Here comes that silly misrepresentation of the Treaty with Tripoli argument again
Every so often, I come across an ignorant burst of secularist thought about the Treaty with Tripoli. I'm usually amused by the lack of ability on the part of some to perform the critical thought processes necessary to derive meaning from text that contains complex punctuation. All hail those who don't understand semicolons yet consider themselves intellectually adept enough to divine "Original Intent!"
Alex at Marginal Revolution puts this "talent" on display quite nicely. He even links to avowedly secular humanist authors in his poor attempt to misuse the following:
Alex tries to make a big deal of the fact that the there was no outcry when the ratified treaty was published in the newspapers. The citizens of the day who read newspapers were well aware of the issue and found no fault in the language because all it did was continue to differentiate America from Europe as not having an official state religion.
The argument that this section of the treaty is "proof of original intent" works the same way as "I did not have 'sex' with that woman." It's true only if you redefine what "sex" is. Folks, there's a reason why there were semicolons, not periods in the text. It is a real shame that today's vacuous minds, fed by insipid bastions of public education, do not know how to read it properly.
The treaty is a useful tool today only for those who insist on not only misreading its sentence structure, but also viewing it through their own contemporary lenses with no recognition that the contextual nuances were markedly different in 1797.
Technorati tags: Treaty with Tripoli, ignorance
Alex at Marginal Revolution puts this "talent" on display quite nicely. He even links to avowedly secular humanist authors in his poor attempt to misuse the following:
"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."The Barbary States (Think Barbary Pirates) were the equivalent of today's Islamists. They had captured and enslaved American seamen, as they had been doing to the seafarers of European Christian States for years. With no appreciable navy, America had to use diplomacy (and submit ransom) in attempts to free up navigation for its commerce in the region. This section was a reference intended to separate America from the lands that participated in the Crusades.
Alex tries to make a big deal of the fact that the there was no outcry when the ratified treaty was published in the newspapers. The citizens of the day who read newspapers were well aware of the issue and found no fault in the language because all it did was continue to differentiate America from Europe as not having an official state religion.
The argument that this section of the treaty is "proof of original intent" works the same way as "I did not have 'sex' with that woman." It's true only if you redefine what "sex" is. Folks, there's a reason why there were semicolons, not periods in the text. It is a real shame that today's vacuous minds, fed by insipid bastions of public education, do not know how to read it properly.
The treaty is a useful tool today only for those who insist on not only misreading its sentence structure, but also viewing it through their own contemporary lenses with no recognition that the contextual nuances were markedly different in 1797.
Technorati tags: Treaty with Tripoli, ignorance
