What a wonderfully obscure reach for a point. I had to do some digging in history and I found a few interesting things.
Evidently this point of the treaty refuting the basis of the US government on Christianity is an old one. Even Washington objected to its use by atheists, saying it was "a most flagrant misquotation for evil purposes."
The treaty was prepared in Arabic and the translation was made by the US Consul, Joel Barlow, a proponent of secularism. The passage in full is:
"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 tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."
Seemingly a reasonable item to assure a Muslim nation in making peace with a Christian enemy. However, this Article XI does not appear in the Arabic version of the treaty (the English and Arabic translations appeared side by side in the treaty). Of all the other translations made, Barlow's Article XI does not exist. The most authoritative, oddly enough, is a 1930 annotated version by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, from Holland. How Barlow's addition came to be is a mystery - even more a mystery is how the wrong treaty got ratified.
But even though ratified, the treaty has little bearing. During 1801 and 1802, the Bey of Tripoli attempted to forcefully 'renegotiate' and started a war with the US. US warships blockading Tripoli made the Bey reconsider. A new treaty was signed and the treaty of 1805 does not have a refutation of Christianity as the basis of government. The old treaty, with its mysterious Barlow article, was annulled by war and replaced by this new treaty. From a legal or Constitutional point, the old treaty was erased from law.
Ultimately, an out of context article in one version of a treaty - a treaty, not an Ammendment, not an excerpt of a Founding Father during the debate on the Constitution. Treaties are only legal documents to govern affairs between two nations.
But even though ratified, the treaty has little bearing. During 1801 and 1802, the Bey of Tripoli attempted to forcefully 'renegotiate' and started a war with the US. US warships blockading Tripoli made the Bey reconsider. A new treaty was signed and the treaty of 1805 does not have a refutation of Christianity as the basis of government. The old treaty, with its mysterious Barlow article, was annulled by war and replaced by this new treaty. From a legal or Constitutional point, the old treaty was erased from law.The Treaty was ratified by a Senate which contained a number of Founders and Framers, was negotiated by the administrations of Washington and Adams, and was proclaimed by Adams. Combined with the fact that God, Jesus, and the Bible are not mentioned in the Constitution (except for the date) and the contemporary comments of Jefferson and Madison regarding Separation, it is clear that the Constitutional goverment of this nation was completely secular.
-Eric