Don Desbien is still trying to wiggle away from confronting a highly significant assertion in the 1797 Tripoli treaty, that "the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Why, that's just something "some politicianu inserted." Which politician would that be, Don? I think Desbien has no information at all about this statement, and is just obfuscating. He invites me to justify my assertion that this inclusion is significant, rather than some sort of holiday ornament. I'll spoonfeed him the information he should already have had before relying on a vacuous comment to dismiss this issue; then, it'll be his turn.

If some politician gratuitously "inserted" a striking assertion like this, to which constituency was he appealing? Whose votes was he courting? If this is merely a political frivolity, why was there not a single dissenting vote? That's not the politics as usual Desbien tries to invoke.

For centuries the Barbary Pirates, often taking sanctuary in the kingdom of Tripoli, had preyed on Mediterranean commerce. U.S. ships enjoyed some protection under England's treaties with Tripoli, but after the Revolution they lost that coverage, and often fell prey to the pirates.

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli attempted to resolve this issue, essentially depriving terrorists of their safe harbors by agreeing to pay off Tripoli. But the effort didn't work; predations continued despite our paying tribute, and Jefferson finally succeeded in building an American navy to take the fight to the shores of Tripoli in the First Barbary War.

America's negotiators in 1796 wanted to make it clear that Christianity was not their state religion. Then as now, the Muslims nurtured a strong cultural memory of the Crusaders' butchery. We needed to assure them that ours was an economic quarrel, not a religious one; they need have no fear that as a (new) Christian state, we'd open a new Crusade.

Here's the complete text of 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."

Contrary to Desbien's feeble dismissal, Article 11 was no frivolous "insertion," but a key policy affirmation.

Desbien shouldn't have blown smoke without checking his facts. Now it's his turn to put up or shut up.

When someone levels an outrageous accusation, the burden of proof is on the accuser. And his is outrageous. Desbien implies that the entire Senate and the president compromised their honor and integrity by signing their names to a statement they actually believed to be false, conspiring to conceal the Christian theocratic nature of our government from the world. He cites not one shred of evidence to back this up.

If he has evidence that the Senate and president didn't really mean it when they affirmed that the U.S. is not founded on Christianity, let him produce it. If he has no such evidence, and he's just bluffing, hoping no one will notice his speculations are uninformed, his retraction and an apology are now in order.

The depth of Desbien's failure to comprehend a fundamental principle of the Founders' secular democracy is glaringly revealed when he states that by asserting that America was not founded on Christianity, the Senate was maintaining that America "was pagan." Absurd! In fact, the government was not founded on Christianity or paganism or any other religious doctrine. It is expressly and constitutionally neutral toward all of them. For a government, the alternative to Christianity is not paganism, it's neutrality.

It's also time for Desbien to provide relevant facts, subject to reasoned analysis, to support his earlier contention that the Supreme Court "ruled that the U.S. is a Christian nation." I maintain the court was never called upon to adjudicate that question. If Desbien can identify the plaintiff and the defendant in such a case, and the point of law that was at issue, requiring a specific ruling as to whether or not the U.S. is a Christian nation (a highly ambiguous phrase at best), let him share this information with us. He made the claim, and he is responsible for backing it with facts. Put up or shut up.

Desbien always wants someone else to do his homework for him, citing as justification his lack of "access to the Internet," as though this entitles him to make uninformed claims without citing supportive evidence. But Desbien does have access to the Internet, if he has transportation to the nearest public library. Also, the library is likely to contain -- how shall I put this? -- books. Periodicals. Reference materials. If Desbien refuses to research his empty claims either before or after he submits them, that smacks of laziness, if not dishonesty.

Anyone who expresses disagreement with him is likely to be a fool, Desbien suggests. I do disagree with him, and perhaps I am foolish to do so. But when a desperate person finds himself out on a limb, exposed making irresponsible claims without evidence to back them, it is tempting, as Desbien has done, to resort to ad hominem attacks, hoping to shift attention from his factual inadequacies to his opponent's supposed character flaws. Who's trying to fool whom?

Jon Hauxwell, MD, is a retired family physician who grew up in Stockton and now lives outside Hays.

hauxwell@ruraltel.net