1st Amendment

I agree with your point on religion the right should exist but religion should not affect law.

As I am an Atheist who used to be a Christian. I believe people have the right to believe or not believe what ever they would like.

 

I was raised Catholic and because of my situation I won't be introducing our kids to it. I went to Catholic school and then public high school. All of the amendments int he constitution are yo allow freedoms but it stops when it infringes on others rights. If I'm allowed to execute my 1st amendment right but it causes you to not get that allowance then it isn't fair

 

This seems like a strange thread for this site

 

Not at all!
You will soon discover that ID is one of the most open and diverse forums on the web.
And fun too!!!

 

No1 its a treaty not law. Treatys can be broken. This country was founded on christianity look at founders quotes.

https://www.azquotes.com/quotes/topics/founding-fathers-christian.html

 

https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/

 

.

• full text of the treaty may be found here.
• All agree that there are vagaries involving the Arabic text of the treaty, which was translated into English by the American official, John Barlow. A Skeptical site now offline offered the following:
  
  
  The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and wholly 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 [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic]. 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.

• One Skeptical site counters that "[t]he 'substitute' page was not discovered until 1930; what happened to the treaty before that time is unknown. The Article, if it was originally in the Arabic version, could have been lost at any time between 1797 and 1930. And there is certainly no reason to assume that Article 11 wasn't in the original Arabic version: A Muslim nation would surely have welcomed Article 11 as an assurance of American intentions with respect to religion."
  
  By the canons of textual criticism, this argument would be a non-starter: It is reminiscent of those who claim that early editions of the Gospel of Thomas could have existed and could have been lost anytime between 30 AD and the end of the second century, and true Thomist Christians would have welcomed it.
  
  
• The same site notes that, "When [James Leander] Cathcart, as the American Consul, arrived at Tripoli on April 5, 1799, . . . 'a ratified copy of the Treaty with Tripoli' [in the English language] was one of the enclosures with the instructions to Cathcart . . . very likely the ratification embraced the copy certified by Barlow under date of January 4, 1797, . . . [and] was delivered upon the settlement of April 10, 1799."
• Noted rather quietly is the point that the Treaty of Tripoli "remained on the books for eight years, at which time the treaty was renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped."

With this information as groundwork, we can now boil down to two key issues.

• Did Article 11 belong in the treaty at all?
  The evidence seems to indicate that it did not, crude attempts at textual criticism notwithstanding. However, several Skeptical sites follow the lead of one linked above and say:
  
  The fact which completely destroys [the religious right's] argument is that none of the Senators who read, accepted, approved, and ratified the Treaty could read Arabic. The official and only 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which was read, accepted, approved, and ratified by the Senate of the United States was the one penned by Joel Barlow in the English language. And, whether the so-called "religious right" revisionists like it or not, Article 11 of the official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was in the Treaty in 1797 and is appropriately recorded in the official treaty book: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion

 

to two key issues.

• Did Article 11 belong in the treaty at all?
  The evidence seems to indicate that it did not, crude attempts at textual criticism notwithstanding. However, several Skeptical sites follow the lead of one linked above and say:
  
  The fact which completely destroys [the religious right's] argument is that none of the Senators who read, accepted, approved, and ratified the Treaty could read Arabic. The official and only 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which was read, accepted, approved, and ratified by the Senate of the United States was the one penned by Joel Barlow in the English language. And, whether the so-called "religious right" revisionists like it or not, Article 11 of the official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was in the Treaty in 1797 and is appropriately recorded in the official treaty book: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion

• http://tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.php