US Appeals Court rules Pledge of Allegience Unconstitutional
06-29-2002, 01:52 PM
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Like I said...I knew the facts would fall on deaf ears...
06-29-2002, 01:56 PM
#112
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beautiful Fort Lauderdale www.cheetahcat.com
Posts: 10,833
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
was in a poll; the votes went this way over 76% said leave the Pledge alone... In short the Loons lost by better than a 3:1 Margin and that was at CNN for “Gods” sake The Leftist leaning beacon of all the pink’o dullards of American Society! In a real life poll it would be in the mid nineties or better.
Best Regards
Best Regards
06-29-2002, 02:17 PM
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by supercrash
seems like alot of typing for nothing.. [/B]
seems like alot of typing for nothing.. [/B]
If a person would take the time to read what Mlitefan has written I don't think there is any way that someone could make the above quote having a sane mind.
Mlitefan, THANK YOU. Your research backs up what I have always believed but have been confused about over the years because of all the mumbo jumbo of the lawyers and the liberals. I have copied your posts and ask your permission to share them with others in my area.
I have been tempted to delete this thread because of all the hatred posted toward God and his believers by Supercrash but did not do so because he has a right to his beliefs and the right to state them. It will be sad when the day comes that he will have to try and defend those statements.
Larry
06-29-2002, 03:08 PM
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mlite...Deaf ears...?
Our first two presidents were involved with the treaty of tripoly..
You are talking about founding fathers..?...right...
The treaty says "THAT THE USA IS IN NO WAY FOUNDED ON CHRISTIAN VALUES".
iS THIS NOT A FACT.....????????????
our first two presidents did this...nobody in the senate said anything negitive about it...
I repeat...IS THE TREATY NOT A FACT....?
I suspect that you have to admit that the treaty is fact , because it is...By doing that you admit that our first two Presidents were against a nation that is founded on christian values...And by doing that you prove my point , and agree with me......or you can dissagree with me and say that the treaty is a story I made up and that our founding fathers did find this nation with their christian values...which would be raping history...
So tell me mlite.....Is the Treaty for real....???
Our first two presidents were involved with the treaty of tripoly..
You are talking about founding fathers..?...right...
The treaty says "THAT THE USA IS IN NO WAY FOUNDED ON CHRISTIAN VALUES".
iS THIS NOT A FACT.....????????????
our first two presidents did this...nobody in the senate said anything negitive about it...
I repeat...IS THE TREATY NOT A FACT....?
I suspect that you have to admit that the treaty is fact , because it is...By doing that you admit that our first two Presidents were against a nation that is founded on christian values...And by doing that you prove my point , and agree with me......or you can dissagree with me and say that the treaty is a story I made up and that our founding fathers did find this nation with their christian values...which would be raping history...
So tell me mlite.....Is the Treaty for real....???
06-29-2002, 03:18 PM
#115
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: austin,tx,usa
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should change the words to the national anthem. Most people don't know all the words anyway, and besides, some of the words are rather weak fillers. For instannce, "by the dawns early light" could be changed to a holier version of, " by Gods early light". And "the twilights last gleaming" could be "by Gods last light gleaming". You can't argue that it isn't Gods light.
I know this sort of screws up the cadence of the song, but by then, most people get lost in the high notes and are just mouthing the words anyway. Besides, by then they want to get on with the ball game or fireworks.
I don't put much stock in what Red Skeleton said or did, he had that cutesy little closure act, but I heard he could be a mean and complete bastard.
By the way, I am just as patriotic and "Christian" as anyone else on the board and I won't listen to you if you tell me I should leave this country.
You can never win arguing about politics OR religion, and certainly never win when arguing about both of them together. I just prefer to keep them both widely separated.
I know this sort of screws up the cadence of the song, but by then, most people get lost in the high notes and are just mouthing the words anyway. Besides, by then they want to get on with the ball game or fireworks.
I don't put much stock in what Red Skeleton said or did, he had that cutesy little closure act, but I heard he could be a mean and complete bastard.
By the way, I am just as patriotic and "Christian" as anyone else on the board and I won't listen to you if you tell me I should leave this country.
You can never win arguing about politics OR religion, and certainly never win when arguing about both of them together. I just prefer to keep them both widely separated.
06-29-2002, 03:19 PM
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jeeeeesh...Do a search on what our founding fathers said about religion...there are plenty of sites...So you guys have to hear it from the horses mouth...You can't take away their own words..
CASE CLOSED
CASE CLOSED
06-29-2002, 04:07 PM
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Show me where the constitution says ""Separation of Church and State"
I would like to see it...
The fact that you guys can totally ignore the information in my posts is totally amazing...not surprising but amazing none the less...
As I said, to portray that the founding fathers and the principles of this country were not rooted in God is to absolutely ignore the facts...The overwhelming evidence is against you...so is history...
You are going to have to do a lot better than "the treaty of Tripoli" to prove this nation was not founded on Godly principles...
You might start by addressing my posts and why the state constitutions, colony declarations, etc ALL make heavy mention of God...
You can try to ignore it all you like but that doesn’t change the overwhelming facts stacked against you...
Could it be that to acknowledge such a stance just absolutely contradicts your atheist beliefs???
naa...that couldn't be it...
One last thing about the treaty of Tripoli...who wrote it? There is MUCH debate over the mis-quotations you and other atheist use to try and prove your points on the nation not being found on religion...
I would like to see it...
The fact that you guys can totally ignore the information in my posts is totally amazing...not surprising but amazing none the less...
As I said, to portray that the founding fathers and the principles of this country were not rooted in God is to absolutely ignore the facts...The overwhelming evidence is against you...so is history...
You are going to have to do a lot better than "the treaty of Tripoli" to prove this nation was not founded on Godly principles...
You might start by addressing my posts and why the state constitutions, colony declarations, etc ALL make heavy mention of God...
You can try to ignore it all you like but that doesn’t change the overwhelming facts stacked against you...
Could it be that to acknowledge such a stance just absolutely contradicts your atheist beliefs???
naa...that couldn't be it...
One last thing about the treaty of Tripoli...who wrote it? There is MUCH debate over the mis-quotations you and other atheist use to try and prove your points on the nation not being found on religion...
Last edited by mlitefan; 06-29-2002 at 04:27 PM.
06-29-2002, 04:22 PM
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your demanding the impossible , ....who says that was in the constitution....?...Do you agree with what our first two presidents penned in the treaty....?....I'm waiting.....A yes Or no could would do...
06-29-2002, 04:28 PM
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your wait is over Crash...You need to do better than "the treaty of Tripoli"...
If this is all you have to "prove" your stance, game over...you lose again...checkmate...
What are the facts regarding this important treaty? In the first place it was not written by George Washington or anybody else in the United States, but in Algiers and signed at Tripoli on Nov. 4, 1796, and at Algiers on Jan. 3, 1797, by Hassan Bashaw, dey or bey of Algiers, and Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul to Algiers. The original is in Arabic and the English text was translated by Joel Barlow. Both texts were submitted to the U.S. Senate on May 29, 1797, and the treaty was ratified and proclaimed in Philadelphia on June 10, 1797. George Washington was president when the treaty was signed at Tripoli, but by the time it reached the Senate for ratification John Adams was president, and it was the latter who presented it to the Senate. Joel Barlow (1754-1812), as U.S. Consul to Algiers, was co-author with Moslem officials of this treaty and sole author of Article XI which contains the non-Christian statement. He was a well-known poet and diplomat of the time and later was U.S. Minister to France (1811-12). Like the leaders among the Founding Fathers of the United States he was a Deist and non-Christian and well knew that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
The part of this treaty of special interest to Freethinkers is, of course, Article XI, but it is seldom quoted in full by them. The complete Article explains why the first part is mentioned and why the Musselmen or Moslems would make a treaty with a non-Moslem nation. The entire Article Xl in the original treaty reads as follows:
"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 tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."
Only since about 1930 has it become clear to scholars that the Arabic parallel to the English Article XI is not the original of the supposed quotation but has no relation to it. There is no Article XI in the original Arabic, and in its place is a crude letter of no importance from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. This discrepancy remains a mystery to this day.
Besides the original Treaty with Tripoli of 1796-97 there is a copy still in existence which has some variations from the original. It is called the Cathcart Copy, named after James Leander Cathcart, who became U.S. Consul to Tripoli in 1798. A third document is a translation of the Arabic into Italian, made for Cathcart which is a better rendering of the Arabic than Barlow's English translation. A fourth document is the 4-page ratification and proclamation of the treaty by President John Adams and the U.S. Senate. In 1930 an annotated English translation of the Arabic text was made by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, a scholar of Leiden, Holland, which can be considered the authoritative translation.
Long before the United States came into existence, the Barbary States of northern Africa had gained their revenue from piracy and the European nations had paid them money and gifts for immunity to their vessels. This practice was adopted by the young American republic, and tribute was part of the treaty of 1796-97. Article X of this treaty with Tripoli states that the money and gifts demanded by the bey had been paid. A "receipt" dated Nov. 21, 1796, and included in the treaty acknowledges the following: 40,000 duros (Spanish dollars), 13 watches, 5 seal rings, 140 ells of cloth, and 4 garments, in lieu of annual tribute to Tripoli. A "note" dated Jan. 3, 1797, also itemizes what the United States still needed to pay. The matter was finally settled by the United States paying the equivalent of $18,000 on Apr. 10, 1799.
If this is all you have to "prove" your stance, game over...you lose again...checkmate...
What are the facts regarding this important treaty? In the first place it was not written by George Washington or anybody else in the United States, but in Algiers and signed at Tripoli on Nov. 4, 1796, and at Algiers on Jan. 3, 1797, by Hassan Bashaw, dey or bey of Algiers, and Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul to Algiers. The original is in Arabic and the English text was translated by Joel Barlow. Both texts were submitted to the U.S. Senate on May 29, 1797, and the treaty was ratified and proclaimed in Philadelphia on June 10, 1797. George Washington was president when the treaty was signed at Tripoli, but by the time it reached the Senate for ratification John Adams was president, and it was the latter who presented it to the Senate. Joel Barlow (1754-1812), as U.S. Consul to Algiers, was co-author with Moslem officials of this treaty and sole author of Article XI which contains the non-Christian statement. He was a well-known poet and diplomat of the time and later was U.S. Minister to France (1811-12). Like the leaders among the Founding Fathers of the United States he was a Deist and non-Christian and well knew that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
The part of this treaty of special interest to Freethinkers is, of course, Article XI, but it is seldom quoted in full by them. The complete Article explains why the first part is mentioned and why the Musselmen or Moslems would make a treaty with a non-Moslem nation. The entire Article Xl in the original treaty reads as follows:
"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 tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."
Only since about 1930 has it become clear to scholars that the Arabic parallel to the English Article XI is not the original of the supposed quotation but has no relation to it. There is no Article XI in the original Arabic, and in its place is a crude letter of no importance from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. This discrepancy remains a mystery to this day.
Besides the original Treaty with Tripoli of 1796-97 there is a copy still in existence which has some variations from the original. It is called the Cathcart Copy, named after James Leander Cathcart, who became U.S. Consul to Tripoli in 1798. A third document is a translation of the Arabic into Italian, made for Cathcart which is a better rendering of the Arabic than Barlow's English translation. A fourth document is the 4-page ratification and proclamation of the treaty by President John Adams and the U.S. Senate. In 1930 an annotated English translation of the Arabic text was made by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, a scholar of Leiden, Holland, which can be considered the authoritative translation.
Long before the United States came into existence, the Barbary States of northern Africa had gained their revenue from piracy and the European nations had paid them money and gifts for immunity to their vessels. This practice was adopted by the young American republic, and tribute was part of the treaty of 1796-97. Article X of this treaty with Tripoli states that the money and gifts demanded by the bey had been paid. A "receipt" dated Nov. 21, 1796, and included in the treaty acknowledges the following: 40,000 duros (Spanish dollars), 13 watches, 5 seal rings, 140 ells of cloth, and 4 garments, in lieu of annual tribute to Tripoli. A "note" dated Jan. 3, 1797, also itemizes what the United States still needed to pay. The matter was finally settled by the United States paying the equivalent of $18,000 on Apr. 10, 1799.
06-29-2002, 04:30 PM
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mlite...revisionist history....?
"Simply stated , To say that this country was not founded on the christian base is to ignore the facts"
-Mlite
"The Government of the United States of America is in noway founded on christian values"
-Our Founding Fathers
Now who is the victim of revisionist history.....?....Mlite....OR our founding fathers....?
Don't ignore the facts.
"Simply stated , To say that this country was not founded on the christian base is to ignore the facts"
-Mlite
"The Government of the United States of America is in noway founded on christian values"
-Our Founding Fathers
Now who is the victim of revisionist history.....?....Mlite....OR our founding fathers....?
Don't ignore the facts.
