Chili's Archives II

Last Updated January 5,1999

June, 1998

June, 1998

Editor's Note

by Deanne Kearns

This election year, gay issues have become THE hot issue. The Christian Right has been working harder than ever to make gay issues a matter of sin and morality, doing their best to wrest the issue away from those who would only do the right thing, and grant gays the same rights as all other Americans in practice as well as in theory. The key to countering the Fundamentalist distortion of gay rights is in going back to our roots as a nation dedicated to remembering and honoring the Constitution, and the intentions of our founding fathers in separating religion from government. This month, Chili begins a journey back to our rebellious, visionary beginnings with "Chili's Constitutional Primer"

Chili's Constitutional Primer, Part One

As I've been kicking back this month, I've been reflecting on this country; where it started and where it is now; and some of the questions we face as a nation.
In an election year, the Christian Right is being particularly vocal, making sure the Republican Party keeps toeing their Fundamentalist line. The posturing and jockeying for position is getting so ridiculous, even many center-leaning Republicans are beginning to chastise their zealous colleagues for veering too far Right, and for using Christianity for political gain. Some Republican candidates have already begun counting their votes before they're hatched; utterly delighted that the thousands of duped single-issue voters are going to fall right in line for the sake of a few well-timed sound bites aimed at gays and other "threats" to the American Family and Christianity.
How did we get to the point where religion and religious affiliation could be the deciding factor in our political process? Are we, truly, a "Christian Nation", as Fundamentalists claim? If the Founding Fathers did indeed base their newly formed Republic on the Ten Commandments, then Fundamentalist Christianity is justified in its campaign to remake every citizen in its image. Just imagine: a whole bunch of white male Anglo-Saxon Christian wannabees running around with WWJD tattooed on their foreheads.
If, on the other hand, the men who drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights had no intention of using any religious s creeds or tenets as our country's foundation, then somebody needs to shut these twits up once and for all.
IS America a Christian nation?
Many Fundamentalists point to the charters of early colonies and colleges in the New World as proof that America is fundamentally Christian at its core. What Fundamentalists miss in using such resources to justify their invasion of secular government is that the original charters were penned by men who still considered themselves to be subjects of England, and of the English King, who was the Head of the Church, and claimed his right to rule through the doctrine of Divine Right. There was not yet any thought of rebellion, nor was there any intent to form a new nation. As such, these documents cannot be thought of as "American", and were effectively put aside when the Colonial representatives ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Fundamentalists also point to passages and phrases in the Declaration of Independence. While at some level the Declaration of Independence does recognize a higher spiritual authority, it in no way establishes Christianity as a basis for the new nation, and it certainly provides no foundation for American law. As for the Constitution, they pretty much ignore it, except for that little bit that states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In their typically myopic way, Fundamentalists interpret those few words to mean they can drive a tank over the rest of us, and justify it by declaring it is their religious duty, or that they are simply protecting their right to worship freely. Funny, I wonder...What Would Jesus Do?
Undaunted, Fundamentalists press on, throwing out quotations from statesmen, judges and presidents. These quotes admittedly come from great men, but they do not carry the weight of law. They are simply opinions and personal interpretations.
On the other hand, secularists and "free-thinkers" have plenty of ammunition to back up their views. Not the least formidable among them is the very same passage in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting (favoring) an establishment of religion..."
There's also a rather obscure tidbit that causes most Fundamentalists to absolutely foam at the mouth at its mere mention: the Treaty of Tripoli.
In the years following the Revolutionary War, the Barbary States, and Tripoli in particular (known today as Libya; surprise, surprise), began attacking commercial American ships in increasingly greater numbers until, by the late 1780's, about 300 US citizens were being held captive in Northern Africa. Joel Barlow was sent by President Washington to try to work out a peaceful settlement between the Barbary States and the United States. The "Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America, and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary" (referred to commonly as the Treaty of Tripoli) was the result of two years of hard work by Joel Barlow, a leading political thinker of his day. The final English draft, translated by Barlow, contained a short clause, Article 11, which stated:
As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims); and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.
There is much controversy surrounding this document. First, critics cry "Foul!" because this Article did not appear in the Arabic version of the Treaty; therefore there are suspicions that it wasn't part of the original draft and was not included until years later. Others point out thet the Treaty of Tripoli was superseded by another treaty a few years later which did not include Article 11, or any wording similar to it.
These arguments do nothing to alter several facts about the Treaty of Tripoli. First, there is no doubt that Article 11 did indeed appear in the original English translation; and was ratified with Article 11 in place. The proposed treaty was printed in several newspapers, allowing the public to inspect it. All official treaty collections from 1797 through at least 1832 include Article 11. Judges and politicians made use of Article 11 in their rulings and speeches, and other diplomats made use of it in their dealings with other Islamic nations.
Second, the Treaty of Tripoli was approved by a unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate after being read aloud on the Senate floor. There was no debate or argument about any part of the treaty. The Senators knew and understood fully what they were approving.


Features_Menu Top Archives

© 1997 envoy@willinet.net

Get your own Free Home Page