Light on the Treaty of Tripoli and the Christian nature of America

For all the clear signs of our being under God's judgment there are moments these days when it seems God's hand of blessing is upon us in extraordinary ways too, bringing cause for hope His mercy will triumph over judgment in the end, or at least mitigate it, maybe bring us revival here and there. There's a small army of Christians out there working to straighten us out and working to bring the truth to light. We're sometimes at odds with each other, which is sad, which must be for God like herding cats at times, but if anyone can herd cats God can.

Anyway, the latest harbinger of hope I'm seeing comes from Chris Pinto's ministry, as it often does these days. On today's broadcast he reports his recent discovery of a Christian voice from the time of America's founders, objecting to Congress' passage of the Treaty of Tripoli which contains the controversial statement that confuses and horrifies so many Christians, the statement that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

This is another of those ghosts from the past that can be dispelled by having a stronger light from history shone on it than we usually have available, like the quote from Richard Henry Lee I reported on in the previous post. Lee was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and his statement that Chris Pinto also found recently goes a long way to clearing up an important dispute about the original intent of the Second Amendment: He affirms that the "militia" referred to in the amendment means ALL the people, trained in how to handle guns, from which people a separated army may be drawn without in any way infringing on the whole people's right (and obligation) to possess arms.

Today the ghost of the supposedly nonChristian nature of the United States as defined by the Treaty of Tripoli is finally brought into question by Chris Pinto's discovery of one Christian from the founding generation who opposed Article 11 which declared that the American government was in no sense Christian. It was hiding in plain sight:

From Wikipedia on the Treaty of Tripoli:

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United 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 Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [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.
The treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.[3]

At least one member of Adams' cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry, is known to have protested the language of article 11, prior to its ratification.[5]

And here's the footnote to the above quoting McHenry on his objection to Article 11:

5.^ James McHenry to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr., September 26, 1800:“The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that 'the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.' What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion.”[4]

And here is the Wikipedia article on James McHenry He was

a signer of the United States Constitution from Maryland and the namesake of Fort McHenry. He was a delegate to the Continental Congress from Maryland, and the third United States Secretary of War (1796–1800), under presidents George Washington and John Adams.

It helps a great deal to know that there was some Christian dissent to that article among the leaders of the day, which otherwise gives the impression that it spoke for the entire founding generation.

===
August 1, 2012: Today's show continues this subject of the Treaty of Tripoli and the founding generation in general, what freedom of religion meant and so on.

DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT Pt 2

Dr. A who is a regular poster at EvC forums, whose Course in Geology is often quite good but whose other posts are usually not worth reading in my opinion, has just posted a really amazing piece of sophistry on the thread about Gun Control.

Don't arguments about overthrowing the government cut both ways? I mean, if it is possible for a bunch of private citizens with guns to overthrow a tyranny and replace it with a democratic republic, then wouldn't it also be possible for an armed citizenry to overthrow a democratic republic and replace it with a tyranny? There is, after all, nothing particularly bullet-proof about democrats.

Uh yeah, but there would be no MOTIVE to overthrow a nontyrannical government. When there is such tyranny you can be sure there will be plenty of buzz leading up to any sort of action, such as was the case before the American Revolution. Where there is no popular motive to overthrow a government the people's possession of guns nevertheless acts as a deterrent to the development of such tyranny, and in any case provides protection against garden-variety criminality which is going to be a problem in any society, less in one where more guns are owned by citizens.

And in this context I might as well respond to a statistic that keeps coming up on that thread to the effect that America has more guns per capita than any other nation on earth and YET we have more homicides too, so that the guns are not acting as a deterrent. Well, consider the fact that there were NO guns in the possession of audience members when the theater in Aurora Colorado was invaded by a homicidal maniac. Had there been even one or two he might have been stopped in his tracks and many lives might have been saved. Same with all the mass murder scenarios we've been plagued with over the last couple of decades, such as at schools. There should be armed teachers, armed members of churches, just more armed citizens out there in the world in general, if the homicide statistic is to be reduced.

Case in point is the situation of the internet cafe in Florida where just a couple weeks ago a 71-year-old man in possession of a legal concealed gun DID rout a couple of robbers, one of them armed, who might have done harm to many except for him. Moral of the story: It doesn't matter what the statistics say, obviously we need MORE upright citizens carrying guns.

So, yes, it might be a good idea if the Chinese had more guns, but what about the USA? If our citizens have enough weaponry to overthrow the government (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument let's say they do) then since we are currently a democratic republic, what they would be doing would be overthrowing democracy in favor of tyranny. Since we currently have liberty, guns can not currently be used to give us liberty, but to take it away; if it is possible to use them to overthrow the government, they are not a bulwark of liberty but rather a threat to it.

Sure, we may not have enough citizen-owned guns to pull that off, but again, why would anyone want to if we are truly the democratic republic he says we are, that provides that we "currently have liberty?" Of course there are those who would dispute that characterization of our current situation, but obviously there isn't enough motivation OR citizen gun power, either one, to do anything about it. But again, it is only if enough recognize that the government is NOT "a bulwark of liberty" that any such use of citizen firepower would be attempted. It would probably have to reach the level that even Dr. A himself would agree that tyranny is indeed the proper word for the situation at hand.

To conceive of guns defending our liberties, we have to be thinking two revolutions ahead. Once someone has taken our liberty away, then maybe we could use guns to put it back. But right now, since we have liberty, they can only be used to take it away.

On this basis, whether or not guns are good would depend on the state of the particular nation in question. In China, perhaps they could be a force for liberty; in the USA, they imperil it.

Silly sophistic distinctions, Dr. A, just word games. It's possible to be under government tyranny and it not be recognized by a majority because it hasn't yet reached a certain level, but the most likely scenario is that it WILL be recognized if it reaches a level that pinches the majority, and then it would be very sad if we'd already succumbed to government confiscation of the people's guns or laws that violate the second amendment by imposing extreme restrictions. Overthrowing the government is of course the remotest of all the reasons for an armed citizenry when you HAVE an armed citizenry, but it could rapidly become urgent and immediate if guns were taken away.

=================
The common feeling is that the more guns the more danger, the opposite of course of the reasoning behind the second amendment that the more guns the less danger. Here onifre at EvC is arguing that in New York city jar's position that guns should be carried openly would be extremely dangerous.

Have you seen the subways? Have you seen the amount of people in those things daily? Can you not see how maybe in this particular case, unlimited open carry (like in a holster) is a terrible idea?

Unlimited Open Carry does not mean that there must be no limitation.

Hmmm...

but it does mean that if someone carries it should be open, displayed

. Again, that's a terrible idea where I live.

The more guns the more fear of danger, but is the fear realistic? The founding fathers apparently thought the opposite and in fact statistics that I've heard of seem to bear them out. When guns are confiscated crime goes up, not down, and when guns are owned by a majority the reverse occurs. This makes sense. Criminals generally are not going to want to risk being shot.

I haven't given it thought before now, but I don't think I'd want guns to be carried openly as a matter of course. Better that the criminals have no idea how many guns might be drawn against them than be able to make their plans around the ones they can see and possibly avoid the danger. Keep them in the dark.

So, are there no upright citizens that ride the subways, Onifre? If everybody is a potential homicidal maniac wouldn't there still be a deterrent to their inclinations in the fact of more guns versus less?

But if you specifically have openly visible guns in mind, as I say above I probably wouldn't think that the best situation, but still, if most people had them I would think it would have some deterrent effect rather than be the danger you think it is.

DEFENDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE TRUE CONTEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT SHOWN IN QUOTES BY EARLY AMERICAN LEADERS:

Chris Pinto is continuing the subject of gun control in today's (July 27) broadcast The Second Amendment Some topics covered: UN aim to disarm the world, means the average citizen. + Pinto believes it's basically Rome's attempt to reinstate a worldwide Inqusition. + He gives quotes from American leaders that make clear what the Second Amendment was really all about, which contradicts today's attempt to disarm the people.

Quotes Blackstone on the law. + quotes Jefferson on necessity of armed citizens for protection against criminal acts. + Mentions a video at You Tube How to stop a massacre which shows a recent real-life incident in which an armed citizen routs a couple of robbers who were threatening people in an internet cafe. +

Quotes Patrick Henry on need for force to protect liberty, advocating that every citizen have a gun. + Quotes Noah Webster on how the tyranny of state armies is thwarted by the arming of the citizens. + Quotes a journal in Boston in 1769 calling for citizens to be armed against British military abuses of power. English Bill of Rights invoked as authority. Mentions Blackstone's commentary on the law. Natural right of self defense. + Bible references +

Quotes George Mason 1775 militia plan, pledge to keep arms in readiness + Patrick Henry on protection of liberty by all citizens being armed + Sam Adams natural rights to life liberty and property and right to defend them. + John Adams arms for defense of country, ovethrow of tyranny or private self defense. +

As Pinto says "It's so clear what the second amendment was intended to mean" if you read the writings of these early Americans, "its purpose clearly extended to private citizens", and yet the second amendment has been "twisted and manipulated and lied about" by people trying to find a way to destroy it. + He ends with a quote from Richard Henry Lee in 1788 which ought to put to rest all the anti-second-amendment stuff about what a militia was supposed to be:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

The importance of knowing history is demonstrated in this quote. I've been in all kinds of discussions about what the second amendment means and nothing like this came up, which should have silenced all that nonsense about a militia being an organization or an army. The idea always seemed to contradict the very soul of the second amendment which is the right of the PEOPLE to defend themselves, but without proof of the original intent of the founding generation the gun control people were always winning the debates. We need more Chris Pintos.
============================
Later edit:
Typical "liberal" view of the second amendment:

... what you CAN construe is that the National Guards of the various states are the modern militias in question, organized and trained by state, armed, organized and disciplined by congress ... and the place where civilians can enroll to get proper training and then keep and bear arms. The second amendment is curiously silent on whether or not these arms can be taken home, presumably leaving that up to the states that are running the National Guards ( militias), and it is also silent on regulation of general gun ownership, again, presumably leaving that up to the states, a position that is upheld in the supreme court.

In light of the quote of Richard Henry Lee given above, such an opinion is completely out of tune with the original intent of the founding generation. Any official army, even the National Guard, is an entity that can become a force of tyranny on behalf of the state against the people, the very people the second amendment was intended to protect against that very kind of tyranny.

The second amendment is not "curiously silent on whether these arms can be taken home" since it accords to "the People" the right to keep and bear arms.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution was what inspired the interpretation quoted above:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

If this section is intended to define or qualify the "militia" as set forth in the second amendment, then it must refer to the totality of the People that Congress is called to organize, arm and discipline, as opposed to "such Part of them" as a separate unit to be employed in the service of the United States... The singling out of such a Part implies a much greater totality which is not so employed -- that is, of course, ALL THE PEOPLE.

Threats to America: Gun Control, Mormonism (Ecumenism)

Two separate issues that were recently talked about on internet radio programs I listen to frequently, both current, both real threats to the foundations of America.

1. THE GLOBALIST THREAT TO AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH GUN CONTROL:

Chris Pinto is talking about the shooting in Aurora Colorado at the opening of the film The Dark Knight, and how this could play into the globalist agenda to restrict gun ownership in America. He gives historical background and statistics.

Scott Johnson, talking about the same event in Colorado, brings in the possibility that it was staged. He gives evidence of the participation of a second party that the mainstream media aren't talking about.

2. THE TROJAN HORSE OF CONSERVATISM IN TODAY'S CHURCHES:

Brannon Howse's program on Worldview Weekend for July 25th is covering Glenn Beck's Restoring Love Rally coming up on the 28th, as well as a separate event that features some well-known evangelical leaders along with various wolves in sheep's clothing that is billed as somehow connected with though not part of Glenn Beck's rally.

Of particular interest to me in this discussion is the clip of former Mormon leader and US political leader Ezra Taft Benson speaking to a Mormon gathering back in 1965 (Howse keeps putting it up in the 70s), an impassioned patriotic talk that denounces "godless communism" and quotes Mormon documents as equal to scripture. He calls the American Constitution divinely inspired and invokes the prophecy of Joseph Smith that says the Mormon Church is going to save the endangered Constition. Well, there's no doubt it's endangered now and has been for a long time, but do we want it saved by Mormonism? Are evangelicals today that corrupted and misled?

The Worldview Weekend talk will be available without charge for only two weeks as usual, but parts of the talk by Benson can be found at You Tube and a fuller version here.

As I listened to this I just kept thinking Why did I have to wait until 2012 when we have a Mormon running for President and a very popular Mormon talk show host speaking for conservatism, to begin to grasp the connection between conservatism and Mormonism and what a threat it is to America? Every day it seems I learn something new that I should have heard of years ago if the Church had been doing its work of warning us. I did learn about the false teaching of Mormonism in general, but not its political agenda.

I had an email relationship for years with a Mormon with whom I could agree on political issues just about totally, but we battled to the death (of our friendship) about the nature of the gospel. Same with an orthodox Jew I'd also met online. I liked both of these men a great deal and agreed with both of them politically, but my determined defense of the gospel finally brought our friendship to an end in both cases. It was a great opportunity to hone my biblical skills and I only wish the Lord had seen fit to use my efforts to save these men but it wasn't to be -- at that time anyway.

There is a huge Catholic presence in conservatism these days as well, and the same situation applies. We can join on political issues but we must part company when it comes to the gospel.

MUST. And what Glenn Beck has been doing is promoting not just a political coalition of conservatives but a religious and spiritual coalition in which he aggressively asserts unity between Mormons and Catholics and true Christians, and Christians are falling for it, some of them joining with him in his aggressive ecumenicism.

Brannon Howse's discussion focuses on the compromises within the evangelical church in the service of patriotism and conservatism.

There is no hope for America unless the Church is strong and true to the gospel, politics is useless without this. A compromised ecumenical Church is useless, even just another cause for God to bring punishment against the nation.