I don’t recall “fear” coming into this, especially since in either the Rome or Islam future, I, my kids and my grandkids will be long dead. There are multiple other scenarios that are much more likely than Islam taking over, none of which present a bright and rosy future.<quoted text>
My point for the Treaty of Tripoli, be that 1797 or 1805, is the fear mongering of being taken over by Islam is centuries long.
And your saying the future of this country looking dim was not for the threat of Islam sure didn't read that way;
"You may be right. We could go the way of ancient Rome where anything goes. Or like Europe, Islam could eventually take over.
Either way the future of the country is pretty dim."
It surely read like the fear of Islamic take over was part and parcel to the dim future projection.
And though Article XI in the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli wasn't in the Arabic version is irrelevant. That it was in the English version that the Senate ratified and President Adams signed and made the law of the land is relevant.
I happen to agree with;
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."
As Islamic countries have always been Theocracies.
I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic and leave the theism to the people's private lives. As the people should run their private lives with respect for others living theirs. This is where separate but equal has a place.
But, the nuances of such "public" interactions with respect to others theistic viewpoints is far too intricate to be getting into on a venue such as this one.
Oh, and I disagree with your take on the Crusades. That was all about European Christians being out to secure "the holly land" for Christianity.
And the Islamic leaders were pissed off at the United States for being behind in their tribute and the subsequent war that led to the Treaty of 1805.
If the article in question wasn’t in the Arabic version than what was the real purpose? It’s stated purpose was to “allay the fears of the Muslim state” but if it wasn’t in their treaty then they never saw it. How would it allay their fears if they didn’t know about it?
As you pointed out, it was the law of the land. For 8 years and then was rescinded by Jefferson. The idea has never been affirmed again.
If by “I strongly believe governments of countries and/or states should be non-theocratic” you mean that governments should not be turned over to the local religious leaders to run I agree. If you mean that governments should operate as atheistic bodies without consideration to religion, then I strongly disagree.