We Are Not a Christian Nation

In 1796, a document was approved by President John Adams and unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate. This document stated the following:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion [emphasis mine]; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."

Of course, there are disagreements as to the significance and exact meaning of this passage. Naturally, most of those disagreements come from christians who fear their hegemony may be threatened. However, as with any contentious issue, it is valuable to study both sides of the argument.

Here is a little background regarding the treaty from Wikipedia:

At the time of the Treaty and for 300 years prior, the Mediterranean Sea lanes were largely controlled by the north African Muslim states of the Barbary Coast (Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco, and Tunis) through piracy. Hostages were either ransomed or sold into slavery. Over time, most countries found it expedient to simply pay a yearly tribute to the Barbary Sultans in exchange for safe passage through the Mediterranean. Following the American Revolution, the United States was no longer under the protection of the British tribute treaties, resulting in the crippling of U.S. commerce in the Mediterranean. Having no significant Navy, the U.S. decided to form tribute treaties with the Barbary states, such as this 1796 Treaty of Tripoli.

Perhaps you're saying to yourself: "The treaty clearly states that the U.S. was not founded on Christianity. The treaty was approved by the President and the Senate. What argument could possibly be brought to bear against these facts?" Well my friend, if you take away one thing from this post, make it this: The christian does not care about facts. On to the arguments raised, then.

One site, tektonics.org, seems to assert as its main argument that the section in question (Section 11) was left in because, at the time, the need for a workable treaty was so pressing that lawmakers did not feel that the "minutiae" of the treaty were important enough to delay approval of the document. This would be a reasonable assertion, if we were talking about, say, choosing between "sailors" and "seaman" to describe the hostages. However, article 11 is such an absolutely sweeping statement that it seems unreasonable to believe that this statement could be regarded as "minutiae." Granted, I don't know how politics were on a day-to-day basis in the 18th century, but could you imagine this happening? I'm having a hard time finding sources, but I think that it is reasonable to assume that in 1796, most of the free people in the United States considered themselves christian, most likely upwards of 90% of the population (I exclude slaves because I assume that lawmakers would not concern themselves over a slave's beliefs). For any politician, let alone the president and 32 senators*, to approve a document that categorically stated what article 11 does, it seems that they must have actually agreed with it. What's more, they must have known that their constituents agreed with it as well. Not ONE senator voted against the treaty. There is NO record of public outcry or complaint.

Tektonics also questions "Did Article 11 belong in the treaty at all?" This is beside the point. The fact is that the wording presented above was approved by the U.S. president, ratified by the senate, and apparently, implicitly at least, approved of by the American people.

Wallbuilders.com (quite an appropriate name for a christian group) argues the following:

Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

Maybe it's my fault. Maybe I'm reading the text of Article 11 too literally. Perhaps I have made the error, by assuming that a document that is centuries old can possibly have any meaning in the modern world when taken literally. I'm not crazy, am I? Article 11 does not say "Hey Muslims, don't worry. We're not the bad Christians. We're the goods ones. Love thy neighbor and all that," does it? No, it states, if I remember correctly, "... the Government of the United States of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion..."

Wallbuilders also writes

It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity.

While, according to this site, the book Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America carries the text of the treaty, which, along with the signature of John Adams, contains the following clause:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof [emphasis mine]. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

Those claiming that the United States is a christian nation, founded upon christian principles, are wrong. Unfortunately, this may prove irrelevant. Zealots in this country are pushing so hard for theocratic rule that it is perhaps only a matter of time until they take control. As with all despotic regimes, one of the first things they will do is alter the history books, erasing Article 11 and other documents that threaten their divine right to rule.

* According to Wikipedia, in November 1796 there were 16 states. Two senators each equals 32 senators.

Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tripoli.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115648/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/boston_tripoli.html
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html

"Facts" on Atheism

A friend recently pointed me to this website: http://www.blog.churchwebstop.com/facts-on-atheism/.

Atheism, according to this article, is "easy to deal with," and it goes on to give some pointers to the theist for derailing atheists in chat rooms. I'd like to discuss a couple of the points that the author attempts to make:

If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn’t that simply faith?

Though I'm sure that every atheist has said something like this at one time or another, and that no christian accepts it, one more time: If someone suggests to you that there exists a Flying Spaghetti Monster, is it your job to disprove it, or theirs to prove it? As to rationality, is it really less rational to believe that there is no god? I have never seen god, nor has anyone I know. Not even the Southern Baptist preachers and other zealots that I have had contact with my whole life were brazen enough to claim that they had seen god.

Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to "now" you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can't that be God?

This is, of course, a very widespread argument in favor of Creationism. It has been reduced to shreds by countless people before, but I will once more address it here. This is what is known as ad hoc reasoning. Everything has to have a cause, except for god.

A quote from Atheist Universe (an excellent book, by the way):

If we can suppose that God always existed - and thus requires no causal explanation - then we can suppose instead that the mass-energy compromising our universe always existed and thus requires no causal explanation.

This seems to make more sense, does it not? It also conforms to Occam's Razor (which, while not always accurate, is helpful in determining truth). It is much simpler to assume that the universe which exists today has always existed, rather than that a supernatural creature has always existed and decided one day to create a universe.

If the laws of logic are human constructs then how can they be absolute since humans think differently and often contradictorily. If they are produced from human minds, and human minds are mutually contradictory, then how can the constructs be absolute? Therefore, the laws of logic are not human constructs.

The assertion that the 'laws of logic' are absolute was one made by the author. As a rule, skeptics tend to shy away from declaring anything 'absolute.' Logic is not an independent entity. It is a way of describing observations, and it has been agreed upon (either explicitly or implicitly) by humankind since Aristotle and before. However, it is conceivable that someday something will occur that will render our current 'laws of logic' obsolete. If quantum physicists one day determine that a particle can be both itself and not itself (which doesn't seem too far-fetched, given the little I've read about quantum theory), than our logic is rendered obsolete. Modern logic is necessarily bound to the limitations of our species and our technology.

If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist the same as the tree outside and the sidewalk out front, since they also lack faith. Therefore, your definition is insufficient.

Therefore, your definition is insufficient? Why? Your cat is an atheist; it does not believe in a god. Similarly, newborn humans are also atheists. They do not believe in a god. Even you were once an atheist, before the religious establishment got its hands on you.

A tree is not capable of belief (as far as we are aware), therefore it cannot lack belief in a god.

If you lack belief in God, then why do you go around attacking the idea of God? If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don’t you go around attacking that idea?

I attack the idea of God because extremist Christian groups in this country threaten everything that we stand for. They attempt to push their backward morality on all citizens, and yet cry "Persecution!" the moment someone tells them that they'd like to have sex with whomever they please, and would rather not have a picture of Jesus staring them in the face while they renew their registration at the DMV.

I would most definitely "go around attacking" the idea of pink unicorns if the majority of my family, friends, and countrymen had been stricken by an irrational belief in them. If groups of Pink Unicorners were rallying outside the gates of congress, attempting to force their morality on everyone in the country, I would vehemently attack. However, there are not. There are only christians. I lack belief equally in God, Allah, Vishnu, and Ahura-Mazda. However, as I live in the United States, I focus most of my energy to the christian god, as it is christians who make our country unbearable.

You cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God.

You cannot logically state that there is a god because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is a god. Similarly, you cannot logically state that there are no Pink Unicorns (see above) because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there are no Pink Unicorns.

The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe. When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don’t count.

But writings from a book do?

I don't mean to be condescending (though the article states I have a duty to eventually become so), but how can anyone be so blind? How can they, in one single paragraph, state that they believe that God created the universe (presumably because the Bible said so), and then say "opinions and guesses don't count" for explaining how the universe was created?


That's it for now. Stay tuned, as I found a link to carm.org on the site, and it looks like great material for some discussions.