Well, no. If the question is, “What was the attitude of the U.S. Senate at that time regarding the statement ‘The United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion’?”, then the Arabic text doesn’t really matter. (It’s not clear if the anti-“Christian Nation” text was omitted in the original Arabic treaty or if it got removed later–I believe no one noticed it wasn’t in the Arabic text until the 1930’s.) The passage was in the English text, which is what the U.S. Senate unanimously ratified. Furthermore, the whole treaty was reprinted in newspapers–treaties were a lot shorter back in those days, and newspapers probably a good bit duller–yet the U.S. Senate wasn’t lynched for its wickedness. (Note also that the entire treaty was only a few pages long, so this isn’t something the godless Joel Barlow slipped into Paragraph 8, Section 34, Appendix J, on page 1194 of the treaty, and none of the staffers of the Senate Sub-Committee on North African Affairs happened to notice until it was too late.) It is true that subsequent treaties with assorted Barbary States didn’t contain that language, and it was probably a pretty lousy treaty anyway–we basically agreed to pay the bastards off, and (surprise, surprise) they kept on seizing our ships anyway. Obviously, the treaty is not legally in force today or anything like that. However, it shows that both the Powers That Were and the People in 1797 weren’t too shocked by the idea that the U.S. is not “founded on Christianity”. Since this is only a few years after the adoption of the Constitution, it may therefore shed some light on original intent, and help dispel the notion that the Founding Fathers were all deeply devout Fundamentalist Protestants who meant to establish a theocracy, but just forgot to put it in the Constitution anywhere.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by John Corrado *
**
You keep talking about your “swelled head,” and I’m gonna start blushing… (Read down at the bottom of the page)
NEN says:
It does? The whole platform, huh? Wow. That’s news to me.
No, they do not. Lieberman is campaigning as a private citizen, not as a senator. He can say any damn-fool thing he wants on the campaign trial at it would not violate the First Amendment separation of church and state. He can run on a platform of American For Jewish White Folks Only, And Only If You Were Born In Connecticut, and no one can accuse him of violating the First Amendment becasue he, like you and like me, can say anything he wants on his own time and in his capacity as a private citizen. Indeed, to hold otherwise would violate his right to freedom of speech.
You would have to decide which is the lesser of two evils, which would turn, I imagine, on just how offended you were by the comment in question. As far as the question of whether you have any “third options” . . . theoretically, yes, two – Buchannan or Nader. Practically speaking, no.
Jodi, for fuck’s sake, use some sense. The entire platform is not based on the nation’s focus on faith and God. I did not imply such nonsense.
I stated:
To which you replied:
Firstly, you neglected to respond to the rest of the paragraph which continued thusly, “Any future efforts to enforce the perspectives evident in his platform will also constitute infractions.” You may argue that congressional or judicial intervention may halt such efforts, but it is not as if the Supreme Court never needed to overturn an unconstitutional law.
Secondly, it isn’t important whether he runs as a citizen or as a senator (although he is both). Momentarily conceding the notion of “campaigning as a private citizen,” consider the following. Liberman has asserted his perspective as a part of his platform. His platform is effectively an announcement of planned achievements when elected. Lieberman is either a liar now or will be in violation of the First Amendment in the future. If he is considered a senator, which he is, he is currently in violation of the First Amendment. The violation must come now, later, or he is lying.
I think to a certain degree you are also trusting in the comfortable majority and societal approval your religion enjoys. If theists were a small minority, and your children said a pledge every day to “one nation, without any God” and before public school football games the atheist majority would sometimes offer up “spontaneous” public speeches praising a life lived without belief in God, your money stated “we trust in no Deties”, devoutly impious politicans thought that making children listen to a codified statement every day denying the existence of God would prevent school shootings and canidates for political office constantly harped on how strongly they lacked any belief in God , etc. you might find Lieberman’s comments a bit more unsettling. When apparently a significant group of people believes that atheists cannot maintain morality, as Lieberman does, well… I trust the constitution fairly strongly too, but the constitution can always be interpreted differently or changed if a great many people believe it should. I don’t want to be an alarmist, and politicians have denigrated atheists before without any great infringement of atheist’s rights coming about as a result of their thinking, but it does bother me that a politican can expect to get strong support for such statements.
Gaudere,
Am I missing something?
Why are you bothered by the fact that “a politician can expect to get strong support for statements” supported by a “comfortable majority” of his constituents?
Am I too cynical?
Look - I don’t think that Lieberman intended any of the hullabaloo that has erupted since he made these statements. Consider the following - He might be thinking of Atheists as “neutral on God” while you and others are more “anti-God.”
Could that be the source of misunderstanding here?
NEN, if you don’t want me to point out overgeneralized statements made by you, then I suggest you don’t make them. I’m managing to maintain my patience with you as you make indefensible declarations of what is and is not unconstitutional, so I expect you to maintain a degree of patience with me as I point out that you are extrapolating wildly from one statement to an entire platform.
I didn’t respond to it because it’s such an over-generalization that I wasn’t sure how to begin to respond. Any future efforts? Including what? Meetings with lobbyists? Testifying in church? Talking to people in the context of campaigns, or talking to people in the context of being the vice-president? Whether or not the furtherance of that agenda (or any agenda) by him (or by anyone) is unconstitutional depends entirely on context, especially when discussing separation of powers, since, in that regard, private citizens can engage in an entire raft of actions that government representatives cannot. Nothing he says or does as a private citizen constitutes a violation of separation of church and state. Not “all future efforts;” no future efforts. None. Unless you are looking down the road to when he is elected V.P. and then uses the vast power of that office to pursue some particularly theistic (and theistic to the point of being unconstitutional) agenda. Which, of course, you are free to do, but I am not required to join you in interpreting a few comments of a vice-presidential candidate as a pressing constitutional crisis.
I go beyond that; I argue that I have seen little or no indication that “such efforts” are planned for the future, which is why I’m refusing to get my panties in a twist over this.
Listen, if you want to raise the issue of constitutionality – which you did – then don’t tell me that the capacity in which he acts is “not important.” It’s crucial.
Oh, bushwa. Every politician wants to “put family first” and “help the country grow into a bright future” and “make us a thousand points of light” and blah-bity blah-blah. If you want to consider Lieberman’s comments an indication of some theistic take-over agenda, fine. But I am not inclined to join you.
Huh??? The only way a person could attempt to influence society “back to God,” if so inclined, is by violating the constitution? Baloney, and indefensible baloney at that. I agree that a person running for public office should not make comments about who or what “our great nation” includes or should include, which is why I do not and have not defended his statement. But I refuse to join you in your apocalyptic predictions of what will come from it.
For fuck’s sake, Nen, NO HE IS NOT. He is acting as a PRIVATE CITIZEN, NOT AS A SENATOR. I don’t expect you to agree with me on the issue of the import of his remarks, but your insistence that he is acting unconstitutionally in making them is simply indefensible.
GAUDERE – You may be right that I might feel differently about the issue if I were an atheist. But I’m not. So all I can do is ask myself if I am upset by this in my own position (no), and whether I think I’d be upset by this if I were an atheist (oh, probably a little, but not enough to change my vote).
The fact that a lot of people believe in God does not mean that they have to believe that atheists cannot maintain morality without religion. The “comfortable majority” protects theist’s rights by sheer size and clout; if that same theist majority did not believe atheists were inherently inferior in the morality–or any other–department, neither group would have much to worry about in terms of infringement on their rights.
When a politician says “I believe in God” and the theist majority goes, “Wow! He believes in God–I believe in God! Yay! clapclapclap”, I’m not bothered (although not terrible impressed–whether a person believes or disbelieves in whatever the heck religion or lack thereof as I do has not been an at all effective way for me to determine whether they’re worth spit, and I wish more people would realize that just because someone believes or disbelieves in whatever deity you do/do not, it’s not automatically good reason to praise or support them). It’s like him saying “I hate broccoli” to a The National Organization of Broccoli Haters. When he says “you cannot mantain morality without religion” and the theist majority goes, “Wow! He thinks atheists can’t be truly moral–I think atheists can’t be truly moral! Yay! clapclapclap”, I am bothered. If the majority of people out there think I can’t be truly moral as an atheist, what will they do to ensure I become “truly moral” like themselves?
Huh? I’m anti-God? Don’t forget I’m anti-invisible-faeries, too! 
Seriously, could you explain a bit more?
You said it was a true statement that a population of athiests must necessarily become immoral. You have also said that it is true that indiviual athiests may be and remain moral. Now, if we take as axiomatic that it is possible for a society to remain moral if it is composed of moral indivduals, then we have the following logic:
1) a society of moral individuals can remain moral
2) athiests can be moral individuals
conclusion) a society of athiests can remain moral
You have explicitely denied this conclusion. If you accept the premises, then that position is contradictory. I am curious as to your reasoning. It seems unlikely to be based upon logic. Personally, I suspect religious prejudice, but I have asked you to clarify.
Now – you are certainly welcome to deny axiom 1. If you do so, then it makes no sense to argue for the presence of religion in a society since it will necessarily degrade to immorality no matter what.
Hmmmmm, apparently you think I was asking for a more detailed thesis for no reason other than to waste your time and mine. I cannot imagine why you would leap to that conclusion. My “mildly cute” rebuttal was intended to demonstrate only the most absurd of the possible areas of misinterpretation. I listed several others, which you have declined to address.
I am fine with that. I can happily dismiss as worthless any argument which the author disdains to develop clearly, even when asked politely. One might even say there is no justification for acceppting such ideas.
Hmm, we are in the PIT. Nevertheless, I will try to say this politely first.
Please cite the statements by an athiest in this thread which can be construed as being anti-God.
Gaudere, et al,
Me:
You:
Then, Spiritus Mundi:
OK. First of all, Spiritus Mundi, thank you for being polite.
Nowthen, I knew as soon as I hit the “Submit Reply” button that I wasn’t wording things the way I meant to. Serves me right for Doping 3 minutes before I had to run a Training Session.
Anyhoo, let me try again. What I meant is that maybe Lieberman didn’t think any atheists would be bothered by his remarks because he thought that, as far as you guys are concerned, God is just not an issue, while, in point of fact, you feel that God’s non-existance is is the issue.
Somehow I don’t think that’s any clearer. Ummm…
[VALLEY GIRL]
Lieberman thought that Gaudere was like, totally like, “Well, I don’t care about God one way or the other.” And really, Gaudere is like, "I care about God - I care about my belief that there is no God.
[/VALLEY GIRL]
Any better?
Last try:
[ul]
[li]Lieberman thinks that Gaudere doesn’t care about his position on religion since religion is a non-issue to Gaudere.[/li][li]In fact, Gaudere does care about Lieberman’s position on religion since religion is an important issue to her.[/li][/ul]
:throwing up hands:
Did any of that help?
I am not bothered by Lieberman nattering on about God, although I’m not particuarly impressed by it either. I am bothered when he says someone cannot maintain morality without a belief in God. Whether I just never think about God, or whether I have solemnly and seriously considered all the theistic arguments and come to a firm lack of belief in God…when someone implies I can’t be as moral as a theist because I do not worship a God, I get pissed! When they potentially have considerable power over my life, and make a point to say that the Constitution was not written for the likes of me and that my morality is suspect, I get nervous about whether they will respect my rights to the same degree that they respect the rights of theists–whether or not I care a great deal about my lack of belief in God, or very little at all. Whether I care a great deal or scarcely at all, I am still an atheist, still “unable to maintain morality” in his opinion, still not the sort of person he says the Constitution was written for.
Gaudere,
I did where you’re coming from, friend. I was just trying to posit a possible cause of the misunderstanding.
But on to the important stuff… You didn’t comment on my [VG] tags! And after I went through all the trouble to tease my hair to get it so BIG!!!
Well, you had the hair, but you were actually more-or-less comprehensible, so you don’t quite have it down pat yet. Did you pouf your sideburns too?
Lieberman may have misconceptions about what atheists are like, I agree. However, I do not think believing that atheists simply never think much about God gives one good reason to say that they can’t be truly moral, or to emphasize that the Constitution was written solely for theists. He still seems to be excluding atheists from true morality and a claim to the Constitution, and whether he thinks we simply never think about God or whether he thinks our lack of religion is very important to us, I would still think a reasonable man would be able to tell that those comments would be offensive to those who “neither believe nor observe”. I suspect he 1) never thinks much about the opinions of atheists/agnostics/Buddhists or 2) thinks that pissing off a small minority is acceptable since the religious right will eat his comments up like animal crackers.
I think Gaudere covered why an athiest might object to Lieberman’s specific statements nicely. As to why an athiest might be concerned with religious issues in general, I just posted this to another thread. Being an ecological-minded fellow, I will recycle it here:
Your [faith] is meaningful to me in [five] ways:
- as a rich and compelling literature
- as a philosophical influence on western culture(s)
- as a motivational principal in history/politics
- as a threat to my personal liberty and welfare
- As an important part of the lives of certain people that I love or respect.
I believe that 3 and 4 apply to this particualr debate.
Nice to see that you can bring the English language to new lows in what has been otherwise a fairly civil thread. Yes, my views are srtictly my own, but the degree of pandering to the religious right that Shrub has engaged in would give pause to anyone like myself who is outside of their Theistic envelope. And it is that which has begun to shroud this campaign. As someone who has become increasingly conservative in their viewpoints in recent years, I have difficulty in expressing how sorely the Republicans have lost the thread of Conservatism. The divisive nature of Republican policies goes against the very core of the pluralistic and diverse foundations of this great nation. It is increasingly difficult to distinguish between the agendas of either party, as in Joe’s call to religious arms, but all of this does not bode well for what has always made this country great. We have achieved our status as the Great Experiment in Democracy directly from the fact that we separate Church and State. Shrub’s fundamentalist bedfellows do not take such a benign view of religious diversity, I’m afraid. Any candidate who appeals to this intolerance is a danger to our free society, and that is precisely how I view Bush. I can only see Al and Joe as the far lesser of two evils. My sincere apologies to Eve for this highjack.
Besides, John, do you want to have George Bush institute a national Jesus Day in June, so that everybody across America can march in the name of Jesus? Wait a minute. You probably do.
Oh, fuck off, capacitor. Obviously you haven’t bothered to look into any of the atheist/agnostic/Christian threads of late in GD where it’s pretty damned obvious that I’m an agnostic.
As for Jesus Day- I kindly suggest you read the snopes article about it and Bush’s support. Read carefully for the “Jesus is God” part of Bush’s declaration, and how sinner burn in the fire of hell without accepting his grace.
Oh! No, wait! You won’t find that in there, 'cause it ain’t in there! It’s a request that people take the day to help out the poor and the homeless, and “follow Christ’s example by performing good works in their communities and neighborhoods”! It hypes Christ as the philospoher, not Christ the Son of God. But I guess you wouldn’t know that; it’s enough for you to hear “Jesus Day” and assume that it was a day of forced conversion for Texans. In fact, it’s closer to MLK Day in spirit.
Zenster wrote:
Ah. I swear, and it’s a terrible offense. You spout lies through exageration and hyperbole, and you’re trying to have a civil discussion. I see.
So, may I ask, what legislation has Bush proposed as a candidate or as Governor of Texas which so convinces you that he plans to turn our country into a theocracy? Or is this some insidious “master plan”, where Bush gets elected and then six months later we somehow wake up in a theocracy, the Supreme Court replaced with the Supreme Inquisition, Congress disbanded for the Congregation, and Jews please report to the showers?
Spiritus Mundi
As you seem to like these 123 steps, I’ll give it a shot.
- Any atheist can be moral in any society.
- Any atheist (and religious person too) is more likely to be moral if they are in a moral society.
- Society as a whole is significantly more moral than it would otherwise be due to the influence of religion.
- Ergo, if religious influence was removed or significantly lessened, society as a whole, including but not limited to any atheists in it, will, on average, be less moral than they otherwise would be.
Unless you have any actual point to make, which apparently you don’t, that just about sums it up. Be my guest.
Why, it’s obvious, Spiritus. Indavidual athiests can remain moral only if they’re surrounded by thiests. Otherwise their lack of faith will slowly corrupt them, until they become -shudder- ethical humanists. Bless those wonderful thiests for showing giving us the gift of morality to fill the dark and vile place that was ment to house our souls. Or, I would bless them, if I was enlightend enough to belive in something that could, and had the moral capacity for gratitude, which I obviously don’t.
Actually, I’m an agnostic. Does that mean I can maintatain a sort of vauge, undefined morality?
Man, this is a crappy election. But I belive someone might have pointed that out already.
–
“What’s the worst that could happen? Buchannan wins, and I leave the country.”