Hi Stephan, Gruss Gott I concur. I can also relate to what you are saying. Christian symbols in government (like in Bavaria) are everywhere. I happened to be in Vienna on Ash Wednesday a few years ago. I counted the percentage of people who have been to mass that day (easy to do on Ash Wednesday). It was more than 1/3. Despite all that, governments appear to be more secular than in the United States. It seems as though generations of former Europeans growing up in the US have forgotten the atrocities done in the name of religion. ** Strictly my opinion ** Religion is an exercise in faith. Everyone has an interpretation but there is no evidence that everyone can use (or see) that causes them to agree on a particular set of beliefs. So, in my opinion, religion can be the motivation to both help and hurt people, depending on one's interpretation. Based on at least one interpretation, even the bible shows both sides of the same coin. Teach a man to fish and he can become healthy enough to stone his wife. Mike
stephan torak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear fellow enthusiasts, please forgive me, again, for interfering with your truly excellent discourse on the American heritage. I am a naturalized citizen, from Austria, and I studied things American in great quantity at our University in Vienna before I finally came over here in the hand luggage of a liberal school teacher from California. I became a US citizen as one of those who are willing to pick up the luggage and carry it, too. Funny, how this discourse on the authors of the constitution and their religious angles and beliefs just couldn't be happening in Europe (well Austria, anyway) because we know they were all practicing Catholics. But for Europeans of today to try to write ones' religious beliefs and Dogma into the constitution, no way, or to argue whether the constitution is following Christian principles, or for a presidential candidate to announce that he is or is not a practicing whatever, so who would listen to that? And who would vote for someone who puts so much emphasis on this issue? After a recent visit I vividly remember a bunch of kids sitting in the subway in Vienna discussing robotics projects and micro controllers and the girl, maybe 12 ys old saying that she hoped her parents wouldn't make her go to the Mosque again next weekend, speaking without any accent. I don't know my friends, it just drives home to me the need to set aside this self righteousness that plagues America and to concentrate on furthering the peace (now that sounds like a Christian principle, doesn't it) and to talk of some REAL ISSUES, and I believe this is exactly what we are doing most of the time. . So, I have no intention to move back to Europe, but I do want to make BD and I discussed with my son (14) your article on the constitution just to instill some healthy scepticism in the boy. Thank you immensly for your work, Gentlemen.! Regards, Stephan > Ken Provost wrote: > > >> >> A breath of fresh air -- thanks! Having been an >> unabashed atheist for 90% of my long life, it's >> great to know that my hero Tom Jefferson wasn't >> even a real Deist (as I've always been taught), >> much less an X-tian like our rulers would have you >> believe. 'Course Tom has almost been drummed out >> of the Founding Father's Klub already, and our >> Revolution has been renamed the War of Independ- >> ence for decades now...... > > > While I agree in substance with much of the article Brooke Allen > composed, here is a rebuttal that my eldest sister (the one who is > happy to stay in Oakland, where she lives) sent for my perusal: > > http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/02-09-05.asp > > Did George Bush Lie About America Being Founded on Christian Principles? > By Gary DeMar > > “The lesson the President has learned best—and certainly the one that > has been the most useful to him—is the axiom that if you repeat a lie > often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration’s > current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on > Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian > principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as > a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.” Thus > begins an article by Brooke Allen that was posted on the website of > “The Nation” on February 3, 2005.1 It’s obvious that Allen has not > done a thorough study of American history as it relates to its > founding documents. There is much more to America’s founding than the > Constitution. America was not born in 1877 or even in 1776. The > Constitution did not create America, America created the Constitution. > More specifically, the states created the national government. The > states (colonial governments) were a reality long before the > Constitution was conceived, and there is no question about their being > founded on Christian principles. > > Allen’s article is filled with so many half truths that it would take > a book to deal with them adequately. For those of you who are new to > the work of American Vision, there are numerous books on the subject > that easily refute Allen’s assertions. > > * America’s Christian History: The Untold Story by Gary DeMar (1995). > * America’s Christian Heritage by Gary DeMar (2003). > * The United States: A Christian Nation by Supreme Court Justice > David J. Brewer (1905). > * The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of > the United States Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of > the Republic by B. F. Morris (1864). > * Christianity and the American Commonwealth by Charles B. > Galloway (1898).2 > > Here is Allen’s first assertion: “Our Constitution makes no mention > whatever of God.” “No mention whatever” is pretty absolute. Given > this bold claim, then how does she explain that the Constitution ends > with “DONE in the year of our Lord”? “Our Lord” is a reference to > Jesus Christ. This phrase appears just above the signature of George > Washington, the same George Washington who took the presidential oath > of office with his hand on an open Bible, the same George Washington > who was called upon by Congress, after the drafting of the First > Amendment, to proclaim a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. The > resolution read as follows: > > That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the > President of the United States to request that he would recommend to > the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and > prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the > many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an > opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution for their safety and > happiness. > > It seems rather odd that the constitutional framers would thank God > for allowing them to draft a Constitution that excluded Him from the > Constitution and the civil affairs of government. > > Allen is correct that there were a number of Enlightenment principles > floating around the colonies in the late eighteenth century as well as > anti-clericalism. And there is no doubt that some of these principles > made their way into the Constitution, although it’s hard to tell where > when compared to the obvious Enlightenment principles inherent in the > French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). But we should be > reminded of Allen’s absolutist claim of a complete dissolution of > religion from political considerations in the Constitution. She has > set the evaluative standard. If she is correct, then why didn’t the > framers presage the French revolutionaries by starting the national > calendar with a new Year One? Why did the Constitutional framers set > aside Sunday—the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue—as a day of rest > for the President (Art. 1, sec. 7) if it was their desire to > secularize the nation as Allen suggests? The French revolutionaries > reconstructed the seven-day biblical week and turned it into a ten-day > metric week in hopes of ridding the nation of every vestige of > Christianity. Nothing like this was done in America. > > Then there’s the issue of the state constitutions. One of the reasons > some give for the absence of a more explicit declaration of God in the > Constitution was the fact that the state constitutions made numerous > references to God. The issue of religion was the domain of the states. > Since the Federal Constitution was a document of enumerated powers, to > mention religion in a more specific way would have given the national > government jurisdiction over religious issues. The framers believed > that such issues were best left to the states. Constitutional scholar > and First Amendment specialist, Daniel Dreisbach, writes: > > The U. S. Constitution’s lack of a Christian designation had > little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to > do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of > God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the > framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the > individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most > states in the founding era retained some form of religious > establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly > characterized as “godless” or secular only insofar as it deferred to > the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.3 > > Keep in mind that the national Constitution did not nullify the > religious pronouncements of the state constitutions, and neither did > it separate religion from civil government. The First Amendment is a > direct prohibition on Congress, not the states, to stay out of > religious issues: “Congress shall make no law respecting an > establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” > This is a good indication that the states were to be unmolested on > their religious requirements. As I’ve noted elsewhere,4 even today > every state constitution makes reference to God. Here’s a sample of > some of the state constitutions and their religious language during > the time the Constitution was drafted: > > * Pennsylvania’s 1790 constitution declared, “That no person, who > acknowledges the being of God, and a future state of rewards and > punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be > disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this > commonwealth.” > * The Constitution of Massachusetts stated that “no person shall > be eligible to this office, unless . . . he shall declare himself to > be of the Christian religion.” The following oath was also required: > “I do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm > persuasion of its truth.” > * North Carolina’s 1868 stated that “all persons who shall deny > the being of Almighty God” “shall be disqualified for office.”5 The > 1776 constitution, that remained in effect until 1868, included the > following (XXXII): “That no person, who shall deny the being of God, > or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority > either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious > principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, > shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in > the civil department within this State.”6 North Carolina describes > itself as a “Christian State” in the 1868 constitution (Art. XI, sec. 7). > > If, as Allen maintains, “God only entered the picture as a very minor > player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent,” how does she > explain these state constitutional provisions? If the federal > Constitution nullified these state constitutional mandates, then her > point would be valid. The thing is, God was a major player in the > founding of America for more than 150 years before the Constitution > was drafted. > > The Constitutions says nothing about morality or values. There are no > prohibitions against murder, theft, or rape. The word “law” is used > numerous times, but it is never defined. The author of an 1838 tract > entitled, An Inquiry into the Moral and religious Character of the > American Government, makes an important observation: “The object of > the Constitution [is to] distribute power, not favour; to frame a > government, and not to forestall and clog the administration of it by > words of preconceived partiality for this or that possible subject of > its future action.”7 This is especially true when religion was an > issue reserved to the states. States wrote educational provisions into > their constitutions, while the Federal Constitution remained silent on > the subject. The 1876 constitution of North Carolina includes 15 > sections on education. > > In attempt to drive a stake in the belief that America had “been > founded on Christian principles,” she resurrects the 1797 Treaty of > Tripoli and its statement that “the Government of the United States . > . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”8 I’ve > dealt with this treaty elsewhere,9 but let me summarize the argument > here. > > The statement in question was to assure a radically religious (Muslim) > government that America would not depose that government and impose > Christianity by force. A single phrase ripped from its historical > context does nothing to nullify the volumes of historical evidence > that Christianity was foundational to the building and maintenance of > this nation. The 1797 treaty constantly contrasts “Christian nations” > (e.g., Article VI) and “Tripoli,” a Muslim stronghold that was used as > a base of operations for Barbary pirates. Muslim nations were hostile > to “Christian nations.” The Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships > from “Christian nations,” enslaving “Christian” seamen. “Barbary was > Christendom’s Gulag Archipelago.”10 In Joseph Wheelan’s Jefferson’s > War, detailing America’s first war on terror with radical Muslims, we > learn that Thomas “Jefferson’s war pitted a modern republic with a > free-trade, entrepreneurial creed against a medieval autocracy whose > credo was piracy and terror. It matched an ostensibly Christian nation > against an avowed Islamic one that professed to despise Christians.”11 > Wheelan’s historical assessment of the time is on target: “Except for > its Native American population and a small percentage of Jews, the > United States was solidly Christian, while the North African regencies > were just as solidly Muslim—openly hostile toward Christians.”12 > > In drafting the treaty, the United States had to assure the ruler of > Tripoli that in its struggle with the pirates “it has in itself no > character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of > Musselmen,” that “the said states never have entered into any war or > act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] nation” due to > religious considerations. > > A survey of the state constitutions, charters, national > pronouncements, and official declarations of the thirteen state > governments would convince any representative from Tripoli that > America was a Christian nation by law. The Constitution itself states > that it was drafted, as noted above, “In the year of our Lord.” The > American consul in Algiers had to construct a treaty that would assure > the ruler of Tripoli that troops would not be used to impose > Christianity on a Muslim people. A study of later treaties with Muslim > nations seems to support this conclusion. The 1816 “Treaty of Peace > and Amity with Algiers” is a case in point: “It is declared by the > contracting parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions > shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the two > nations; and the Consuls and the Agents of both nations shall have > liberty to celebrate the rights of their prospective religions in > their own houses.”13 > > Piracy, kidnapping, and enslaving Christian seamen remained a problem > despite the 1797 Treaty. In addition, Tripoli demanded increased > tribute payments in 1801. When President Jefferson refused to increase > the tribute, Tripoli declared war on the United States. A United > States navy squadron, under Commander Edward Preble, blockaded Tripoli > from 1803 to 1805. After rebel soldiers from Tripoli, led by United > States Marines, captured the city of Derna, the Pasha of Tripoli > signed a treaty promising to exact no more tribute. > > It is important to note that the 1805 treaty with Tripoli differs from > the 1797 Treaty in that the phrase “as the Government of the United > States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian > Religion” is conspicuously absent. Article 14 of the new treaty > corresponds to Article 11 of the first treaty. It reads in part: > “[T]he government of the United States of America has in itself no > character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of > Musselmen.” Assurances are still offered that the United States will > not interfere with Tripoli’s religion or laws. > > It’s obvious that by 1805 the United States had greater bargaining > power and did not have to bow to the demands of this Muslim > stronghold. A strong navy and a contingent of Marines also helped. But > it wasn’t until Madison’s presidency that hostilities finally stopped > when he declared war against Algiers.14 > > Those who use the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli as a defense against the > Christian America thesis are silent on the 1805 treaty. For example, > Alan Dershowitz cites the 1797 Treaty as “the best contemporaneous > evidence” against claims that the United States was founded as a > Christian nation,15 but he makes no mention of the 1805 treaty and > other treaties that are specifically Trinitarian. > > If treaties are going to be used to establish the religious foundation > of America, then it’s essential that we look at more than one treaty. > In 1783, at the close of the war with Great Britain, a peace treaty > was ratified that began with these words: “In the name of the Most > Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to > dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George > the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain. . . .”16 The > treaty was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Keep > in mind that it was Adams who signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. > > In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, > ratified a “Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia > as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of > December 24, 1814.” It begins with the same words found in the > Preamble to the 1783 treaty: “In the name of the Most Holy and > Indivisible Trinity.” Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of > God. The 1848 Treaty with Mexico begins with “In the name of Almighty > God.” The treaty also states that both countries are “under the > protection of Almighty God, the author of peace. . . .” > > If one line in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli turns America into a secular > State (which it does not), then how does Allen deal with the treaties > of 1783, 1822, 1805, and 1848 and the state constitutions? She > doesn’t, because she can’t. Allen needs to go back and do a bit more > research and look at resources beyond the typical college professor’s > bag of tricks and sleight of hand. > > > > robert luis rabello > "The Edge of Justice" > Adventure for Your Mind > http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782> > > Ranger Supercharger Project Page > http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Biofuel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): > http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
