Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WBUR Boston)   According to David Barton, everything you know about American history is wrong. Especially the whole "separation of church and state" stuff. Guess which political party he consults with?   ( wbur.org) divider line
    More: Scary, Americans, texas gop, Oral Roberts University, WallBuilders, Trinity, secularists, expert witnesses, U S Capitol  
•       •       •

2352 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Aug 2012 at 1:29 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-08-10 02:37:17 AM  
Ahh... his point of view... I can almost see it from here...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-08-10 03:18:19 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Talking about straw men, the Treaty of Tripoli is only the opinion of those who signed it.
However, I am quite impressed with your super psychic powers.
Oh, and that force of law thing is pretty important, thanks for playing.


You mean the force of law of the first amendment? The one that pretty much says the same thing that the Treaty of Tripoli does about religion, except not singling out Christianity?

The Treaty of Tripoli merely makes clear the intention of the founders what should have still been obvious from the Constitution and other writings of the time, that the US is not and has never intended to be a Christian nation (or any other religious nation for that matter).

I don't have to be a psychic because I am able to read stuff dead people wrote where they clearly explain what their intentions were concerning religion and government when they made the US government in the first place.
 
2012-08-10 03:27:06 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Gwyrddu: Nice strawman you got there, the point of the Treaty of Tripoli apparently went over your head. The point is not whether it has the force of law, but rather it clearly demonstrates how the founding fathers (in this case John Adams and congress) thought about this country and religion.

Talking about straw men, the Treaty of Tripoli is only the opinion of those who signed it.
However, I am quite impressed with your super psychic powers.
Oh, and that force of law thing is pretty important, thanks for playing.


It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.
 
2012-08-10 03:30:39 AM  

Kurmudgeon: One last thing, the Treaty of Tripoli ended the war between the US and Tripoli.
That was it's purpose and only function.


So? The founders still clearly stated that Christianity was the foundation of of government, in any sense.

growlersoftware.com

growlersoftware.com

growlersoftware.com
 
2012-08-10 03:32:52 AM  

impaler: was the foundatio


wasn't the foundation.

Damn it.

But that was obvious from context.
 
2012-08-10 03:34:05 AM  

impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
"The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to submit to the Pasha's demands for increased payments"
It is no longer law, melon head.
 
2012-08-10 03:55:14 AM  

Kurmudgeon: impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
"The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to submit to the Pasha's demands for increased payments"
It is no longer law, melon head.


Others in the thread have pointed out many times that the Treaty of Tripoli, while no longer lawfully binding, is an insight into the thoughts and design by the founding fathers of our nation's foundations. Either you are not bothering to read or you are being purposefully obtuse.

This country isn't for Christians alone; it is for people of all faiths and religions, including those with no religion at all. The constitution and the laws based on it protect this fundamental right. Deal with it.
 
2012-08-10 04:08:11 AM  

Legio Minervia: Others in the thread have pointed out many times that the Treaty of Tripoli, while no longer lawfully binding, is an insight into the thoughts and design by the founding fathers of our nation's foundations. Either you are not bothering to read or you are being purposefully obtuse.

This country isn't for Christians alone; it is for people of all faiths and religions, including those with no religion at all. The constitution and the laws based on it protect this fundamental right. Deal with it.


Never said the country was for "Christians alone". Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it. By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11. So if their version did not have the text, then they could not ratify that on their side. Yet more reason to not give this treaty any more credence, though if one is prejudiced towards people and items of faith, they probably won't like that explanation either.
It's an obscure, poorly written treaty to a dead nation, and long defunct..
http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html
 
2012-08-10 04:23:23 AM  

Kurmudgeon: "The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to submit to the Pasha's demands for increased payments"
It is no longer law, melon head.


Wow, so in 1801 Jefferson pulled a Romney and retroactively made our government founded on Christianity in 1789! And who says batshat insane theocrats are bad at critical thinking?

It's funny, for the longest time I've read how disparities between the Arabic and English versions of that treaty means it wasn't binding. Being a non-retard I never conceived how that was relevant. Now I know you fuking idiots think that if the statement signed by every single member of congress, and Thomas Jefferson's administration, isn't legally binding, then you can the US was founded on the religion of Christianity.

The stupidity would be amusing if it wasn't so damaging and evil.
 
2012-08-10 04:28:27 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Never said the country was for "Christians alone". Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it. By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11. So if their version did not have the text, then they could not ratify that on their side. Yet more reason to not give this treaty any more credence,


Ah ha ha ha ha! I didn't even read this drivel before I posted: " for the longest time I've read how disparities between the Arabic and English versions of that treaty means it wasn't binding"

Jesus fuking Christ. The founders, in no uncertain terms, declared the government wasn't founded on Christiantity, and you want to argue if the text it was in was legally binding? I bet your stupid lying arse quotes Jefferson's use of "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence too, without a single hint of irony.
 
2012-08-10 04:37:15 AM  

Kurmudgeon: One last thing, the Treaty of Tripoli ended the war between the US and Tripoli.
That was it's purpose and only function.

Kurmudgeon: Never said the country was for "Christians alone". Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it. By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11


Let me spell this out for you since you're clearly an idiot. The fact the Arabic version doesn't have " As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (if that's even true, you lying fuksticks are known to lie), it means it wasn't put in there for diplomatic reasons (how would Tripoli know, it wasn't in theirs? It means congress and the Jefferson administration knew what they were signing. This fact works AGAINST you. Not for you.

How can you be so fuking obtuse?
 
2012-08-10 04:42:46 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it.


BTW you lying sack of shat. It isn't just "anti-theists" that point out this indisputable fact, it's also theists that want nothing of a government mixed with religion. Now I know you can't conceive of a theist that doesn't want the binding force of the law to be able to tell others what to do (that's just psychological projection on your part), but that doesn't mean someone that doesn't want the binding force of the law to be able to tell others what to do is anti-theist.
 
2012-08-10 04:49:29 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Never said the country was for "Christians alone". Just pointing out that this treaty does not have the force that anti-theists attempt to give it. By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11. So if their version did not have the text, then they could not ratify that on their side. Yet more reason to not give this treaty any more credence, though if one is prejudiced towards people and items of faith, they probably won't like that explanation either.
It's an obscure, poorly written treaty to a dead nation, and long defunct..
http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html


Once again, you are either not reading the posts countering your claims, or you are outright lying and misrepresenting them.

The legality of the treaty is irrelevant. No one is making the claim that the treaty itself is a legally-binding document that carries any legal force in modern law. That point is a red herring. As far as matters of law go, the constitution protects the rights of its citizens to practice religion (or abstain) at their discretion. That's the end of that discussion.

The significance of the treaty is the language insight it provides in how the founders of our country intended for religion to play in our laws and custom. The fact that John Adams drew up this document and had it unaminously ratified by the Senate is evidence enough that:

a) even one of our founders thought that the law should not just reflect Christian religion and custom, and

b) he wasn't alone. Clearly he had the agreement of at least some of the other founders.

I think that implication is far more powerful than any legal ramifications the treaty had and may or may not still have. You cannot dismiss that significance even if it doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
 
2012-08-10 04:56:35 AM  

Legio Minervia: You cannot dismiss that significance even if it doesn't agree with your viewpoint


Sure he can. He's an Authoritarian.
 
2012-08-10 08:22:50 AM  

qorkfiend: Philip Francis Queeg: "I almost wish that there would be like a simultaneous telecast," Huckabee said at a conference last year, "and all Americans will be forced, forced - at gunpoint, no less - to listen to every David Barton message. And I think our country will be better for it."

What the fark?

Huckabee? As in, Mike Huckabee?


I'll just leave this here.
 
2012-08-10 09:00:20 AM  

HellRaisingHoosier: heavymetal: FTFA: "Jefferson, unlike the other presidents, closes his documents: 'In the year of our Lord Christ,' " Barton said, not mentioning that this was a pre-printed form that was required by law.

"But we're always told he was such a secularist and didn't believe in religion," Huckabee protested.

No Mike, people with a knowledge of history know Jefferson was a "Deist". Jefferson had a common sense view of his faith you evangellicals will never understand. That is one reason you have to project your own religious views on Jefferson.

Truth is, if you evangellicals were so strong in your faith as you claim you wouldn't need all this reinforcement to make you feel you are correct. If your faith is true the it really doesn't matter if the U.S. is a "Christian Nation" or who the Founding Fathers chose to worship. if it bothers you really bad then you need to re-evaluate yoru faith.


I'm not 100% on this, but on a trip to Monticello (Jefferson's farm) I feel I remember one of the tour guides talking about how Thomas Jefferson took the Bible and would tear out pages or cross out sections he thought were false or dumb.


You are correct. Jefferson Bible
 
2012-08-10 11:04:45 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Only if you're willing to believe that John Adams is the only Founding Father.


You seemed to have missed the words "and Congress"; William Blount, John Langdon, and George Read were signatories to the Constitutional and members of the senate who also voted for ratification.

impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.


Technically, a unanimous vote of the 23 senators present.

Kurmudgeon: By the way, the Arabic version of the Treaty does NOT contain the words in Article 11.


True. However, the English version was what was ratified by the Senate.

impaler: Sure he can. He's an Authoritarian.


Particular evidence he is? The most damning thing I've found is a img.fark.neting inability to understand how sample-based polling works.

heavymetal: You are correct.


Part correct; he didn't cross out or tear for that, he used a nice neat razor blade for carving out the diamonds from the dunghill.
 
2012-08-10 12:05:47 PM  

abb3w: impaler: Sure he can. He's an Authoritarian.

Particular evidence he is? The most damning thing I've found is a ing inability to understand how sample-based polling works.


Traits of authoritarians:

Compartmentalized Thinking: RWAs accept what they are told; lock, stock, and barrel, and file it away in their memory; this is a function of taking their lead from their Social Dominator Authoritarian leaders. Many of these positions end up being contradictory with each other or with reality, but, that is OK, because all of the ideas, since they are not processed mentally and only memorized, are not integrated in that persons thinking.

A Lack of Critical Thinking:This characteristic is central to the RWA type for if a person exhibited critical thinking regarding what they were being told regardless of source, including the Social Dominators, then they would less likely be blind followers of Authority figures. One of the most stark exemplars of this is that most Tea Parteyers, who are middle class, absolutely believe their taxes have been raised under President Obama when, in fact, they have been noticeably reduced. The only reason for this unreasonable belief is their total, unthinking reliance on what they are told by their SD leaders. If the "Teachers" in Milgram's experiment had really thought about the implications of what they were doing, most would not have kept increasing the voltage when told to by the scientist.


Kurmudgeon has been told that the "treaty isn't binding in law today, so therefore we can ignore it." He repeats this, and clearly hasn't mentally processed the idea. He will also believe quotes in the founder's private letters that praise Christianity is evidence for a theocracy.

His compartmentalized thinking prevents him from seeing the hypocrisy of saying a treaty's contents can be ignored, because it isn't legally binding, and at the same time say private correspondence is relevant, despite the fact it was never legally binding, much less intended for public digestion.

His lack of critical thinking skills prevents him from realizing that no amount of praise for Christianity from the founders is evidence for a theocracy. These are completely separate concepts. One can be a Christian, and want a secular government. The idea these quotes support theocracy is because they instill the belief that the founders are just like him, and he wants theocracy, therefore they must of wanted it to.
 
2012-08-10 12:06:55 PM  
must have wanted it too. Rather.
 
2012-08-10 12:12:21 PM  
Thanks impaler, I've never had anyone make 7 posts after a response to insult me.
/feels special
//will go on with my day enjoying how meaningless the Treaty of Tripoli really is.
///not really, it is meaningless after all. It just doesn't matter, like all meaningless things.
 
2012-08-10 12:14:26 PM  
Sorry for cussing at you Kurmudgeon. I was drunk.
 
2012-08-10 07:17:15 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Seeing that The Treaty of Tripoli was written between the United States and a country that no longer exists, Ottoman Tripolitania, the Treaty of Tripoli has been null and void since 1911 if not sooner.

Also, treaties do not rule The Constitution null and avoid either.
The Treaty of Tripoli is just a vague historic artifact with no meaning or power in today's US government.

Some more info if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Tripolitania


Erm...actually, it's a good rule of thumb in international law that if a state ceases to exist that its successor states would generally fall under the treaty provisions--that's generally how it's been held for (to give a recent modern example) the states comprising the former USSR and in particular Russia.

The putative successor states of Ottoman Tripolitania in general would frankly include most of the Middle East and in particular Turkey (the seat of the old Ottoman Empire), Libya (the most obvious successor state to Ottoman Tripolitania that is recognised by the US as a state) and quite possibly Tunisia and Algeria as well (being the former states of Tunis and Algiers in Ottoman Tripolitania, much as Libya was the former state of Tripoli in Ottoman Tripolitania).

The big question on whether the Treaty of Tripoli is in force has to do with two biggies:

a) Whether one or another of the parties to the treaty has engaged in an act of war violating the treaty, and/or

b) whether the actual constituent states are considered to have ceased to exist at all; even in some cases where the state has ceased to exist and has become an integral part of another state, certain treaties are held to carry over to the successor state including matters of maritime law.

These generally include peace treaties not involving a power hostile to the successor state, of which the Treaty of Tripoli was one of a series of no less than four separate treaties with Ottoman Empire sub-countries also involving the present-day Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria and all of which were re-signed and re-negotiated multiple times.

(If folks are curious--basically the "Barbary Peace Treaties" (including the Treaty of Tripoli) were peace treaties with the Barbary Coast states promising no aggression so long as vessels under that flag were not targeted for piracy--basic maritime law nonaggression treaties of the sort that WOULD be considered to carry over to a successor state, of note. One area where Article 11 ESPECIALLY came into play--particularly later--was that the Barbary Pirates were in fact raiding ships for not only goods but slaves, including specifically "Christian slaves".)

There is a good argument that the Treaty of Tripoli isn't in force anymore, but NOT from Ottoman Tripolitania no longer existing--it turns out the peace treaty got violated very early on after its signing by the Barbary Coast states, which led to not one but two separate "Barbary Wars" against piracy operations by the US Navy. By all standards, the treaty ceased to be in operation after 1801, certainly so after 1805 (by the peace treaty signed after the First Barbary War) and definitively so after 1815 (when the peace treaty ending the Second Barbary War was signed by the US--British and French operations kept on until 1816 including rescues of POWs captured to be sold into slavery).

(And yes, it's pretty much that provision that has nullified a LOT of treaties with First Nations people, that is, in cases where the US government decided to keep recognising them at all--there are still a number of legitimate, non-Wannabe-Tribe First Nations that basically had their treaties with the US annuled by virtue of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the US government no longer recognising them as "Dawes Act" Indians. Some have been successful in fighting for (and getting) federal recognition, some not so much--you tend to see this a lot in the Northeast and Southeast US particularly, where there had been a real pattern of "de-recognising" or simply refusing to recognise remnant bands or small First Nations groups to prevent land claims.)
 
2012-08-10 07:38:24 PM  

Dr Dreidel: If you've never heard of David Barton, you must be new here. You'll remember him from the last "most influential evangelical you've never heard of" piece posted here, or the one before that. Or any of the Texas textbook derp.

What amazes me is how brazenly they can lie, and either ignore how wrong they are (comparing two sentences shouldn't be hard) or defend the lie as coming from a place of wanting everyone to find Jesus - from the same people that want "Thou shalt not bear false witness" engraved in stone in every courthouse in the land.

Barton seems to think Deuteronomy wants us to submit to Christian "kings" (rulers). I counter that since Deuteronomy was written by Jews for Jews, we need a Jewish "king". There's also the sticky wicket of a verse from Ezra (7:26) that exhorts people to follow the laws of their host countries. And, for the New Testament types, the "render unto Caesar" thing.

How is this different from taqqiyah? (Where Muslims can lie to non-Muslims for the purposes of obscuring details of the faith - I think that's what it's called, though I may be confusing terms.) How are these yahoos any different from the Taliban again?


Actually, I'd go one further and note that in this way they may well be worse than the Taliban--they're actually engaging in frank historical revisionism, of the sort that has been associated with totalitarian governments around the world (most notably fascist and "Communist" governments operating under de facto state religions centered around a personality cult).

Seriously, their rewriting of American history smacks of stuff straight out of Orwell's finest nightmare fuel and comes rather frighteningly close to some of the literal god-emperor-complex stuff re the Kims out of North Korea; it also is extremely reminiscent of three rather infamous totalitarian groups in the mid-twentieth-century, but I risk invoking Godwin...

Oh, who the fark am I kidding--the dominionists have already invoked Godwin, seeing as one of the most powerful dominionist orgs in the US (the American Family Association) WHOLEHEARTEDLY EMBRACES an anti-LGBT version of FRANK HOLOCAUST REVISIONISM...to the point you can take the average Aryan Nations derpfest or old-school anti-Semitic literature, replace all occurences of the word "Jew" with "Homosexual", and it reads straight up like 99 percent of the writing of Scott Lively and the AFA public press. (They at least had the good taste to keep that shiat behind the "membership doors" back in the 90s!)

No, they're not the Taliban. Think more of what happens when, oh, a certain bunch of goose-stepping Heil-Hitlering asstards like the Aryan Nations have hatesex with the Taliban, and you'll get a good idea what dominionism is actually like at its nastiest and derpiest. The whole "Rewrite of American history as some sort of Divine Mission By Really Uber-Dominionist Founding Fathers Who Intended The US To Be A Theonomic State--And Who Were Somehow Also Members Of Joel's Army Despite Being Born Some One Hundred And Fifty Years Before Pentecostalism, Much Less The New Apostolic Reformation, EXISTED" is NOT shocking when you compare SIMILAR coercive groups...

/we really, really, really need to stop treating dominionism as a political movement with religious overtones
//we really, really, really need to start treating them as an extremely dangerous coercive religious group with political and world-domination aspirations rivaling that of Certain Austrians Who Will Not Be Mentioned Lest We Invoke Godwin
///how the hell do you do deprogramming of a third of the US, most of whom will NOT voluntarily leave and knowing that involuntary exit counseling does not farking work and is coercive in and of itself? Damned if I know :P
 
2012-08-10 07:55:07 PM  

DeusMeh: BojanglesPaladin: It's stupid to argue that Judeo-Christian Ethics and ideas do not pervade the Founding Documents. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were not largely men who believed in God. It's stupid to argue that none of the Founding Fathers were Christian or that Christianity had no part whatsoever in the founding of the Country.

It's stupid to argue that the Founding Documents were based on the teachings of Christianity. It is stupid to argue that the Founding Fathers were mostly devout Christians. It's stupid to argue that Christinaity and the scriptures were the most important aspect of the founding of the country.

Both 'sides' are wrong when they try to make it balck and white. It's orange. But it's pointless to have this debate all over again.

Here's my question:
David Barton is not a historian. He has a bachelor's degree in Christian education from Oral Roberts University.

He's clearly unqualified AS A HISTORIAN, and he's an evangelist. While he's entitled to his opinions and entitled to espouse whatever he likes, and write whatever he likes, why would it be treated any differently than the Latest Dan Brown garbage?

the really bad part about barton and his schtick, is not only is he NOT a historian but a theologian in historian's clothing. a historian looks at primary sources and evidence and formulates a conclusion based on those facts. a theologian already has the conclusions and cherry picks the evidence to support his hypothesis. barton is a SUPERDOUCHE because he buys as many original documents as he can, locks them away in his private collection and then butchers what they say to fit his message and suppresses the rest. introduce people like glenn beck and the EchoChamber tm and you now you have the perfect murder.

the truth never stood a chance


Even describing him as a theologian is seriously pushing things--he's a graduate of ORU, which is (for all intents and purposes) an ordination mill for neopentecostal "Prosperity Gospel" promoters. It even manages to make steeplejacked Southern Baptist seminaries look legitimate in comparison, and that's something.

Hell, the only reason ORU still exists as a body is because the founder of Hobby Lobby--who never found a NARasitic "Prosperity Gospel"-pimping dominionist cause he DIDN'T like and who is ALSO a major corporate sponsor of David Barton's group Wallbuilders--bailed them out after a major embezzlement scandal that nearly bankrupted the university and involved most of the board...who are a veritable who's who of holy-roller "Prosperity Gospel" hucksterdom in the post-Jim Bakker/Jimmy Swaggart era.

(Seriously, read the article--it's one of many reasons why I will NEVER give a thin dime to Hobby Lobby's business (yes, they're actually higher on the boycott list than Chick-Fil-A is) and why ORU alumni status is pretty much a red flag pointing to "FREAKING NARasite".)
 
2012-08-11 11:49:33 PM  

Weaver95: Article 11. 'nuff said.

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, &x2015; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims], ― and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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.

book it/done.


No, not 'nuff said.

Cross-reference that with Article VI ¶2 of the U.S. Constitution. Then it's 'nuff said.

Article VI ¶2 aka the Supremacy Clause states that all ratified Treaties are absolutely equal to the Constitution itself, making them jointly the Supreme Law of the Land!

So, that's the Supreme Law of the Land saying that! Nothing trumps the Supreme Law of the Land! Nothing!!

Game, set, match, Barton!
Game over, man. Game over.
 
2012-08-12 12:09:49 AM  

Infernalist: Kurmudgeon: Seeing that The Treaty of Tripoli was written between the United States and a country that no longer exists, Ottoman Tripolitania, the Treaty of Tripoli has been null and void since 1911 if not sooner.

Also, treaties do not rule The Constitution null and avoid either.
The Treaty of Tripoli is just a vague historic artifact with no meaning or power in today's US government.

Some more info if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Tripolitania

Yes, yes, so because the USSR no longer exists, then the treaties regarding nuclear arms reductions are no longer valid?

That's adorable.

Okay, so. No one's saying that this treaty 'binds' the US into being a secular nation. What we 'are' saying is that this Treaty demonstrates the mindset of the Founding Fathers. That it shows in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that the US was not founded to be a Christian nation. That the Founding Fathers had NO problems with people who weren't Christian and that they were secular in their thinking and their design of the government.

It effectively and completely destroys the drool-cup idea that America was designed to be a Christian nation and that the Founding Fathers meant it that way.


SacriliciousBeerSwiller: It's no less relevant than half the crap this guy is spewing. If we're just going to go by the Constitution by its own explicit meaning, then he has already lost his argument.


Gwyrddu: Nice strawman you got there, the point of the Treaty of Tripoli apparently went over your head. The point is not whether it has the force of law, but rather it clearly demonstrates how the founding fathers (in this case John Adams and congress) thought about this country and religion.

You could also glean the same information from reading the Federalist Papers by the way, in which the reasoning and advocacy for the US constitution is made. In an explanation spanning a couple hundred pages, not once is there a reference to Christianity.


Kurmudgeon: Talking about straw men, the Treaty of Tripoli is only the opinion of those who signed it.
However, I am quite impressed with your super psychic powers.
Oh, and that force of law thing is pretty important, thanks for playing.


Kurmudgeon: One last thing, the Treaty of Tripoli ended the war between the US and Tripoli.
That was it's purpose and only function.


Gwyrddu: You mean the force of law of the first amendment? The one that pretty much says the same thing that the Treaty of Tripoli does about religion, except not singling out Christianity?

The Treaty of Tripoli merely makes clear the intention of the founders what should have still been obvious from the Constitution and other writings of the time, that the US is not and has never intended to be a Christian nation (or any other religious nation for that matter).

I don't have to be a psychic because I am able to read stuff dead people wrote where they clearly explain what their intentions were concerning religion and government when they made the US government in the first place.


impaler: It was signed unanimously by congress, dipshat.


impaler: So? The founders still clearly stated that Christianity wasn't the foundation of of government, in any sense.


Kurmudgeon, et al, see my post to Weaver above.
 
2012-08-12 11:58:19 AM  
Who.

Got.

Told.


Great Porno Dragon and COMAliteJ FTW.

Best thing.....forever.
 
2012-08-12 10:47:02 PM  

Great Porn Dragon: ///how the hell do you do deprogramming of a third of the US, most of whom will NOT voluntarily leave and knowing that involuntary exit counseling does not farking work and is coercive in and of itself? Damned if I know :P


I've been thinking along the lines of using the rantings of a guy I used to converse with online over a decade ago, a loon by the name of Vince Diehl who calls himself "Bands," and actually thinks that he's one of the Two Witnesses of Revelation.

He actually makes a decent Biblical case that the USA, far from being a nation blessed by God and set up to be under Christian rule, is none other than the evil Babylon of Revelation!

Also that the First Beast (mis-called "the Antichrist" though John never actually uses that term in Revelation, despite being the only Bible writer to use it at all [he uses it in two of his three Epistles, and then only in a generic sense, not referring to any specific person ― he never uses, and the Bible never once contains, the phrase "the Antichrist"]) and Second Beast (the False Prophet) are not any individual persons (he makes the case that the term "Beast" never refers to individuals in Bible prophecy), but rather represent entities that can do some of what persons can do, and are seen as persons, but which are not actually human beings.

In other words, the First Beast is corporations (all of them ― the concept of corporations) via Corproate Personhood (Citizens United could be seen as the actual coming of the First Beast!), and the Second Beast, which deceives people into worshiping the First Beast, is modern right-wing Christianity, especially the NARasites, Dominionists, Prosperity Gospel types, and their ilk, who deceive people into thinking that they're Christian while teachign the 180° diametric opposite of everything He actually stood for and taught, and boy howdy do they get people to practically worship corporations these days!

If you're interested, I could Email you more details on this. He even details a method by which God will allegedly indirectly cause the entire North American continent to be destroyed, having "laid a trap" for Babylon that will look to the world to be a horrific natural disaster combined with the effects of our own greed, not a miraculous divine judgment thing. And no, it would not be nuclear in nature (though our underground nukes would exacerbate such a disaster). He says that the destroyed North America will become the Lake of Fire that Satan, his demons, the Beasts, and all who aren't in the Book of Life, will be cast into. It's junk science, but could be quite persuasive to those who don't know real science.


Kittypie070: Who.

Got.

Told.

Great Porno Dragon and COMAliteJ FTW.

Best thing.....forever.


Thanks!
 
Displayed 28 of 178 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report