Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?

[chaska]

Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?

Speech given to the Humanists of Georgia on June 22, 1997 and at the 1997 Lake Hypatia Independance Day Celebration.
By Ed Buckner, Ph.D.

We freethinkers are, I suspect, sometimes suckers for the big lie that the U.S. really was founded as a Christian nation. We've heard it so often that we tend to doubt our allies who dispute it as maybe just over-zealous, over-eager, well-intentioned-but-wrong atheists out to prove what they want to believe rather than to understand the truth. I know I suspected something like that when I first read "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion..." as a quote from the Treaty with Tripoli. And I know of at least one cynical atheist, Frederic Rice (with his own website full of information: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/).

Mr. Rice has even, in his profound ignorance, called me dishonest and urged me not to use the honorable label "atheist" for talking about the treaty. But careful research into the facts, accompanied by honest presentation of those facts, leads to important support for the thesis that the Constitutional framers intended this nation to have a government strictly neutral regarding religion.

(snip)

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

[wryter2000]

1. OT, my hero, Stephen Jay Gould. How I miss him. n/t

n/t

[chaska]

2. Really? I just happened upon this. Who is Gould?

[Crunchy Frog]

4. Who is Gould???!!! Why I oughta...

:spank:

He's a famous and recently deceased paleontologist who wrote a number of popular books on evolution, and was one of the major voices for sanity in this country on issues of religion and science.

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

[chaska]

5. Geez, so that's why my head hurts....

I thought I was coming down with something. :)

[wryter2000]

10. The finest writer of science for lay people.

IMHO, better than Carl Sagan. This book should be required reading for every college student.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393314250&itm=1

[Bandit]

3. Treaties are "The Supreme Law of the Land"

They are the same as the Constitution but we see how the wingnuts feel about the Constitution so I am sure they regard Treaties the same way..

[endarkenment]

7. Actually they are not the same as the constitution.

They have equal stature with existing law. Where they conflict with existing law new laws have to be passed to resolve the conflicts. However, as the constitution is silent on the issue of ending treaties (it only speaks about the process of ratification) the practice has been that treaties may be set aside by the executive as the executive sees fit (by executive order) or by subsequent legislation that nullifies treaties or sections of treaties.

I used to think you position was correct, but during the whole torture bill horror I learned what the deal is. Google the topic, it is interesting. Jimmy Carter, for example, did away with the Panama Canal treaty with an executive order.

[Igel]

8. From the Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The purpose is to set the federation above the states: the Constitution, the laws passed by Congress/signed by the president, and treaties, all outweigh state prerogatives.

The semicolon has little more value in this sentence than a comma would--really, that first clause is part of a complete sentence. As with capitalization, such things vary over time.

It's silly to think that a simple majority vote in Congress could outweigh the Constitution (a point I've seen argued elsewhere), when to even propose a change to the Constitution requires far more than majority vote of Congress; same for the laws duly passed and signed into law--treaties may abrogate laws, but may just as well be abrogated by laws.

[Odin2005]

6. God, I wish Gould was still alive.

:cry:

[wryter2000]

11. I'm with you

What an eloquent voice we lost. :cry:

[Igel]

9. It's a much controverted article.

One which, oddly enough, seems to have been lacking in the Arabic version actually negotiated.

It's origin in English is a bit of a mystery, as far as I can tell, and it's best cited in full:

"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 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."

Oddly, there was little harmony existing at the time that could be interrupted.

[kiahzero]

12. It does to framer's intent people.

Since that's a poor way of interpreting the Constitution, it probably shouldn't matter, but... :shrug:.