• About

anactofmind

~ If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. – Arthur Schopenhauer

anactofmind

Monthly Archives: February 2014

Dialogue Continued – Dean Obeidallah and the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

America's Christian Heritage, Barbary Pirates, Treaty of 1797, Tripoli

I continue to be grateful to Dean Obeidallah for his persistence in the matter of America’s Christian heritage.  His latest objection is common and has to do with the 1797 Treaty between the new American federation and the Muslim nations of North Africa which were pirating U.S. merchant ships.

Image

Here is the text which Dean thinks is problematic, from Article XI of said treaty:

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,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.

So a plain reading of this text might be understood to buttress Dean’s case but a closer look would seem otherwise.  To wit,

  1. The text of the article is correct – the “government of the United States of America” – that is the “Federal” government – was not founded on the Christian religion, as per the First Amendment to the Constitution.  But the Federal government is only a container for the participating states which were decidedly Christian and this phrase does not mean that the social or political framework was not founded on Christian principles.
  2. The treaty was negotiated from weakness by the United States.  Without a large navy from which to despatch sufficient power to police the Straits of Gibraltar and western Mediterranean the Americans had little choice but to capitulate – in the short term.
  3. Article XI is absent any of the Arabic copies of the treaty.  So the copies of the treaties that were in the hands of the non-Christian parties to it did not have this section.  (It is fair to point out, as Dean’s side of the debate will, that the article was in the version ratified by the Senate.  True enough but that only serves to amplify the mystery.
  4. Article XI was negotiated out of the treaty after only 8 years.  The Americans decision fight the Muslims resulted in a stronger position vis-à-vis the original.  So the problem for Dean’s position here is that if America was indeed not a Christian nation in 1797 it must have become one by 1805 when this article was removed.  Not likely the country changed its core – and changed it back again – so whimsically.
  5. During this same time period, the Congress of the United States approved the printing of a “recommended Bible” (1781-82); in 1783, John Hancock declared a “religiously observed…Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer” for Massachusetts; and emigres to Maryland had to swear his “belief in the Christian religion” as required by statute. 

 In sum, the 1797 Treaty with the Barbary pirates seemingly contains language problematic to the assertion of America’s Christian underpinning.  But a closer reading of it in context and an understanding of the continuing Christian operations of the country as a whole requires a reading different than that a total dismissal of America’s Christian foundation.   And the continuing public expression of Christian devotion after the enactment of this treaty shows that America was then and remains a Christian nation.

Follow me on Twitter:  @Colossianstwo8

A Dialogue with Dean Obeidallah – U S Laws are based on the Bible!

24 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

ImageI am delighted that Dean Obeidallah has graciously responded to my tweets about his recent article.

Dean is concerned that the rise of Mike Hucakbee and Rick Santorum may lead to what he calls a “Christian Sharia”.  And given Dean’s misunderstandings of the Bible, I can certainly see his point.  After all, if you think Deuteronomy 22:20-21 is representative of true Christianity then his fear may well be justified.  But I think Dean has missed the point and I would like to set the record straight.  In his recent tweet to me he expressed concern that our laws should not be based on the Bible.

First of all, America’s laws are already based on the Bible.  Nine of the thirteen colonies that came together to form the United States had established Christian religions.[i] The Founding Fathers were Christians and were committed to creating a new system based on Christian principles.   And that trend predated the Constitutional Convention by at least 150 years.

In 1636 the General Court of Massachusetts resolved to make a code of laws “agreeable to the word of God.”[ii]

At the time of the Convention, Delaware require the following oath of all people “appointed to any office or trust” including representatives to the Constitutional Convention:

” I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”[iii]

And Pennsylvania, likewise:

I do believe in one God, the Creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration. [iv]

And Massachusetts, likewise:

[All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _____, do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”[v]

And many more colonies had similar provisions but I hope the point has been made with these few.

So when the Founders came together in Philadelphia they were not acting contrary to the history of the colonies they there were there to represent.  In fact, the Christian foundation of the American culture was so established around the world that the famed German historian, Leopold von Ranke declared that John Calvin was the true founder of America! [vi]

Lastly, Dr. Eidsmoe documents how the Bible was the source most frequently cited by the Founders.  And that John Locke’s ideas of liberty and the “consent of the governed” are biblical concepts themselves:

The concept of “consent of the governed” has its roots in John Locke’s social compact, which is in turn rooted in the Calvinist concept of the covenant, by which men, in the presence of God, join themselves together into a body politic. And correctly understood, the concept is biblical.[vii]

In sum, when America’s Constitution – the “Supreme Law of the Land” – was contemplated and enacted it was done by professing Christians whose intent was to create a Christian nation.  The colonies that sent representatives to the Constitution had either established Christian religions supported by the taxpayer or had overwhelmingly Christian populations without an established church.  They only sent people to represent them at Philadelphia that could swear allegiance to a Trinitarian Christianity.

Were America’s laws based on the Bible?  How could they not be?

Thanks again, to Dean Obeidallah for this dialogue.

You can find Dean on Twitter here:  @Deanofcomedy

You can follow me here:  @Colossianstwo8


[i] Holmes, David L.  “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers”; Oxford University Press, 2006.  Kindle Location 191-192.  See also Eidsmoe, cited below, Kindle location 556-558

[ii] Eidsmoe, John.  “Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers”;  Baker Academic, 1995.  Kindle Location 239-240

[iii]  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de02.asp

[iv] http://www.duq.edu/academics/schools/law/pa-constitution/texts-of-the-constitution/1776

[v] Skillman, Thomas T., “The Constitutions of All the United States According to the Latest Amendments” as quoted in Barton, David, “The Myth of Separation”, 5th ed., Wallbuilders Press, 1992.  P. 24

[vi] Eidsmoe, John.  Ibid.  Kindle location 68-70.

[vii] Eidsmoe, ibid.  Kindle location 4090-4092.

A Dialogue with Dean Obeidallah – U S Laws are based on the Bible!

23 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Bassett in Christianity, Founding Fathers, Religious Freedom, U S Constitution

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christianity United States, Dean Obeidallah, Founding Fathers, John Calvin, John Locke, U S Constitution

Image

I am delighted that Dean Obeidallah has graciously responded to my tweets about his recent article.

Dean is concerned that the rise of Mike Hucakbee and Rick Santorum may lead to what he calls a “Christian Sharia”.  And given Dean’s misunderstandings of the Bible, I can certainly see his point.  After all, if you think Deuteronomy 22:20-21 is representative of true Christianity then his fear may well be justrified.  But I think Dean has missed the point and I would like to set the record straight.  In his recent tweet to me he expressed two concerns: that our laws should not be based on the Bible.

First of all, America’s laws are already based on the Bible.  Nine of the thirteen colonies that came together to form the United States had established Christain religions.[i] The Founding Fathers were Christians and were committed to creating a new system based on Christian principles.   And that trend predated the Constitutional Convention by at least 150 years.

In 1636 the General Court of Massachusetts resolved to make a code of laws “agreeable to the word of God.”[ii]

At the time of the Convention, Delaware require the following oath of all people “appointed to any office or trust” including representatives to the Constitutional Convention:

” I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”[iii]

And Pennsylvania, likewise:

I do believe in one God, the Creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration. [iv]

And Massachusetts, likewise:

[All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _____, do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”[v]

And many more colonies had similar provisions but I hope the point has been made with these few.

So when the Founders came together in Philadelphia they were not acting contrary to the history of the colonies they there were there to represent.  In fact, the Christian foundation of the American culture was so established around the world that the famed German historian, Leopold von Ranke declared that John Calvin was the true founder of America! [vi]

Lastly, Dr. Eidsmoe documents how the Bible was the source most frequently cited by the Founders.  And that John Locke’s ideas of liberty and the “consent of the governed” are biblical concepts themselves:

The concept of “consent of the governed” has its roots in John Locke’s social compact, which is in turn rooted in the Calvinist concept of the covenant, by which men, in the presence of God, join themselves together into a body politic. And correctly understood, the concept is biblical.[vii]

In sum, when America’s Constitution – the “Supreme Law of the Land” – was contemplated and enacted it was done by professing Christians whose intent was to create a Christian nation.  The colonies that sent representatives to the Constitution had either established Christian religions supported by the taxpayer or had overwhelmingly Christian populations without an established church.  They only sent people to represent them at Philadelphia that could swear allegiance to a Trinitarian Christianity.

Were America’s laws based on the Bible?  How could they not be?

Thanks again, to Dean Obeidallah for this dialogue.

You can find Dean on Twitter here:  @Deanofcomedy


[i] Holmes, David L.  “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers”; Oxford University Press, 2006.  Kindle Location 191-192.  See also Eidsmoe, cited below, Kindle location 556-558

[ii] Eidsmoe, John.  “Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers”;  Baker Academic, 1995.  Kindle Location 239-240

[iii]  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/de02.asp

[iv] http://www.duq.edu/academics/schools/law/pa-constitution/texts-of-the-constitution/1776

[v] Skillman, Thomas T., “The Constitutions of All the United States According to the Latest Amendments” as quoted in Barton, David, “The Myth of Separation”, 5th ed., Wallbuilders Press, 1992.  P. 24

[vi] Eidsmoe, John.  Ibid.  Kindle location 68-70.

[vii] Eidsmoe, ibid.  Kindle location 4090-4092.

Video

Carlo Curley, RIP

21 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Bassett in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Back, Carlo Curley, Organ

Carlo Curley died. It was almost 30 years ago when I met him and heard him play in person. He was truly a great musician as this performance of the great Bach Prelude and Fugue in a minor attests. Rest well, Carlo!

Christian Sharia? A Call for Dean Obeidallah to Apologize

20 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by Paul Bassett in Christianity, Islam, Jihad, Religious Freedom

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Anti-Christian, Daily Beast, Obeidallah, Sharia

Dean Obeidallah is worried that the Christian influence on American law and politics will be the next sharia. (“The Conservative Crusade for Sharia Law”.)  But he so badly misunderstands American history and the Bible that he should immediately publish a retraction.

The most obvious criticism of his piece is that was written in a Christian country whose legal system and institutions are based on Christianity.  Mr. Obeidallah penned his article in a country whose foundations were laid on Christian principles.  Who can forget the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” made so famous by the American Founders?  Or George Washington’s admonition that “Religion and morality are indispensable supports…(for)political prosperity.”  Was George Washington seeking to implement sharia?  Hardly.  And if these Christian principles have been with us for more than two centuries, how is it that Mr. Obeidallah is so free to publicly criticize them?  Shouldn’t he have his typing fingers cut off, or something?

And Mr. Obeidallah is quick to cite Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists which contains the badly misused phrase, “separation of church and state.”    This author thinks that Jefferson means what Obeidallah thinks he means – and that is that Church and State should be totally separate.  The irony in this is that Jefferson, who at the time was the President of the United States, concludes his letter with a prayer!  No kidding.  A sitting President offered a prayer to the God of the Bible on official U.S. stationery as part of his official capacity as President.  Separation?  Really?  That is perhaps why historians refer to Jefferson’s comment as erecting a “one way wall” to keep the government out of religion while allowing the Christian religion in to the government.

And in what I find to be a truly humorous part of Obeidallah’s article, he turns his inestimable genius to the Bible.  Citing Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Obeidallah thinks that the coming Christian sharia will result in the stoning of women.  But what Obeidallah fails to realize by his cherry-picking is that Deuteronomy Chapter 22 is the foundation for the modern women’s movement.  No kidding  – and he thinks its sharia!  To understand this chapter you must first realize the historical context and that is that women in every other society not under the influence of the Book of Deuteronomy treated women as property.  Yet, in the very chapter Mr. Obeidallah cited the woman in question has a right to a trial, to have evidence presented in her defense (Deut. 22:15-17) and a fair chance at acquittal! (vs. 18)   In fact, her accuser is just as likely to be punished if he fails to prove his case to the tribunal.  And while the wording of the Old Testament prohibitions is sometimes harsh – you will look in vain for cases where these sentences were carried out.  The severity of the potential punishment worked to remind the people that God is not only loving but also just.  Obeidallah is entirely anachronistic in his analysis.

But a more general and more weighty  critique of this article is that Obeidallah’s Christianity is backwards.  What that means is that he intends to judge Christians by the Old Testament Law (Deuteronomy is know as the book of the Law) but Christ Himself claimed to be the fulfillment of that law.  And the entire New Testament is instruction to Christians to flee from the law.

Lastly, the fact that ultimately shows the foolishness of Obeidallah’s article is that Christ Himself was presented with an opportunity to enforce Deuteronomy 22:20-22 in the famous story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11).  If that story shows anything it is that Christ calls his people to a new way – a way so radical as to forgive sinners and love one’s enemies.

That is true Christian sharia.

In sum, Mr. Obeidallah’s piece reflects a total ignorance of historical context and therefore presents a sleight against Christianity.  He should apologize – but I suspect that concept is as foreign to Mr. Obeidallah as is true Christianity.

Goodreads

Recent Posts

  • Why the Roman Catholic Church MUST canonize Donald Trump June 16, 2018
  • What Everyone Needs to Know about the Paris Climate Accords June 14, 2017
  • Greg Bahnsen – an homage December 11, 2015
  • Pittsburgh, PA Mayor Peduto: Bring us Syrian Muslims! November 11, 2015
  • MN Governor Dayton: Don’t like immigrants, get out of Minnesota! October 23, 2015

Archives

  • June 2018
  • June 2017
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012

Categories

  • Abortion
  • Acts 17
  • America's Christian Heritage
  • Andrew McCarthy
  • Apologetics
  • Armnianism
  • Authority
  • Bryan Cross
  • C2C IP
  • Caste system
  • Catholicism
  • Charles Chaput
  • Christianity
  • Climate Change
  • Darryl Hart
  • David Wood
  • Edgardo Mortara
  • Eucharist
  • Founding Fathers
  • Freedom
  • Garry Wills
  • George Weigel
  • Greg Bahnsen
  • Hermeneutics
  • Islam
  • Jihad
  • Kidnapping
  • Matthew 16
  • Movie Reviews
  • Papacy
  • Paris Climate Accords
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Quran
  • Raymond Brown
  • Reformation
  • Religious Freedom
  • Roger Olson
  • Roman Catholicism
  • SCOTUS
  • Trent
  • U S Constitution
  • Uncategorized
  • Unity
  • William Donohue

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blogs I Follow

  • Blogs – The Gospel Coalition
  • The Heidelblog
  • The Jagged Word
  • "In verbo veritatis" (2 Cor 6:7)
  • Old Life
  • John Bugay
  • Glass House
  • Highlands Ministries Online Podcast
  • Roger E. Olson
  • Return to Rome
  • Mark D. Roberts
  • Called to Communion
  • Larry Hurtado's Blog
  • Societas Christiana (2.0)
  • John Calvin Quotes
  • The Lonely Pilgrim
  • Reformation500
  • Viewpoint
  • Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics
  • anactofmind

Blog at WordPress.com.

Blogs – The Gospel Coalition

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

The Heidelblog

Recovering the Reformed Confession

The Jagged Word

What the Hell is going on

"In verbo veritatis" (2 Cor 6:7)

Thoughts and writings of Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak

Old Life

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

John Bugay

God, life, politics, and business

Glass House

My lies will get better

Highlands Ministries Online Podcast

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Roger E. Olson

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Return to Rome

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Mark D. Roberts

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Called to Communion

Reformation meets Rome

Larry Hurtado's Blog

Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters)

Societas Christiana (2.0)

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

John Calvin Quotes

The Lonely Pilgrim

A Christian's Road Home to Rome and Journey Onward

Reformation500

Viewpoint

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

anactofmind

If there is anything in the world that can really be called a man's property, it is surely that which is the result of his mental activity. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy