London Girl, hope this helps...
Here is link to Yale Law School to read the original treaties as they were written: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/barmenu.asp
It is not this way, the way you have this portrayed, there is a lot of real history behind this, if you care to research it.
here is some additional thoughts about this Treaty to read;
United States Treaties with the Barbary States (conclusion)
By Chris Rodda Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:06:54 PM EST print story
This is the third and final installment of the serialization of the chapter of my book, Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, on our early government's dealings with the Barbary States. (The first installment can be found here, and the second here.)
As demonstrated by Chuck Norris's two recent WorldNetDaily articles, "A 200-year-old lesson on 9/11" and "Is America a Christian nation?," the revisionists are now equating the Barbary Wars of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries with the current "War on Terror" -- "Once a religious war, always a religious war," according to Norris.
Most of the lies used by Norris pre-date the current war, and were originally created by revisionists like David Barton to support their assertion that the Barbary Wars are proof that the United States was a Christian nation, simply because the enemies were Muslims. Now, of course, there is a new use for these lies -- justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But, as you will see below in Thomas Jefferson's account of "General" Eaton's unauthorized military operation, Jefferson, along with his Secretary of State, James Madison, "considered that concerted operations by those who have a common enemy, were entirely justifiable, and might produce effects favorable to both, without binding either to guarantee the objects of the other," but said of Eaton's promise of United States help to affect a regime change in Tripoli that a "stipulation so entirely unauthorized, so far beyond our views, and so onerous, could not be sanctioned by our Government." Once a treaty was negotiated with the reigning ruler of Tripoli, and the United States' problem was solved, the involvement of United States was over. The fact that Tripoli still had a tyrannical ruler who had stolen the throne from the legitimate heir just wasn't our problem. So, there is a lesson to be learned from history here, it just isn't the one that Chuck Norris wants it to be.
This final installment of "Treaties with the Barbary States" finishes up the "General" Eaton story, and then addresses the final revisionist argument against the 1797 treaty with Tripoli -- that the absence of the "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" phrase in a later treaty with Tripoli, made in 1805, is evidence that the presence and approval of these words in the earlier treaty was some sort of mistake that the later treaty corrected.
Jon
Additional for you to consider;
The Original Constitution Up-holds that we all have certin in-aliable rights given at birth, not granted by a goverment a king or an individual group of belivers in control of a majority.
It was not founded on Religion, The Puritans were breaking from English rule, away from Monarchy, a single party system, and also from Group of Religionist Theorists whom were proscuting them in England. They had a bad taste for Monarchy, and single party Goverment. And ruling Church Heads of State.
The Constitution is based on a Beliefe in mans' in-alieable rights at Birth, and that we as humans have those in-alieable rights granted by birth as humans, under God . They are Already given to us and that no Religion, no King or person or goverment can choose to grant them. Or gift them to us, as we already have them!
It was revolutionary thinking at the time! (God over King!)
It was written to Gaurantee that fact only, that all Americans will have those same birth rights. It stops short of going further. Adams, Rush, Hamilton, Jefferson and the Others believed in this, not in churches and religion as a governing body. Religion was left to as a moral issue and personal belief issue.
In the Federalist papers. In Hamiltons defense to New York, of the Constitution, in his Articles, and in all the writings of all of these men that voted and contributed to the Constitution, there is an underpinning of this Belief in a God given birth right. A Strong under-pinning.
The arguments they had were about the powers of the Govermewnt, the Office powers, The Legislative Body, the courts, the make up of the Goverment, Check and Balance in the system etc... States rights verses Gov. Responsibilities. Not about religion, they had no use for it as a governing body.
Now, The Laws they made to follow, do indeed follow Bible law as a guide, no stealing, no murder, not taking of property that is not yours (stealing, coveting etc...etc...) and thats were they held to Gods law, as a base for US Law. Moral law.
Even Today in US Legal Briefs and Filings, the First sentence always still says.."We pray the Court"...
The Constitution, the real document, is not what people claim it to be, and research on your own will show this.
God given birth rights of men have always been inter-twined into the Constitution. Not religion.
The seperation of Religion from state is a valid argument, and that should be kept seperate from mans in-aliable rights at birth. There is a difference from freedom at birth, and choosing your religion. On this Adams, Jefferson, and the Others argued but did all agree.
They were intent on granting the Birth right, a gaurantee of the freedom, not a gaurantee of any religion. You were already free to choose what religion, sect, and that was a moral, personal issue to them. But Gods given right was central to there grounding, thinking.
What you have in your post is an argument by a Reloginist, downing America, for past wars with Muslum countries and reading into the treaty something that was never there. A Political spin, so to speak; A one sided slant- a lie, please look at the Yale site for the real treaties. The actual words and corrections made at the time they were written.
The US struck the treaties to stop having to pay large Tributes to the Barbery Coast Countries, so the Pirates would stop attacking trade ships, and America, a new country, could safely transport goods to trade and make money to grow the treasury.
Somolia is trying that same thing today!
We had to, in the begining, keep Borrowing monies from France and the Netherlands, loans to keep the Country going, pay an army to fight, build an economy without taxing the people to death! We had to stop the tributes.
England, obviously was not going to trade with us! France did, but wanted certin things back in return that could inhibit us as a new country, so we had to be carefull with that. We had to open the trade routes.
I'll get off the sopa box now, sorry for the length, just felt the point being missed.
Jon
0
