http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4520
The Treaty of Tripoli and America's Founders
The
world of humanity is characterized by irresoluble disagreement. The
religious, political, and ideological divisions that exist among the
seven billion people on the planet are staggering. These differences are
not due simply to misunderstanding, or the need for further education
and clarification. Truth may most certainly be known, and every human
being has the God-given ability to weigh evidence and conduct himself in
a rational matter, arriving at only the truth (cf. Warren, 1982;
Miller,
2011). Yet, sadly, most people have arrived at their beliefs for other
reasons than a desire to be right and accurate. They have an agenda,
ulterior motives, and personal circumstances that mean more to them than
truth. Hence, they are not actually interested in coming to
correct comprehension or understanding.
THE ATHEIST'S CONTENTION
This state of affairs manifests itself in the matter of the origins of
the Republic. Atheists and skeptics, as well as social and political
liberals, of the last half century have made it one of their missions in
life to indoctrinate the public with the notion that America was not
intended to be a “Christian nation,” and that the Founders were deists
who advocated religious pluralism and political correctness (see
Miller, 2005). They have spouted the party line that our founding documents, especially the
Constitution,
are strictly secular in nature, and that the God of the Bible and the
Christian religion were not formative influences on the Founders’
thinking. One would think that these critics are parroting Adolf
Hitler’s
Mein Kampf with its recommendation that “in the big
lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad
masses of a nation…more readily fall victims to the big lie than the
small lie…. [B]y an able and persistent use of propaganda heaven itself
can be presented to the people as if it were hell and, vice versa”
(1939, 1.10:185,216).
For example, in an article titled “Our Godless Constitution,” Brooke
Allen states: “Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on
Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor
player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent…. The Founding Fathers
were not religious men” (2005; cf. Kramnick and Moore, 1996). Such
brazen exclamations, though common and widespread, are outrageous,
inexcusable, and
completely untrue. Such shameless
claims might be forgiven if the allusions to Christianity by the
Founders were rare, scattered, ambiguous, or subject to alternative
interpretations—but
they are not.
The Founders’ commitment to the God of the Bible and Christian
principles was so pervasive and endemic that indications literally
permeate the mass of organic utterances from the founding era. These
expressions repeatedly articulate their conviction that Christianity
lies at the foundation of the Republic. One simple, but decisive,
example is the fact that during the eight tumultuous years of the
Revolutionary War (1775-1783), the Continental Congress, representing
more than 200 quintessential Founders of the Republic, issued 15
proclamations to the American population. Those proclamations are
literally replete with allusions to God, Christ, Christianity, and the
Bible (see
Miller, 2009). They provide intimate insight into the
very
religious character of the vast majority of the Founders, and their
absolutely unhesitating willingness to weave their religious convictions
into their political expressions. Lest the reader doubt this bold
contention, consider a portion of just one of those proclamations,
issued by the entire Continental Congress to the American people on
March 19, 1782:
 |
Continental Congress Proclamation
March 19, 1782
|
The goodness of the Supreme Being to all his rational creatures,
demands their acknowledgments of gratitude and love; his absolute
government of this world dictates, that it is the interest of every
nation and people ardently to supplicate his favor and implore his protection…. The United States in Congress assembled, therefore, taking into consideration our present situation, our multiplied transgressions of the holy laws of our God, and his acts of kindness and goodness towards us,
which we ought to record with the liveliest gratitude, think it their
indispensable duty to call upon the several states, to set apart the
last Thursday in April next, as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer, that our joint supplications may then ascend to the throne of the Ruler of the Universe,
beseeching Him to diffuse a spirit of universal reformation among all
ranks and degrees of our citizens; and make us a holy, that so we may be
an happy people…that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace,
and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas (Journals of…, 22:137-138, emp. added).
This one official organic utterance by the supreme political body of
the United States is sufficient to refute and completely dispel the
popular contention of atheists that the Founders were not religious men,
or that they did not couple their political pronouncements with their
religious beliefs.
Hence, the allegations of skeptics (who seek to expunge the Founders’
clearly Christian orientation by floating isolated allusions that
seemingly discount this orientation), logically, cannot be interpreted
as carte blanche dismissals of the role of Christianity in the founding
of America. Indeed, they must be viewed as isolated and exceptional in
contrast with the myriad declarations to the contrary (see
Miller, 2008). And, to be fair, an honest attempt ought to be made to harmonize the exceptional with the typical.
THE 1796 TREATY OF TRIPOLI
Despite the fact that transparent expressions of religious attachment
by the mass of the Founders are legion, a battery of revisionist
historians, liberal educators, skeptics, and atheists have been working
feverishly for over half a century to perpetuate their unconscionable
allegation that the bulk of the Founders were irreligious men. One, if
not the most, prominent ploy used to propagate the secularist’s
propaganda is the Treaty of Tripoli. Atheists and skeptics, using their
Web sites and books, routinely seek justification for their denial of
America’s Christian roots by decontextualizing the words of this
political document (e.g., Harding, 2011; Walker, 1997; Allen, 2005;
Buckner, 1997; Buckner and Buckner, 1993). For example, in his book
The God Delusion, British atheist Richard Dawkins declares:
The religious views of the Founding Fathers are of great interest to
propagandists of today’s American right, anxious to push their version
of history. Contrary to their view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli (2006, p. 40, emp. added).
In an article on Dawkins’ Web site, titled “The Enigma of America’s
Secular Roots” (Haselby, 2011), Sam Haselby parrots the same sentiment.
He attempts to paint as irreligious the American envoy who negotiated
and signed the treaty, Joel Barlow, on the basis of Barlow’s book
Advice to the Privileged Orders
(1793). [NOTE: As President Washington’s appointed envoy (in 1793) to
negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli, and Tunis, Colonel David
Humphreys ultimately delegated his responsibilities to junior agents,
including Joel Barlow as well as Joseph Donaldson (Irwin, 1931, p. 84;
“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846a, 8:156).]
 |
Joel Barlow
American Consul at Algiers 1795-1797
|
Regardless of Barlow’s personal religious sentiments, Haselby
unquestionably misrepresents Barlow’s writing. He fails to recognize
that Barlow was not condemning human religion carte blanche, let alone
espousing the atheistic viewpoint—as do Dawkins and his fellow atheists.
Rather, he was decrying
false religion, as well as
perversions and abuses
of Christianity (e.g., Catholicism—pp. 60,62,69, et al.). More
particularly, he condemned the “state-establishment of religion…[w]hen
the Christian religion was
perverted and pressed into the service of Government, under the name of the
Christian Church”
(pp. 61,68, italics in orig., emp. added). In the commencement of his
denunciation of “The Church,” Barlow included a footnote to eliminate
the very misunderstanding that atheists seek to perpetrate on others. He
explained:
From that association of ideas, that usually connects the church with religion, I may run the risque [sic] of being misunderstood by some readers, unless I advertise them, that I consider no connection as existing between these two subjects; and that where I speak of church indefinitely, I mean the government of a state,
assuming the name of God, to govern by divine authority; or in other
words, darkening the consciences of men, in order to oppress them. In
the United States of America, there is, strictly speaking, no such thing
as a Church; and yet in no country are the people more religious… (pp. 53-54, italics in orig., emp. added)
Though America has always been filled with Christian churches, yet, as a
nation, Barlow insisted that we have no church? How so? He meant that
we have no one Christian sect assuming the role of a state church—the
very malady that afflicted Britain. Yet, Christianity has been the
singularly supreme religion that has always characterized the vast
majority of Americans—including the vast majority of the Founders. In
referring to Christianity in America, Barlow added: “they have ministers
of religion, but no
priests” (p. 54, italics in orig.). So
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. He specifically
affirmed that the bulk of the population of the country—
including the Founders—were religious. Indeed, according to Barlow, Americans were
unsurpassed in the world for their commitment to religion.
Barlow, therefore, 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”
(p. 61, italics in orig., emp. added; cf. “as I have before defined
it”—p. 70). After citing the history of the Roman Catholic Church as
exemplary of the kind of coercive religion that he condemned, he
observes that such cruelty “has given rise to an opinion, that nations
are cruel in proportion as they are religious” (p. 66). Ironically,
Barlow’s observation represents the opinion of today’s atheist. However,
Barlow disagreed with that opinion. In contrast, he stated: “But the observation ought to stand thus,
That nations are cruel in proportion as they are guided by priests”—again
accentuating the distinction between the positive and rightful
influence of Christianity on society, and the unchristian cruelties
inflicted by Catholic priests who are handed the reins of government
(pp. 66-67, italics in orig.).
Barlow then concluded his chapter on the church by explicitly restating his specialized use of the term “church”:
In the United States of America there is no church; and this is one of the principal circumstances which distinguish that government from all others that ever existed; it ensures the un-embarrassed exercise of religion,
the continuation of public instruction in the science of liberty and
happiness, and promises a long duration to a representative government
(pp. 75-76, emp. added).
Observe that when Barlow made his remarks, America, then as now, was
saturated with churches from one end of the country to the other. Hence,
his declaration that in America “there is no church” meant that
there is no state religion, there is no religion (specifically, any one Christian denomination) that has been elevated
by the federal government
to the status of the state church. Observe further that Barlow listed
as one of the positive, distinguishing characteristics of America the
guarantee of “the unembarrassed exercise of religion”—the very thing
that Dawkins, Haselby, and their atheistic associates constantly seek to
expunge from society.
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, much less to
advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating
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).
This premiere Founder and expounder of the original intent of the
Constitution
fully recognized what the mass of the Founders believed—that
Christianity fits “hand-in-glove” with the Republic they established,
and its perpetuation throughout the nation was indispensable to the
survival of the Republic:
[I]n a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty…. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An
attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy
to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal
disapprobation, if not universal indignation (3.44.724-726. 1867-1868, emp. added).
 |
John Adams' letter to Thomas Jefferson
June 28, 1813
|
Even John Adams, under whose presidency the Treaty of Tripoli was
finalized and sanctioned by Congress, and then signed by Adams himself,
forthrightly affirmed the role of Christianity in the founding of the
Republic. In a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813,
he explained that the great foundation of the nation is Christianity:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were
the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could
unite…. 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(“John Adams to…,” n.d., emp. added).
While serving in his official capacity as President of the United
States, John Adams issued a proclamation to the entire nation that sets
forth his indisputable views regarding Christianity and the nation:
 |
John Adams' Presidential Proclamation
March 6, 1799
|
I do hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the 25th day of
April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day
of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that
day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the
time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private;
that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God,
confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His
pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit
we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to
His righteous requisitions in time to come…and that he would extend the
blessings of knowledge, of true liberty, and of pure and undefiled religion throughout the world (Adams, 1799, emp. added).
Such admonitions concerning Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Christian
religion (i.e., Adams’ allusion to James 1:27) did not come from an
irreligious man who rejected any connection between Christianity and the
nation.
To summarize, while the Founders strenuously opposed the formation of a
state-sponsored religion, i.e., the elevation of one Christian
denomination above another, they firmly believed that the general
principles of Christianity were part and parcel of the fabric of
America, including her political and social institutions. This
realization is indisputable and undeniable. We know that the Founders
did not interpret the phrase in the Treaty of Tripoli the way skeptics
and liberals do today, since we have a host of explicit declarations,
statements, and affirmations to the contrary from the Founders
themselves (Miller, 2008). But how, then, do we account for the apparent
denial of this broad-based fact in the Treaty of Tripoli? Let us see.
The Wording of the Treaty Itself
Having dispelled the attempt to characterize the Treaty of Tripoli as a
patent denial of the Christian character of America, we now turn to the
Treaty itself in an effort to understand its originally intended
meaning. The treaty is dated November 4, 1796. The disputed portion of
the treaty is Article 11, which reads in full:
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 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846a, 8:155, emp. added).
At first glance, the initial declaration is startling and seemingly
straightforward. How does one harmonize the mountain of evidence of
America’s religious moorings with this treaty’s bold declaration that
“the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion”? The answer lies in an objective
consideration of the rest of the article, recognizing that the
subsequent phrases clarify, define, and explain the true intent of the
initial declaration.
Observe, first, that the Treaty of Tripoli in general, and Article 11
in particular, pertains specifically and exclusively to the
federal government—not
to the state governments or the rest of America’s social or political
institutions (cf. Barton, 2000). The Founders’ discussions of the First
Amendment make it very clear that the
federal government
was not to meddle in religious affairs, i.e., it was never to be
allowed to interfere with the free exercise of the Christian religion.
The Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason, confirms this appraisal
of the historical context when he offered the following wording of the
First Amendment:
[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free
exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).
While Mason’s wording did not make the final cut, it nevertheless
demonstrates the historical setting of the discussions, and the specific
variables with which the Founders were grappling. The point is that the
treaty was assuring the Tripolitan Muslim warlord that the
government of the United States would never show hostility toward his country based on America’s intimate affiliation with Christianity.
Second, notice that while the punctuation found throughout the article
varies in the published forms that have come down through history,
nevertheless, none place a period after “the Christian Religion.” The
article clearly intends for the reader to gain clarification regarding
the import of the first clause by including the subsequent clauses. The
rest of the article, in fact,
elaborates and expounds
on the wording in the first clause. The rest of the article answers the
question: In what way or ways is the government of the U.S. 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.
The average Muslim, even today, has difficulty reconciling America’s
worldwide reputation as a “Christian nation” with her concomitant
refusal to forcibly impose its religious orientation on the rest of the
world—as Muslim countries, themselves, have consistently sought to do
throughout history. The Bey of Tripoli, along with the pashas of the
other Barbary States, unquestionably viewed American ships as fair
game—legitimate objects of their attacks on the high seas—for the simple
and obvious reason that
America was a Christian nation.
No Muslim country would have accepted as true such a sweeping
repudiation of America’s intimate affiliation with Christianity. If such
were the intent and meaning of Article 11, the Bey would have instantly
dismissed the validity of the treaty, and such a claim would be seen as
a laughable and ludicrous denial of what was obviously the case, i.e.,
that America was inhabited by a population of people, the vast majority
of whom openly professed Christianity, and manifested that profession in
all its civil and social institutions. [NOTE: The term “Bey” is a title
of Turkish origin that refers to a tribal chieftain, equivalent to the
English term “lord.” The similar term “Dey” was used specifically to
refer to the rulers of Algiers and Tripoli. “Pasha” or “bashaw” was a
comparable title of rank in the Ottoman Empire.]
Abundant historical evidence verifies this understanding. Ten years
earlier, authorized by Congress to negotiate with the Barbary pirates,
who continually raided American ships off the coast of North Africa,
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met in London in 1786 with the
Ambassador from Tripoli. On March 28, they wrote the following letter to
John Jay, who was serving as the U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
reporting their conversation with the ambassador.
 |
American Peace Commissioners'
letter to John Jay
March 28, 1786
|
We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of
their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury,
and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done
us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered
us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written
in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners,
that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they
could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners;
and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to
Paradise (“American Peace…,” 1786).
The Tripoli ambassador clearly reflected the attitude of the Bey and
his fellow citizens toward non-Muslim countries, an attitude that must
be taken into account as the backdrop of the wording of Article 11 in
the treaty a decade later. [NOTE: Interestingly, the only known
surviving Arabic copy of the Treaty of Tripoli lacks the allusion to
America not being a Christian nation.]
The Other Treaty of Tripoli
Even more telling proof that the phrase in Article 11 is misconstrued
by atheists is seen in Article 14 of the subsequent treaty made with
Tripoli on June 4, 1805, which reads in full:
Art. 14th. As the government of the United States of America
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 voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two nations. And the consuls and agents of both nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his religion
in his own house. All slaves of the same religion shall not be impeded
in going to said consul’s house at hours of prayer. The consuls shall
have liberty and personal security given them, to travel within the
territories of each other both by land and sea, and shall not be
prevented from going on board any vessel that they may think proper to
visit. They shall have likewise the liberty to appoint their own
drogerman and brokers (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846b, 8:216, emp. added).
The first two clauses are taken verbatim from the 1796 treaty—
to the exclusion of the clause regarding America not being a Christian nation.
Consequently, they do precisely what the Christian nation clause was
intended to do in the earlier treaty: assure the Muslim pasha that
America’s Christian orientation would not be the cause of hostilities
directed against him. Tripolines were obligated not to attack Americans
on account of America’s Christian connections, and the U.S. was not to
attack Tripolines on account of their Islamic beliefs.
Article 14 even expresses concern that “consuls and agents of both
nations” be permitted to practice their religion in their own homes. In
other words, a consul or agent of Tripoli should not be hindered from
engaging in Islamic worship in the diplomatic residence he occupies
while in America. Similarly, any American consul or government agent
living in Tripoli was not to be hindered from practicing his religion
while residing in Tripoli. Pray tell—what religion would that be?
Certainly not Islam, since he would hardly be hindered from practicing
Islam in an Islamic nation. Obviously, both parties to the treaty
automatically understood that American consuls and government agents
would naturally practice
Christianity.
Treaties with the Other Barbary States
This conclusion is verified further by the comparable treaties that
were made with the Muslim rulers of the other Barbary States—
-
Two with Tunis, on August 17, 1797 and March 26, 1799 (“Treaty of
Peace…,” 1846e, 8:157-161), as well as the “Altered Articles” on
February 24, 1824 (1846, 8:298-300).
-
Two with Morocco, on January 1787 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846c,
8:100-108) and September 16, 1836 (“Treaty with Morocco…,” 1846,
8:484-487).
-
Two with Algiers, on September 5, 1795 (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846d,
8:133-137) and June 30 and July 6, 1815 (1846f, 8:224-247), as well as a
“Renewed Treaty” on December 22-23, 1816 (1846g, 8:244-248).
Not one of these treaties contains the reference to America not being a
Christian nation. All omit altogether any reference to the
Islamic-Christian tension that naturally existed between the two
nations—with one exception. Article 15 of the June 30 and July 6, 1815
treaty with Algiers addresses the issue in the following words:
As the government of the United States has, in itself, no character of enmity against the laws, religion,
or tranquility, of any nation, and as the said States have never
entered into any voluntary war, or act of hostility, except in defence
of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared, by the
contracting parties, that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony between the
two nations; and the Consuls and Agents of both nations shall have
liberty to celebrate the rites of their respective religions in their own houses (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846f, 8:224-247, emp. added).
This article paraphrases the previous two treaties with Tripoli. Like
the second treaty with Tripoli, it omits the “not a Christian nation”
clause. Once again, observe that the agreement inherently presupposes
that the religion of Algiers is Islam and the religion of America is
Christianity. But the treaty intends to reassure the Dey that America’s
Christian orientation will never be the cause of hostilities on the part
of America. Indeed, America’s history proves that her wars have
typically been reactive and defensive, and they have pertained to
non-religious matters.
The Other Treaties Include Religion
Even more historical confirmation is seen in the fact that not only do
all the other treaties that were made with the Barbary States omit the
allusion to America not being a Christian nation—including the other
Tripoli treaty—
they actually contain allusions to Christianity.
For example, the January 1787 treaty with Morocco (“Treaty of Peace…,”
1846c, 8:100-108) contains the following references: “In the Name of
Almighty God” and “trusting in God” (p. 100). It also refers to “the
Christian powers” (in Article X, p. 102), “any Christian power” (in
Article XI, p. 102), “the other Christian nations” (in Article XVII, p.
103), and “any of the Christian powers” (in Article XXIV, p. 104)—the
last two references clearly implying that America is among them. Article
XXV states: “This treaty shall continue in full force,
with the help of God,
for fifty years” (p. 104, emp. added). Several times the treaty alludes
to “Moors”—the term used to refer to “a Muslim people of mixed Berber
and Arab descent” in northwest Africa (
American Heritage…,
2000, p. 1142)—in Article VI (p. 101), Article XI (p. 102), and Article
XXI (p. 103). Article XI places “Moors” in juxtaposition to “Christians”
(Article XI, p. 104), and the “Additional Article” contrasts “Moorish”
with “Christian Powers” (p. 104). The September 16, 1836 treaty with
Morocco contains essentially the same contrasts.
The September 5, 1795 treaty with Algiers—made just 14 months before
the 1796 treaty with Tripoli that contains the “not a Christian nation”
expression—includes in Article XVII assurance that the “consul of the
United States of North-America…shall have liberty to exercise his
religion in his own house” (“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846d, 8:135). This
treaty was authorized by the same President who initiated the 1796
treaty with Tripoli—George Washington. In addition to the evidence
provided by Article 15 of the June 30 and July 6, 1815 treaty with
Algiers mentioned above, Article 14 of the same treaty secures the right
of captive Christians in Algiers, who are able to escape and make their
way to any U.S. ships, to remain on board unscathed, and no
remuneration must be paid “for the said Christians” (“Treaty of Peace…,”
1846f, 8:246).
The August 17, 1797 treaty with Tunis begins with the words “God is
infinite” and refers to “the most distinguished and honored President of
the Congress of the United States of America, the most distinguished
among those who profess the religion of the Messiah”
(“Treaty of Peace…,” 1846e, 8:157). This unmistakable declaration of
commitment to the religion of Christ refers to President John Adams—the
very President whose act of signing the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, the
skeptics claim proves that he and the Congress repudiated Christianity!
Article IX of the same treaty states: “If by accident and by
the permission of God,
a vessel of one of the contracting parties shall be cast by tempest
upon the coasts of the other…” (p. 158, emp. added). The treaty
concludes with an affirmation that the two contracting parties shall
observe the terms of the treaty “with
the will of the Most High”
(p. 161—an expression used in both the Quran and the Bible), and the
treaty is dated in both Islamic and Christian reckoning: “in the present
month of Rebia Elul, of the Hegira one thousand two hundred and twelve,
corresponding with the month of August of
the Christian year
one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven,” followed by the
signatures and seals of the Muslim leaders (p. 161). The accompanying
verification by the American representatives, William Eaton and James
Cathcart, claims authority for their actions on the basis of President
John Adams, and closes with these words: “Done in Tunis, the
twenty-sixth day of March, in the year of
the Christian era one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, and of American independence the twenty-third” (p. 161, emp. added).
To summarize, the treaties made with the Barbary States are literally
riddled with religious allusions and transparent indications of the
Christian orientation of the United States in contradistinction to the
Islamic orientation of the Barbary States. This fact alone proves that
no treaty ever ratified by the United States would deny the Christian
connections that have characterized the nation from its birth. The very
idea is absurd—and such a declaration would be an outright falsehood.
Those who so construe the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli are guilty of shoddy
historical investigation at the very least, and outright dishonesty and
flagrant bias at the very worst.
CONCLUSION
It is sad when any people become so biased in their belief system that
they will latch onto a handful of misleading incidents and exploit them
in an effort to legitimize that belief system. Atheists are guilty of
the very malady they insist Christians suffer from—an irrational,
prejudicial, mindless commitment to discredited ideas. The evidence is
mammoth and decisive: the God of the Bible exists, and the Christian
religion (in its pure, New Testament form) is the only belief system
that He has authored for people living today (see
www.apologeticspress.org). The Founders of the American Republic, with
few exceptions, understood these facts and embraced them. As John Quincy
Adams, son of John Adams and 6
th President, declared:
From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American
Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized
men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct (1821, p. 26, emp. added).
With this Christian worldview firmly fixed in their minds, they
launched what indisputably has become the greatest nation in human
history.
REFERENCES
Adams, John (1799), “By the President of the United States of America. A Proclamation,” Library of Congress,
http://tinyurl.com/Adams1799.
Adams, John Quincy (1821),
Address Delivered at the request of a
Committee of the Citizens of Washington on the Occasion of Reading the
Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, 1821 (Washington: Davis & Force),
http://digital.library.umsystem.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=b80c023f0 007f89b5b95e4be026fa267;c=jul;idno=jul000087.
Allen, Brooke (2005), “Our Godless Constitution,”
The Nation, February 3,
http://www.thenation.com/article/our-godless-constitution.
“Altered Articles of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Between the
United States and the Bashaw Bey of Tunis, February 24, 1824” (1846),
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
“American Peace Commissioners to John Jay” (1786), The Thomas Jefferson
Papers Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of
Congress, March 28,
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib001849.
Barlow, Joel (1793),
Advice to the Privileged Orders (London: J. Johnston), third edition,
http://tinyurl.com/Barlow1793.
Barton, David (2000), “Treaty of Tripoli,” Wallbuilders,
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125.
Buckner, Ed (1997), “Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State Separation?”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html.
Buckner, Ed and Michael (1993), “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church,” Internet Infidels,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html#I.
Dawkins, Richard (2006),
The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press).
Harding, Ken (2011), “Our Founding Fathers Were Not Christians,” BibleTrash.com, July 5,
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html.
Haselby, Sam (2011), “The Enigma of America’s Secular Roots,”
The Guardian, January 3,
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/572948-the-enigma-of-america-s-secular-roots;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/03/america-secular-roots-treaty-tripoli.
Hitler, Adolf (1939),
Mein Kampf, Project Gutenberg,
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt.
Irwin, Ray (1931),
The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary Powers (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press).
“John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813” (no date), The Thomas
Jefferson Papers Series 1. General Correspondence, 1651-1827, Library of
Congress,
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib021451.
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress,
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.
Kramnick, Isaac and R. Laurence Moore (1996),
The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (New York: W.W. Horton).
Miller, Dave (2005), “Deism, Atheism, and the Founders,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1654&topic=31.
Miller, Dave (2008),
The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),
http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=51.
Miller, Dave (2009),
Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),
http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=45.
Miller, Dave (2011), “Is Christianity Logical? (Part I),”
Reason & Revelation, 31[6]:50-59, June 3,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977&article=1499.
Rowland, Kate (1892),
The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
Story, Joseph (1833),
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.),
http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm.
“Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America,
and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, November 4, 1796”
(1846a),
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown),
http://tinyurl.com/TreatyTripoli1846a.
“Treaty of Peace and Amity, Between the United States of America, and
the Bashaw, Bey, and Subjects of Tripoli, in Barbary, June 4, 1805”
(1846b),
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).
“Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America
and His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of Morocco, January, 1787”
(1846c),
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).
“Treaty of Peace and Amity Between the Dey of Algiers and the United States of America, September 5, 1795” (1846d),
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).
“Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Between the United States of America
and the Kingdom of Tunis, August, 1797, March 26, 1799” (1846e),
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).
“Treaty of Peace and Amity, Concluded Between the United States of
America and His Highness Omar Bashaw, Dey of Algiers, June 30, and July
6, 1815” (1846f),
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).
“Treaty of Peace and Amity, Concluded Between the United States of
America and the Dey and Regency of Algiers, December 23 and 24, 1816”
(1846g),
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).
“Treaty with Morocco, September 16, 1836” (1846),
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States, ed. Richard Peters (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown).
Walker, Jim (1997), “The Government of the United States of America is
Not, in Any Sense Founded on the Christian Religion,” NoBeliefs.com,
April 11,
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm.
Warren, Thomas B. (1982),
Logic & the Bible (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).
Today
the church finds itself bombarded with all kinds of criticism. One of
these is the notion that Christianity owes its origins to pagan
religions. One particularly troubling issue for some Christians is the
massive amount of misinformation circulating on the Internet concerning
the various “crucified saviors” of the world. Jesus is claimed to be no
different than dozens of other saviors who were crucified for the sins
of mankind, and later resurrected. If this were true, then Jesus would
be merely a Johnny-come-lately to the religious scene, no different and
no more authoritative than Zeus, Odin, or Thor.
According
to evolution, man is a “Johnny-come-lately.” He is a newcomer to planet
Earth, far removed from the origin of the Universe. If the Universe was
born 14 billion years ago, as many evolutionists, theistic
evolutionists, and progressive creationists believe, man did not “come
along” until about 13.996 billion years later. If such time were
represented by one 24-hour day, and the alleged Big Bang occurred at
12:00 a.m., then man did not arrive on the scene until 11:59:58 p.m.
Man’s allotted time during one 24-hour day would represent a measly two
seconds.
