Lan Barnes wrote:
On Sun, March 25, 2007 8:34 am, Karl Cunningham wrote:
Lan Barnes wrote:
On Sat, March 24, 2007 4:39 pm, Ralph Shumaker wrote:
Todd Walton wrote:
If I were a Founding Father, I'd have added something about separation
of Economy and State, to go along with Church and State. I'd have to
think about it some more, though.
The Founding Fathers said nothing about separation of Church and State
*except* to make it clear that the State must stay out of the Church,
It's true that there are no constitutional prohibitions on churches (or
labor unions or Boy Scout troops or just about any group) from
participating in politics in an organized, legal manner. This is as it
should be.
However, to understand the intent of the founders on any topic, one
needs
to read their other writings in which they discuss their goals in
drafting
the rather spare language of the constitution. Much of this is collected
in the Federalist Papers and the less well known Anti-Federalist Papers
(the commentary of Franklin and other dissenters).
There is also the Treaty of Tripoli. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
and scroll down to the article 11 part.
[This part of the treaty was] approved by President John Adams and
Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate.
Karl
Gawd but I love this list! Thanks -- I learned something.
If you liked Wikipedia's take on the subject you are gonna be rollin' in
it with this link:
"...As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege
[sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the
medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even
if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that
can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to
James Monroe..."
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html
The Library of Congress is indispensable for issues along this line. I
especially liked the part where we got to the point when we could
completely ignore these "Mussulmen" once we were in a position to blow
the city of Tripoli off the face of the map. One interesting point is
that the first clause of article 11 was more a means of distinguishing
between the basis of the establishment of the US as opposed to the
European powers which had a religious component in their formal
establishment of power and policy in their states. It is also ironic
that that first clause of article 11 can be taken as a statement that
even the pirates could establish a state upon religious concepts without
integrating religion into formal policy and the hint never got through
to the Mussulmen. Probably the strangest and funniest thing about this
whole episode (which lasted @30 years back then) is that Reagan did to
Tripoli what Jefferson proposed and later pursued and George the 43rd is
doing exactly what Jefferson was talking about when he said, "the only
solution is a strong navy (military) that can reach the pirates
(fanatics)". In Jefferson's lifetime we beat the snot out of the
Mussulmen and made them go away, 14-15 years into it with the modern day
pirates George the 43rd looks like he has an entirely different ending
to the story...
Oh, The irony!
rbw ;^)
//
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
