Not sure I could post directly on the forum with a faith concern, but in this case, it is as much a constitutional question. Last night Bill O gave a very interesting opinion or fact, I am not sure which, of the difference between Religion and Christianity in relation to the US Constitution. In brief, we have freedom from Religion like Catholic, Methodist etc. etc., but that the constitution was based on the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ; therefore, the way I understood his intent: THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. Assuming that is a FACT, why do we even entertain issues that pertain to laws and rights that are not within the realm of Christianity? Sharia Law for example.

MY OPINION: As important as it is for Muslim countries to stamp out any Infidel beliefs, we better wake up and stop any non-Christian laws or customs from overriding our constitution. I firmly believe that freedom from or of religion does not mean freedom to change this countries laws and customs to better fit any faith, religion or belief that does not follow a strict compliance with Christian philosophy..

Oh No, we agree on something. No religion should be allowed to make or take away any rights that we have under the US Constitution. The Constitution only states that Government will NOT force upon us any religion and that each of us are allowed to practice any religion we want within reason of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Originally Posted by Figmo Bohica

Oh No, we agree on something. No religion should be allowed to make or take away any rights that we have under the US Constitution. The Constitution only states that Government will NOT force upon us any religion and that each of us are allowed to practice any religion we want within reason of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I am on board with that, but more specific, my question is if we are constitutionally a Christian nation, should we allow other faiths laws like Sharia Law to become embedded into our judicial system. I worry about the violence that comes with some beliefs. I fear an increase in tolerance to Muslims that commit human rights crimes in their communities because it is not criminal in their faith or culture.

If you want to live under Sharia Law move to a Muslim country otherwise you can follow your regilion as long as it does not violate Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of anyone else. A crime is a crime is a crime no matter under what desguish it is committed.

Originally Posted by Figmo Bohica

If you want to live under Sharia Law move to a Muslim country otherwise you can follow your regilion as long as it does not violate Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness of anyone else. A crime is a crime is a crime no matter under what desguish it is committed.

Well said, and I must admit all I know of Muslims is what I see on the news, but I do not like what I see. I may be more sensitive as I have a Wife, two Daughters and two Granddaughters. I don't see a great future for women in the Muslim faith. But again, your response is short and to the point and I know you are correct.

the Crusades,Spanish Inquisition,bringing Christianity to the new world leading to the slaughter of thousands.....no religion is violence free. My opinion....religion is a very personal matter between a person and their God,keep the gov't out of it.

waynet, that is the problem with Sharia Law. It is government sponsored religion, if you don't believe in Sharia Law the government can force you to or kill you. Not my idea of freedom of religion based on the United States Constitution.

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion

"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb. We are NOT a Christian nation though we're a nation made up of mostly Christians.

I'll quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 9, signed by President John Adams:

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

Our Founders were largely Deists. Heck, Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible! In addition, he took it upon himself to work on what might have been the first English translation of the Koran!

Originally Posted by waynet

the Crusades,Spanish Inquisition,bringing Christianity to the new world leading to the slaughter of thousands.....no religion is violence free. My opinion....religion is a very personal matter between a person and their God,keep the gov't out of it.

Originally Posted by djplong

"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb. We are NOT a Christian nation though we're a nation made up of mostly Christians.

I'll quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 9, signed by President John Adams:



Our Founders were largely Deists. Heck, Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible! In addition, he took it upon himself to work on what might have been the first English translation of the Koran!

You are trying to confuse the issue with facts! LOL I totally agree with you, but you said it much better then I could.

d

Originally Posted by djplong

"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb. We are NOT a Christian nation though we're a nation made up of mostly Christians.

I'll quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 9, signed by President John Adams:



Our Founders were largely Deists. Heck, Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible! In addition, he took it upon himself to work on what might have been the first English translation of the Koran!

It seems a bit disingenuous to hold the controversial Treaty of Tripoli as the litmus test for defining Christianity and Government. I believe it was the vigorous debate over Article 11 you are actually referring to. The administrator would not allow me the keystrokes required to give the topic a full scholarly airing. Here goes the greatly abridged version. Keep in mind, context is important.

For centuries, Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa preyed on Mediterranean commerce. The U.S. was forced to pay tribute before the Revolution. Afterward, a series of Barbary Treaties including the Treaty of Tripoli were created. That treaty was originally created in Arabic and it has been convincingly held that Article 11 was not part of the original translation.

The Treaty went from Tripoli, to Algiers, to Portugal and then to the United States. This was around 1797 and transportation options were limited and slow. The disputed document was 7 months in transit being signed by officials along the way. By the time it reached Adams and Congress, they would have been unable to cancel the misinterpreted and incompetently translated terms. This is the core of the ongoing debate over Article 11.

Historians and scholars are largely in agreement that the flawed and mistranslated Article 11 was according to Frank Lambert of Purdue University, "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes. The translation flaw remains an arguable mystery.

The Treaty was remarkably short lived and broken by President Jefferson in 1801 when the Barbary bad guys tried to shake the U.S. down. In an interesting aside, the U.S. had built an impressive fleet to protect our assets in the Med from the pirates. The government authorized Commodore Dale to engage the enemy in protecting assets. In political pandering style, Congress precluded the Commodore from attacking Tripoli who had declared war on the U.S. Sound familiar in today's context? In classic United States Navy style and ingenuity, and in deference to Congress's "no attack" order, Dale gave Tripoli rulers an opportunity to negotiate the terms of their surrender. I'd love to buy the Commodore a drink.

Is it me or is there a fascinating parallel with today's Muslim pirates. Anyway, before you doze off, there will not be a quiz.

Originally Posted by djplong

"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb. We are NOT a Christian nation though we're a nation made up of mostly Christians.

I'll quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 9, signed by President John Adams:



Our Founders were largely Deists. Heck, Jefferson wanted to edit the Bible! In addition, he took it upon himself to work on what might have been the first English translation of the Koran!

The founding documents and their liberal use of Christian language, as used by the Christians who authored them would seem to contradict John Adams statement in the opinion of many.

Establishment is a noun? So?; what's the point of your complaint? You lost me on that one.

WOW, you guys are way to smart for me to follow. I fear Muslims and that is as deep as I can go. I will bow out to the intellectuals on this thread.

Villager II - I've read your posts.......you can hold your own with anyone on the board. Jump in and give us your perspective. Your avatar suggests you are a bike rider. Great physical exercise but we all need cerebral exercise as well.
Have a good day.

The faux attempts at questioning the relationship of the Constitution vis a vis religion/Christianity continues to be half hearted attempts by recalcitrants to foist their beliefs or lack thereof on the majority of Americans.


While I consider myself to be more spiritual than religious. And while I may take issue with a number of religions not in the mainstream it is essential that we defend religious freedoms for all. The facts and history support that mainstream christian religions have contributed more to the benefit of society than not. In fact there appears to be a correlation between the descent of civility and morality to the lessening of christian values.

So I will not waste my energy debating the constitution's intent that erves no more than a dilberate distraction, but focus my energy on retaining a christian America and a belief "In God We Trust."