There are three ways in which a government can be influenced by some religion. The first is when the rules and strictures of that religion are consciously made directly into law. We might, for lack of a better term, call this a theocracy.

The second goes part way: While the legal system itself allows many influences, the law states that only one particular church or sect should be legally sanctioned. This is the European system of state churches.

The third is where the legal system, though it may have influences from that religion (and other sources), at most only reflects the values of the dominant religion, but allows religious pluralism.

The remaining alternative is where there is no influence at all. An example might be the question of the contribution of Shintoism to the government of Texas.

Here and here, I point out that the Founding Fathers were generally Christians, that even those who weren't were strongly influenced by Christianity, and argue that our government falls into the third category: Christianity is not directly legislated, total religious tolerance is encouraged, but many laws and official practices were shaped by Christian values. (For example, blue laws, laws against abortion, days of fasting and repentence, laws against excessive interest, opposition to becoming a monarchy, opening prayers before legislative sessions, etc.)

Thus we are a "Christian" nation, I argue, in terms of the values and general outlook of the founders, in terms of their general religious affiliation, in terms of our historical demographics and values, and our general heritage -- but not in sense #1 or #2, that some sect of the Christian religion is "established" officially, or serves directly as our legal system.

I would think this is a simple matter of uncontroversial history, but apparently (since it seems to be against someone's religion to admit such obvious things) I would be quite wrong about that.

The prime exhibit, I am told, is the formerly-obscure "Treaty of Tripoli", which, I am apparently to believe (because some atheistic web site has implied as much) is the #1 document to examine if we wish to discover the Founders' values.

The relevant section is the second-to-last paragraph, which states:

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 [Muslims], -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] 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.

As a bit of historical background, Muslims were notorious for harassing and making slaves of infidels, and the "Barbary" pirates were a huge threat to US ships, as we didn't have the kind of naval power that England and Spain did. Hence, eventually, this treaty, partially written to assuage Muslim fears that "the infidels" were as religiously-motivated as they were.

In what senses is the Treaty of Tripoli correct? Certainly it's correct when it insists "the government" is not founded on the Christian religion -- especially when compared to Islamic sharia, in which the strictures of the religion actually serve as state law.

But is it accurate to read it, as ardent secularists apparently do, as asserting the US has no Christian influences at all? Let's not get silly here: it's a legal document, not a historical treatise. If we want to find out what values shaped our country, we would consult a document like the Declaration of Independence (which created our nation) or the lives and views of the Founders -- not an obscure treaty with a group of hostile Muslim pirates.

A friend suggests the Declaration "has no legal standing" and thus implies it has less importance than any subsequent treaty. Really? Of course it had legal standing: any of those who signed it could have been hanged for treason in a British court of law. The British knew full well it had legal import -- yet we imagine it didn't?

Saying the Declaration, which caused our nation to exist in the first place, has no legal standing is a bit like saying one's birth is not a "influential personal event" in one's life. True, we won't consult it to understand some detailed legal issue -- just as nobody sits around and thinks about how they were influenced on this or that point by their birth -- but that's because it's influence is too broad, not too insigificant.

And anyway, I don't argue Declaration is a statement of our laws (thus the response is a non-sequitur), I state cite it as a statement of the values and beliefs which formed our country, and particularly those of the Signers. Which it uncontestably was.

Those citing the Treaty of Tripoli as a supposed proof of the lack of Christian influence in the young US also demonstrate rather surprising myopia, as they fail to read to the end of it, which gives the game away entirely -- the first paragraph of "the receipt" of the document starts with: "Praise be to God! (etc.)" No Christian influence? Oh please.

Do they even read this stuff before they put it out?

Finally, there's another lesson here: Treaties are fully of flowery language and fond hopes. Treaties say things they think the recipient wants to hear, put in the most appealing manner possible without being overtly dishonest. Thus, this one asserts: "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 never mind that list of booty below, delivered as protection money!)

This is clearly wishful thinking: The pirates' entire justification was that the people they were harassing were "infidels"! The root of the whole problem was a "pretext arising from religious opinions".

And so it is today, where the pluralistic nature of our government -- which was entirely compatible with the Founders' Christian religious outlook -- is still incompatible with some (not all) Islamic "religious opinions", and there is indeed an "interruption in harmony" between nations having a Christian origin, and those of "the Musselmen".

Including Tripoli, which is today Libya, and has once again sponsored terrorism against the kuffir, justified by the "pretext" of "religious opinion."

So much for using diplomatic language as your guide to history.

Treaties can shed light on this or that conflict, but when it comes to professions of undying love, ultimate respect, infinite friendship, shared values, etc, one should bring one's brain to the table, not just one's anti-religious ardor. "Skeptics" are very good at applying that skepticism selectively, I have learned. At times, they prove utterly credulous.

And so, in my next article, we'll "prove" Europe also has no Christian heritage by citing the proposed EU Constitution. ;-)