Thread by @lymanstoneky

Just want to note that this is how absolutely nuts the "Christian nationalism" discourse has become, that suggesting (correctly) that the US was historically a Christian nation is seen as "Christian nationalism."

https://twitter.com/jackmjenkins/status/1460655110720303115

The US still has treaties IN FORCE TODAY which legally declare the country a Christian nation!

It's quite literally the law!

Now, those treaties are very old and clearly those terms are no longer seen as operative--- but it is nonetheless very clearly the case that the US *at a minimum historically was* a "Christian nation" in both practical/social and also literal/legal terms.

Many states literally had official state churches!

It's not some kind of wild-eyed frothing theocracy to suggest that this is part of our history and heritage, and that unlike some parts like e.g. slavery, it has never been formally repudiated.

Attempts to impose a nationwide repudiation of the religious character of American life, like efforts to get a Federal Blaine amendment, have failed despite strenuous effort.

Acknowledging the facts of history is not a form of "nationalism" at all, and certainly not some kind of worrying political discourse.

(and just a reminder to everyone that, yes, the State Department still says on its website that several of the 19th-century north African treaties which proclaim the US legally a Christian country are in fact still operative!)

The one which is *still in force* is the 1836 treaty with Morocco. I discussed it a bit here:

https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1396876524184350721?s=20

Note that others of the Barbary States treaties were even more explicit, however they are no longer in force because the relevant countries *ceased to exist*. Only Morocco has managed to prove continuity of the state.

Of course there is one of the Barbary States treaties which makes the OPPOSITE declaration, saying the US is in no sense a Christian power. But it's like 6-to-1 in favor of "Christian power" language in the Barbary Treaties.

Now, this legal language is clearly no longer the norm, but as I see it the quote in question was making a historical claim. And moreover, while it's no longer the legal norm, it's perfectly reasonable for Christians in America to assert that their religious tradition is...

An important part of our history, culture, law, and politics. Because it is! And because most of our legal institutions are designed on the presupposition of a population with broadly Christian (or if you prefer Judeo-Christian or possibly Abrahamic) social and moral norms!

That it happens to turn out that that presupposition may not have been as vital as may have in the past been believed, i.e. that liberalism is more robust on its own than anybody expected two centuries ago, is remarkable but also not really a counter-argument.

It is 100% reasonable for people to lament that their worldview, culture, and people group has seen its social standing decline!

https://twitter.com/TangoPudding/status/1460997552581615616

It's not bad to mourn the fact that things you think are good have become less common over time!

If your argument is that the statement is a bad thing because *actually the decline of Christianity is a positive good* then okay, but just understand you're no longer critiquing Christian nationalism, you're critiquing *Christianity*.

https://twitter.com/dabernathy89/status/1460998942032814081

Put it logically:
A) It is bad that Christianity has declined in America
B) That's Christian nationalism!
A) No, I think Christianity is good, so I mourn the decline of a good thing
B) That mourning is still bad
A) Why?
B) (by necessity) Because I believe Christianity is bad.

More on treaties!

People like to site the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, which explicitly says the US is not a Christian country.

The big problem?

That treaty was broken. It ceased to be in force.

We signed a new one in 1805.

That clause was deleted.

Compare the 1796 treaty:
avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/b…

To the 1805 treaty:
avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/b…

Compare article 11 in 1796 to article 14 in 1805!

In 1796, we were all "not a Christian nation!" with a fairly clear secular statement. But between 1796 and 1805, America changed. By 1805, the governing discourse switches to one of tolerance, not secularism!

As I've shown elsewhere, this is actually really an important period of change! America in the 1790s was more secular than it ever had been before or ever has been since, in terms of actual religious membership and participation!

But even by 1805, America was obviously experiencing a major religious revival, and the tides had turned against dogmatic secularism.

I've written about this extensively here: aei.org/research-produ…

So a lot of "Christian nation" stuff depends on what you mean by "nation."

The US constitution and some very early treaties represents the *peak* of a tide of secularism in America. If you mean "nation" to refer to "the institutions created by the US constitution," no, wrong.

But most people don't date the "nation" to the constitution. Arguably, July 4, 1776 marks the true founding of "a state." But when "the nation" came into being is more debatable. Was it the 1600s? 1700s? 1776? 1800? 1863? 1865? 1945?

Appeals to "Christian nation" almost always come tied to appeals to history, heritage, etc, which in turn assert an *early origin* to "the nation."

And if you accept an early origin, then yeah, it's very Christian!

It's pretty much *only* if you locate the origins of "the nation" in the 1790s that you can refute the "Christian nation" story. But that's a very tenuous dating! It's definitely not the origin of the people (1790s had low immigration), nor the polity (1776).

Also fun that the truce of 1797 says:

The selected chief among the community of Jesus is Washington!

That's what the US consul wrote to the Tunisians in 1797! The actual treaty itself is not so explicit but, still, lol.

This corpus of treaties routinely uses "Christians" as synonymous with "US citizens," e.g. in the 1815 treaty with Algiers on the segment regarding escaped prisoners.

Also, fun fact. Most of the treaties of the era are negotiated by David Humphreys, a US diplomat in the area who was also a noted poet and playwright, and a Federalist.

But ONE treaty was negotiated by close friend of Thomas Paine, also-poet, and all-around weirdo Joel Barlow.

What one treaty did Barlow negotiate?

The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli. The one with the declamation that the US is not a Christian nation.

*Which is weird* because if you know anything about Barlow you know he was absolutely a religious nutcase.

But a weird kind of nut! He was both an ardent Jefferson-Republican and some kind of post-Christian theist... and also thought America would unite the world in "one religion"... and also would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.

His home in Washington DC.... is the Kalorama!

We also know a lot of these treaties were copy-pasted from treaties the Barbary states signed with other European powers. But Article 11 is unique. So what happened there?

My extremely unfounded idle speculation is in the negotiations, the Muslim side realized that Barlow was theologically committed to *reconquering Jerusalem*, freaked, and demanded some guarantees.

Additional notes on the 1796 treaty I've been reminded of.

1) Article 11 is absent from the Arabic version
2) That the Muslim side is written in Arabic at all is a bit odd. There are other treaties in Arabic, but Turkish is more usual for that time/region.

3) The treaty was unanimously approved without debate after very brief consideration; they barely had quorum to pass anything and on the same day they also passed a different trade agreement and some military measures, and adjourned early

So does that mean there was broad consensus for it?

No, it means it was a sleepy day, nobody was paying attention, and they had other stuff to deal with, so they passed Mr. Adams' treaty quickly.