Politician Who Won't Say Pledge Of Allegiance May Be Recalled

[dustind]

We are a Christian nation with a smattering of other religions. In broad swaths of this nation you can live your whole life and not encounter more than a couple non-christians(at least in name). And, of course, when you do you can be pretty secure in the assumption they won't have much tolerance for your Christianity.

I just looked up statistics online from a few web sites. I seem to get that the number of Americans who are religious (all religions combined) is 80-90%, and steadily falling. Old people are more likely to be religious than middle aged people, and young people are the least likely to be religious. Christians are loosing percent of members the fastest.

I also do not think Christians can claim any abundance of tolerance towards other religious beliefs, or people's lifestyles.

I am an athiest who believes the words should be taken out, but not because I am an athiest. I doubt many people would stand if the pledge said "under satan."

Edit: I say the pledge, but leave out "under god."

 

[RealGun]

"One nation under God", "so help me God", "In God We Trust" are all Trojan horses. Now the Christians claim that it's THEIR country. Any judge who thinks otherwise is labeled "activist". This man is dead-on correct, but he will need to deal with which battles he picks. He is certainly not a politician.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

I think a good idea would be for people like this to recite an alternative pledge, something like:

"I pledge allegience, To the Constitution, Of the United States of America;

And to the Republic, That it protects

One Nation, One People, Indivisible;

With liberty and justice for all."

But then again I have a problem with compelled oaths in the first place.

 

[Art Eatman]

No way I can see the flag as a "meaningless piece of cloth". It's a symbol. It's a symbol of a set of ideas. The ideas never have been realized and probably never will, but that's irrelevant.

One idea is to strive to be better in the treatment of one's fellow man. Freedom and equality and fair play and all that sort of idealism.

It takes no talent whatsoever to roll over like a scared puppy and say, "Those ideals are just too hard to try for!" The old, "Oh, I couldn't do that..." bit of nonsense we've all heard.

If it's good for an individual to try to better himself, why is it not good for people acting together as a society to try to achieve ideals?

Symbols do indeed have meaning. Doesn't matter whether it's Chevy's "bowtie" on a NASCAR fan's tee-shirt, the Red Cross, or a TV news program's crime segment with a handgun-logo as the lead-in.

Or a flag...

Art

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Here's a good litmus test for this issue, would you feel the same no matter what deity followed "under"? If changing God to Satan, Allah, Vishnu, Zues, would bother you while God does not; then your prejudice is deciding the issue for you instead of what is actually right.

But remember this: the Flag will stand for freedom, and the spirit of man, as long as we are willing to defend it. With our work, with our words, and if necessary, with our bodies, our blood, and our very lives.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0803/pledge.html

I'm currently at work so I can't view the link, but you do know that landoverbaptist/org is satire, right?

If a politician isn't willing to Pledge any kind of Allegience to his country, he has no business being in office, unless of course the people who he represents feels the exact same way.

First off, the pledge is to the flag (sheesh, it's in the first line) not to his country so you have no point.

I feel the man should stand out of respect. Can someone explain to me how say"under God" in the Pledge shows govrnment support of religion.

The words "under god" were put into the pledge for that very reason.

Our right to say "under God" is protected speech-the First Amendment, dontcha know.

Wow, Superman couldn't have made that leap. No one is trying to stop people from saying "under God", they just don't think that the phrase should be sponsored by the government.

We are a Christian nation with a smattering of other religions.

Do you have some documentation to back this up? The Constitution is a pretty secular document. In addition, the Treaty of Tripoli states that we aren't a Christian nation. Are there any government documents which state otherwise?

 

[2nd Amendment]

http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm

http://www.forerunner.com/ccbc/X0007_Our_Supreme_Court.html

http://www.helpsaveamerica.com/supreme-court.htm

And the tale of the Treaty of Tripoli:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

More on request...

Also note that 70%+ of the population of this nation still call themselves Christian, whether they "are" or not. This is especially interesting considering the fixation the left has on "democracy", which is nothing more or less than majority rule. 50% + 1 make the rules. As such by their own claimed views the opinions of the minority are meaningless.

 

[why_me]

Great consider the source

After considering but three other of Justice Brewer's opinions, The Attorney General concluded:

Justice Brewer was a son of a Christian missionary, and the son's life, like the father's was one of service. For six and forty years he served the people, hearing causes and judging "righteously between every man and his brother and the stranger that is with him." And in the discharge of this great office he did ever obey the injunction laid upon the judges of Israel by their great lawgiver:

Judge Roy Moore would have the same Opinions.
I dont and neither did George Wahington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin,Ethan Allen,Charles Dearborn, John Adams James Madison

More on request

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

the Treaty of Tripoli states that we aren't a Christian nation. Are there any government documents which state otherwise?

No, what the treaty says is this: "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, . . ."

That's a long way from saying that the US wasn't then a predominantly Christian nation. Most people did attend church regularly and were Christian.

The statement in the treaty was added only as an expedient way of calming the fears of the Muslim ruler in Lybia that the US intended to prosecute a religious war against him. It's hardly dispositive or binding on whether the US Government was "founded on Christian principles."

 

[2nd Amendment]

Thank you, Why Me. Thanks for demonstrating one of the weakest tactics in debate(second only to hauling out the "you're a Nazi" line): Attack the messenger. And you compound it by ignoring the other quotes. Pretty much settles the issue, eh? Especially considering the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't mean what you folks wish it did.

Oh, note, don't give that list of Founders as support for your stance. They doin't support you either.

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

http://www.linda.net/no-deist.html (mention of the American/Great Britain peace treaty)

 

[why_me]

Weak argument

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God are never mentioned in the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion." They meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

 

[Chaz]

First off, the pledge is to the flag (sheesh, it's in the first line) not to his country so you have no point.

What about "... And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands?"

regardless as to whether he says "Under God" or not he still serves at the pleasure of his constituents. If they want him to go for such a reason so be it.

 

[why_me]

Quotes

Thomas Jefferson

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814


"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
- "Notes on Virginia"


"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
- letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787



"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests."
- to John Adams, 1803
.


"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
.


"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."
- to Carey, 1816
.


"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."
-in his private journal, Feb. 1800
.


"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." - to Carey, 1816
.


"The priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, are as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore."
- to Story, Aug. 4, 1820
.


"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, is nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save."
- to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
.


"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

"Notes on Virginia"
.

"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house."
- to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
.


"Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of a bitter and bloody persecutions." .


"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." .

"It has been fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and then I considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."
. "The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation [birth] of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation [birth] of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
- to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823

 

[2nd Amendment]

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion."

No, it doesn't. This is what happens when you don't read info that conflicts with your views.

As for the rest, you said it yourself. The Founders sought to NOT establish an official government religion. Nothing more. This is a totally separate issue from whether this nation was (and is) a primarily Christian nation founded by primarily Christians and built primarily upon Christian ideals. You are attempting to infuse and argue a totally different issue.

Meanwhile, back to the point of this thread which remains: He is an elected official and serves at the pleasure of those he "represents". If they feel he is no longer representative then their reasons are not up for debate just because someone doesn't like those reasons.

 

[Joe Demko]

I guess the part I don't get is why some are so insistant that "under God" and similar phrases must be part of government related things like the pledge and our currency. I guess they are the same folks that think we must have mangers on the courthouse lawn and copies of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. Are you so insecure, or is your god so insecure, that these things are necessary? You are the one who believes, so pray as much as you like however you like, but leave the government and your fellow citizens out of it. If I had my way, the government would be completely neutral on the topic of religion. There would be no mention of any god(s) on currency, no officially sanctioned holidays, no pledges about being under any god(s). Pray to whomever or whatever you like, citizen, on your own time and without the imprimatur of the state.

 

[why_me]

Benjamin Franklin

"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
- letter to his father, 1738



". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
.


"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
- "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", 1728
.


"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
- Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
.


"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-in Poor Richard's Almanac

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
.

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

 

[why_me]

Treaty of Tripoli in whole Ill Bold the part i quoted

Annals of Congress, 5th Congress
Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by


HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,
And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

JOEL BARLOW.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Thx for the additional quotes. And in light of the others they mean what? Especially since the bulk are either from much later or, as with the Morris quote, hearsay(while many others you may provide are, as shown by me, taken out of context). It's usually good to read the opposing data. I have, which is why I no longer accept your claims.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Again: (From http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html )

A full text of the treaty may be found here. ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm )
All agree that there are vagaries involving the Arabic text of the treaty, which was translated into English by the American official, John Barlow. A skeptical site here offers the following:

The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,' does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic]. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

Like I said, read what is offered you, instead of parroting the same old discredited lines.

 

[why_me]

As far as manger scenes and displays of Ten Commandments

I agree you should be able to show your faith on goverment property. As long as I also have equal access and right next to the manger i can have a Blood alter and sacrifice animals for my religon santeria. And i get to Yell One nation under THOR! instead of Under God.

 

[2nd Amendment]

By all means, if you can get a majority to support it, then go for it...

 

[R.H. Lee]

I agree in principle with what Joe Demko said, and believe that is/was the intention of the FF. However, references to God are usual and customary in our country. "In God We Trust" on the currency, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, even Congress begins each session with a prayer.

The 1st Amendment says- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now the leftists have interpreted this to mean there is a "separation" of church and state, and any references to religion and/or God equate to Congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion, in other words promoting same. However, in so doing, they are attempting to "prohibit the free exercise thereof"-clearly a violation of Constitutional right.

I do not understand how references to God, or even prayer, in a public forum can be interpreted to be a violation of any Constitutional right. The athiests claim they are "offended" by such references. AFAIK, there is no Constitutional right to not be offended. Neither can the state prohibit the "free exercise" of religion, as they are now doing in public schools, for example.

Whether or not this guy wants to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance is entirely up to him, but he cannot compel everyone else to stop saying the Pledge either. I don't know how this thread drifted to whether or not the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation", a moot point IMO. His contituents can remove him from office for any reason whatsoever. I would not be surprised if the ACLU runs to obtain an injunction against removal, however, on some fictitious grounds that his Constitutional rights have been violated.

 

[why_me]

ok i read it

Article 11 still states what i said.
I usually dont do this BUT your source is hardly unbiased with reagards to interpreting the treaty of tripoli.

More generally, we can't imagine how the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version effects the separationist argument. It was the English version of the treaty that was approved by President Adams and Secretary Pickering, and this version unquestionably contained Article 11. Similarly, when the Senate ratified the treaty, they did so knowing full well that the English version declared that the United States was not a Christian nation. The separationist implications of the treaty can't be escaped by arguing that the Arabic version may not have contained Article 11; the President, Secretary of State, and Senate thought it did, but approved the treaty anyway.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Why the English version was ratified is addressed in the link. As for bias, there are no unbiased sites on any issue. But feel free to tell me why you make the (currently unsupported) claim, especially considering the data he cites comes from http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html which supports your claims, though as noted above his "logic" is refuted.

 

[why_me]

The point your missing RileyMC

Is this guy is not compelling anyone to do anything. He is not interested in doing the pledge thing that all. Its got the fundies all up in arms cause they perceive him as a godless atheist. Who is compelling who and why is this even news?
Every one wants freedom of religon and many people want freedom from religon. If we incorporate religon into our daily lives it will not be the utopia you think people of different religons maybe even the atheists will be ostracised, excluded, and in conflict.
Most people who want the goverment to Sponsor there deity will not tolerate the deities of other religons. When i stated how about if i said one nation under valhalla, the option i was given was just dont say under god if you are offended.
Religon has absolutely no place in the goverment. Thats not oppressing your religon it is protecting it.

Hey second amendment
WE SIGNED THE ENGLISH VERSION IT HAD ARTICLE 11 IN IT
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html ----Your link
Thanks for the link you proved my point
Conclusion: History revisionists of the so-called “religious right†strain to repudiate the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli as irrelevant and unofficial; they make much ado about the fact that Barlow’s version in English was a poor paraphrase of the version in Arabic; and they grind their teeth over the fact that it was the only English version in existence and the only one considered when the Senate of the United States read, accepted, approved, and ratified the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli. The fact which completely destroys their argument is that none of the Senators who read, accepted, approved, and ratified the Treaty could read Arabic. The official and only 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which was read, accepted, approved, and ratified by the Senate of the United States was the one penned by Joel Barlow in the English language. And, whether the so-called “religious right†revisionists like it or not, Article 11 of the official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was in the Treaty in 1797 and is appropriately recorded in the official treaty book: “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion†(p. 365).

 

[rock jock]

I'd vote him out in a heartbeat. Why? Because its my right to do so. Mr. Fool should have realized this before he decided to make a statement as an elected official.