Founding Fathers Debate -- Need Help

[CaptainChewbacca]

here:

Posted by markb65:

Posted by General Chang:

Darth Wong wrote:
Can this hatfucker explain why these men who supposedly said these things agreed to put the line "the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" in the Treaty of Tripoli, which was written under Washington, approved by the Senate, and signed into law by John Adams?

That is a far more easily verified reference AND IMPORTANT PUBLIC DOCUMENT than the sources he's citing.

I tried to tell you in my exaustive (and as yet unanswered) post that you were embarrasing yourself with this one but you can't seem to leave it alone...

The Treaty was translated into English sometime in January or February of 1797, probably by an Algerian court official. The US official in charge of the signing in Algiers, Joel Barlow, did not know Arabic, but signed his name to a statement reading, "The foregoing is a literal translation of the writing in Arabic on the following page". As it turns out, Barlow's "translation" removed many cultural and religious references and in some instances changed the meaning to give they Dey of Algiers more authority and enforcement powers than was intended. Funny how that works, huh?

But it gets better. Addressing the specific phrase in question, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776 - 1949 says this:

Most extraordinary (and wholey unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

The most likely explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note onto the Treaty to mollify certain concerns of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a treaty with an infidel (non-Islamic) nation. It is also possible (though not certain) that American foreign service officials, eager to conclude a treaty, then allowed the Barbary officials to continue under that impression.

Furthermore, there's a copy of the treaty in common circulation which bears Washington's signature and contains the "not, in any sense, a Christian nation" language. Despite how often it is cited in debates about Washington's religious beliefs, this treaty is a fraud. It is well established that Washington never signed the Treaty, because it didn't reach the President's desk until after March 1797, when John Adams was President.

So while the complete truth of the Treaty is lost in the mists of time, it certainly cannot be cited as evidence against the Christianity of early America. Barlow's "translation" of the treaty is clearly suspect, and only an idealogue or someone ignorant of the true history of America would present it as an unvarnished fact.


Furthermore, a throwaway line in a treaty with a wholy irrelevant nation, even if it were purposefully there, means very little in the context of the Founding era. None of the founders claimed that America was officialy a Christian nation...only that our system of government depended on the robust practice of Chrisitianity.

They would not have seen the Treaty as denying or contridicting what they had done (like printing bibles and uathorizing the teaching of religion in schools for just two examples).

Even furthermore, they were dealing wiht a nation which soulght to attack or extort anything they considered a Christian nation - and America was woefully unprepared for war. So if they tell the Muslums they aren't really a Christian nation, why should it matter.

As the Supreme Court rulled over a century ago, the entire weight of evidence is to the contrary opinion. One questionable article in one minor treaty is hardly a counterbalance to the MASSIVE volume of evidence on the other side of the scales.

Put that in your Darth Wong and smoke it.

So, that takes care of the cornerstone of your premise. Walls tumbling as we speak.

[Storm Rucker]

They are attempting to "prove" that America is based on the Christian faith.......

No, we aren't , faggot. We have only opposed the assertion that the majority of Founders were not Christians, which they were.

You, like your lackey, lose.

[GC]

They are attempting to "prove" that America is based on the Christian faith, by ignoring the most publicly and clearly worded statements on that issue, such as those in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed and documented into law by the founding fathers.

As evidence, they dig up various quotes stating a contrary opinion, some of questionable source (given Thomas Jefferson's private writings about religion, using him as proof of America's Christian basis is pretty damned funny) and some as recent as 1892. Ooooohhh.

But that, you see, is what demonstrates an actual concept of history...the Supreme Court put there staff to work researching every extant public and privte utterance on the subject made for well over 300 years - and they took YEARS to do it to make sure they got it all - and reached a conclusion.

you, OTOH, read what someother skeptic wrote on a web site.

Who's credibilty should really be doubted here?

[GC]

Okay, the subject of whether the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christian or Deist has come up on another board.

Oh?
It just "came up"?

Why don't you share with your loyal advisors the content of the original post in this thread where it just "came up"?

[Dalton]

Try reading the first amendment sometime.

[Xon]

I didnt think any one could be this stupid.

The number of logical fallacies & fundamentally flawed arguments

[Edi]

Rucker, you and your posse can go fuck yourselves up the ass with an electric cattleprod. You still have not addressed the virulently contemptuous quotes from the personal correspondence of some of the Founding Fathers, so you don't have a leg to stand on. Some of them were Christians, yes, but quite a few of the more important ones were not.

If you want to participate and contribute meaningfully here, you'll be welcome, but if you all want to continue being fucktard asshats and trolling idiots, we can and will oblige and respond in kind. Vermin have rather short life expectancies here.

Edi

[Queen Tamar Garish]

They are attempting to "prove" that America is based on the Christian faith, by ignoring the most publicly and clearly worded statements on that issue, such as those in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed and documented into law by the founding fathers.

As evidence, they dig up various quotes stating a contrary opinion, some of questionable source (given Thomas Jefferson's private writings about religion, using him as proof of America's Christian basis is pretty damned funny) and some as recent as 1892. Ooooohhh.

This was never about proving America was founded as a Christian country..the argument against Raoul was that the founding fathers did not hate religion and in fact most were religious, regardless of their governmental stance.

Do you actually think the founders themselves were anti-religious as Raoul was arguing in TNZ?

As for Tripoli:

The Treaty With Tripoli
This June marks the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the Treaty with Tripoli, declaring the United States not to be founded on Christianity. This article first appeared in "Progressive World," December, 1955.
By Sherman D. Wakefield
There frequently appears in the Freethought press, of whatever name, a quotation from or reference to that part of the United States Treaty with Tripoli of 1796-97 to the effect that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion. Generally the so-called quotations are misquotations and the words are attributed to George Washington as author. Since there is no evidence whatever that George Washington wrote the Treaty or any part of it, the most that can be said is that he approved of it. . . . He objected to atheists using this quotation and called it "a most flagrant misquotation for evil purposes." To which it should be stated that the passage in question is genuine and is not used for "evil purposes" unless truth and Americanism are evil purposes. This does not refer to the original text of the treaty now in the Department of State files, with the Arabic text on the right-hand page and the English translation on the left, but to an outline drafted by Joel Barlow in English which he used in negotiating the treaty before it was drawn up and agreed to by both sides. Barlow did not alone draft the treaty as it stands, but he worked it out with the Moslem leaders and then translated it into English.
What are the facts regarding this important treaty? In the first place it was not written by George Washington or anybody else in the United States, but in Algiers and signed at Tripoli on Nov. 4, 1796, and at Algiers on Jan. 3, 1797, by Hassan Bashaw, dey or bey of Algiers, and Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul to Algiers. The original is in Arabic and the English text was translated by Joel Barlow. Both texts were submitted to the U.S. Senate on May 29, 1797, and the treaty was ratified and proclaimed in Philadelphia on June 10, 1797. George Washington was president when the treaty was signed at Tripoli, but by the time it reached the Senate for ratification John Adams was president, and it was the latter who presented it to the Senate. Joel Barlow (1754-1812), as U.S. Consul to Algiers, was co-author with Moslem officials of this treaty and sole author of Article XI which contains the non-Christian statement. He was a well-known poet and diplomat of the time and later was U.S. Minister to France (1811-12). Like the leaders among the Founding Fathers of the United States he was a Deist and non-Christian and well knew that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

The part of this treaty of special interest to Freethinkers is, of course, Article XI, but it is seldom quoted in full by them. The complete Article explains why the first part is mentioned and why the Musselmen or Moslems would make a treaty with a non-Moslem nation. The entire Article Xl in the original treaty reads as follows:


"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 Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."
Only since about 1930 has it become clear to scholars that the Arabic parallel to the English Article XI is not the original of the supposed quotation but has no relation to it. There is no Article XI in the original Arabic, and in its place is a crude letter of no importance from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. This discrepancy remains a mystery to this day.
Besides the original Treaty with Tripoli of 1796-97 there is a copy still in existence which has some variations from the original. It is called the Cathcart Copy, named after James Leander Cathcart, who became U.S. Consul to Tripoli in 1798. A third document is a translation of the Arabic into Italian, made for Cathcart which is a better rendering of the Arabic than Barlow's English translation. A fourth document is the 4-page ratification and proclamation of the treaty by President John Adams and the U.S. Senate. In 1930 an annotated English translation of the Arabic text was made by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, a scholar of Leiden, Holland, which can be considered the authoritative translation.

Long before the United States came into existence, the Barbary States of northern Africa had gained their revenue from piracy and the European nations had paid them money and gifts for immunity to their vessels. This practice was adopted by the young American republic, and tribute was part of the treaty of 1796-97. Article X of this treaty with Tripoli states that the money and gifts demanded by the bey had been paid. A "receipt" dated Nov. 21, 1796, and included in the treaty acknowledges the following: 40,000 duros (Spanish dollars), 13 watches, 5 seal rings, 140 ells of cloth, and 4 garments, in lieu of annual tribute to Tripoli. A "note" dated Jan. 3, 1797, also itemizes what the United States still needed to pay. The matter was finally settled by the United States paying the equivalent of $18,000 on Apr. 10, 1799.

But the bey of Tripoli still [was] not satisfied. By 1800 he thought he had succeeded in intimidating the Christian nations of Europe and thus thought he could impose new conditions on the United States through U.S. Consul Cathcart at Tripoli. Cathcart refused any more tribute, but on May 4, 1801, the American flag staff was cut down and Cathcart left on May 24. President Jefferson sent out a few frigates to defend American shipping, and in February 1802 was authorized to use all the ships that were necessary including private vessels. The port of Tripoli was blockaded by American ships and bombarded, but not taken. When the bey saw the Americans were too much for him a new treaty with Tripoli was drawn up and signed on June 4, 1805, which called for no further tribute. The treaty of 1796-97 had been annulled by the war. The treaty of 1805 does not have the passage: "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," but its Article XIV is practically the same as the previous treaty's Article XI with that omission. Like the treaty of 1796-97 however, this later treaty also showed the government of the United States to be impartial in matters of religion--that it had no established religion, and that the question of religion and religious opinions was not to be considered in national affairs. It showed that it was not the policy of the government to compel those within its jurisdiction who are not Christians to act as though they were.

There have been some instances when Article XI of the treaty of 1796-97 helped diplomatic agents of the United States in their dealings with their own or Moslem nations. Mordecai M. Noah (1785-1851), who was special agent to Algiers (1813-15) and helped to secure the release of American prisoners held by the pirates, carried a point in his negotiations by pointing out that the United States government was not Christian. Later, however, he was called home by President Monroe because his Jewish religion was held to be an obstacle to the successful outcome of his work. Noah pleaded that Article XI of the 1796-97 treaty showed that Americans do not need to be Christians, but he had to return nevertheless.

A more important instance of the helpfulness of Article XI involved Oscar S. Straus (1850-1926) who was U.S. Minister to Turkey (1887-89 and 1898-1900) and Ambassador to Turkey (1909-10). In the Spring of 1899, at the beginning of the war with Spain, it was discovered that there were Moslems in the Philippines who might start a Holy War against the United States. Mr. Straus gained an audience with the Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Hamid, and requested him as Caliph of the Moslem religion to act against this possibility. The Sultan sent a message to the Sulu Moslems of the Philippines forbidding them to fight the Americans as no interference with their religion would be allowed under American rule. The move was successful, and President McKinley sent a personal letter of thanks to Mr. Straus saying he had saved at least 20,000 American troops in the field.

Mr. Straus in his autobiography, Under Four Administrations (1922, p. 147) told how he accomplished this important diplomatic achievement: "In order to be able to take up the matter very fully with the Sultan, I had anticipated all kinds of questions and armed myself with pertinent information. Among them I thought he might seek some assurance as to our Government's attitude toward Mohammedanism, and to reassure him I had come prepared with a translation into Turkish of Article XI of an early treaty between the United States and Tripoli, negotiated by Joel Barlow in 1796 . . . When the Sultan had read this, his face lighted up. It would give him pleasure, he said, to act in accordance with my suggestions, for two reasons: for the sake of humanity, and to be helpful to the United States." It was fortunate indeed that Mr. Straus had the English version of Article XI translated into Turkish for this occasion rather than submit to the Sultan the supposed Arabic version of this Article already in the treaty!

To Representative Hiestand the discrepancy between the Arabic and English texts of Article XI invalidates the authenticity of this Article and what it says about the United States not being founded on the Christian religion. But it should be remembered that it was the Barlow version which was read by President Adams and the Senate and ratified by them. The American government, if not the Tripolitan, agreed that the government of the United States is not founded on the Christian religion.

John Adams, in his proclamation of the treaty, said he had "seen and considered the said Treaty" and "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, had agreed to accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." And even though the Barlow translation leaves much to be desired, the fact remains that it has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since it appeared in the Session Laws of the Fifth Congress (1797) and in The Laws of the United States, edited by R. Folwell (1799). Article VI of the United States Constitution made this treaty doubly binding by saying: "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." Thus Article XI was made valid for the United States, and it should now be treasured as a basic document for the American doctrine of the separation of Church and State.

[Darth Wong]

The Treaty was translated into English sometime in January or February of 1797, probably by an Algerian court official. The US official in charge of the signing in Algiers, Joel Barlow, did not know Arabic, but signed his name to a statement reading, "The foregoing is a literal translation of the writing in Arabic on the following page". As it turns out, Barlow's "translation" removed many cultural and religious references and in some instances changed the meaning to give they Dey of Algiers more authority and enforcement powers than was intended. Funny how that works, huh?

John Adams signed the treaty after reading the translated version, dumb-ass. Any discrepancy between that and the original Arabic version is completely irrelevant.

But it gets better. Addressing the specific phrase in question, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776 - 1949 says this:

Most extraordinary (and wholey unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

Playing games with the facts. The Arabic version does not contain an Article 11; this is true. However, John Adams read the English translated version, which DID contain the Article 11, and THAT IS WHAT HE SIGNED INTO AMERICAN LAW.

Furthermore, there's a copy of the treaty in common circulation which bears Washington's signature and contains the "not, in any sense, a Christian nation" language. Despite how often it is cited in debates about Washington's religious beliefs, this treaty is a fraud. It is well established that Washington never signed the Treaty, because it didn't reach the President's desk until after March 1797, when John Adams was President.

What part of "signed into law by John Adams" did you not understand, or is your debating currency paid out exclusively from your cache irrelevancies?

So while the complete truth of the Treaty is lost in the mists of time, it certainly cannot be cited as evidence against the Christianity of early America. Barlow's "translation" of the treaty is clearly suspect, and only an idealogue or someone ignorant of the true history of America would present it as an unvarnished fact.

And the fact that John Adams signed the treaty into law based on Barlow's "suspect" translation doesn't bother you in the slightest? Or perhaps you were hoping to smokescreen that fact away with your red herring about the discrepancy between the version he signed and the original Arabic, hmm?

Furthermore, a throwaway line in a treaty with a wholy irrelevant nation, even if it were purposefully there, means very little in the context of the Founding era. None of the founders claimed that America was officialy a Christian nation...only that our system of government depended on the robust practice of Chrisitianity.

Since Christianity does not encourage the tolerance of opposing religious beliefs, and Jesus himself barked that it would be better for a man to have weights tied to him and be dropped to the bottom of the ocean than to teach children some faith other than his own, that seems a rather amusing argument coming from someone in a nation where religious freedom is enshrined in its Constitution.

Besides, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison all clearly stated the importance of SEPARATING church and state. And I hope don't even have to bother describing Thomas Paine's attitudes toward religion ...

They would not have seen the Treaty as denying or contridicting what they had done (like printing bibles and uathorizing the teaching of religion in schools for just two examples).

They also authorized the teaching of music in schools. Does this mean that America is based on music?

Even furthermore, they were dealing wiht a nation which soulght to attack or extort anything they considered a Christian nation - and America was woefully unprepared for war. So if they tell the Muslums they aren't really a Christian nation, why should it matter.

So if a politician tells a Christian public that America is based on Christian principles, there's no possible coercive motive. But if a politician tells a Muslim nation that America is NOT based on Christian principles, it's completely invalidated by the possible coercive motive? Don't contradict yourself so quickly; you can seriously injure yourself that way.

I would agree that private writings are more informative than public statements, but of course, you have an inconsistent standard on the use of those, don't you?

As the Supreme Court rulled over a century ago, the entire weight of evidence is to the contrary opinion.

"Appeal to authority" fallacy. Do you know what that is?

One questionable article in one minor treaty is hardly a counterbalance to the MASSIVE volume of evidence on the other side of the scales.

One article READ AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY JOHN ADAMS, in a treaty of far more public stature than these misleading quotes you carry around in your little bag of tricks.

So, that takes care of the cornerstone of your premise. Walls tumbling as we speak.

Speak for yourself; you have only demonstrated the lengths to which you will distort facts.

[Darth Wong]

They are attempting to "prove" that America is based on the Christian faith.......

No, we aren't , faggot. We have only opposed the assertion that the majority of Founders were not Christians, which they were.

You seem to like calling everyone "faggot", little coward-boy. Tell me, do you have some particular psychological issues with gay people? Were you molested as a child? It's OK, you can tell us.

By the way, your little friends are contradicting you by quoting the Supreme Court in an attempt to prove that the US is based on the Christian religion. Please try to work out your story with them so that you can present a unified front next time. It will help you avoid looking stupid in future.

You, like your lackey, lose.

Of course, and the Americans are dying at the walls of Baghdad.

[GC]

They are attempting to "prove" that America is based on the Christian faith, by ignoring the most publicly and clearly worded statements on that issue, such as those in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed and documented into law by the founding fathers.

As evidence, they dig up various quotes stating a contrary opinion, some of questionable source (given Thomas Jefferson's private writings about religion, using him as proof of America's Christian basis is pretty damned funny) and some as recent as 1892. Ooooohhh.

Hmmmmmmmmmm....
Let's check this out...

The most popular thread here (that you all begged to have stuck at the top) is:
a list of various quote.

THIS, you find very informative and can't wait to use on unsuspecting opponents.

SO, your list of various quotes is refuted by a list of various quotes, and all of a suden "various quotes" isn't athoritative?

You guys are a riot!

While it's no shame to be a member of Storm's posse (can't wait until you accuse him of being a Christian) he extended no invitation to join him here. Once the Queen pointed out this cesspool of self-congratulation, none of us could have resisted the fun.
Storm just happened to be the first to get registered and fire off a shot.

Your little enclave of narcassism will never be the same.

[Xon]

CaptainChewbacca,

The American Senate, ratified the english version as law.

It doesnt matter what the fuck the arbic version said, they ratified the English translation as law.

[Darth Wong]

But that, you see, is what demonstrates an actual concept of history...the Supreme Court put there staff to work researching every extant public and privte utterance on the subject made for well over 300 years - and they took YEARS to do it to make sure they got it all - and reached a conclusion.

you, OTOH, read what someother skeptic wrote on a web site.

Who's credibilty should really be doubted here?

I took a source quote from the horse's mouth. You appealed to someone's authority. Do you understand the distinction here? Or is the proper use of logic that far beyond your mental capacity?

[GC]

Notice how none of these pussies and their "duelling quotes" bullshit even bother attempting to explain the Treaty of Tripoli. They know perfectly well how many quotes there are going the other way, and here's a secret: if someone professes Christian faith in the presence of bigots and quietly professes contempt for Christianity elsewhere, it means he's not really a Christian. Word to the wise.

You will note my quotes are from both public and privte sources, ofen from letters exchanged between two of these fellows. No reason for a facade in those situations.

That word "bigot" though, I can see how you would be so familiar with it. It obviously applies to you.

[Dalton]

Your little enclave of narcassism will never be the same.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!

Guys, look! The little Trekkie scum thinks his ragtag band of dipshits is actually gonna "change" us!!

I can't stop laughing. Oh shit, fucking shit man. We've weathered worse than you and your little group. We've dealt with hardline neo-Nazis without breaking a sweat; you guys actually think you're gonna be anything more than a blip on our radar?

LOL

You have far too high of an opinion of yourself.

[Darth Wong]

SO, your list of various quotes is refuted by a list of various quotes, and all of a suden "various quotes" isn't athoritative?

You guys are a riot!

Poor baby. You don't realize that while an atheist or deist might pretend to be Christian to curry favour in a nation composed predominantly of Christians, there is no reason why a sincere Christian would privately badmouth the Bible in that same situation. Hence, the logical conclusion of the duelling quotes is that they were only faking it to please the populace. Not my fault you can't put two and two together.

While it's no shame to be a member of Storm's posse (can't wait until you accuse him of being a Christian) he extended no invitation to join him here. Once the Queen pointed out this cesspool of self-congratulation, none of us could have resisted the fun.

Wow, the level of psychological projection inherent in your "cesspool of self-congratulation" statement is breathtaking. After all, you're the ones who came here quoting yourselves and declaring victory, aren't you?

Storm just happened to be the first to get registered and fire off a shot.

Your little enclave of narcassism will never be the same.

Wow, we're ... SOOOOO scared

Are you about done declaring your own superiority yet?

[Darth Wong]

Notice how none of these pussies and their "duelling quotes" bullshit even bother attempting to explain the Treaty of Tripoli. They know perfectly well how many quotes there are going the other way, and here's a secret: if someone professes Christian faith in the presence of bigots and quietly professes contempt for Christianity elsewhere, it means he's not really a Christian. Word to the wise.

You will note my quotes are from both public and privte sources, ofen from letters exchanged between two of these fellows. No reason for a facade in those situations.

You still don't understand that no Christian would EVER say that the Bible is full of shit, while there are many reasons that an atheist or deist in that era would pretend to be a Christian. Therefore, you cannot "disprove" anti-Christian quotes with pro-Christian ones. All you can do is establish a double-life.

That word "bigot" though, I can see how you would be so familiar with it. It obviously applies to you.

Care to back that up?

[Dalton]

Care to back that up?

Oh Mike, you know they can't. They're just playing "I know you are but what am I" since their bag of tricks is shallower than a spoon.

[Edi]

QTG, thanks for an informative (if lengthy post). Seems you at least can participate and contribute.

Can't say your fellows are giving a good track record of themselves so far, though...

Edi

[GC]

But that, you see, is what demonstrates an actual concept of history...the Supreme Court put there staff to work researching every extant public and privte utterance on the subject made for well over 300 years - and they took YEARS to do it to make sure they got it all - and reached a conclusion.

you, OTOH, read what someother skeptic wrote on a web site.

Who's credibilty should really be doubted here?

I took a source quote from the horse's mouth. You appealed to someone's authority. Do you understand the distinction here? Or is the proper use of logic that far beyond your mental capacity?

How foolish.

You do not have a copy of the treaty in your hand do you?

If not you are quoting second hand information, as am I.

My appeal to a well researched SC opinion is no different than your appeal to an interlretation of a translation of a document a century older than that which I appealed to.

furthermore, the "appeal to athority" argument doesn't even apply here anyway since every quote plagerized to start that thread by VR/Duke was an appeal to someone's reporting of the quotes as accurate (a couple of which are not, BTW)...so he and I and you are appealing to the athority of whomever provided the appropriate quote.

Appeal to athority applies to debatees of LOGIC.
This is not a debate of logic, it's a discussion of historically verifiable facts.

[Darth Wong]

QTG, thanks for an informative (if lengthy post). Seems you at least can participate and contribute.

Or he/she can at least copy-and-paste

Can't say your fellows are giving a good track record of themselves so far, though...

Edi

He/she says there's no shame in being part of Storm Rucker's posse (the one whose debate style so far seems to consist exclusively of calling people "faggot" and declaring himself the winner). Apparently, he/she has a distorted view of his/her little friends and their debating ability. He/she is certainly rather confident of victory for someone whose arguments so far have consisted mostly of appeals to authority and the fallacious assumption that you can make a quote go away by quoting a contradictory one from the same source (rather than concluding that they prove the existence of a double-life).

The in-your-face victory posturing from this group really does remind me of the Iraqi information minister.

[Queen Tamar Garish]

QTG, thanks for an informative (if lengthy post). Seems you at least can participate and contribute.

Can't say your fellows are giving a good track record of themselves so far, though...

Edi

I do try.

And TrekBBSers...Please no more trolling of Raoul or blatent namecalling...it serves no real purpose. The topics can be debated on their own without it.

[Darth Wong]

How foolish.

You do not have a copy of the treaty in your hand do you?

If not you are quoting second hand information, as am I.

Except that your own article confirms my interpretation; the Barlow translation contains the text you object to so strenuously, and that is the version John Adams signed. You are attempting to evade the rebuttal without examining it.

My appeal to a well researched SC opinion is no different than your appeal to an interlretation of a translation of a document a century older than that which I appealed to.

Wrong; an appeal to someone's opinion is an assumption of logical infallibility in their methods, hence a fallacious appeal to authority. Completely different from the use of a factual source, particularly since your source agrees with mine on the Tripoli point.

furthermore, the "appeal to athority" argument doesn't even apply here anyway since every quote plagerized to start that thread by VR/Duke was an appeal to someone's reporting of the quotes as accurate (a couple of which are not, BTW)...so he and I and you are appealing to the athority of whomever provided the appropriate quote.

Appeal to athority applies to debatees of LOGIC.

And any CONCLUSION incorporates logic, hence your attempt to appeal to the CONCLUSION of the Supreme Court is a fallacious appeal to authority. You are certainly living down to my low expectations of your logical reasoning skills so far. Did this not occur to you?

This is not a debate of logic, it's a discussion of historically verifiable facts.

There is certainly no logic on your side of it, that's for sure.

[Darth Wong]

And TrekBBSers...Please no more trolling of Raoul or blatent namecalling...it serves no real purpose. The topics can be debated on their own without it.

Wow, you finally said something that made sense. Let's see if your infantile friends can follow your instructions.

[GC]

Notice how none of these pussies and their "duelling quotes" bullshit even bother attempting to explain the Treaty of Tripoli. They know perfectly well how many quotes there are going the other way, and here's a secret: if someone professes Christian faith in the presence of bigots and quietly professes contempt for Christianity elsewhere, it means he's not really a Christian. Word to the wise.

You will note my quotes are from both public and privte sources, ofen from letters exchanged between two of these fellows. No reason for a facade in those situations.

You still don't understand that no Christian would EVER say that the Bible is full of shit, while there are many reasons that an atheist or deist in that era would pretend to be a Christian. Therefore, you cannot "disprove" anti-Christian quotes with pro-Christian ones. All you can do is establish a double-life.

But why oh why would two athiest, communicating in private corispondence maintain this facade you aledge to each other?
Beside, the burdun of proof is on you to prove what you claim - that these men were pretenders.
you might like it to be so but wishes ain't horses

That word "bigot" though, I can see how you would be so familiar with it. It obviously applies to you.

Care to back that up?

Your words on this thread clearly demonstrate an open hostility towards Christians. If I demonstrate the same level of hostility towards Blacks, or Jews, or Gays, you would have little problem in calling me a bigot.

You have this tunnel vision that so many pagans have that it's not really wrong to be bigoted against Christians. they are the acceptable group to dispise.
I've seen it enough to recognize it.
I've seen it on the other thread on this board where a Christian is titled "Fundamentalist Moron" for the amusment of you guys who have no problem mocking those who disagree with you which is EXACTLY the thing you complain about Christians for doing.
And you guys call US "hypocrites"