New Pilgrim ChroniclesClick banner to order, click here
for book review

New Pilgrim ChroniclesClick banner to order, click here
for book review


True Conservatives and Liberals, Pt. II
by Dean Hazel

Posted by the Coffee Coaster with the author's permission

[After receiving feedback from many people, including Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Mr. Hazel has further elaborated on what is popularly known as the separation of church and state. In private correspondence to Mr. Hazel, Dr. Vieira had questioned the application of the Treaty of Tripoli to the assertion of the secular foundation of the Constitution and American law in general. When and if Dr. Vieira approves the publication of that paragraph of correspondence, we will publish it here. — ed.]

Mr. Hazel's Further Remarks on the Foundation Documents

One of the purposes of art and journalism, is to engage us intellectually and emotionally.  This work apparently has fulfilled that function as there is a wide variety of commentary on the topic, ranging from support to opposition.  Here I address issues raised by those who still maintain that the government of the United States was absolutely founded on the Christian faith and that there is no such thing as a secular law, though the origins of the word "secular" goes back to the times of the Romans.

There is no solution that will be satisfactory to everyone at this point, as objective analysis is something that is not embraced by dogmatic individuals claiming to be scholars or clerics, whose confidence is measured in the numbers of their supporters and not in the intelligence of their position.  An objective analyst looks for harmony, while considering every aspect of history, from the chaotic assumption of contradictions, often caused by newspeak and a less than thorough examination and analysis of the evidence within its historic context.  Religious historian Forest Church's book "So Help Me God" can shed more than a little light on many assumed notions about George Washington and the newly formed government of The United States of America as it was in its early years.

Last February I had attended a lecture of one legal scholar that I have had the greatest respect for, Dr Edwin Vieira, Jr..  When lecturing on what the Constitution of the United States means and says, he simply said read it, and began to do just that, letting its own words show its meaning as they were intended to do, so long as the language survives in tact as it was at the time of its writing in the 18th century, circa 1787. 

The Declaration of Independence proclaims the existence of "Nature's God", the "Creator", the "Supreme Judge of the World", and "Divine Providence".  Our U.S. Supreme Court rightfully maintains that these words may be recited by government only as a historical commemoration without any affirmation that in fact they confirm any particular God in any particular religion or any religion.   

Their secular nature is evident in their used and placement so that one group of protestants would not be at the throats of another group of protestants or Catholics as our American history shows that they were at times during the colonial period of this country.  A period during which the Pilgrims came to new England more specifically to be free to persecute each other and others they disagreed with according to their own faith by hanging and burning people like Quakers and Baptists at the stake (I understand that King Charles made an end of this in his colonies by royal decree).  Yet in those very words of the Declaration of Independence, even the Mehomitan nation (Islamic nation) saw their Creator in these words, even as do those who only believe in nature!  As for myself, God is Nature, as that is the Nature of God!

As a seeker of truth through objective analysis, and having become one with God within my own faith, I do not as a freeman, suffer with trying to uphold the bigotry and religious dogma that can be associated with the thirteenth rule of the medieval St. Ignatius Loyola and men who would lord over the flesh and minds of other men, denying the very freedom of choice that was given equally to all men by our Creator!   

It seems that men who lord over others, continue to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor in their gilded and crystal palaces that they alone without the Creator, declare to be sanctuaries of God.  They are supported by the feeble minded masses that they dominate through instilling a fear of that which they do not know, the true nature of God, or nature.  

For want of knowledge the people would be free! In today's technology they could have knowledge just for caring enough to look and Google, if they do not want to spend hours in a good library. Now as always, those who seek shall find and those who don't shall remain in darkness and be a pox on the land intended for freemen!

Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord who gave the Ten Commandments, our Holy Mother the Church is directed and governed. From the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola

The most important principle and standard in interpreting the constitutional powers, duties and limitations of our governments in these united states can be found in the Michigan Supreme Court case of Pfeiffer v. Board of Education of Detroit (1898), 118 Mich. 560, at p. 564, 77 N.W. 250, at p. 251, 42 L.R.A. 536, as quoted here by the Michigan Court of Appeals in 1966:

"In Pfeiffer v. Board of Education of Detroit (1898), 118 Mich. 560, at p. 564, 77 N.W. 250, at p. 251, 42 L.R.A. 536, the Supreme Court said with respect to constitutional interpretation:

“In determining this question, we should endeavor to place ourselves in the position of the framers of the constitution, and ascertain what was meant at the time; for, if we are successful in doing this, we have solved the question of its meaning for all time. It could not mean one thing at the time of its adoption, and another thing today, when public sentiments have undergone a change. (Citing authorities.) It is therefore essential that we determine the intent of this provision by reference to the state of the law or custom previously existing, and by the contemporaneous construction, rather than attempt to test its meaning by the so-called advanced or liberal [SPLC & ACLU] views obtaining among a large [or minority] class of the community at the present day.”

This test was adopted by a unanimous court in Holland v. Clerk of Garden City (1941), 299 Mich. 465, 470, 300 N.W. 777; and by a majority of the participating justices of the court in Burdick v. Secretary of State (1964), 373 Mich. 578, 584, 130 N.W.2d 380.

“Walber v. Piggins”; (1966) 2 Mich. App. 145, at 148,149; 138 N.W.2d 772, at 774. [Emphasis and bracketed notes mine]

The Treaty of Tripoli was the law of the United States of America as expressed by the founders and not merely a declaration curtailing colonial government as is the Declaration of Independence, which contains an extensive list of crimes against the citizens.  Hamilton in the Federalist Paper No. 75 made it clear that the authority of treaties would be that of a law passed by Congress.  Not merely a declaration, but as binding and enforceable as anyother law upon its objects.  Its objects are the parties to it.  In the Treaty of Tripoli, the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary and the United States of America and her citizens of her various states. 

Objective analysts who analyze our United States Constitution and foundation documents, find it curious that liberals and so-called conservatives use The Federalist Papers to dispute the true meaning of the constitution, but when debating secularism they still put so much in the opinions of one of four men whose identity is in some cases, only supposed because they all wrote the newspaper articles of which The Federalist Papers are composed under the same pen name "Pluribus!"  Where as the declaration that is contained in Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli, was directly passed upon and formally approved by more of our founding fathers than either The Federalist or Anti-Federalist Papers.  Founding fathers who had the authority to make the law! 

Just as the Anti-Federalist lost to a majority, though a narrow one in Massachusetts, where "The Rage for Democracy" was deemed to be the strongest, so too did any misunderstanding as to the choice of the secular language that was contained within the Declaration of Independence, when Washington's State Department wrote and approved Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli, and it was signed into law by his successor John Adams after it was by Republican Process ratified by more than the required majority of a U.S. Senate that was composed of Revolutionary War Veterans!  What kind of an analyst would dare to disagree with the declaration contained in Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli?  Certainly not a True Conservatist, nor a truly objective analyst or true historian!  When it comes to determining the intended secular nature of our federal government, shall we be ruled by mere letters or the speeches of single men now misunderstood or misused beyond their historical context by many of our modern contemporaries, or shall we be ruled by a straight forward, clear and concise declaration contained in a law passed by a greater number of our founding fathers in agreement on that one point alone?  That is the question!

The Treaty of Tripoli does not amend the Constitution of the United States to ensure a secular government, as it needs no amendment since the founders give the Constitution the First Amendment.  The Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211).  Original in Arabic.  Submitted 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.  As to the ratification generally, see the notes. Proclaimed Jane 10, 1797.  All of our founding fathers were alive and saw its passage.  It was composed under Washington's administration by his State Department and passed during Adam's administration by a U.S. Senate of Revolutionary War Veterans. 

Any insinuation that Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli is just a lie by a cowardly nation to buy themselves a peace at the cost of their honor is in itself a shameful slander on the founding fathers.  True Republicans like George Washington, represent the nation without religious preference as the United States is composed of persons with many different faiths, including non-Christian!  A True Republican is to represent them all equally under the Constitution of the United States of America and make no religious demands of them!  Do you suppose that our founding fathers and the first U.S. Congresses knew less about the type of government that they had created with their own hands and within their own lives, than our modern day so-called religious Christian historians and political leaders?

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.
Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli

Our secular federal government was created by our U.S. Constitution and then that made clear by our 1st Amendment that it was to bring freedom, peace and prosperity to its' religiously divided people, who will only have to fight to defend it against all challengers, domestic and foreign, while standing by its simple rules for freedom and prosperity in times of peace.

"But peace does not rest in the charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of all people.  And if it is cast out there, then no act, no pact, no treaty, no organization can hope to preserve it . . . . So let us not rest all our hopes on parchment and on paper, let us strive to build peace, a desire for peace, a willingness to work for peace in the hearts and minds of all of our people.  I believe that we can."
— John F. Kennedy, October 27, 1963

In the final analysis we find that our Creator must work through the people not the government, as the basis of our federal law is not founded upon any higher authority than the people.  As illustrated rather well in the warning words attributed to George Washington remarking on liberty's teeth and this quote as to just what our government is, which Jefferson would bind with the chains of the Constitution:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Let us try to contain ourselves, our religious and political zeal, and thereby contain our government by having a mutual respect for the rights of others who may not be of our faith and should only be forcibly ruled by the law of our government and its actual secular intent, so that we can all have the peaceful and prosperous life that our Creator intended. 

In service to government even through a political party a True Republican, a Whigg, will only carry into office the ethics and morals that they may indeed owe to their faith and understanding of their God.  They will jealously guard their religious freedom by guarding the religious rights of others religiously!


Dean S. Hazel

Regarding definition of secular:
Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary
Origin Secular - Wikipedia
Secular State - Wikipedia

True Conservatives and Liberals, Part 1


Brian Wright Professional Services

Affiliate Sale Items




Web Hosting from $7.95 a month!


Coffee Coaster Blog
Your Ad Here
Main | Columns | Movie Reviews | Book Reviews | Articles | Guest