So many points to choose from.... I think Piggy makes
a good one with the treaty of tripoli.
- the Government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
religion.....
Just enough from the context to make the point. When
I think about the idea of a nation that was founded on
the teachings and life of Jesus I think there's a real
test of faith. I have never made the point that
America was founded on the life and teachings of Jesus
but when you put a little more of the context in your
point, Piggy, it brings to light the historical
context of the treaty.
- .....as it has in itself no character of enmity
against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of
Mussulmen
I see in that treaty (if you can call an agreement
between a nation and terrorist pirates) a similarity
to the pact of umar...
- We shall not display our crosses or our books in
the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only
clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not
raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not
show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in
their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the
Muslims
- We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird
swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on
our- persons.
- We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we
shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
After the American revolution we were no longer
afforded safe passage in the mediterranean by reason
of British treaties so we had to 'negotiate' our own.
It would seem a little kowtowing was in order.
Although the Jefferson administration refused to pay
tribute they were willing to pay ransom. I'm guessing
that the muslim pirates of the mediterranean weren't
concerned what the payments were called.
It didn't take a treaty to get western diplomats and
press to submit to islamic demands in the recent
Danish cartoons incident.
I'm thinking your point that
- America isn't a christian nation
was a response to my point that our legal
system has a foundation in levitical law. I don't
think a nation could survive (at any time in history)
if they based their laws on the teachings and life of
Jesus. That isn't to say that the mercy and justice
found in levitical law isn't throughout the laws of
the various states that were joined together under the
framework of the constitution.
The complaints that some founders had with 'religion'
is based in their understanding of the history of the
papacy in addition to the treatment that unitarians
received throughout Europe at the hands of
trinitarians. I don't disagree with their assessment
of the political religious animal. A pure political
animal like satlin or nero is no different than a
religious one. The problem isn't 'religion'; it's the
politician. Religion is a pretext but the papacy
can't pretend to hide behind the 'religion' of Jesus
nor can the trinitarians.
Jesus had some interesting views of the religious
political animal of his day.
- Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers,
how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
- Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being
evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of
the heart the mouth speaketh.
It might not have been too christian of Jesus to say
those things but I guess he was a little hot under the
prayer shawl.
Gene
