According to recent polls, one in five Americans believe that President Obama is a foreign born Muslim, despite the fact that he was born in Hawaii and is a practicing Christian. It's certainly a product of rumor mongering and Internet bloggers and of course, the TEA Partiers, who are determined to make this a Christian country despite the separation of church and state that is the very foundation of our nation. Even if Obama were a Muslim, what difference would it make? There is no religious test to hold public office in this country, as per the Supreme Court ruling Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). This case reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring a test to hold public office. People seem to forget that there is a Supreme Court ruling that does not at all require anyone to be a Christian in order to be President, the dog catcher or anything else, for that matter. And yet, if you listen to some folks, you must be a Christian in order to be elected to anything, and these same folks insist that our Founding Fathers were Christians intent on founding a Christian nation. And yet, there is a little known or remembered document that affirms that this country was never meant to be so.
In 1797, after privateers roamed the high seas with impunity for many years, the US signed one in a series of treaties with the Barbary Coast, Morocco (1786), Algiers (1795), Tripoli (1797) and Tunis (1797). The Treaty of Tripoli was signed by President John Adams, and Article XI of this treaty said,
"As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or customs of the Musselmen - and as the said states never have 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." This treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams three days later, June 10, 1797. History has plenty of precedents to prove that the current climate of demand that politicians be practicing Christians and the desire on the part of some people to insist that we are a Christian nation are dead wrong. But then, there also seems to be a backlash against intellectualism and maybe anyone who can quote history and legal precendence is viewed as something of an egghead. Well, if an egghead is what I am, bring it on. I welcome it. If people would crack open a book from time to time or do their research properly, they'd realize that they are making a big mistake in trying to create a religious country when history and jurisprudence proves that we were not founded on any set religion, least of all the Christian faith.
According to recent polls, one in five Americans believe that President Obama is a foreign born Muslim, despite the fact that he was born in Hawaii and is a practicing Christian. It's certainly a product of rumor mongering and Internet bloggers and of course, the TEA Partiers, who are determined to make this a Christian country despite the separation of church and state that is the very foundation of our nation. Even if Obama were a Muslim, what difference would it make? There is no religious test to hold public office in this country, as per the Supreme Court ruling Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). This case reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring a test to hold public office. People seem to forget that there is a Supreme Court ruling that does not at all require anyone to be a Christian in order to be President, the dog catcher or anything else, for that matter. And yet, if you listen to some folks, you must be a Christian in order to be elected to anything, and these same folks insist that our Founding Fathers were Christians intent on founding a Christian nation. And yet, there is a little known or remembered document that affirms that this country was never meant to be so.
In 1797, after privateers roamed the high seas with impunity for many years, the US signed one in a series of treaties with the Barbary Coast, Morocco (1786), Algiers (1795), Tripoli (1797) and Tunis (1797). The Treaty of Tripoli was signed by President John Adams, and Article XI of this treaty said, "As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or customs of the Musselmen - and as the said states never have 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." This treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams three days later, June 10, 1797. History has plenty of precedents to prove that the current climate of demand that politicians be practicing Christians and the desire on the part of some people to insist that we are a Christian nation are dead wrong. But then, there also seems to be a backlash against intellectualism and maybe anyone who can quote history and legal precendence is viewed as something of an egghead. Well, if an egghead is what I am, bring it on. I welcome it. If people would crack open a book from time to time or do their research properly, they'd realize that they are making a big mistake in trying to create a religious country when history and jurisprudence proves that we were not founded on any set religion, least of all the Christian faith.
1 comment:
Good catch on the Treaty of Tripoli. That's a reference that not many commentators bring up in this discussion, and it neatly sums up what SHOULD be the response.
As someone else mentioned recently in a different context, rights are rights. They're not up for vote. It doesn't matter (or shouldn't) whether the majority of Americans think Muslims are automatically fiends and enemies. Freedom of religion is a RIGHT in America.
Of course killing people in the name of religion or anything else is NOT. Your religion makes no difference. If you kill or hurt people, the law should and will swoop down on you.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think every religion save perhaps Buddhism has blood under its fingernails. History records some horrific crusades in the name of Christ, for example. If we don't follow Christians around waiting for them to kill again, why should we do so for Muslims?
Post a Comment