America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 1:08 pm



YESTERDAY I DID ANOTHER CASUAL SEARCH FOR NOAHIDE STUFF.
i was floored to find the Scribd document (see Noahide Laws thread) which appears simply to be a transcription of legal cases before American courts, dating all the way back to the late 1700s.

these cases have a common theme - decisions made or cases put forward which have at their core the idea that America is not a Christian Nation, but rather a NOAHIDE NATION.

if this (the Khazarian/Gog & Magog takeover of the world under the guise of "Judaism") truly is an ancient conspiracy, we should indeed expect to find evidence of it being slipped into western reality everywhere....it now appears we have a smoking gun.

material on that document covers things from american courts from late 1700s that cover issues jews have had before the US courts (including the issue of palestine dating back to 1900) that seem to be for the sole purpose of establishing precedent for America not being Christian, but Noahide, and therefore ANY FOREIGN POLICY decisions made establish US actions as being the establishment of NOAHIDE systems around the world (with jews exempt in all cases since they are "the light of the world") - YOU CAN NOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

it appears that all the wars and imperialism of America have been to set up, for example, military bases and so on; the Balfour Declaration; etc - NOAHIDE SYSTEMS, which today are being called literally: COMMUNITARIANISM. (see Communitarianism thread)

this totally fits with the global Jacobian/Marx/Frankfort takeover (Soviet model) we see in many of our threads here at Wilderness.

~ thankfully i have been at this for a long time: if that wasn't the case i would be stark raving at the moment.

NOW POSTING general MATERIAL FROM THE INTERNET:
using searches with the headline from that scrib'd pdf LEGAL TRANSCRIPTION document:

"the Treaty of Tripoli recognizing America is not a Christian, but a Noahide nation."

~

FROM A CATHOLIC SITE (BUT PUBLISHED BY A JEWISH LAWYER!)

Is America a Christian Nation?


CARL PEARLSTON
Is America a Christian nation? The answer is both yes and no, depending on what one means by the phrase.

....The historical record from the foregoing quotes from past Presidents, leaders, Congressmen, Jurists and court decisions, seems firmly on the side of those claiming that America was born and maintained as a Christian nation whose laws, morals, and customs derive from Christian (and Jewish) scriptures. The opponents of this view, however, point to the first sentence of Article 11 of the obscure Tripoli Treaty of 1797 as seeming conclusive proof that America was never a Christian nation. Before discussing that critical sentence, the treaty itself should be read in context with all of the Barbary treaties. ......

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli was signed in 1796 in Arabic, and was later translated into English by Joel Barlow, United States Consul General at Algiers. Except for the typical phrases "Praise be to God" and "whom God Exalt", there is no reference to religion other than the aforesaid remarkable Article 11, which reads,

"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 Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (sic) 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, with this language, was submitted to the Senate by President Adams, and was ratified. Thus, opponents of the 'Christian nation' concept point to this seemingly official repudiation of the very idea. Yet the language is less a repudiation of the role of Christianity in the nation's heritage than a reminder that there was no national established church in the United States as there was in the European states with which Tripoli had previously dealt. This provided reassurance to the Moslem Bey and his religious establishment that religion, in of itself, would not be a basis of hostility between the two nations. None of the other similar treaties with the Barbary states, before or after this treaty, including the replacement treaties signed in 1804 after the Barbary Wars, have any language remotely similar.

And there is a deeper mystery: As noted in a footnote at page 1070 of the authoritative treatise by Bevans, Treaties and other International Agreements of the United States of America, citing treaty scholar Hunter Miller.

"While the Barlow translation quoted above has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since 1797, 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. There is no Article 11. 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" (Emphasis added)

..............

In sum, the phrase was no doubt an invention of Mr. Barlow, who inserted it on his own for his own, unknown, purposes. It was duly ratified without question by the United States Senate, which would no doubt be hesitant to object to any phraseology which was represented as desired by the Bey of Tripoli, with whom the United States wanted peaceful relations. It remains a mystery.

.............


Can America still be called a Christian nation?

It is certainly a more religiously pluralistic and diverse society than it was during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. There are increasing numbers of non-Christians immigrating to this country, and there has been a rapid rise in adherents to Islam among our population. There are millions of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, Hindus, Wiccans, Naturists, Agnostics, and Atheists, but Christians comprise roughly 84% of the population. Our constitutional legal system is still based on the Jewish/Christian Bible, not the Koran or other holy book.

We still observe Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, as an official holiday. Easter and Christmas still have a special place in the holiday lexicon. The Ten Commandments are still on the wall behind the Supreme Court Justices when they take the bench. Our coins still display the motto "In God We Trust." The US is still firmly part of a Western Civilization fashioned by a Judeo-Christian religious ethic and heritage. Alexis de Tocqueville observed more than a century and a half ago, "There is no country in the world, where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America."

That is still true today. We live, not under a Christian government, but in a nation where all are free to practice their particular religion, in accommodation with other religions, and in accordance with the basic principles of the nation, which are Christian in origin. It is in that sense that America may properly be referred to as a Christian nation.


SEE HOW THAT WAS DONE??????

(a thorough reading of that document alone (go to link) shows that ALL the CHRISTIAN founding fathers wrote REPEATEDLY AND EXTENSIVELY THAT AMERICA WAS TO BE A CHRISTIAN NATION ONLY! THEY NAMED JESUS CHRIST REPEATEDLY, AND USED THE BIBLE AS THEIR FOUNDATON....this is admitted by jewish author quoted in this document) but somehow jewish diplomat Barlow in signing a treaty concerning Judeo-Christian American relations with Muslims STATED AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION BUT A NOAHIDE NATION.

this, in turn, has allowed that SINGLE DOCUMENT BY BARLOW to inject that LEAVEN INTO ALL CASES THE CONSPIRATORS HAVE BROUGHT TO THE COURTS (the Scribd document is absolutely LOADED....this seems also to be the birth of their front groups such as ACLU etc - the bringing forth of "civil liberties cases" for their "clients" which seek to fracture "special cases" from what the founding fathers intended was to be a Christian FOUNDATION.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:11 pm

This article appears to be written by a secularist (antichristian?) of some kind who has wrongly (AND THE PERPS ARE LAUGHING NO DOUBT) attributed the Tripoli document WRITTEN BY JEWISH "DIPLOMAT BARLOW" to the Christian founders (double agents or duped?) who signed it.

~

United States Treaties with the Barbary States

Chris Rodda
Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 01:10:56 PM EST


Back in April, as part of my series on historical revisionism in the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools (NCBCPS) course, I wrote about an article on WorldNetDaily entitled Bringing the Bible Back Into Public Schools, in which Chuck Norris, an NCBCPS board member and spokesman, regurgitated the erroneous claims found on the NCBCPS website's "Founding Fathers" page.

As Don Byrd reported here the other day, Norris is at it again. In two recent articles, "A 200-year-old lesson on 9/11" and "Is America a Christian nation?", Norris enlightens his WorldNetDaily audience with his take on the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.
Rather than simply commenting on Norris's articles, I've decided to serialize, over the next three weeks, the chapter of my book, Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, that covers the 1797 treaty and a number of other topics related to our early government's dealings with the Barbary States.
Chapter Seven
Treaties with the Barbary States
One of the most often used arguments that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation is Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. This is a pretty good argument, considering that the first sentence of that article begins with the words, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." Because the authors of the religious right version of American history can't deny that these words are there, they attempt to dismiss them, usually using one, or a combination of, several popular arguments.
The first argument is really just a diversion, created by pointing out a mistake sometimes made by those who bring up this treaty. The mistake is attributing the words of Article 11 to George Washington. Because the treaty is dated January 4, 1797, two months before Washington left office, an assumption has often been made that he was the president who signed it. The treaty, however, did not reach the United States until after Washington left office, so it was actually signed by John Adams. It really doesn't matter, of course, whether it was Washington or Adams who signed the treaty. This doesn't change what it said.
Instances of this treaty being attributed to Washington can be found as early as the mid-1800s, not only in arguments about the separation of church and state, but also in articles about the Barbary conflict or treaties in general. With the exception of appearing on the websites of a few overzealous separationists who, like their religious right counterparts, copy quotes without checking their sources, the wrong attribution isn't seen much anymore. Nevertheless, the Liars for Jesus continue to use it as evidence that secularists are trying to rewrite history. This serves two purposes. First, of course, pointing out this error provides a way to dismiss the treaty. Second, there are only two separationist misquotes that have ever appeared with any frequency, and this is one of them. The second is an out of context sentence from a letter written by John Adams. Religious right authors who claim that there are many such secularist misquotes need to use both of these because they just can't find any other examples, although David Barton implies that he has found a third.
According to David Barton, in his book Original Intent:
Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious. Some of the quotes they set forth include:
This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it. JOHN ADAMS
The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON
I disbelieve all holy men and holy books. THOMAS PAINE
Are these statements accurate? Did these prominent Founders truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of the sources of the above statements.
Barton throws in the Thomas Paine misquote to fill out his meager list of some of the quotes used by separationists, only to pretend, five pages later, that he thinks it might possibly be genuine, saying that "the real story is not the accuracy of Paine's quote, but rather how the other Founders reacted to Paine's declarations." Barton's source for this Paine misquote is an obscure document from the Society of Separationists, a document that is never actually used or copied by anyone. A search on Google for this misquote, for example, does not produce a single hit. Yet Barton implies that this is a commonly used misquote by presenting it along with the two misquotes that are actually used. Barton's main reason for adding this virtually unheard of Paine misquote, however, is to give him a reason to present several pages of quotes from founders who denounced Paine and his writings.
Barton's footnote for his three misquote examples says to "see also" an op-ed piece by Steven Morris entitled America's Unchristian Beginnings, which appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 3, 1995. Morris, however, did not misquote Paine, and did not wrongly attribute the quote from the Treaty of Tripoli to George Washington. He accurately quoted a passage from Paine's Age of Reason -- "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all" -- and correctly said of the Treaty of Tripoli that it "was during Adams' administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty."

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/9/23/131056/051
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:17 pm

SUMMARY: Several Fox News media figures have paraphrased or replayed President Obama's remarks in Turkey, during which he said, in part: "[W]e do not consider ourselves a Christian nation," in order to criticize Obama.

[OBAMA'S SPEECH WRITERS KNOW FULL WELL TURKEY (AND OTHERS) WERE "FOUNDED" AFTER THAT WRETCHED TRIPOLI DOCUMENT ON "SIMILIAR PRINCIPLES" since they know full well of the BARLOW LEAVEN - "America is not a Christian Nation BUT A NOAHIDE NATION".]

~

Several Fox News media figures, including Fox News contributor Karl Rove, Hannity host Sean Hannity, America's Newsroom co-host Megan Kelly, and Fox News analyst Newt Gingrich, have paraphrased or replayed President Obama's remarks during an April 6 press availability with the president of Turkey, during which he made factual comments about religion in America, saying, in part: "[W]e do not consider ourselves a Christian nation," and used those comments to criticize Obama and generate outrage. For example, Gingrich asserted Obama "was fundamentally misleading about the nature of America"; Hannity stated that he was "offended" and that Obama is "out of touch with the principles that have made this country great"; Rove suggested that Obama denied the reality that "we have historically had, you know, a robust presence of faith in our public square"; and Kelly asked if Obama had "step[ped] on a political landmine" and suggested that Obama was "obviously just pandering" when he suggested "[w]e're not a Christian country." In fact, Obama was making a broader point about the ecumenical nature of our country.
During the press availability, Obama stated:


I think that where -- where there's the most promise of building stronger U.S.-Turkish relations is in the recognition that Turkey and the United States can build a model partnership in which a predominantly Christian nation and a predominantly Muslim nation, a Western nation and a nation that straddles two continents -- that we can create a modern international community that is respectful, that is secure, that is prosperous; that there are not tensions, inevitable tensions, between cultures, which I think is extraordinarily important.

That's something that's very important to me. And I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.

I think Turkey was -- modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles, and yet what we're seeing is in both countries that promise of a secular country that is respectful of religious freedom, respectful of rule of law, respectful of freedom, upholding these values and being willing to stand up for them in the international stage. If we are joined together in delivering that message, East and West, to -- to the world, then I think that we can have an extraordinary impact. And I'm very much looking forward to that partnership in the days to come.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904090033
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:27 pm

America Not a Christian Nation? Wrong, Mr. President:
A Response to Barack Obama’s Denial of Our Christian Heritage

Mike Griffith
April 16, 2009


Presuming to speak for all Americans, during his recent visit to Turkey, President Obama stated that we Americans do not consider America to be a Christian nation, but just a nation of citizens. Our founding fathers and the great leaders who followed them would be disappointed and puzzled by this claim, to say the least.

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/christiannation.htm

~

see this writer's documentation of founding father's insistence the US is a Christian Nation.
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:30 pm

same document quoted by the Catholic publication (original article written by Jewish lawyer): this one QUOTES NOTORIOUS DUAL CITIZEN AND ZIONIST ALAN DERSHOWITZ)



Is America a Christian Nation?




10/3/2010 – Carl Pearlston -
The use of Christian religious references in the recent Presidential Inauguration prayers has served to reopen the debate over religion in America’s public life. Professor Alan Dershowitz led off with an article strongly objecting that America wasn’t a Christian nation; Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby replied that it certainly was. Who is right? Is America a Christian nation? The answer is both yes and no, depending on what one means by the phrase.

When President Harry Truman wrote to Pope Pius XII in 1947 that “This is a Christian nation.”, he certainly did not mean that the United States has an official or legally-preferred religion or church. Nor did he mean to slight adherents of non-Christian religions. But he certainly did mean to recognize that this nation, its institutions and laws, was founded on Biblical principles basic to Christianity and to Judaism from which it flowed. As he told an Attorney General’s Conference in 1950, “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.”
Woodrow Wilson, in his election campaign for President, made the same point:


“A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about…. America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture.”
The crucial role of Christianity in this nation’s formation is not without dispute, although as Revolutionary leader Patrick Henry said:

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship.”
John Ashcroft was roundly criticized for his “No King but Jesus” speech at Bob Jones University, but he was only reminding us of our colonial and Revolutionary War heritage. In a 1774 report to King George, the Governor of Boston noted: “If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.” The pre-war Colonial Committees of Correspondence soon made this the American motto: “No King but King Jesus.” And this sentiment was carried over into the 1783 peace treaty with Great Britain ending that war, which begins “In the name of the most Holy and Undivided Trinity… .”
Samuel Adams, who has been called ‘The Father of the American Revolution’ wrote The Rights of the Colonists in 1772, which stated:

“The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”
It is frequently asserted by those seeking to minimize Christianity’s central role in our nation’s founding and history, that the founders themselves were not practicing Christians, but rather were Deists or Agnostics. In a 1962 speech to Congress, Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.
Samuel Chase was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and, as Chief Justice of the State of Maryland, wrote in 1799 ( Runkel v Winemiller): “By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion… .” (Maryland was one of nine States having established churches supported by taxpayers at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; these churches were gradually disestablished, the last in 1833. The Maryland constitution, typical of many of the States, restricted public office to Christians until, in 1851, it was changed to allow Jews who believed in a future state of rewards and punishments to also serve).
Christianity pervaded the laws and the legal system of the States and the federal government. For example, Judge Nathaniel Freeman in 1802 charged Massachusetts Grand Juries as follows:

“The laws of the Christian system, as embraced by the Bible, must be respected as of high authority in all our courts… . [Our government] originating in the voluntary compact of a people who in that very instrument profess the Christian religion, it may be considered, not as republic Rome was, a Pagan, but a Christian republic.”
In 1811 (People v Ruggles), New York Chief Justice James Kent held:

“‘…whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government… .’ We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity… . Christianity in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is part and parcel of the law of the land… .”
In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme court held (Updegraph v The Commonwealth):

“Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law…not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men… .”
Our sixth President, John Quincy Adams said

“From the day of the Declaration…they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct”
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” This was said despite the explicit provision in the federal Constitution forbidding any religious test for federal public office.
Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Madison, said in an 1829 speech at Harvard:

“There never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation.”
Story wrote several respected treatises or Commentaries on Constitutional Law, in which are found the following:

“Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the [First] Amendment…the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”
“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government”.
Justice Story wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in 1844 (Vidal v Girard’s Executors): “It is also said, and truly that the Christian religion is a part of the common law… .”
In 1854, The United States House of Congress passed a resolution:

“The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
During the Civil War, The Senate passed a resolution in 1863:

“…devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God…encouraged …to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ, the Senate …does hereby request the President …to set aside a day for national prayer and humiliation.” President Lincoln promptly issued a Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day, stating “…in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate… .”
The US Supreme Court forbade polygamy in 1890 (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v United States): “It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world.”
Two years later, the Court, by Justice Brewer, approvingly cited many of the earlier cases cited above, discussed the history and prominent role of religion in laws, business, customs, and society, and held (Church of the Holy Trinity v United States):

“…this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation… . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation… .we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.”
Congress in essence summarized all this preceding history when it passed a Joint Resolution designating 1983 as The Year of the Bible, stating:

“Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people; …deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation; …Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States….designate 1983 as a national ‘Year of the Bible in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures”.
In 1988, a Joint Resolution of Congress declared that the first Thursday in May of each year is to be a National Day of Prayer.
The historical record from the foregoing quotes from past Presidents, leaders, Congressmen, Jurists and court decisions, seems firmly on the side of those claiming that America was born and maintained as a Christian nation whose laws, morals, and customs derive from Christian (and Jewish) scriptures. The opponents of this view, however, point to the first sentence of Article 11 of the obscure Tripoli Treaty of 1797 as seeming conclusive proof that America was never a Christian nation. Before discussing that critical sentence, the treaty itself should be read in context with all of the Barbary treaties.
The Barbary States on the coast of North Africa, comprising the Moslem States of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, attacked ships in their coastal waters which would not pay tribute, and held captives for ransom. The European nations had treaties with those states, under which, in exchange for tribute, shipping was protected. After the Revolutionary War, our new nation followed the lead of those European nations and entered into similar treaties. Breach of those treaties by the Barbary nations led to the Barbary wars in 1801.
The first treaty was with Morocco in 1786, negotiated by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. It was written in Arabic with an English translation. The treaty language assumes that the world was divided between Christians and Moors (Moslems), e.g. “If we shall be at war with any Christian Power … .”, “… no Vessel whatever belonging either to Moorish or Christian Powers with whom the United States may be at War … .”, “…be their enemies Moors or Christians.” These along with numerous references to God, e.g., “In the name of Almighty God,”, “… trusting in God …”, “Grace to the only God”, “…the servant of God …”, “… whom God preserve …”. are the only references to religion in this treaty of Peace and Friendship.
The next was the Treaty of Peace and Amity with Algiers in 1795,written in Turkish. The only reference to religion was in Article 17 which gave the Consul of the United States “… Liberty to Exercise his Religion in his own House [and] all Slaves of the Same Religion shall not be impeded in going to Said Consul’s house at hours of prayer… .” The Consul’s house was to function in lieu of a Christian church.
The Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation with Tunis in 1797 was in Turkish with a French translation. It begins “God is infinite.”, and refers to the Ottoman Emperor “whose realm may God prosper”, and to the President of the United States “… the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah, ….” Other than a reference to “the Christian year”, there is no further mention of religion.
The Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli was signed in 1796 in Arabic, and was later translated into English by Joel Barlow, United States Consul General at Algiers. Except for the typical phrases “Praise be to God” and “whom God Exalt”, there is no reference to religion other than the aforesaid remarkable Article 11, which reads,

“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 Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (sic) 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, with this language, was submitted to the Senate by President Adams, and was ratified. Thus, opponents of the ‘Christian nation’ concept point to this seemingly official repudiation of the very idea. Yet the language is less a repudiation of the role of Christianity in the nation’s heritage than a reminder that there was no national established church in the United States as there was in the European states with which Tripoli had previously dealt. This provided reassurance to the Moslem Bey and his religious establishment that religion, in of itself, would not be a basis of hostility between the two nations. None of the other similar treaties with the Barbary states, before or after this treaty, including the replacement treaties signed in 1804 after the Barbary Wars, have any language remotely similar.
And there is a deeper mystery: As noted in a footnote at page 1070 of the authoritative treatise by Bevans, Treaties and other International Agreements of the United States of America, citing treaty scholar Hunter Miller.
“While the Barlow translation quoted above has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since 1797, 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. There is no Article 11. 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” (Emphasis added)
In sum, the phrase was no doubt an invention of Mr. Barlow, who inserted it on his own for his own, unknown, purposes. It was duly ratified without question by the United States Senate, which would no doubt be hesitant to object to any phraseology which was represented as desired by the Bey of Tripoli, with whom the United States wanted peaceful relations. It remains a mystery.
Can America still be called a Christian nation?
It is certainly a more religiously pluralistic and diverse society than it was during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. There are increasing numbers of non-Christians immigrating to this country, and there has been a rapid rise in adherents to Islam among our population. There are millions of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, Hindus, Wiccans, Naturists, Agnostics, and Atheists, but Christians comprise roughly 84% of the population. Our constitutional legal system is still based on the Jewish/Christian Bible, not the Koran or other holy book. We still observe Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, as an official holiday. Easter and Christmas still have a special place in the holiday lexicon. The Ten Commandments are still on the wall behind the Supreme Court Justices when they take the bench. Our coins still display the motto “In God We Trust.”
The US is still firmly part of a Western Civilization fashioned by a Judeo-Christian religious ethic and heritage. Alexis de Tocqueville observed more than a century and a half ago, “There is no country in the world, where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America.” That is still true today. We live, not under a Christian government, but in a nation where all are free to practice their particular religion, in accommodation with other religions, and in accordance with the basic principles of the nation, which are Christian in origin. It is in that sense that America may properly be referred to as a Christian nation.
Carl Pearlston is an attorney in the Los Angeles area, specializing in arbitration/mediation, a former professor of Constitutional Law, an Annapolis graduate, and a Jewish conservative active in various organizations including Toward Tradition.
HT: CatholicEducation.org (originally published in April 2001)
Pearlston, Carl “Is America a Christian Nation.” Connecticut Jewish Ledger (April, 2001)

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2010/10/03/is-america-a-christian-nation/
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:34 pm

THIS FROM STEPHEN JAY GOULD:








Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

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.






      Related Sites
      Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?
      U.S. Congressional Documents - Treaty with Tripoli [ Page 2 ]
      Joel Barlow And The Treaty With Tripoli
      200th Anniversary of Secular Treaty
      Little-Known U.S. Document
      The U.S. not founded upon Christianity
      Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church




http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:40 pm

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac2&fileName=009/llac009.db&recNum=340
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Treaty of Tripoli: WIKIPEDIA

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:44 pm

The first 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 first treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.


The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripoli, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has gained attention because the English version included a clause about religion in America:[3]

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,—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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:52 pm

look what this (Zionist front Columbia Univ) liar does: COVERS UP THE JEWISH BARLOW LEAVEN, AND GOES ON TO SAY AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST HAS BEEN 'PROTESTANT IMPERIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!'

this is PURE ORWELLIAN DOUBLESPEAK NIGHTMARE MATERIAL!
~

I found that America's involvement in the Middle East followed distinct patterns, three themes that I later labeled Power, Faith and Fantasy. Power referred to the search for economic and strategic advantages in the Middle East. Faith related to the role of religion, in particular Protestantism, in America's Middle East interaction.

~

The Middle East and the Making of the United States, 1776 to 1815






Speech by Michael B. Oren, BA '77, MIA '78
Senior Fellow, The Shalem Center
Delivered at Columbia University, Nov. 3


Just over twenty years ago, when I was a graduate student in Middle East Studies, I heard a lecture on a group of Civil War veterans, Northerners and Confederates, who had served as advisors to the Egyptian army in the late 1860s and 1870s. Not only did they modernize Egypt's defenses, the professor said, but they also built schoolhouses to teach literacy to Egyptian soldiers and their children. I was stunned. Like most Americans, I assumed that our country's involvement in the Middle East began shortly after World War II, with the advent of the Cold War, the expansion of Gulf oil production, and the emergence of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It never occurred to me that the United States was interacting substantively with the Middle East in the middle of the nineteenth century, and perhaps earlier.

I went on to devote my academic career to the history of the State of Israel and the diplomacy of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet, throughout, I maintained this closeted fascination with the history of America in the Middle East. I was fascinated by the diplomatic and military dimensions of that history -- did you know, for example, that U.S. Marines landed no less than four times in the Middle East in the nineteenth century alone? -- as well as by cultural history, by the impact of the Middle East on the writings of Washington Irving and Herman Melville, on Emerson and Mark Twain.

I found that America's involvement in the Middle East followed distinct patterns, three themes that I later labeled Power, Faith and Fantasy. Power referred to the search for economic and strategic advantages in the Middle East. Faith related to the role of religion, in particular Protestantism, in America's Middle East interaction. And fantasy pertained to the contribution of popular myths about the Middle East in the formation of American perceptions of, and policies toward, the region.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/michaelOren.html
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 2:57 pm

Was and is the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli an official treaty of the USA? Yes, all 12 articles as printed in English. See Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America , Hunter Miller, ed., 2:349-385:

"Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, . . . and at Algiers January 3, 1797, . . . . Original in Arabic. Submitted [in English] to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. . . . Proclaimed June 10, 1797" (p. 349).

"Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" (p. 364).

"Article 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 tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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" (p. 365).

" The text . . . [of the] Treaty written in the Arabic Language, being translated into the Language of the United States, . . . is almost exactly the same as that in the Statutes at Large, . . . . Accordingly the provisions of the twelve articles appear . . . as written by [American diplomat Joel] Barlow in English in the original treaty book."

"Thus the proclamation [June 10, 1797] was immediate with the ratification and did not await any such formality as notice to the Bey of Tripoli of the ratification of the treaty by the United States. The treaty . . . had been bought; and, as much of the purchase price had already been paid, any subsequent item of procedure was doubtless considered to be of comparatively little importance."

"Note Regarding the Barlow Translation. The translation is that of Barlow as written in the original treaty book, including not only the twelve articles of the treaty proper, but also the receipt" (p. 383).

"It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate . . . and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty."

http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html
avatar
zone
Mod
Mod

Posts : 3653
Gender : Female Location : In Christ
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

JOEL BARLOW

Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 4:21 pm

JOEL BARLOW



  • Barlow, Joel (1754-1812) — of Hartford, Hartford County, Conn. Born in Redding, Fairfield County, Conn., March 24, 1754. Son of Samuel Barlow and Esther (Hull) Barlow; married 1781 to Ruth Baldwin (sister of Abraham Baldwin). Served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War; writer; poet; U.S. Consul in Cadiz, 1792-93; U.S. Consul General in Algiers, 1796-97; U.S. Minister to France, 1811-12, died in office 1812. Member, Society of the Cincinnati; Freemasons. He was sent to Algeria to negotiate for the release of those held prisoner by the Barbary pirates, and was protected by a detachment of U.S. Marines. The words "to the shores of Tripoli" in the U.S. Marine Hymn are a reference to this incident. Died, of pneumonia or exposure, in Zarnowiec, Poland, December 24, 1812. Interment at Churchyard, Zarnowiec, Poland; cenotaph at Great Pasture Road Cemetery, Redding, Conn.

    • See also Baldwin family of Connecticut
    • See also: NNDB dossier.

    http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/barlow.html#RK30V8T6Y
  • avatar
    zone
    Mod
    Mod

    Posts : 3653
    Gender : Female Location : In Christ
    Join date : 2011-01-31

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

    Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 4:35 pm

    The
    Charles Looney
    Engraving Collection



    Image Index

    (Annotations to this Index are largely from
    Denlow's 10,000 Famous Freemasons)


    The Chancellor Robert R Livingston
    Masonic Library of Grand Lodge
    General Archives Collection


    Livingston Masonic Library
    71 W 23rd Street
    New York, NY 10010-4171
    (212) 337-6620


    BARLOW, JOEL (1754-1812): Poet and diplomat; member of St. John's Lodge No. 4, Hartford, Conn. (4 images)

    ~


    BARLOW GENEOLOGY
    http://www.barlowgenealogy.com/FairfieldFamilies/joelbarlow.html
    avatar
    zone
    Mod
    Mod

    Posts : 3653
    Gender : Female Location : In Christ
    Join date : 2011-01-31

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    DRUZE

    Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 5:08 pm

    under search terms NOAHIDE TREATY TRIPOLI:

    The Druze leaders support the spread of the Seven Noahide Commandments which reflects the biblical narrative itself.


    The Druze community reveres the non-Hebrew father-in-law of Moses, Jethro.
    The Druze (Arabic:derzī or durzī‎, plural durūz, Hebrew:druzim) are a religious community found primarily in Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, whose traditional religion is said to have begun as an offshoot of Islam, but is unique in its incorporation of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism and other philosophies, similar to other followers of Ismaili Shi’a Islam. Theologically, Druze consider themselves “an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect”. The Druze call themselves Ahl al-Tawhid “People of Unitarianism or Monotheism” or al-Muwaḥḥidūn “Unitarians, Monotheists.”

    ~

    The Druze faith began as a movement in Ismailism that was mainly influenced by Greek philosophy and gnosticism and opposed certain religious and philosophical ideologies that were present during that epoch. The faith was founded by Hamza ibn ‘Alī ibn Ahmad, a Persian Ismaili mystic and scholar. He came to Egypt in 1014 and assembled a group of scholars and leaders from across the Islamic world to form a new Unitarian movement. The order’s meetings were held in the Raydan Mosque, near the Al-Hakim Mosque.

    ~

    Beliefs of the Druze: The Druze are considered to be a social group as well as a religion, but not a distinct ethnic group. Also complicating their identity is the custom of Taqiya (concealing or disguising their beliefs when necessary) that they adopted from Shia Islam and the esoteric nature of the faith, in which many teachings are kept secretive. Druze in different states can have radically different lifestyles. Some claim to be Muslim, some do not. The Druze faith is said to abide by Islamic principles, but they tend to be separatist in their treatment of Druze-hood, and their religion differs from mainstream Islam on a number of fundamental points.Druze does not allow conversion to the religion. Marriage between Druze and non-Druze is strongly discouraged for religious, political and historical reasons.

    ~

    Precepts of the Druze faith: The Druze follow seven precepts that are considered the core of the faith, and are perceived by them as the essence of the pillars of Islam. The Seven Druze precepts are:

    Veracity in speech and the truthfulness of the tongue.
    Protection and mutual aid to the brethren in faith.

    Renunciation of all forms of former worship (specifically, invalid creeds) and false belief.

    Repudiation of the devil (Iblis), and all forces of evil (translated from Arabic Toghyan meaning “despotism”).

    Confession of God’s unity.

    Acquiescence in God’s acts no matter what they be.
    Absolute submission and resignation to God’s divine will in both secret and public
    ˤUqqāl and Juhhāl

    The Druze are divided into two groups. The largely secular majority, called al-Juhhāl (“the Ignorant”) are not granted access to the Druze holy literature or allowed to attend the initiated Uqqal’s religious meetings. They are around 80% of the Druze population and are not obliged to follow the ascetic traditions of the Uqqal .

    The initiated religious group, which includes both men and women (about 20% of the population), is called al-ˤUqqāl (“the Knowledgeable Initiates”). They have a special mode of dress designed to comply with Quranic traditions. Women can opt to wear al-mandīl, a loose white veil, especially in the presence of other people. They wear al-mandīl on their heads to cover their hair and wrap it around their mouths and sometimes over their noses as well. They wear black shirts and long skirts covering their legs to their ankles. Male ˤuqqāl grow mustaches, and wear dark Levantine/Turkish traditional dresses, called the shirwal, with white turbans that vary according to the Uqqal’s hierarchy.

    ~

    The most accepted theory is that the Druzes are a mixture of stocks in which the Arab largely predominates while being grafted onto an original mountain population of Aramaic blood. Some modern Druzes could be the remnants of the Samaritans; those of the Cuthites; Maronites, Alawites of Syria, together with the Armenians, Bektashis, ‘Ali-Ilahis, and Yezidis of Asia Minor and Persia, the modern representatives of the ancient Hittites.

    ~

    According to DNA testing, Druze are remarkable for the high frequency (35%) of males who carry the Y-chromosomal haplogroup L, which is otherwise uncommon in the Mideast (Shen et al. 2004). The researchers noted that the Druze villages contained a striking range of high frequency and high diversity of the X haplogroup, suggesting that this population provides a glimpse into the past genetic landscape of the Near East at a time when the X haplogroup was more prevalent. These findings are consistent with the Druze oral tradition, that claims that the adherents of the faith came from diverse ancestral lineages stretching back tens of thousands of years

    ~

    The Shihab leadership continued until the middle of the 19th century and culminated in the illustrious governorship of Amir Bashir Shihab II (1788–1840) who, after Fakhr-al-Din, was the most powerful feudal lord Lebanon produced. Though governor of the Druze Mountain Bashir was a crypto-Christian, and it was he whose aid Napoleon solicited in 1799 during his campaign against Syria.

    Having consolidated his conquests in Syria (1831–1838), Ibrahim Pasha, son of the viceroy of Egypt, Muhammad Ali Pasha, made the fatal mistake of trying to disarm the Christians and Druzes of the Lebanon and to draft the latter into his army. This was contrary to the principles of the life of independence which these mountaineers had always lived, and resulted in a general uprising against Egyptian rule. The uprising was encouraged, for political reasons, by the British. The Druzes of Wadi-al-Taym and Ḥawran, under the leadership of Shibli al-Aryan, distinguished themselves in their stubborn resistance at their inaccessible headquarters, al-Laja, lying southeast of Damascus

    ~

    Civil War of 1860: The Druzes and their Christian Maronite neighbors, who had thus far lived as religious communities on friendly terms, entered a period of social disturbance in the year 1840, which culminated in the civil war of 1860. For this disturbance the Ottoman Sultan was, in a great measure, responsible. The Sultan, realizing that the only way to bring the semi-independent people of Lebanon under his direct control was to sow the seeds of discord among the people themselves, inaugurated in the mountain a policy long tried and found successful in the Ottoman provinces, the policy of “divide and rule”.

    After the Shehab dynasty converted to Christianity, the Druze community and feudal leaders came under attack from the regime with the collaboration of the Catholic Church, and the Druze lost most of their political and feudal powers. Also, the Druze formed a strong ally with Britain and allowed Protestant missionaries to enter Mount Lebanon, creating tension between them and the Catholic Maronites, who were supported by the French.

    ~

    Modern history: In Lebanon, Syria, and Israel, the Druze have official recognition as a separate religious community with its own religious court system. Their symbol is an array of five colors: green, red, yellow, blue, and white. Each color pertains to a symbol defining its principles: green for Aql “the Universal Mind”, red for Nafs “the Universal Soul”, yellow for Kalima “the Truth/Word”, blue for Sabq “the Potentiality/Cause”, and white for Talī “the Actuality/Effect”. These principles are why the number five has special considerations among the religious community; it is usually represented symbolically by a five-pointed star.In Syria, most Druze live in the Jebel al-Druze, a rugged and mountainous region in the southwest of the country, which is more than 90 percent Druze inhabited; some 120 villages are exclusively so.

    ~

    Druze In Israel: In Israel, the majority of the approximately 120,000 Druze consider themselves a distinct religious group. Since 1957, the Israeli government has also designated the Druze a distinct ethnic community, at the request of the community’s leaders. Five Druze lawmakers currently have been elected to serve in the 18th Knesset, a large number considering their population.
    A minority of Druze live in the Golan region, which is controlled by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967 and officially annexed by Israel in 1981. Druze have a separate legal status from those in the Galilee region, and are considered permanent residents under the Golan Heights Law of 1981.

    Druze in the Golan are not drafted into the Israeli army (although a minority serve voluntarily) and many travel to Syria regularly to visit family or receive university degrees in Damascus.

    The Druze population who are citizens of Israel are prominent in the Israel Defense Forces and in politics.

    A considerable number of Israeli Druze soldiers have fallen in Israel’s wars since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

    The bond between Jewish and Druze soldiers is commonly known by the term “a covenant of blood” (Hebrew – brit damim).




    Daliyat Al-Karmel, Israeli Memorial to 355 Druze killed while fighting for Israel
    avatar
    zone
    Mod
    Mod

    Posts : 3653
    Gender : Female Location : In Christ
    Join date : 2011-01-31

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    DRUZE PUSHING NOAHIDE LAWS

    Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 5:12 pm

    In 1996, Azzam Azzam, a Druze Israeli businessman, was accused by Egypt of spying for Israel and was imprisoned for eight years, an accusation denied by the Israeli government. Until his death in 1993, the Druze community in Israel was led by Shaykh Amin Tarif, a charismatic figure regarded by many within the Druze community internationally as the preeminent religious leader of his time.

    In January 2004, the spiritual leader of the Druze community in Israel, Shaykh Mowafak Tarif, signed a declaration calling on all non-Jews in Israel to observe the Seven Noahide Laws as laid down in the Bible and expounded upon in Jewish tradition. The mayor of the Galilean city of Shefa-’Amr also signed the document. The declaration includes the commitment to make “a better humane world based on the Seven Noahide Commandments and the values they represent commanded by the Creator to all mankind through Moses on Mount Sinai.”

    Support for the spread of the Seven Noahide Commandments by the Druze leaders reflects the biblical narrative itself.

    The Druze community reveres the non-Hebrew father-in-law of Moses, Jethro, whom some Muslims identify with Shuʻayb. According to the biblical narrative, Jethro joined and assisted the Jewish people in the desert during the Exodus, accepted monotheism, but ultimately rejoined his own people. The tomb of Jethro near Tiberias is the most important religious site for the Druze community. It has been claimed that the Druze are actually descendants of Jethro.

    ~

    WELL SURPRISE, SURPRISE:

    In August 2001, Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir toured the predominantly Druze Chouf region of Mount Lebanon and visited Mukhtara, the ancestral stronghold of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. The tumultuous reception that Sfeir received not only signified a historic reconciliation between Maronites and Druze, who fought a bloody war in 1983-1984, but underscored the fact that the banner of Lebanese sovereignty had broad multi-confessional appeal and was a cornerstone for the Cedar Revolution.

    The second largest political party supported by Druze is the Lebanese Democratic Party led by Prince Talal Arslan the son of one of the independence leaders Prince Magid Arslan. Also political parties such as the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Lebanese Unification Movement and Lebanese Communist Party have a considerable amount of supporters in the community.

    http://www.biblediscovered.com/religions-in-israel/druze-descendants-of-jethro/
    avatar
    zone
    Mod
    Mod

    Posts : 3653
    Gender : Female Location : In Christ
    Join date : 2011-01-31

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    free form searcing

    Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 5:27 pm

    just following the rabbit trail folks....bear with me: SEARCH TERMS: DRUZE SUFI KHAZARS

    caliph - the authority of the caliph
    A Wisdom Archive on caliph - the authority of the caliph
    caliph - the authority of the caliph

    A selection of articles related to caliph - the authority of the caliph

    ~

    caliph - the authority of the caliph: Encyclopedia II - List of Khazar rulers - Khazar Beks


    The Beks were warlords, military commanders who exercised considerable day-to-day authority, and were sometimes regarded by outsiders as the supreme lords of the Khazar nation. It is not entirely clear that the individuals listed before 737 AD were or were not Bulanids, or were Beks. They may have been simply warlords. Nevertheless, their activity parallels that of later Beks, and so are included. Hazer's army was annihilated at Itil in 737 AD and the Caliphate imposed Islam upon the Khazars. Nevertheless, the Caliphs could not adequa ...
    See also:


    List of Khazar rulers, List of Khazar rulers - Early Khazar rulers, List of Khazar rulers - Khazar Khagans Ashina dynasty, List of Khazar rulers - 618 — 650, List of Khazar rulers - 690 — 715, List of Khazar rulers - 720 — 732, List of Khazar rulers - 730s — 840s, List of Khazar rulers - 861 -, List of Khazar rulers - Khazar Beks, List of Khazar rulers - Bulanid dynasty, List of Khazar rulers - Late Khazar Rulers

    Read more here: » List of Khazar rulers: Encyclopedia II - List of Khazar rulers - Khazar Beks
    avatar
    zone
    Mod
    Mod

    Posts : 3653
    Gender : Female Location : In Christ
    Join date : 2011-01-31

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    BACK TO THE KHAZARS

    Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 5:30 pm

    List of Khazar rulers: Encyclopedia II - List of Khazar rulers - Khazar Beks

    List of Khazar rulers - Khazar Beks


    The Beks were warlords, military commanders who exercised considerable day-to-day authority, and were sometimes regarded by outsiders as the supreme lords of the Khazar nation. It is not entirely clear that the individuals listed before 737 AD were or were not Bulanids, or were Beks. They may have been simply warlords. Nevertheless, their activity parallels that of later Beks, and so are included.

    Hazer's army was annihilated at Itil in 737 AD and the Caliphate imposed Islam upon the Khazars. Nevertheless, the Caliphs could not adequately garrison Khazaria, and within a few years the Khazars were once again independent.

    The famous conversion to Judaism seems to have occurred about this time. The date of the actual conversion to Judaism is a matter of some controversy. According to Yehuda Halevi in Kuzari, it occurred around 740 AD, though some Arab sources point to a date closer to the end of the 700s or early 800s, and more recent scholars postulated that 861 AD, the date of St. Cyril's visit to Khazaria, was the year of the conversion to Judaism.

    The 2002 discovery of a coin hoard in Sweden further complicates the issue, as some of the coins bear dates from the early 800s and the legends "Ard al-Khazar" (Land of the Khazars) and "Moses is the Prophet of God". Since the coins date from 837 AD or 838 AD, some scholars think the conversion occurred in 838 AD. Bulan Sabriel was the Khazar ruler at the time of the conversion, but in the below list all the dates up to Aaron I are based on a presumed 740 AD conversion date.

    Other related archives

    1016, 1100s, 17th century, 1930s, 2002, 650s, 680s, 690, 715, 737, 740, 786, 809, 837, 838, 861, 900, 900s, 920, 920s, 940, 965, 969, 986, 988, Aaron II, Abd al-Rahman III, Akatziroi, Ashkenazi Jews, Benjamin, Bihar, Black Sea, Bulan Sabriel, Bulanids, Bulgar, Bulgaria, Busir Glavan, Byzantine Empire, Caliph of Córdoba, Caucasus, Cleanup from July 2005, Constantine V, Crimea, Cumans, David, Djagfar tarikhy, Gazaria, Genoese, Georgius Tzul, Hasdai ibn Shaprut, Hungary, Huns, Iraq, Islam, Itil, Jewish, Joseph, Judaism, Justinian II, Kaban, Kerch, Khalga, Khazar, Khazar rulers, Khazaria, Khazars, Kiev, Kipchaks, Leo IV, Leo The Khazar, Menahem, Moses, NKVD, Obadiah, Poland, Pontic steppe, Priscus, Sea of Azov, Spain, St. Cyril, Sviatoslav I of Kiev, Sweden, Tarkhan, Tatars, Tiberius III, Tzitzak, Volgan, Yehuda Halevi, steppe, vizier

    http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/List_of_Khazar_rulers_-_Khazar_Beks/id/1610790
    avatar
    zone
    Mod
    Mod

    Posts : 3653
    Gender : Female Location : In Christ
    Join date : 2011-01-31

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

    Post by zone on Sat May 28, 2011 5:42 pm





    Druze soldiers in 1948



    The Druze in Israel

    Friday, May 15, 2009




    Druze soldiers in 1948
    The Druze people reside primarily in Israel, Syria and Lebanon. It is an Arab-speaking community loyal to the state that has suffered hundreds of casualties in its defense, and whose men serve today in high-ranking and sensitive positions within the Israeli military and security forces. In Israel the majority of the Druze consider themselves a distinct ethnic group and do not identify themselves as Arab.


    The Druze community in Israel is officially recognized as a separate religious entity with its own courts (with jurisdiction in matters of personal status - marriage, divorce, maintenance and adoption) and spiritual leadership. Their culture is Arab and their language Arabic but they opted against mainstream Arab nationalism in 1948 and have since served (first as volunteers, later within the draft system) in the Israel Defense Forces and the Border Police (here is an article on the first Druze navigator in the Israeli Air-Force).





    Druze soldiers participate in Israel's first Independence Day Parade, 1949

    ~

    MOVING OVER TO A DRUZE THREAD IN OTHER RELIGIONS.....................

    Worldwide there are probably about one million Druze living mainly in Syria and Lebanon, with 104,000 in Israel, including about 18,000 in the Golan (which came under Israeli rule in 1967) and several thousands who emigrated to Europe and North and South America.
    The Druze community in Israel has a special standing among the country's minority groups, and members of the community have attained high-level positions in the political, public and military spheres.
    avatar
    zone
    Mod
    Mod

    Posts : 3653
    Gender : Female Location : In Christ
    Join date : 2011-01-31

    View user profile

    Back to top Go down

    Re: America is a Noahide Nation (Treaty of Tripoli)

    Post by Sponsored content


    Sponsored content


    Back to top Go down

    View previous topic View next topic Back to top


     
    Permissions in this forum:
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum