The Treaty of Tripoli
History
| February 12, 2007
| Tim
There are three ways in which a government can be influenced by some religion. The first is when the rules and strictures of that religion are consciously made directly into law. We might, for lack of a better term, call this a theocracy.
The second goes part way: While the legal system itself allows many influences, the law states that only one particular church or sect should be legally sanctioned. This is the European system of state churches.
The third is where the legal system, though it may have influences from that religion (and other sources), at most only reflects the values of the dominant religion, but allows religious pluralism.
The remaining alternative is where there is no influence at all. An example might be the question of the contribution of Shintoism to the government of Texas.
Here and here, I point out that the Founding Fathers were generally Christians, that even those who weren't Christians in the most orthodox sense were still strongly influenced by Christianity, and argue that our government falls into the third category: Christianity is not directly legislated, total religious tolerance is encouraged, but many laws and official practices were shaped by Christian values. (For example, blue laws, laws against abortion, days of fasting and repentence, laws against excessive interest, opposition to becoming a monarchy, opening prayers before legislative sessions, etc.)
Thus we are a "Christian" nation, I argue, in terms of the values and general outlook of the founders, in terms of their general religious affiliation, in terms of our historical demographics and values, and our general heritage -- but not in sense #1 or #2, that some sect of the Christian religion is "established" officially, or serves directly as our legal system.
I would think this is a simple matter of uncontroversial history, but apparently (since it seems to be against someone's religion to admit such obvious things) I would be quite wrong about that.
The prime exhibit, I am told, is the formerly-obscure "Treaty of Tripoli", which, I am apparently to believe (because some atheistic web site has implied as much) is the #1 document to examine if we wish to discover the Founders' values.
The relevant section is the second-to-last paragraph, which states:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] 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.
As a bit of historical background, Muslims were notorious for harassing and making slaves of infidels, and the "Barbary" pirates were a huge threat to US ships, as we didn't have the kind of naval power that England and Spain did. Hence, eventually, this treaty, partially written to assuage Muslim fears that "the infidels" were as religiously-motivated as they were.
In what senses is the Treaty of Tripoli correct? Certainly it's correct when it insists "the government" is not founded on the Christian religion -- especially when compared to Islamic sharia, in which the strictures of the religion actually serve as state law.
But is it accurate to read it, as ardent secularists apparently do, as asserting the US has no Christian influences at all? Let's not get silly here: it's a legal document, not a historical treatise. If we want to find out what values shaped our country, we would consult a document like the Declaration of Independence (which created our nation) or the lives and views of the Founders -- not an obscure treaty with a group of hostile Muslim pirates.
A friend suggests the Declaration "has no legal standing" and thus implies it has less importance than any subsequent treaty. Really? Of course it had legal standing: any of those who signed it could have been hanged for treason in a British court of law. The British knew full well it had legal import -- yet we imagine it didn't?
Saying the Declaration, which caused our nation to exist in the first place, has no legal standing is a bit like saying one's birth is not a "influential personal event" in one's life. True, we won't consult it to understand some detailed legal issue -- just as nobody sits around and thinks about how they were influenced on this or that point by their birth -- but that's because it's influence is too broad, not too insigificant.
And anyway, I don't argue Declaration is a statement of our laws (thus the response is a non-sequitur), I state cite it as a statement of the values and beliefs which formed our country, and particularly those of the Signers. Which it uncontestably was.
Those citing the Treaty of Tripoli as a supposed proof of the lack of Christian influence in the young US also demonstrate rather surprising myopia, as they fail to read to the end of it, which gives the game away entirely -- the first paragraph of "the receipt" of the document starts with: "Praise be to God! (etc.)" No Christian influence? Oh please.
Do they even read this stuff before they put it out?
Finally, there's another lesson here: Treaties are fully of flowery language and fond hopes. Treaties say things they think the recipient wants to hear, put in the most appealing manner possible without being overtly dishonest. Thus, this one asserts: "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."
(And never mind that list of booty below, delivered as protection money!)
This is clearly wishful thinking: The pirates' entire justification was that the people they were harassing were "infidels"! The root of the whole problem was a "pretext arising from religious opinions".
And so it is today, where the pluralistic nature of our government -- which was entirely compatible with the Founders' Christian religious outlook -- is still incompatible with some (not all) Islamic "religious opinions", and there is indeed an "interruption in harmony" between nations having a Christian origin, and those of "the Musselmen".
Including Tripoli, which is today Libya, and has once again sponsored terrorism against the kuffir, justified by the "pretext" of "religious opinion."
So much for using diplomatic language as your guide to history.
Treaties can shed light on this or that conflict, but when it comes to professions of undying love, ultimate respect, infinite friendship, shared values, etc, one should bring one's brain to the table, not just one's anti-religious ardor. "Skeptics" are very good at applying that skepticism selectively, I have learned. At times, they prove utterly credulous.
And so, in my next article, we'll "prove" Europe also has no Christian heritage by citing the proposed EU Constitution. ;-)
I'll agree that America is based on religious and often Christian values.
Likewise, the Declaration of Independence had immense rhetorical import and influence. It's language has been repeated in multiple doctrines and speeches. I'm not trying to minimize that.
Furthermore, the Declaration, as a political document designed to secure independence and unity, is not the "true preamble to the Constitution," nor is it a part of statutory or constitutional law. As North observes:
A third myth is that the Declaration has, or once had, some sort of legal standing in American law. It never had the force of law. It was a very superior piece of wartime propaganda, but it was no more legally binding than one of Thomas Paine's pamphlets.6 source
The Declaration of Independence had legal implications in the eyes of the British only because it was viewed as a treason. The rest of the document had no direct force on British or, for that matter, American law.
A person could not cite the Declaration's statement that all men have "an inalienable right... to liberty" as a valid legal document in the Dread Scott case (to give one example). The court wouldn't recognize its validity. And the founding fathers could have made the Declaration have standing if they had wanted. Treaties, on the other hand, do have legal standing under US law. The treaty of Tripoli is far far less significant historically, of course. The same could (I think) be said of Jefferson's phrase "Separation of Church and State" as shorthand for the Establishment Clause. Jefferson's words don't have standing. Only the Establishment Clause does. (So far as I'm aware)
Its not the weight or validity of the actual document, but, by signing it, the Founders were not at all abashed at dispensing with all reference to religion by actively deny it holds any standing in law (either).
BTW_--Christian principles? Not at all---evolution of society wrote those laws before religion co-opted them. (unlike the slavery and womens 2nd class status in christianity)
Its not the weight or validity of the actual document, but, by signing it, the Founders were not at all abashed at dispensing with all reference to religion...
The treaty wasn't signed by "the founders." It was signed by Congress and Adams, the second president. It didn't at all "dispense with all references to religion":
(a) It references religion itself! To the contrary, the very fact it has to clarify that our government per se is not a religious institution (as the pirate's sharia-based one surely was) was undoubtedly due to the close association between the West and Christianity.
As General William Eaton informed newly-appointed Secretary of State John Marshall in 1800, "It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that 'The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well.' [link]
They would not have wanted to seen as utterly irreligious either, as the pirates, as Muslims, would have had far more contempt for infidels than "people of the book."
(b) The document itself defines what it means by the phrase. Have you read it? It clarifies that not being "founded on" Christianity simply means that "it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen." That is quite true. Our government does not enshrine Christian theology (e.g. "Jesus is the son of God") but it does reflect, and is even built upon, Judeo-Christian values.
(c) Many of the founders continue to refer to religion after this document. For example, Jefferson, who followed Adams as President, sought federal monies for the printing and distribution of bibles. Even worse, both Jefferson and Washington were opposed to this particular document, so it's really odd to cite it as an example of their views.
Moral: You can't discover the views of "the founders" by looking at one particular attempt to bribe pirates, which was signed by only one founder and opposed by others. Shows a rather low threshold for evidence, and willingness to believe anything that sounds like it confirms your view.
The odd thing here is the pathetic contrast in choices between Christians and atheists as to which "founding document" they think best demonstrates their outlook. Christians tend to point to the Declaration, carrying the idea that rights are inalienable — a document which was forged during a brave stance for liberty against a much more powerful foe.
Atheists, sadly, have allowed themselves to by identified with an incredibly minor, sad, and even inaccurate document written at one of our lowest points of cowardice, a point where we paid off slave-makers/terrorists with gold (further enhancing their power) and downplayed our differences so we could be on their good side.
I call the document inaccurate because it states two things about our relationships with Muslims. One is the part above about our government not being founded upon a religion. (With which I agree.) The second, however, is the reason for trying to downplay such differences — therefore "no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony."
This proved to be utterly false: The pirates went back on their agreement with the infidels, demanded yet more tribute, and declared war against us. It was Jefferson, the deist bible-printer, who finally dispatched the Marines to go kick some pirate butt.
Citing this document as proof of American values is about as unfortunate as citing Neville Chamberlain as proof of British character.
We had real, religious-based differences with the Barbary pirates (and their modern replacements), both arising from their religious values and from ours. Their religion tells them that human rights like speech are not inalienable, but are subject to sharia. If we don't agree with that, then we also are making a religious counter-claim, whether one wants to admit it or not. The only question, then, is what is the basis for that counter-claim? ...
BTW_--Christian principles? Not at all---evolution of society wrote those laws before religion co-opted them.
(a) There's something strange and amusing about the way many atheists refer to "evolution". Evolution is supposed to be a blind force. But observe the way they use the word: "evolution chose", "evolution designed", and here evolution even "wrote laws"! Any higher force which could behave that way would be intelligent, and the word for such an idea is "God." So atheists have a God, a God who even "writes... rules" for society! They just call that God by a different name. Looks like a duck and quacks like one, though. Just results in very, very bad theology.
(b) Larry's wrong, however, about his back-story. There are societies all over the world, and their rules increasingly reflect their religion, not vise-versa. Mohammad's rules (which I disagree with, mind you) did NOT all arise from existing Arabic society. The Mosaic law was NOT a reflection of Egyptian theology or society. And Christianity did NOT enshrine Jewish rules and laws as the basis for a new society. Moreover, even today, atheists are re-moulding Western society around their religious outlook, rejecting and overturning any laws which don't fit in with their theological views.
If evolution "wrote" laws, it wrote a lot of them, all in conflict. You should like the Hindu treatment of Outcastes as much as Quaker opposition to slavery. Or even better yet, Islam, which is spreading rapidly at gunpoint, and taking over Europe. After all, evolution favors the strong, and who are we say otherwise? If one religion is stronger, more forceful, and can outbreed the others then it is, in evolutionary terms, the "superior" religion.
Looking forward to hearing about your impending conversion!
"A person could not cite the Declaration's statement that all men have "an inalienable right... to liberty" as a valid legal document in the Dread Scott case (to give one example). The court wouldn't recognize its validity. And the founding fathers could have made the Declaration have standing if they had wanted. Treaties, on the other hand, do have legal standing under US law. The treaty of Tripoli is far far less significant historically, of course. The same could (I think) be said of Jefferson's phrase "Separation of Church and State" as shorthand for the Establishment Clause. Jefferson's words don't have standing. Only the Establishment Clause does. (So far as I'm aware)"
A lot of people take your view, and because the Dread Scott case was not thrown out, a liberal judge made his mark on the country. People DO have "an inalienable right... to liberty", despite what people think. However, it is not without limits. Those limits are incorporated in the amendments of the Constitution, and it is a fact that the Constitution is a document of law in this country. Much of our problems today is because of this liberal view. Howbeit, to a liberal’s way of thinking, they indeed, do have" an inalienable right... to liberty". To their way of thinking they alone have that right, but no one else. What else does “Liberal” mean? They would use their “liberal” rights to destroy the amendments that don’t give them total power, indeed, they want the entire Constitution taken out of their way, but if they succeed, where does that leave the rest of us?
I realize the comment above was directed at Ryan, but I must intervene here, if only because I'm experiencing pain at seeing "Dred Scott" misspelled.
And perhaps also misunderstood:
... because the Dread Scott case was not thrown out, a liberal judge made his mark on the country...
Um, the outcome of Dred Scott was that Scott and his family were ruled to be property.
And yes, the judge wrote the majority opinion (in FAVOR of keeping Scott as a slave) was, in fact, what you'd call a "liberal" in today's terms. He was a classic "judicial activist", who tended to read his feelings into the law. For example, consider his reasoning in this unrelated, less-politically-loaded decision:
In Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge,... Taney argued that, even though the Massachusetts legislature had granted the Charles River Bridge a monopoly, the object of the government was to promote general happiness, which took precedence over the rights of monopolies.
Classic activist reasoning: "My view of the intent behind the law (or law in general) is X, so let's forget about the specific text." And his view that it's the government's job, above all others, to deliver happiness? (To select groups, of course: not the people who purchased the bridge!) Classic.
Although the term "judicial activism" would not be coined until much later, that is exactly what the Dred Scott decision was. The notion that Congress could not prohibit slavery in a territory flew in the face of both text and history.... Taney and the majority gave the Constitution a meaning that was warranted by neither the text nor the history to strike down a statute for the purpose of achieving what they considered to be an important policy objective. That is the essence of judicial activism. [Crime and Consequences]
One novel theory pursued by Taney was that blacks couldn't possibly be citizens — despite strong historical legal evidence (produced by the dissent) that, in fact, black had been full-fledged citizens in Northern colonies. When the historical facts and text of the law don't support your goals, it's time to come up with novel interpretations, eh?
Dave Kopel also notes:
1857 -- Chief Justice Taney's ruling in Dred Scott marks the Supreme Court's first use of the modern liberal judicial activist's favorite tool -- "substantive due process" -- to invalidate a statute. In striking down the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territories, Taney nakedly asserts: "[A]n act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty and property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law."
The dissenters in Dred Scott invoke, and properly apply, the originalist principles that liberal judicial activists regard as abhorrent...
A dirty little secret is that since the founding of the Republic, "judicial activism" tended to favor the oppression of blacks, and what we'd call a "strict constructionist" interpretation of law tended to favor freedom.
It's true that Taney -- and all Democrats at the time -- favored "state's rights" (well, selectively, considering they didn't favor self-determination for new territories — and demanded other states return their runaway slaves!), and one could draw a glib comparison with modern Republicans, many who feel that the pendulum has swung too far towards the Federal government.
But in terms of reasoning, judicial activism always tended towards the rule of the mob, and the rule of the mob has not historically been good for blacks.
When the Federal government was weak, and represented a check on (strong) state power, small-government and individual-freedom types often favored the Federal government. Not that the states are weak, and represent a check on (strong) Federal power, small-government types and those who favor more individual freedom often tend to favor the states instead.
Thomas: "A lot of people take your view..."
What is my view?
Thomas: "People DO have "an inalienable right... to liberty", despite what people think."
Would you understand me if I said that a person's natural rights, whatever they are believed to be, and the rights which are recognized under the laws of a particular government are not identical?
Tim: if only because I'm experiencing pain at seeing "Dred Scott" misspelled.
Argh. My mistake.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« "Capitalism" |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Cloning: Great for Humans! Evil for Animals! »
|
I'll agree that America is based on religious and often Christian values.
Likewise, the Declaration of Independence had immense rhetorical import and influence. It's language has been repeated in multiple doctrines and speeches. I'm not trying to minimize that.
The Declaration of Independence had legal implications in the eyes of the British only because it was viewed as a treason. The rest of the document had no direct force on British or, for that matter, American law.
A person could not cite the Declaration's statement that all men have "an inalienable right... to liberty" as a valid legal document in the Dread Scott case (to give one example). The court wouldn't recognize its validity. And the founding fathers could have made the Declaration have standing if they had wanted. Treaties, on the other hand, do have legal standing under US law. The treaty of Tripoli is far far less significant historically, of course. The same could (I think) be said of Jefferson's phrase "Separation of Church and State" as shorthand for the Establishment Clause. Jefferson's words don't have standing. Only the Establishment Clause does. (So far as I'm aware)
Posted by: Ryan on February 13, 2007 12:16 AM