Passenger killed by air marshall

[Ed]

While I'm sure Claus will spin this, it is worth providing this for the rational among us:Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"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 Mehomitan 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."



The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "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, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

Conviently ignored by the theocrats among us.

 

[CFLarsen]

I thought that you said it wasn't Jefferson's work exclusively?

I did. I linked to what his thoughts on it.

 

[CFLarsen]

but had a nod to a Creator because...get this...THAT IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE BELIEVED AT THE TIME!!! It's a fact. The Danes believed it, at that time, just as much as the Colonists and the British, et cetera, ad nauseum. "We find it self evident" Yes! They found it evident WITHOUT THE NEED TO ASCRIBE TO A HIGER POWER, that all Men were created equal. In other words, George was ruling and taxing them on a basis that had no moral or ethical stance.

No, no, no. Because the King derived his power from God, they had to show that he didn't have this right. God had endowed them with their rights directly.

That way, they could circumvent the King's god-given right - which was something widely believed and accepted.

Actually, a pretty clever trick.

It was what it was, and is today: A Declaration of intent. That is all. A simple note to George and the rest of Europe to keep their Kings and Queens on their own side of the damned pond. Monroe underlined this a bit later, but the DOI was the first document to say "Back off!"

It's not merely a declaration of intent. It's a declaration of independence. You are quite correct that they tell Georgie-boy to sod off, they're on their own now. That's independence.

Nobody's doubting that it shaped world events. It did. But it is NOT a legal document of the US. It was NOT refered to to make the Constitution.

Where do the right come from, legally, then?

 

[Upchurch]

Where do the right come from, legally, then?

The Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

 

[CFLarsen]

The Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

And these rights are unalienable how?

 

[Upchurch]

And these rights are unalienable how?

They aren't, but that isn't what you asked.

 

[CFLarsen]

They aren't, but that isn't what you asked.

I know.

So, you have rights protected by law only? You don't have rights protected by laws that are also unalienable?

Likewise, you have rights that are unalienable, but not protected by law?

 

[Upchurch]

So, you have rights protected by law only? You don't have rights protected by laws that are also unalienable?

If they were truely inalienable, they wouldn't need protecting by law. But no, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can all be taken from you and are done so under the social contract.

Likewise, you have rights that are unalienable, but not protected by law?

No. The rights described in the DoI are not legally binding and are not 100% protected under the law. Police have legal permission to shoot and kill a citizen under certain conditions. They can legally detain you and prevent you doing anything that you will. They can prevent you from your life's pursuits. It all requires very specific conditions, but strictly speaking, none of these are inalienable. That is why our civil rights are spelled out in a legally binding way in a document meant for that purpose. The DoI was never meant to be that document. Your treating it as such is taking it very much an abuse of context and absurd, apparently, to eveyone but you.

 

[Meadmaker]

Claus,
The point about the DoI is that it has no legal force. That makes it quite different from the Constitution, which has legal force.

There have been lots of famous commentaries made by prominent Americans and Presidents. Some that I've heard mentioned again and again are Lincoln's second inaugural address, Washington's farewell address, Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. These are all significant elements of American history, but they have no legal significance. In that way, they are exactly like the Declaration of Independence. All of those things include statements of principles that are important to American history, but none of them are law.


As for the thread itself, have there been any developments that contradicted the relatively clean story that came out on the first day of the story? I haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if I missed it. On that day, it was said that the unfortunate victim shot by the marshals claimed to have a bomb, and headed for the exit. If that is the case, then I would want the air marshals to do what they did.



T

 

[CFLarsen]

If they were truely inalienable, they wouldn't need protecting by law. But no, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can all be taken from you and are done so under the social contract.

No. The rights described in the DoI are not legally binding and are not 100% protected under the law. Police have legal permission to shoot and kill a citizen under certain conditions. They can legally detain you and prevent you doing anything that you will. They can prevent you from your life's pursuits. It all requires very specific conditions, but strictly speaking, none of these are inalienable. That is why our civil rights are spelled out in a legally binding way in a document meant for that purpose. The DoI was never meant to be that document. Your treating it as such is taking it very much an abuse of context and absurd, apparently, to eveyone but you.

So, American rights are not inalienable. And "Creator" and "Nature's God" does not mean a supernatural being.

Pardon me for asking, but just what parts of the DoI should we take literally? Or even seriously?

[technical question]

unalienable and inalienable are interchangeable?

[/technical question]

 

[Jocko]

So, American rights are not inalienable. And "Creator" and "Nature's God" does not mean a supernatural being.

Pardon me for asking, but just what parts of the DoI should we take literally? Or even seriously?

Well, considering you're the one who's completely blind to the fact that his constitution explicitly lays out a state-mandated religion, your "confusion" over the founding documents of the US really doesn't concern me too much.

It's probably just another one of your blind spots, and therefore nothing to worry about.

 

[CFLarsen]

There have been lots of famous commentaries made by prominent Americans and Presidents. Some that I've heard mentioned again and again are Lincoln's second inaugural address, Washington's farewell address, Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. These are all significant elements of American history, but they have no legal significance. In that way, they are exactly like the Declaration of Independence. All of those things include statements of principles that are important to American history, but none of them are law.

We can always attach significance to different documents, speeches or commentaries. The problem is that the DoI carries such weight in American history. Sure, people could look up Lincoln at his Gettysburg Address, etc. But what about General McArthur's "I shall return" speech? What about General Patton's "Speech to the Third Army"? Heck, what about Clinton and his "I did not have sex with that woman"?

There is no doubt that the DoI is a crucial document in the formation of the United States, above all other political speeches.

 

[Grammatron]

So, American rights are not inalienable. And "Creator" and "Nature's God" does not mean a supernatural being.

Pardon me for asking, but just what parts of the DoI should we take literally? Or even seriously?

For what purpose?

 

[Upchurch]

[technical question]

unalienable and inalienable are interchangeable?

[/technical question]

Apparently. I had looked it up because I wasn't sure. I went with what I'm guessing is the more modern spelling.

So, American rights are not inalienable. And "Creator" and "Nature's God" does not mean a supernatural being.

you are getting there. Slowly, but you are getting there.

Pardon me for asking, but just what parts of the DoI should we take literally? Or even seriously?

We've gone through this before, so please pay attention this time: Anything that has to do with language must be interpreted through the filter of context and intent. The Declaration of Independence was not writen to define rights or proclaim the religiousness of the then British Colonies in the Americas.

It was meant, and I know this must be a stretch for you, to declare their independence from the British Empire and provide a list of reasons why they were doing such. Divorced from this context, you should take none of it either literally or seriously. Through this context, you should take all of it both literally and seriously.

 

[Upchurch]

There is no doubt that the DoI is a crucial document in the formation of the United States, above all other political speeches.

Important, not crucial. If the DoI had been worded differently, if they had left out the words "God" and "Creator", it would not effect how the government works or our rights in it. If, however, the wording in the constitution and its amendments were different, it would have an effect on the government and our rights.

 

[corplinx]

It was meant, and I know this must be a stretch for you, to declare their independence from the British Empire and provide a list of reasons why they were doing such.

It was a bitchslap to a king. Nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps Claus can understand my explanation.

 

[Upchurch]

It was a bitchslap to a king. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'd call it a really rude hand gesture with accompanying pantomime, but yeah.

 

[Luke T.]

Jefferson was pretty proud of the DOI. Of all the things he could have had on his epitaph, he chose:

HERE WAS BURIED
THOMAS JEFFERSON
AUTHOR OF THE
DECLARATION
OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE
STATUTE OF VIRGINIA
FOR
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BORN APRIL 2. 1743. O.S.
DIED JULY 4. 1826

The best description I've ever heard of the DOI was that it was a "lawyer's brief." And it reads like one.

 

[CFLarsen]

For what purpose?

What do you mean? It's important to find out what importance the DoI has.

 

[CFLarsen]

you are getting there. Slowly, but you are getting there.

Oh, I was merely trying to reiterate the claims of other people.

We've gone through this before, so please pay attention this time: Anything that has to do with language must be interpreted through the filter of context and intent. The Declaration of Independence was not writen to define rights or proclaim the religiousness of the then British Colonies in the Americas.

It was written to define that Americans had rights of their own, and that those rights were endowed by a supernatural being.

It was meant, and I know this must be a stretch for you, to declare their independence from the British Empire and provide a list of reasons why they were doing such. Divorced from this context, you should take none of it either literally or seriously. Through this context, you should take all of it both literally and seriously.

Given the fact that people were not exactly atheists, I think it's safe to say that we should take the "Creator" and "Nature's God" literally.

Important, not crucial. If the DoI had been worded differently, if they had left out the words "God" and "Creator", it would not effect how the government works or our rights in it. If, however, the wording in the constitution and its amendments were different, it would have an effect on the government and our rights.

Do you really think that they would have gotten the public to accept that they could just disregard King George's god-given right to rule them, without claiming that God had given them this right? I don't.