On September 11th, The United States Embassy in Cairo issued a statement condemning the attempts of “misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” The statement was in response to growing outrage stemming from an anti-Islamic movie produced in America. The movie was recently translated into Arabic and viewed via the internet throughout the Middle East and other Arabic speaking nations.
Although the statement issued by the U.S. Embassy was intended to assuage the offended and deter potentially violent reactions, attacks on American embassies ensued in both Egypt and Libya. Another attack followed on September 13th in Yemen.
The original statement by the U.S. Embassy met criticism from, among others, Mitt Romney. Romney cited the statement as “akin to an apology,” and felt that the statement did not “defend [American] values,” implying that the President did not support the first amendment freedom of speech exercised by the American film maker.
So let’s say Romney is right. Let’s make the inference Romney wants us to make and say that President Obama’s take on the first amendment is that it is not absolute, that it does not extend to those who offend Muslims. Even if this stretcher (as Mark Twain would call it) were accurate, it wouldn’t be the first time America denounced a foundational value in the face of Muslim opposition.
In America’s infancy, the government faced troubled waters, quite literally. American merchant ships were being attacked off the Barbary Coast by Muslim pirates. In order to establish more peaceful relations with the Islamic North African nations (modern day Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco), the American Congress proposed and unanimously ratified the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797.
The controversial legacy of this treaty lies in 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 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 American Congress at the time clearly saw a benefit to denouncing America as a fundamentally Christian nation. The benefit was the safety of American sailors and hostages from hostile, state-sponsored Muslim pirates.
Now, if you are of the opinion that the United States was founded on the Christian religion, this section of the treaty can mean one of two things: 1) you are dead wrong, or 2) the United States was simply trying to ease relations between Americans and Muslims by telling an outright lie. I tend to favor option one, but I certainly wouldn’t put it past an American government to lie in a treaty. (By the way, if Congress did blatantly break the ninth commandment in the treaty, it does not help the argument that American government was founded on the Christian religion.)
Whether or not America was “founded on the Christian religion” can be debated, but the fact that it was founded by imperfect Christians who touted the guiding principles and values found in the Christian Bible is an indisputable truth. Still, the statement in Article 11 is clearly an attempt by the American government to distance itself from any American value derived from Christianity.
This brings us full circle to the statement made in Cairo.
In an effort to protect innocent lives, the American Embassy in Cairo distanced itself from a specific value that Americans hold dear: freedom of speech. Did America revoke the freedom of speech from the hateful individuals whose handiwork incited the violence that resulted in the murder of another American? No. Did America apologize for those hateful individuals’ actions? Yes, but only in an effort to safeguard Americans from the consequences of those idiots’ actions.
Ultimately, what has been revealed through Mitt Romney’s commentary regarding the situation in Libya is the unwavering belief many people have in American exceptionalism. But this is not simply a belief that America is exceptional; it is an arrogant worldview that incorrectly assumes that America can do no wrong and that Americans are always right, no matter who is killed as a result of their actions—even other Americans.
**Update** 9/14/2012: Realizing his knee-jerk reaction was not scoring the political points he was after, Mitt Romney adopts the same stance on the anti-Islamic movie as the White House. The Guinness Book of World Records is currently working to verify whether or not this breaks Romney’s current record for fastest political flip-flop.
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
J.
You may wan to check out the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. The Church of the Holy Trinity in the late 19th c. They declared that the US was indeed a Christian nation.
Just some food for thought.
J. Palmer said:
Thanks, Mark. I will check that out.
I try not to get too picky with wording, but in this case it is impossible to avoid.
Considering American citizens comprise 78% of the country, I would not argue that America isn’t a “Christian nation.” But whether or not it was “founded on the Christian religion” is a completely different topic.
genesisofmankind said:
You may wan to check out the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. The Church of the Holy Trinity in the late 19th c. They declared that the US was indeed a Christian nation.
The same court that gave us Plessy vs Ferguson? Ha…no surprise there.
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
And your point is?
It’s still a ruling, just as the one is from the 1700′s that J. mentioned.
Bottom line is…the US founded on Christian principles and the majority religion now is Christian.
genesisofmankind said:
Bottom line is…the US founded on Christian principles and the majority religion now is Christian.
Is Deism a Christian principle Mark? Is freemasonry a Christian principle?
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
A few of our founding fathers were indeed Deists. Others were not.
But, let’s go back before the DOI was written. There’s absolutely no denying that the desire for religious freedom was an impetus for the founding of this nation. Look at the Mayflower Compact. This was the first document establishing government in the colonies and it clearly mentions the God of Christianity.
Finally, look at the wording of the DOI and the US Constitution. Just because it didn’t clearly line out the Gospel doesn’t mean there wasnt Christian influence. There is clear indication in those documents that Christianity was a founding principle.
Barneysday said:
So if we believe we are a Christian nation, then freedom of religion only applies to Christian religions?
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
Do we really have to answer that?
Of course not. Freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) applies to everyone.
Just like Freedom of Speech.
genesisofmankind said:
Just because it didn’t clearly line out the Gospel doesn’t mean there wasnt Christian influence.
No one is denying there was Christian influence. I’m not following you when yo make the stretch to being founded on Christian principles. Every other nation in Christendom up to then was a theocracy of some sort with a ruling monarch. The U.S. republic was a radical departure from all these other Christian nations. Are there any republics with separation of church and state in the Old Testament?
I think its more accurate to say that our nation was founded on republican and representative government principles of Greece and Rome.
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
That’s a good point, genesis.
But, because most of our founding fathers and groups held to Christianity, their worldview was based on the principles found in the Bible. Thus, the creation of their government and laws were influenced by what they knew in the Bible.
The theocracies that existed in Europe were the very impetus that sent many to the New World. Whatever form of government they would create would certainly include separation of church and state as well as the freedom to worship as they would choose, be they Congregationalists, Quakers, Baptists, and so on.
I’m not denying that the form, or methodology, of government was modeled after a representative model, but the biblical principles greatly influenced their founding documents and laws.
Raunak said:
JP…I completely agree with your views..I have been arguing, with a lot of readers on my blog,the fact that it is important for the U.S government to protect its citizens all over the globe…and if hate speeches inside the US jeopardize the safety of its citizens around the world, the government must act swiftly.
Also, I’d like to point out that to build a nation, cultural homogeneity is more important than religious.
Jeff S said:
Question for Mark Moore – How can you have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion? If my religion is to not believe, am I not free to do that?
Mark Moore - commentary on the gospel, baseball, and other stuff said:
Jeff S.
“If my religion…”. Yes, Jeff S. You have the freedom to enjoy no religion (since that’s your religion!)
My point is that the 1st Amendment, interpreted correctly, in the spirit that it was written, guarantees citizens the right to worship freely. And, that certainly gives you the right to enjoy a religion of “no religion”.
However, the current trend is to interpret the amendment to mean “freedom from religion”. For example, a court ruling in Colorado in the last decade of the 20th c. overturned a majority vote of its citizens saying that voters had used their religious beliefs to cast a vote (I think it was same-sex marriage) and therefore had “established a religion” in their actions. That’s a gross misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment. There was a similar ruling in in Iowa.
So, if I, as a Christian, am establishing a religion when I vote, because my beliefs influence my vote, that in essence violates my 1st Amendment rights. Do you feel that’s right?
That’s what I’m saying when I interjected the phrase “Freedom from Religion”.
Trust me on this…I respect your rights and the last thing I’m going to do is pound your head with my Bible and disrespect you as a person. Religion is a personal issue. Yet, let’s not stick our head in the sand and misinterpret history, or rewrite it, to fit our own opinions or agendas.
Jeff S said:
Ah. Thanks so much for explaining that. I have often heard that phrase and it did not make sense to me. There is no way to takes ones religion out of one’s choices, so to say a vote doesn’t count because it was their religion is truly idiotic.
J. Palmer said:
**Update** 9/14/2012: Realizing his knee-jerk reaction was not scoring the political points he was after, Mitt Romney adopts the same stance on the anti-Islamic movie as the White House. The Guinness Book of World Records is currently working to verify whether or not this breaks Romney’s current record of fastest political flip-flop.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/mitt-romney-condemns-anti-muslim-film-echoing-white-house-position.php?ref=fpblg