The Christian Misunderstanding of America's Constitutional Foundation

Christians in America will assert time and time again that we are a country founded and adopted upon the Christian religion, even though nowhere in our US Constitution does it mention this. In fact, as it is well understood, the First Amendment specifically negates the establishment of any headmost religion.

American Christians will try to formulate the argument that while the Constitution may not acknowledge the Christian religion specifically, it doesn’t mean we are not a Christian-founded nation because it does not specifically state that we are NOT founded upon the Christian religion.

This is the routine backdoor argument whereby every ridiculous ambiguous assertion begins by American Christians who argue about our founding.

That’s where they begin, but let me share with you where it ends. As with all things that can be proven, it ends with definition. In the case of the ambiguity of our supposed, “assumed” Christian founding, it ends with the proof of our government’s direct and unanimous assertion that we are not established upon the Christian religion.

Few Americans know of, and even fewer Christians know of (or choose to acknowledge) the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.

It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

Article 11 of this treaty states, in its entirety:

“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 Mussulmen (Muslims) — and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) 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.”

And so, for those who advocate for the complete separation of church and state, the article is seen as an early vindication of the position, especially since the treaty was approved by a Senate that recently approved the Bill of Rights.

Many Christians will try to make an argument that it pertains only to a difference between European Christians and American Christians, or that it was merely stated as a means to end conflicts with the Muslims in Tripoli and was a temporary revisionism.

Neither assertion is true, because neither assertion is made by the statement. Article 11 reads very clearly and had unanimous support of the United States President as well as The United States Senate. Nowhere does it offer any statement of revisionism or that the treaty is a temporary or subjective measure of difference between geographical Christianity. It pertains to The United States of America, as it is exactly written.

Christians will also assert, because the act of seeking treaty with the Muslim pirates of Tripoli began with President Washington, that the Treaty is invalid because Washington didn’t endorse it. This is simply ridiculous because Washington was not President when the treaty was ratified, Adams was. That argument is a bit like saying that our war with Japan never officially ended, because it was started with Roosevelt and Truman was President when the peace treaty was signed.

Christians will also assert that because the Muslim version of the treaty did not include Article 11, it does not apply. This is also an errant presumption, as the version of the treaty drafted, ratified and recognized by the United States is the English version which did include Article 11.

The most fundamental Christians in our country will do anything to try and twist, pervert or rewrite the history books. They just simply cannot. These are historically accurate and well-documented actions and statements of our founding government; and particularly with the Treaty of Tripoli, they are without any ambiguity at all.