His4Life #fundie

His4Life #fundie fstdt.com

The treat of tripoli is BULLSHIT. I read it in school. It says NOTHING about American not being a Christian nation. Furthermore it is NOT a law, a constitutional amendment, or a bill of rights - it just reperesents the OPINION of one author and the congressmen who signed it at that time. It has NO legal bearing on ANYTHING in America, ok? Don't believe me, go to court and plead your case fromt he Treaty of Tripoli. they will look at you and laugh because the treaty of tripoli is a historical document, NOT a fucking law!

54 comments

old comment by Imroy

"it just reperesents the OPINION of one author and the congressmen who signed it at that time."

Which, if I remember correctly, included at least a few of the founding fathers. So it really flies in the face of the claim that the USA was founded as a Christian nation.

Not to mention the fact that there was no major opposition to the treaty. It was read several times in the house and senate (however it works in the U.S.) and even printed in a major newspaper for everyone to read. If something similar was tried today, fundies would fly into fits of rage like the teabaggers, birthers, and now the climategaters. Despite their own revisionist history, fundies are nothing like the founders of the USA. They were religious, but simple people, not hateful, bigoted nutbags.

old comment by Arctic Knight

US Constitution, Article VI para 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; ....

Treaty of Tripoli, Articlw XI:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ....

The Treaty of Tripoli was ratified unanimously by the senate and signed by our second president, John Adams, on 10 June 1797. That was only three months shy of ten years since the Constitution was adopted. Those were our founding fathers that ratified and signed the ToT.

old comment by Thinking Allowed

The treat of tripoli is BULLSHIT. I read it in school. It says NOTHING about American not being a Christian nation.

You must have missed school that day.

Furthermore it is NOT a law, a constitutional amendment, or a bill of rights - it just reperesents the OPINION of one author and the congressmen who signed it at that time.

You must have missed the day in school where the Bill of Rights (as commonly known) are also the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

It has NO legal bearing on ANYTHING in America, ok? Don't believe me, go to court and plead your case fromt he Treaty of Tripoli.

I took it you tried this already.

they will look at you and laugh because the treaty of tripoli is a historical document, NOT a fucking law!You must have missed school that day

But not as many days as you. At least I know that the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments, whereas you seem to think it's separate. Also, I did go to school and didn't miss what Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli says.

Art. 11. 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 tranquility, 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.

old comment by The L

Please, you mouthbreathers have probably only heard of the Treaty of Tripoli because we mention it here.

I not only read, but had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution, the entire Bill of Rights, and a sizable chunk of the Declaration of Independence. I know all about checks and balances, and the fact that treaties are legally binding, because my teacher made damned sure everyone in my class learned them.

The one RR in general refuses to learn is the primary purpose of the First Amendment: so that people wouldn't go around killing each other over religion, as happened in Europe. (See also: Inquisition, Witch hunt, Albigensian Crusade, Huguenot Wars, to name a few.) The first generation of Americans after the Revolution were so sick to death of people killing each other over religious differences--sometimes even between slightly differing sects of Christianity--that they made it part of our Constitution that no one religion would ever have control of our government, and that no religion would be persecuted.

By the way, strangers laughing when you say something silly ISN'T persecution. Persecution is more along the lines of the police breaking in and stopping your religious ceremonies, people being tortured and killed solely because of their faith (or lack thereof), and rulers bowing and scraping to religious leaders and the 700 Club as if they were gods rather than men.

old comment by rw23

To the best of my knowledge, the legal principle of international treaties being enshrined within a signatory country's law dates back to the Roman Empire in the third century.

Imagine that Rome agreed with Parthia that each should refrain from violence against the other. If either's army crossed the common border it would be an obvious breach of that treaty. However, if a number of well-armed but apparently non-state-organised young men happened to go on a cross-border cattle raid, wouldn't you be angered if it was your territory that was raided? Hence international treaties were given force of local law, so that anyone breaching it could be prosecuted (hopefully to the satisfaction of both states, thus avoiding an escalation potentially to war).

Time and again countries ignore their treaty obligations at the drop of a hat, of course, but that still doesn't mean that international treaties don't have legal bearing (and the US is one of those countries who do enshrine any such treaty passed by their legislature).

His4Life #fundie fstdt.com

54 comments

Confused?