia commentary "presumes"). In fact, from what I can determine from the Avalon project (see the section on the Cathcart copy), the Cathcart copy of the treaty was made at the same time as the original treaty book, and Cathcart's copy apparently contains article XI just as the 1930 annotated translation found it. This suggests that the controversial article XI in the English copy was an invention by Joel Barlow, rather than a later alteration in the Arabic version. Hunter Miller apparently comes to a similar conclusion, when he says, "How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point"

3) Cathcart commissioned the Italian translation of the treaty, which also does not contain the Article XI as Barlow had it.

4) The recorded copy of the English treaty certified by Barlow is, however, the copy that Congress would have ratified. Therefore, it is likely that the Senate was aware of the verbiage in Article XI at the time the document was ratified.

(I have updated my point #4 to reflect the accurate facts as relayed by Hunter Miller, and to remove a fact that is already stated in the article. There was also some confusion about the certified copy vs. the original translation, which is in the treaty book)

I would (this is not original poster) like to point out that the article is biased because of this line "Note, however, that it does not say that the nation of the United States was not founded on the Christian religion." While the treaty reads "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."Vellocet Malchickawick 19:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would comment regarding confusion rather than bias. The article quotes from Article XI:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; [...]

Then, having quoted those words, the article goes on to assert:

Note, however, that it does not say that the nation of the United States was not founded on the Christian religion

I guess the writer of this bit was trying to draw some sort of distinction here between the meanings of the words government and nation. I note, however, that the wikipedia Nation#Ambiguity in usage comments, in part:

In common usage, terms such as 'nations, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state. In the English language, the terms do have precise meanings, but in daily speech and writing they are often used interchangeably, and are open to different interpretations.

Personally, I doubt the validity of conclusions drawn about the meaning of a writing based on inferences drawn from niggling points about what the writing does not say. -- Boracay Bill 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, states, nations, and countries can all be used synonymously, but not government. The word 'nastion' and the word 'government' are two very different things. The nation is the land as a whole, while the government is the force that trys to govern the nation. It cleraly say 'the government of the US', not the state of the US, or the nation of the US, or the country of the US. It is refering to the federal government.

(I find it kind of confusing that there's nothing to indicate when a new person is posting on a topic, so I'm clarifying now that I didn't write anything that came before these words.) What does it mean to "found a nation," if not to establish its government? You are saying that a "nation" is the land itself? So, then, that means that the "founding" of the nation would mean the actual creation of the land. Which, I suppose, would mean that that Christians do think that the nation was founded on Christian principles, since God would have been the one creating, or "founding" the land. But I really don't think this is what anyone means when they refer to a nation's founding. A nation is founded when its government is created. Prior to that, it isn't a nation. It's just a patch of land. If you really believe that nations and governments are discrete bodies, please show me one nation that is recognized as such but doesn't have a government.

Furthermore, "nation" is a metonym for "government" in much the same way that "White House" is a metonym for "The President of the United States of America." Technically, the White House is the wood and metal and stone that was put together in the shape of a building, while the President is the actual decision-making body. The house itself doesn't talk to reporters or veto bills, but there is never this kind of confusion about what is really meant when a newspaper headline says, "White House Calls for Ban on Stem Cell Research." No one is going to pick up a newspaper with that headline and think that the wooden house came to life and is releasing statements to the press.

So, the treaty doesn't say that the nation wasn't founded as a Christian nation. But it doesn't say that it was, either. I guess in this case, as in the question of evolution, Christianity is the default answer when a question can't be definitively answered with the existing facts. Alex K. Rich 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A nation is the country as a whole, or the combined masses of people. It's kind of like how when the Bible talks about the church, it's not refering to the building itself, but rather the members that make up the congregation. The government is the system that is set up to govern over that group of people. Webster's defines a nation as 'A group of people organized under a government'. While they are closely related, they're not synonymous. Like your example of the President and the White House. They are related, but certainly aren't the same thing. Just look at the words of the Treaty. 'The government of the United States'. What is that? It's the Federal Government. Every nation has a government, but the nation isn't the government.

I recognize that "nation" and "government" don't mean the same thing. I also recognize that the latter is often a metonym for the former. Let's just imagine, for the sake of argument, that the treaty did say, "As the Nation of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." What would that mean? How would the meaning be different from the actual wording? -- Alex K. Rich 05:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if we wrote an article about everything that isn't written in the Treaty of Tripoli, we would have a very long article indeed. Yes, the treaty doesn't say that the nation of America was not founded as a Christian nation. It also doesn't say that America was not founded as a Jewish nation. It also doesn't say that pie is not delicious. Thus, ipso facto, I guess that means pie is delicious.

It may be that the treaty does not actually prove that the founders did not intend to found a Christian nation. That is the controversy. But just because it doesn't prove that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation doesn't mean that it does prove that America was founded as a Christian nation. It's just not the right piece of evidence for this case, maybe.

If I killed someone with a kitchen knife, and then you found a bloody knife in my apartment, that would seem to tie me to the crime. If you then found out that the blood was my own, and that it wasn't the murder weapon, that doesn't mean that I now did not kill that guy. I still killed him. And just because the piece of evidence that you thought proved my guilt actually doesn't, it doesn't mean that that piece of evidence now proves my innocence.

It may be that Article 11 is worthless as regards this "Christian Nation vs. Secular Nation" debate. But if it is, that doesn't mean that your side gets a point by default. -- Alex K. Rich 05:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but the problem is that people are putting in arguments such as, "Ah ha! Well, this clearly proves that America was never a Christian nation!" And that's not true. That's the whole reason I put in what opponents of it think. Perhaps I worded it poorly, because I don't want to sound like everything is factual when it's all my opinion of the document. But, I tried to change it so that it would be clear that that was from a prespective of someone who disagrees. That's why I put things like 'they think' and 'they contend'. As for putting in things that it doesn't say, well, I know that it can get redundant, but if someone put something in this article saying "Clearly this proves that pie is delicious", then the only way you could counter that would be to say, "No, there is no mention of pie." It's the same with Nation and Government. I know that they are very similar, but they're certainly not the same, which leads to the controversy. Also, the difference between the Framers puttin in "the nation wasn't based on..." instead of government would be tremendous. Government simply implies that the peolpe can worship Jesus freely, which most did, but if someone doesn't want to, then the Government can't force them. The nation, however, would be to argue that those seeking to help the betterment of the United States, such as the Framers, would have no intention of seeking help and guidance from God, and that they wouldn't care what he thought. That was not the case, becasue the Framers were all Christian men.


Okay, but you didn't really answer my question. Explain to me the difference in meaning between the following two statements:

1) "The government of the United States was founded on capitalist principles."

2) "The nation of the United States was founded on capitalist principles."

I'm asking what these two statements mean in practical terms.

Also, consider the question of who founds a nation, and how we recognize the founding of a nation? I said before that a nation is not a nation until its government is formed. You seem to disagree, but you've yet to offer an alternative definition of a nation that withstands scrutiny.

For example, if the nation of Iraq invaded Iran, what is really occuring? Is the land attacking another land mass? Are all the people who make up the nation attacking? Anytime we talk of a nation's actions, or a nation's founding (as opposed to, say, a nation's character or its borders) we are actually talking about its government. You can argue a difference between the words until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the way they are used in common parlance.

Lastly, you made a telling comment at the end of your last entry that I think illustrates the real problem we're having in discussing this issue, and probably the real problem inherent in this whole debate. Bear with me on this.

MxPx isn't a Christian band. They are a band whose members are Christians. As drummer Yuri Ruley was once quoted as saying, "Since our first album, people tried to pigeonhole us as Christian rock. We're Christians. We play in a rock band. That's that." Yes, their first album was released by a Christian label, but their music isn't about Christ and doesn't contain obvious Christian themes the way that, say, Petra's does.

Similarly, the United States isn't necessarily a Christian nation simply because it was founded by Christians. Just as John F. Kennedy was able to make the distinction between being the Catholic candidate for president and being a candidate for president who happened to be Catholic, we ought to be able to make the distinction between founders of a Christian nation and Christian founders of a nation. --Alex K. Rich 05:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess that I am having a hard time clearly distinguishing my point. You made the point that 'If the nation of Iraq invaded the nation of Iran, then would it be the land masses attacking each other?' And, obviously, no. But, at the same time it doesn't mean that the governments are over there fighting. Unfortunately, I can't think of the names of those countries leaders off the top of my head, so I'll use the US as an example. The nation of the US is fighting in Iraq right now, but that doesn't mean that President Bush or any of the Congressmen are over there fighting. If a nation is at war, then it means that the people are the ones at war. Now, yes, the government is the one conducting it, but the people are the ones who actually fighting. It's Americans as a whole pulling together for a common goal, and being lead by the government. As for the Capitalism issue, I'll try to explain it to the best of my abilities, so bear with me. A government can control a nation's economy, but the government isn't the nation's economy. Yea, I know that's stupid, but think of it like this. A lot of people think that Communism is a form of government, but it's not. It's an economic system that, in places like the Soviet Union, was enforced by a Dictatorial type of government. Communism is often thought of as on overbearing force becasue it has often had to be enforced by strong dictatorships. They just appear together so often that people think that Communism is a form of Tyranny. It's like how people equate democracies with happiness because people living in democracies are often times happier than those of other systems. But, being in a democracy doesn't neccesarily guarentee happiness. Ultimately, I guess my point is that government can't be founded on capitalist ideas, it can only enforce those ideas. But the nation can be. People can collectively choose how they want to use their money; buy, sell, etc. And, yes, I do agree with you that when a nation is founded that typically it means a government was established. They generally go hand in hand, but there not the same. Kind of like the two sides on a coin, if you will. Finally, the Framers were all Christian men who sought to lead and govern the nation in a Christian way. That's what makes it founded as a Christian country. I hope my long ramblings made since. Also, I like how the 'opponents viewpoint' section looks right now. Nice job helping clean it up.

Re: the capitalism thing: I agree completely. I wasn't actually trying to make a point about capitalism. Rather, I was just using it as an example of a statement made in the same form as my previous statement, but with the religious aspect removed so as to not cloud the issue. I think that a lot of people (myself included) have a lot of difficulty seeing the logic in an opposing argument when they are convinced of what they want the answer to be. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, you can't make somebody understand something if their faith depends on their not understanding it. I'm not saying this applies to you, but that was why I posed my argument in that way, rather than continuing with the Christian principles argument.

That was also why I cited the examples of MxPx and JFK. I think this is the central idea behind the whole Church-State separation argument. Yes, the United States was founded by Christians. Yes, some of our laws and norms were based on Christian principles. That does not mean, however, that the United States is a Christian nation. The Establishment Clause is tricky, because it can't account for intention or thought. If the President makes a decision a certain way because of his faith in God, we can't exactly criticize him for not separating the governing part of his brain from the religious part of his brain. Those decisions should have to be supported by rational, secular reasoning, however, since our government is, onstensibly, secular. It is when the president makes decisions that are obviously contrary to the interests of the people, that are backed up only by religious dogma, that we begin to run into problems. Obviously, people are unlikely to make decisions that conflict with their own sense of morality, but...I can't figure out a way to finish this sentence without saying that religiosity leads to flimsy morals.

Look, there's no way to ever really agree on this. If people are honest about their faith, as President Bush seems to be, they won't be able to make rational moral decisions on issues like abortion, because faith erases all of the nuance from this complicated issue. If the dogma he believes in says, unequivocally, that abortion is wrong, then he would be a hypocrite if allowed unrestricted abortion, or any at all, really. He would either be lying about his religious convictions, or his humanist convictions. They are in absolute conflict on this, and many other issues. Clearly, his religious convictions are strong, and his commitment to God is greater than his commitment to people, and I guess that's admirable for someone in a position of power in a church, but it makes him the kind of person I do not want in charge of my country, or my body, or my life. So, getting back to what I was trying to say before, if a politician makes a positive moral decision, but does it for religious reasons (like, maybe, deciding to give aid to the poor), that's fine. It's only when poor decisions are rationalized with faith that problems arise. Because you can't argue with dogma. This is why Brights are generally less opposed to groups like Christians Against Poverty than groups like Alliance for Marriage.

Whew. I'm sorry I got so off-topic. I agree that the paragraph in question reads much better, and is much more accurate thanks to our collaboration. Thanks. That's what makes Wikipedia great. -- Alex K. Rich 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part about First War

most of the section on the first barbary war seems very irrelavant. what does the fact that the ship philadelphia have to do with the Treaties? Saganatsu 18:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unecessary paragraph

The paragraph removed was redundant in that it expressed what was already stated and silly in that it says that "the significance of the article which is often overlooked or ignored" when in fact it seems that the only significance of the treaty is this article and the fact that it was passed by congress! Furthermore, the statement about "secular government" is perhaps going too far: what does "secular" mean in this context, or government for that matter? Finally, I did not remove a earlier statement about treaties having the force of law because it's true. However, if the treaty was broken and the subsequent treaty did not have a article XI, this article no longer has any force of law (what could a treaty about nonexistant thing possible mean?), though the Constitution is especially hard to interpret on treaties. The statement here may imply that the article is still in effect. Srnec 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary paragraph

"Secular" in the context of this discussion simply means "not based upon religion", which is exactly what Article 11 stated about our government. It is NOT going too far.

Its significance today involves the constant debate over whether or not the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation". As this document was promulgated and approved as the law of the U.S. only 25 years after its founding, and by a number of men who either served in the Revolution or signed the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and/or Constituion, it represents one of the clearest and most definitive statements regarding the Founding Fathers' attitude about the releationship between Church and State.

The statement does not imply that Article 11 is still in effect, merely that it represents the most definitive statement from the "Founding Fathers" in their own time about an issue that is still being debated today.

Yes, the paragraph is a bit redundant, but it is there because of older POV arguments over what constitutes the "Founding Fathers", and whether or not the contention that Article 13 was not part of the "original" Arabic version is of any significance, and whether this was a one-time statement or whether it simply restates the original intent of the country's founders. These are similar to the arguments that arise when discussing Jefferson's "wall of separation", and whether or not he really meant it.

For clarity, I have changed the phrase "overlooked and ignored" to "misunderstood or downplayed" Couillaud 18:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but what does "misunderstood or downplayed" mean? Again, as far as I can tell its simply not hard to understand and this encyclopaedia certainly doesn't downplay it. Who misunderstands it? When has it been downplayed? When I first read it, it implied that there were many people out there disingenuously downplaying or ignoring this article because they believed America was founded as a Christian nation. However, downplaying its significance is not necessarily wrong: it may be insignificant. For the record, I don't think its either particularly significant or insignificant. It confirms what I always knew. Many, however, don't believe that the opinions of the Founding Father's control Constitutional interpretation in any way and therefore their beliefs on religion are insignificant, ergo Article XI as well. So is it not a little POV as is, suggesting that the article has significance which some don't believe it has? Secondly, "going too far" was a bad choice of words, it did not at all express what I wished to say. I think that "secular" can have different connotations and the context here does not make it clear that it simply means "nonreligious." "Secular government" especially could mean very different things to different people, as does "separation of church and state": a cardinal belief of both Baptists and secular humanists. Srnec 19:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Since I think we can all agree that the meaning and significance of Article 11 is highly controversial, it is a violation of NPOV principles to present only one side of the controvery. So I've rewritten that section by dividing it pro and con sections, and giving both sides of the argument as best I could. NCdave 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not fully agree that it is "highly controversial". Many who believe in the "Christian Nation" viewpoint of our history find both this treaty and Jefferson's "wall of separation" statement inconvenient evidence to the contrary, and spend a great deal of time creating arguments opposing them; just the fact that they disagree does not make any issue "highly controversial". Article 11 was a clear statement to a non-Christian nation that they were in no danger of any sort of "holy war" with the U.S., because our government was not based on the Christian religion.
I believe that it violates NPOV if there is a clearly biased POV being presented without any contrary evidence presented, but it does NOT give it a NPOV to make the claim that both POVs have exactly equal weight, which is what I think your changes were meant to do, though I believer they actually have possibly given greater weight to the opponents' viewpoint by softening one POV with phrases like "it is sometimes argued" and "also sometimes contend", while using more forceful descriptions in the opposite POV (I note that opponents of the viewpoint never "sometimes argue"), while also allowing an occasional irrelevant argument (no matter what an individual state allowed, the Federal government is the only one representing the United States) with as much importance as any other argument.
I agree that Article 11 was atypical of U.S. treaties, but then the issue of religion in a foreign treaty itself is atypical. It is a rare statement because it is a rare issue.
I'm sure the Flat Earth Society would like to alter a number of entries in Wiki, but the fact that their viewpoint is seriously underrepresented does not violate NPOV. The arguments against the secular interpretation of Article 11 have significance, but the arguments tend take tangential angles (arguing Federal issues from states' POV, arguing that the 1783 treaty carried more weight in the debate, arguing that a "Great Governor of the World" and "Creator" specifically refer to a Christian God) rather than arguing about the spcific language of the treaty itself. The argument that the statement was "window dressing" should have some citation and be more than just someone's opinion, as it could be argued with greater weight that the opening of the 1783 treaty with Britain was itself "window dressing".
I will not do so now, but I believe that the recent changes need to be reviewed and edited themselves, as being in violation of the NPOV principles themselves.Couillaud 06:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What were the terms of the Treaty?

Nowhere in the article is this explicitly stated. "Peace Treaty" doesn't really tell us enough. This, plus a sentence or two on the historical signiifcane, should probably be in the intro. C.M.67.170.176.203 13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I have been putting up a few comments as to why the Treaty doesn't mean that we're not a Christian Nation, and yet they keep being changed because they are claimed to be pov. The problem is that this whole page is about trying to figure out whether it supports a Christian nation or not. If you are trying to interpret it, then that will invariably lead to pov. This article is filled with pov, from both sides of the argument. My statements are all under the category of why we don't believe the treaty discredits a Christian heritage, and they are the beliefs of those who believe the Treaty Of Tripoli doesn't disprove the Christianity of the founding fathers.

[edit] Church and state

I have added this article to the separation of church and state catagory, as it seems relevant. GutterMonkey 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute

I added the NPOV template since there has been discussion here about it and the article hasn't moved any closer to being NPOV. In particular, what is the point of bringing in other treaties etc. other than to attempt to advocate for a specific point of view. 70.19.88.122 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-contradiction

Many contend that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli simply reinforces this idea of a non-biased government, and has no bearing on the debate over Church-State separation.

WTF?! Isn't that what separation of church and state is? The issue has nothing to do with whether the United States is composed primarily of Christians. This sentence and the paragraph leading up to it make no logical sense to me. Even if they are supposed to convey some coherent thought they need to be rewritten to demonstrate what exactly that thought is. Ashibaka (tock) 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not the same. Seperation of Church and State is the idea that religion should have absolutely no dealing with government. A non-based government means that religion can influence government, but that government can't unfarily favor any particular religion. Their similar, but different.

-- Seperation of Church and State is nothing more and nothing less than not having a Church or a religion as an institution of the State. There is nothing that prevents religion from influencing government however. Many states that have seperation also have religious political parties in power.Gerard von Hebel 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


In practice, there is no difference between: "Seperation of Church and State", "religion not having *official* influential over government (and vice verse), " and "government not favoring any particular religion". If the government officially weighs-in on the topic of supernatural claims (i.e. claims immune to scientific falsification) or allows a supernatural claim to influence its decision-making, then it is necessarily favoring one particular religion (supernatural belief system) over another .

[edit] Article XI and the treaty of 1805

The article XI of the treaty of 1796 is actually, with some small changes, the article XIV of the treaty of 1805.[2] In this article, the context of the freedom of religion is more clear. It reciprocally allows the US consul in Tripoli and the (non-existent) Tripolitanian envoy in the US to "exercise his religion in his own house", with all slaves of the same religion being allowed to go to the consul's house at hours of prayer. Of course, although these forms are reciprocal for the forms sake, the benefiting party is the US, as there was no Tripolitanian diplomatic representation. I'll change the text to reflect this. --MPorciusCato 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diplomatic Window Dressing - simply not equatable

Statements like: "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity..." and "Anno Domini" are traditional valedictions, commonly included in documents of the period and inconsequential to the content of the documents; this is why they are regarded as "diplomatic window dressing".

The statement: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" is not. It is neither a traditional nor an expected formality, nor is it an inconsequential statement - just the opposite.

Yes, it's fair to speculate that there existed a strong motivation on the part of the early leaders of the U.S. government to lie about its non-christian status in order to make the treaty work, but that is simply another argument.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.183.49.107 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Treaty of Tripoli

It seems as if the majority of the comments here are moot. How Article 11 got into the treaty is irrelevent to the point of whether the US is a Christian nation or not. The religious affiliations of any of the Founders is irrelevent also. The terms A.D., the Creator, Nature's God (Does God belong to Nature?) are irrelevent. The only relevent point is that the President of the US and the Congress signed and ratified the treaty. This makes crystal clear that the Founding Fathers intended to and believed that they did create a secular, not a Christian, government. Why else would they sign the Treaty? Would they lie to gain a diplomatic advantage? If they lied, how deep was any Christian beliefs they held? I won't argue that politicians today don't flaunt and flay their christianity for political gain. But I'm convinced that the most influential of our Founders were principled and honorable men, men who were deliberate in their intention to create a secular government. Their ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli, while significant, is only one indication of their intentions.

Hirocker 19:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps then it is time to completely overhaul that section of the article to eliminate some of the more specious and irrelevant arguments and statements.
  • It is indeed irrelevant as to how the article was inserted into the treaty, because the mere fact that it was there when read before and ratified by Congress is what is relevant, and that peripheral information should either be removed from the discussion, or placed in its own section.
  • The use of terms and phrases such as "Anno Domini", "The Creator", et al. in this or other documents is not germane to the discussion of the article's relevance, and should likewise be either removed or relegated to a separate section.
  • I realize that all the points I'm discussing here were made by those who oppose the interpretation of Article 11, but I also note that there were some arguments on the "pro" side that were removed wholesale from the article, leaving the "anti" side unchallenged. The points that were removed pointed to challenges to the relevance of those "anti" arguments, which is where we are again.
  • I have been reading some of the changes and reverts as well as comments, and I am disturbed by many who are arguing from the Christian standpoint that this cannot be true because it violates their world view. I have seen one comment claiming that this argument in some way "discredits our Christian heritage", which I do not believe. I believe that it says nothing of our heritage, other than the founders believed in protecting our freedom to worship as well as our freedom to disbelieve. Those who want to remove the discussion of its relevance to secular government keep arguing that they are asserting a NPOV, yet frequently use POV resources (like the Avalon Project) to buttress their points. There are many Christians out here who feel no discredit to our faith just because our government is secular rather than Christian.
  • I have no problem with the fact that my government is secular, because it assures me that the government shall not view my faith as inferior to another. This statement was made in 1796, only 20 years after Independence, and was a clear statement of our young nation's intent not to favor one nation over another. If there is an argument over what Article 11 said, it should be directed at the article's specific language, and not at other treaties or other laws. -- Couillaud 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/e/Talk%7ETreaty_of_Tripoli_e168.html"