What about the Treaty of Tripoli?
Notice the beginning of the treaty: “The [FEDERAL] GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES is not founded on the Christian religion…” In other words, “THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A THEOCRACY.”
As explained in this article here, Joel Barlow, who brokered the treaty wanted to make it crystal clear that America was not like the Roman Catholic Church, or The Church of England. That is, he wanted it abundantly clear we have no one Christian sect assuming the role of a state church—the very malady that afflicted Britain because according to Barlow, the problem is not religion; rather, problems arise when a corrupted form of Christianity is given the power of the federal government to persecute opposing Christian sects.
In his writings, Barlow did not use the word “church” as a blanket condemnation of the Christian church or religion. In fact, after providing an initial definition of his specialized use of the term, he repeatedly went out of his way to reiterate that definition’s very restricted meaning: “By church I mean any mode of worship declared to be national, or declared to have any preference in the eye of the law.”
So what would the motivation be to make clear the government of the U.S. was not founded in any sense on the Christian religion? Answer: (1) It has no disposition to show hatred toward Muslims, their laws, religion, or peaceful status; (2) The U.S. has never waged war against a Muslim nation; and (3) Therefore, it is clear that the U.S. would never attack a Muslim country solely on the grounds of religion, i.e., the differences that exist between Christianity and Islam. (4) Muslims were attacking American ships because they thought America was a Christian nation.
What Barlow and the Founders sought to communicate to the world was the fact that the newly established federal government had no direct religious ties to any one Christian sect; it did not establish a state church, as did England and other European countries. As Supreme Court Justice and Father of American Jurisprudence, Joseph Story, succinctly explained in his comments on the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution:
“The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance [tolerate], much less to advance Mahometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating [leveling] Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution” (1833, 3.44.728.1871, emp. added).
In his writings, Barlow did not use the word “church” as a blanket condemnation of the Christian church or religion. In fact, after providing an initial definition of his specialized use of the term, he repeatedly went out of his way to reiterate that definition’s very restricted meaning: “By church I mean any mode of worship declared to be national, or declared to have any preference in the eye of the law.”
So what would the motivation be to make clear the government of the U.S. was not founded in any sense on the Christian religion? Answer: (1) It has no disposition to show hatred toward Muslims, their laws, religion, or peaceful status; (2) The U.S. has never waged war against a Muslim nation; and (3) Therefore, it is clear that the U.S. would never attack a Muslim country solely on the grounds of religion, i.e., the differences that exist between Christianity and Islam. (4) Muslims were attacking American ships because they thought America was a Christian nation.
What Barlow and the Founders sought to communicate to the world was the fact that the newly established federal government had no direct religious ties to any one Christian sect; it did not establish a state church, as did England and other European countries. As Supreme Court Justice and Father of American Jurisprudence, Joseph Story, succinctly explained in his comments on the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution:
“The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance [tolerate], much less to advance Mahometanism [Islam], or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating [leveling] Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution” (1833, 3.44.728.1871, emp. added).
The fact is our government structure, laws, institutions, morality, education, society, and family values were all founded on principles that came directly from the Bible.
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system."
John Adams
"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."
Daniel Webster
"Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."
Daniel Webster
The facts of our history (like the quotes above) makes many Americans who are not Christians uncomfortable, but it doesn't change history. Those who are uncomfortable with this fact love to point to the Treaty of Tripoli as if that one quote erases all the other quotes (historical facts) that preceded the treaty and do not appear to be harmonious with it. The reason this is so debatable is because the disagreement is centered around a false dichotomy. The dichotomy goes something like this:
Either the United States government was founded...
A) as a Christian nation (a theocracy) and EVERYTHING in our government and the way our country would run would be based ONLY on the Bible, or
B) the United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation and the founders didn't want ANYTHING in our government to be influenced by Christianity or the Bible.
This is a false dichotomy because while all “Christian (theocratic) nations” are influenced by the Bible and Christianity, not all nations INFLUENCED by the Bible and Christianity are “Christian (theocratic) nations.” Therefore, another view (C) must be plausible:
C) The Founders were God-fearing men--over 90% were Christian and the ones who were not (deists) held the principles of the Bible in high esteem--who were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. They shared a worldview that recognized the fallenness of man, so they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances. The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed. Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it—The First Amendment was to protect the church from the State, not the other way around. They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity—or any other faith—as the religion of our nation. They did not want to live under another theocracy that would tell them how to pray, how to worship, how to tithe—basically, how to live!
View (C) harmonizes the language in the Treaty of Tripoli with the myriad quotes from our founders that show a deep connection between their political philosophy and their Christian faith.
I have yet to meet someone who believes in view (A), but I have debated many people who believe view (B) and use the treaty of Tripoli to justify that belief. View (B) interprets the Treaty of Tripoli (that the founders’ political philosophy were not influenced by their faith) in a way that is not harmonious with the other quotes from our founders. So view (B) holds the odd position that the founders either lied in those earlier quotes, or they are forgeries. Strangely, there are many who still hold to that view. It is only view (C) that harmonizes the myriad quotes from our founders that show a deep connection between their political philosophy and their Christian faith with the Treaty of Tripoli.