The US Constitution and Christianity
Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence. Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.
The U.S. Constitution
The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union….” The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion. Although the Constitution does not include the phrase “Separation of Church & State,” neither does it say “Freedom of religion.” However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording: Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [bold caps, mine] Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a “wall of separation between church and State.” Madison had also written that “Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.” There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers. If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens. Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.
The Declaration of Independence
Many Christian’s who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as “proof” of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.) However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government. Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men “are created equal” meaning that we all get born with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: “Governments are instituted among men.” The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness. Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. ” This nature’s view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
There is much more to this commentary, but way too long to put on this site, not fair to anyone
You will fine the entire commentary on my site a link should be on the home page as I go into
The Treaty of Tripoli and Common Law
Note 1:
The end of the Constitution records the year of its ratification, “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.” Although, indeed, it uses the word “Lord”, it does not refer to Jesus but rather to the dating method. Incredibly, some Christians attempt to use this as justification for a Christian derived Constitution. The term simply conveys a written English form of the Latin, Anno Domini (AD), which means the year of our Lord (no, it does not mean After Death). This scripted form served as a common way of dating in the 1700s. The Constitution also uses many pagan words such as January (from the two-headed Roman god, Janus), and Sunday (from the word Sunne, which refers to the Saxon Sun god). Can you imagine the ludicrous position of someone trying to argue for the justification of a pagan god based Constitution? The same goes to any Christian who attempts to use a dating convention as an argument against the Constitution’s secular nature, and can only paint himself as naive, or worse, as dishonest and deceiving.
I will never give up until Buck and Zack write something in agreement as to the importance
of maintaining Seperate – Religion – Government.
Just a girl with the name of
Flowers
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 3rd, 2005 at 6:47 am
http://flowersinmyhair0.tripod.com/id5.html
The Government of the United States of America
Is not in any sense founded upon Christianity
tHIS IS THE LINK FOR THE REST OF THE ABOVE COMMENTARY
Suzanne – The Moderate Drama Queen
Anna Says: June 6th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Suzanne,
You will find this week’s edition of Ira Glass’s “This American Life” radio show very interesting. He hosts a very informative debate on the topic of Religion and the Constitution. The show is entitled “Goddless America” and it should be downloadable (RealAudio) sometime in the next few days at the following address. http://www.thislife.org
It is loaded with fantastic information about what both sides believe and the major facts of the case.
Joy Says: June 8th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Again, “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and the WHOLE statement needs to be remembered. There was no law that required the 10 Commandments to be removed from public school walls; no law that requires students to not pray or read their religious books on public property; no law against setting up the display of choice on public property regarding holidays. These things came about because of a misunderstanding regarding separation of church and state OR a intentional misrepresentation of the 1st Amendment, or both.
Joy Says: June 8th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Suzanne,
Another comment here. “…that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” does not mean that we get born with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but rather, that we are endowed with those rights. Rights are different from abilities. I, personally, don’t think that we are created with these rights, but I am not the point here. The point is that in this statement the Declaration is declaring the belief that all men are
1. Created equal (which does not mean alike, but of equal worth)
2. That we are created (as opposed to happenstance) with rights that cannot be alienated from us…made strangers to us…taken away from us.
3. These inalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of (as you mentioned, not the guarantee of) happiness.
I’d like to note that these rights can be given up on our part when we break the law. But that’s another paragraph.
Joy Says: June 8th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Suzanne,
One request. Try to speak of people as people and not group them into major categories. I am religious, but don’t come under the heading “Religious Right”. Why is the Religious Center, or Religious Left never referred to? I’d urge you to not be so quick to pick up on favorite catch phrases and labels, as the majority of the time they don’t truly represent any group of people, but, in fact, give a misrepresentation of anyone who may happen to seem to fit in ‘that category’.
K. Marx Says: June 8th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Along the lines of church and state issues:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481
It’s one thing for a judge to determine, in a divorce finding, under which religion a child should be raised in order to resolve conflict between the mother’s and the father’s conflicting religious views. But, how does one find that the child must not be raised in the religion that is agreed upon by both parties in the suit?
Suzanne Says: June 9th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
I do not think it is I who groups people into neat titles, sorry and if I have then I am also sorry,
Suzanne Says: June 9th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Comment 4:
Our Constitution states –“that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” nothing more nothing less. – As to what each individual decides to do with these rights is their decision. The Constitution guarantees these rights, the Constitution does not tell anyone what to do with these rights., This is the responsibility of each individual.
Life Liberty and the These inalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
A convicted Felon loses many of the rights those of us who do not break the law, enjoy.
This is also a part of the Constitution. I never stated nor implied otherwise.
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 9th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Comment to Number #3
In addition, I have never stated that the 10 Commandments should be removed from anywhere or that prayer be eliminated from schools,
I think some of you should reread my commentaries and comments, try to get my words right
EMPHISIS: Government out of Religion – Religion out of Government:
If that is true, it would not matter if I posted the 10 Commandments on my backside and walked naked in Times Square, all that could happen to me is I would be arrested for indecent exposure. I would not have the ACLU or any other group sue me for not also placing the Star of David or some other symbol also on my backside
Suzanne Says: June 9th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Number 6 K Marx
Good question, very good,
I do not have the answer, This should be the decision of the parents, but as we both know, in such a situtation such an agreement is not possible.
Suzanne
K. Marx Says: June 10th, 2005 at 2:40 am
Suzanne; re: #10
It’s ridiculous that a judge would tell a couple that they cannot raise their child as a Wiccan. Not only did he violate the constitution, but went against every court opinion on the topic. He not only completely ignored the constitution, he ignored legal precedence (including a case with the exact same circumstances).
It was a rhetorical question.
Suzanne Says: June 10th, 2005 at 6:17 am
Yes, I realize that, read my commentary of tonight – Guess the name The Wacko Moderate Wordy Drama Queen – just got my blood boiling.
But hey, this is all just fun, Right?
Suzanne
Brooks Kinch Says: June 15th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
Joy, you are a breath of fresh air. I completely agree with you…
Although I don’t like Suzanne at all.
Suzanne Says: June 16th, 2005 at 6:56 am
Well, Brooks Kinch,
How can you state you do not like me at all, when you do not even know me.
But then, to each his own
but I sure like you, or think I do
Suzanne
Suzanne Says: June 16th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Comment to #4
Yes Joy you are so correct, our rights as American citizens, are based upon being a law abiding Citizen. Those who commit felonies do in fact loose “these inalienable rights – of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of (not guaranteed) happiness:
Just committing a crime does not remove these rights; it is the type of crime which removes these rights.
To shoplift does not warrant the loss one having these rights – however, a crime, which takes the life of another human, does warrant the loss of these rights.
Any crime, in which the end results, removes the ability of the victim to exercise these rights; should and usually does remove these rights from the person who committed the crime.
Suzanne
Paul Says: June 17th, 2005 at 12:25 am
Suzanne, where are you going with all this stuff? Just out of curiosity, has anybody tried to force you to convert to Christianity lately? You sure do seem to have a “Religious Right” fixation.
Suzanne Says: June 18th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Gee, I am a Christian, and I do not have a Religious Right fixation
I have a history fixation
Suzanne
I have oh never mind, what I have, I am tired
Good night
Lefty Says: August 15th, 2005 at 10:55 am
On another note, I have been enjoying reading Thomas Paine’s book The Age of Reason. I would like to know what others on this site think of this intriguing book by one of the most influential founding fathers of our country. It is free at the following site. http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm
Bush LB Says: April 12th, 2006 at 6:21 am
Isn’t this what the dems are trying to get the republicans away from? I can’t WAIT until we stop electing officials because of their beliefs on one or two minor, gray area, religiously-charged issues…
Straind Says: May 9th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
“If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion.”
This is what gets me… That was the whole reasoning for implementing this into the constitution. They didnt want to have to worry about being persecuted for their beliefs by the very government they established. (They bieng the founders)