[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh you can deny it, but your arguments as recorded on this forum speak for themselves. You always, and I mean always come down on the liberal side of every discussion.

There is quite a lot of leeway afforded in article 11 of that treaty. One can easily state with surety that the US was not actually founded on religion, and I have not said that we are. I said, as do the documents in all their glory, clearly set forth, that we are founded upon Christian principles. Which are as I keep pointing out to you factually and demonstrably true both in nature and in our national history. I can prove the tenets of Christianity, but no Hindu or Muslim can do the same. BTW, I couldn't help but notice that the thread you started on it is really poppin! LOL Just as I knew you'd bring it up in a thread people actually had interest. God said He created the sun, He just spoke it into existence if I recall. Does that make mention of the sun in the public square a religious taboo to you there Sombrero?

As I have argued in the past, (very likely with you BTW) there are no known remaining copies of the actual treaty in our day. And that there is inconsistency in the liberal argument; "In recent years, some “Christian nation” advocates have argued that Article 11 never appeared in the treaty. They base the claim on research conducted by a Dutch scholar, Dr. C. Snouk Hurgronje, published in The Christian Statesman in 1930. Hurgronje located the only surviving Arabic copy of the treaty and found that when translated, Article 11 was actually a letter, mostly gibberish, from the dey of Algiers to the ruler of Tripoli."

It’s clear that the English version of the treaty, which Congress approved, contained the famous Article 11. Why the article was removed from the Arabic version of the treaty, who did it and when remains another mystery.

Even if the article was in the final draft as presented and signed by the Muslim authorities, it doesn't in and of itself slam the door on the rest of the record or our heritage. Diplomats will do and say things as we heard only yesterday from John Kerry. I can tell you right now that the congress does not agree with what he said and I know I don't. To think that this obscure document to a bunch of pirates, supersedes actual constitutional documents would be the foundest desire of a Christ denying lib. The US Navy was a joke, and thus our shipping had lost the protection of the English Navy in the shipping lanes off the coast of North Africa. We needed to do something. But I will give you credit, finally you come up with something not based entirely on innuendo and dripping with unabsorbed estrogen.

Wow. The stench of an unnecessary apologist manure cannon just went off in here.

The four points of consideration? Innuendo? Hardly.

To consider the Vietnam War a failure of vision and policy, and to point out atrocities that have been documented is not immoral. That's foolish talk.

The Treaty of Tripoli was read in session, was unanimously ratified. BGR originates in a place where the Bob Segars and TRT's and Granny Bears are a firm majority. Why would I expect threads that walk down bubble bursting paths and interrupt the samctuary of magical thinking to "pop"? I did not think a man of faith and the Word would believe the test of truth is a chorus of "Amens" from the crowd. But, oh well, what's another inconsistency of straw to add to the multitude?