1797 treaty makes religious stand clear

[rug]

Rev. Jack Perkins Davidson
Published 12:18 am, Saturday, May 24, 2014

"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 of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of (Islam)."

Did you read that quote? If not, go back and read it, because it's important.

This is a line from the Treaty of Tripoli. It was written in 1797 by a local legend.

If you know the name Joel Barlow, it's probably because Redding and Easton's high school is named after this hometown hero.

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/1797-treaty-makes-religious-stand-clear-5502148.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Barlow

[AtheistCrusader]

1. I generally liken our government to a sandbox.

Everyone can play in it. It takes all comers.

That line, from the ToT is clear evidence of it. Four of the senators that ratified that treaty can be found in signatures on another document, the DoI. (Plus the President at the time)

[bl968]

2. Jefferson's Wall of Seperation Letter is even more clear

Someone posted one of those 9/11 Memorial Cross pictures on facebook with the words "Should atheists be allowed to remove the Ground Zero Cross from the 9/11 Museum? Defend the Cross" and and this was my reply.

All other steel from the site was removed, and sold overseas. If that cross was left strictly for it's resemblance to the Christian cross then yes removal is proper. If it was solely intended as is an example of the steel left over after the attacks; then removal isn't. It's all in the intentions of those who decided to feature that piece of steel over another.

I served in the military and I fought for the first amendment which guarantee religious freedom, and prohibits the government from promoting one religion over another.

The first amendment protects our freedoms just as much as the other Constitutional amendments.

Our country was founded by people who came from countries where there were state religions. Many of them also established their own state religions when they came to this country, and you could be punished by the state for how you worshiped.

Our founding fathers decided that it was important to protect the people of this country and that all men would have the freedom to worship how their conscious dictated That became enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Jefferson said it best with his metaphor, a wall of separation. Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Supreme Court Justice O'Connor said it best in my opinion, “Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

Someone then responded:

Good answer, but why do Christians have to give up their rights to keep accommodating ever one else? Haven't they removed enough from the system already, how free are we? Truely? And if it is just between man and his God, how did you learn about him in the first place? The word has to be spread, I think Jesus didn't get a fair shake if he kept everything inside. Think about, just who taught you! Today's is system is a joke!

I posted my response:

Christians don't, Christians are free to do as they like provided they don't attempt to use the power and authority of the government of the United States, or the resources of the government to do so. Nothing is stopping Christians from having a Christian focused 9/11 memorial of their own, but they can't turn the U.S. Government's 9/11 memorial into a Christian shrine either.

Their rebuttal:

If it gives comfort to those who lost family and friends, who cares? Aren't we supposed to care about one another? How sad!

I sealed the deal with:

Because not everyone who died in the World Trade Center collapse were Christian. There were also Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Wiccans, and many other religious beliefs practiced by those who were in the Trade Centers when they collapsed.

Different faiths find comfort in different ways, what is acceptable to Christians may be anathema to Jews and Muslim, etc; and under the 1st amendment the U.S. Government cannot set one above other.

Everyone should be able to feel welcomed at the U.S. Government's 9/11 Memorial. That's the core of religious freedom. No one religion is given priority over another by our government.

God gave mankind the gift of free will, I really have trouble understanding why some Christians think it would be ok with him to try to take it away from them.

I also posted a link to this story about it...

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2013/05/02/of-course-the-911-cross-is-a-religious-symbol/12086

[Prophet 451]

3. Jefferson's letter doesn't have force of law though

The Treaty of Tripoli does.

[bl968]

4. Jefferson's Letter

Jefferson's Letter does have the force of law when it has been used as the basis of interpretation of the 1st Amendment by the Supreme Court since 1879.

I should also point out that "a second treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on July 4, 1805, superseded the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." So the treaty of Tripoli you referenced doesn't have force of law.

[Prophet 451]

5. Point conceded n/t