Talk:Separation of church and state
From Conservapedia
This article is almost completely opinion. References to the Declaration of Independence should be removed, as it is not a founding document of the US, but a document separating the original colonies from Britain.
The article should be re-written by someone actually knowledgeable in constitutional law. --Todd 12:45 16 March 2007 ETD
The first ammendment seems to confirm the separation of State and Church - KT
The phrase 'liberal interpreation' needs to be removed, as it has no sources and is not fact.
Wrong reference
The letter suppossedly from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Associasion is the other way around here. It is not from Jefferson, but it was used here as a reference as though it was. This article does not need a re-write by someone in Constitutional law, but by someone with the common sense required to write this properly. The complete letter from Jefferson I've added to the article. Karajou 11:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Rollback
The liberal edits removed factual information and thus were rolled back.--Aschlafly 00:20, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
Amercian-Christianity-denying Article 11 of the ratified Treaty of Tripoli was almost certainly spurious.
New to and inept with techniques and protocols of this site I ask others to take up the Subject matter using leads provided below.
Further evidence and information beyond Reference 5 is available from Yale University's Avalon Project covering the Barbary Treaties . See (below) various links to authenticating scholarly work and to the source for the quote below. That quote is from Arabic scholar Snouck Hurgronje's annotated translation of the Arabic (and presumed) copy of the original treaty. The ratified (Christianity denying) version, still is the official one often quoted from and held by the U.S. State Department; it is the Barlow translation from the Arabic, the original treaty language; it unaccountably includes a widely divergent interpolation as Article 11.
I add emphasis and quote from the annotated translation by Hurgronje:
"The eleventh article of the Barlow translation has no equivalent whatever in the Arabic. The Arabic text opposite that article is a letter from Hassan Pasha of Algiers to Yussuf Pasha of Tripoli. The letter gives notice of the treaty of peace concluded with the Americans and recommends its observation. Three fourths of the letter consists of an introduction, drawn up by a stupid secretary who just knew a certain number of bombastic words and expressions occurring in solemn documents, but entirely failed to catch their real meaning. Here the only thing to be done by a translator is to try to give the reader an impression of the nonsensical original:
Praise be to God, who inspires the minds of rulers with causes of well-being and righteousness! The present matter may be in the interest of the land and the servants [of God], in order that things may be put in their place. This whole affair...."
SEE THIS LINK http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/barmenu.htm FOR THE FOLLOWING MENU AT THE AVALON PROJECT FOR TREATIES WITH THE BARBARY POWERS. These menu items are quite comprehensive if not exhaustive on the topic.
Treaty with Tripoli November 4, 1796 and at Algiers January 3, 1797
Text of the Treaty The Receipt The Note The Approval of Humphreys The Annotated Translation of 1930 Translation of the Treaty Translation of the Receipt Translation of the Note Account of the Seals Hunter Miller's Notes The Original Treaty The Cathcart Copy The Italian Translation The United States Ratification and Proclamation Note Regarding the Arabic Text Note Regarding the Barlow Translation
SELECT FROM THE ABOVE MENU "TRANSLATION OF THE TREATY" AND FIND A LINK TO GO HERE FOR THE ANNOTATED TRANSLATION BY HURGRONJE http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796e.htm#e1
Note that material under various of the menu options materially substantiate the treaty version Hurgronje translated.
An interesting discussion of the Treaty of Tripoli is here: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html .
Of course, skeptics rightfully ask how it is possible that the treaty was ratified by the Senate and accepted by the country without objection. The history of the period indicates Barbary Pirates from Barbary States preyed upon, controlled and required tribute for shipping in the Mediterranean Sea. Vital pre- and post-Revolutionary War American Mediterranean shipping had been attacked by the Moslems, sailors had been killed and enslaved, and amounts demanded for tribute were excesssive. Accordingly, in discussing this elsewhere after reading the item above at Tektonics.org I wrote:
The Tektonics piece provides some support for three plausible explanations [for Americans' acquiescence in Article 11]. Here are three [among] plausible reasons or contributing factors, the first being the most compelling:
1. In a word, duress: inability to do otherwise considering past and prospective casualties in vital shipping; 2. It was likely common knowledge that the hegemonic Moslem pirates viewed being Christian or sailing under a "Christian flag" as a casus belli. This ties to the second part of the claim in Article 11 about relations with Mohametans. 3. The U.S. Government was technically Christian only in the sense that Christianity energized the majority of the founders, [it was] the spirit of the founding documents, and [of] the citizens. (Individual states, I believe, still had or several recently had had state churches.)
My apologies for this long commentary. But I believe this is an important item that needs to be threshed out as to its significance.
