Replies

Why on earth would there even be a question about this government way back in 1796 being 'Christian'? There had to be a concern for it to be required writing in a treaty that the 'government' was not a Christian government.

So obviously since a diplomat wrote the language and he was the one who was dealing with the 'Mussulmen' knew they would not sign a treaty without the explicit words that the US government was not pushing Christianity on the Mussulmen.

England on the other hand was a monarchy and the monarch's duty was and is protector of the Faith. US was/is NOT a monarchy. That is NOT disputing that fact that the Constitution is very Biblical, especially that part where rights endowed by the Creator no man/government can take.

Those words set this nation apart from all other nations, which is what liberalism seeks to replace themselves as giver and taker of 'rights'.

So you're saying, just like Elsie, that no matter what the official word was, and not matter the lack of evidence to the contrary, the treaty was actually a lie to appease the Moslems.

Dream on, little man.