Some Thoughts about the
If, when someone says that
this is a Christian nation, all they mean is that the majority of people in the
No, instead we are being
bombarded daily in all media by statements that claim in one way or another
that our country was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles, that our
Constitution, our laws and our system of government itself are based on the
Bible and the Ten Commandments. We shall call this “the proposition”. More and
more this idea is being represented as an obvious truth.
Unfortunately, it seems to me
that from history’s broader perspective this proposition is basically a myth;
the proponents are making gratuitous assumptions and are either inadvertently or
deliberately misleading their hearers and themselves. The net result is that this becomes a kind of
BIG LIE, often repeated but nonetheless
false. Today, by examining the
historical record, I shall attempt to prove that the proposition is indeed false. I also hope to offer some ammunition to help
stop this onslaught. I would like to
begin by laying an historical foundation, then respond to some typical
arguments by the proponents.
First of all, if we were
really founded as a Christian Nation, the Bible would be the Law of the Land. In
the same way that we saw in the recent stoning-to-death-for-adultery case[1]
that
As one example among numerous
possible, when the recently executed doctor murderer, the Reverend Paul Hill,
tried to use the Bible in his defense the judge said no. This is because the Constitution is the basis
of our laws, not the Bible or any religious text.
The Constitution is a secular
document. The word God is not even mentioned.
All laws must conform to it. This
fact alone should put the Christian-nation proposition to rest. Couple that
with ARTICLE VI, 2: “. . . But no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office of public trust under the
I’ve been looking into this
major point for the last couple of years, and I would like to take a few moments
to share with you what I have found.
Our Constitution is in fact
the fist significant governing charter in the history of mankind that does not
invoke any deities for support. Given
the educational level and historical knowledge of the Framers, this cannot be
an accident. Indeed, opponents of the
Constitution during the ratification debates made much of its godless nature.
We should not forget, nor let
the proponents forget, that the Framers had many earlier documents to serve as
models for the Constitution, including many state constitutions. Let’s recall that
This deity connection is true
as far back as the Code of Hammurabi, the Mayflower Compact and virtually
everything in between and after. [I have
lots of these texts with me should anyone care to view them later.]
I believe it could very
useful to examine some of those early American texts in detail then we and perhaps
even our Christian-nation friends might better understand and appreciate why
the Framers decided to leave God out. There are plenty such, but in the
interest of time, I have chosen just two, and they are typical. The first is an
excerpt from the 1649, Maryland Toleration
Act.
FOR
AS MUCH as in a well-governed and Christian commonwealth. . ., be it therefore ordered and enacted. . .
that whatsoever person or persons within this province and the islands
thereunto belonging shall henceforth blaspheme God, that is curse Him, or deny
our Savior Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall deny the Holy
Trinity---the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. . . shall be punished with death and confiscation or forfeiture of all his
or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heirs.
[Annals
of Am. Vol. 1, p. 88]
That was definitely a
Christian society. The Founding Fathers
were well aware of such early “Christian” communities and definitely did not
want our country to be like them[5].
Kindly let me cite another
historical text to bring home this point (it’s a little long, so I’ll read it
passim just to give you the flavor):
“Fundamental Orders Of Connecticut
January 14/24, I638/9 [bold face added]
Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of
his divyne providence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants
and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and
dwelling in and uppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto
andjoyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word
of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and union of such a people there
should be an orderly and decent Goverment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres
of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate
and conjoyne our selves to be as one Publike State or Commonwelth; and doe, for
our selves and our Successors and such as shall be adjoyned to us att any tyme
hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne
and presearve the liberty and purity
of the gospell of our Lord Jesus which we tow professe, as also the
disciplyne of the Churches, which according
to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst us; As also in our Civell Affaires to be guided and governed
according to such Lawes, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be made,
ordered & decreed, as followeth: . . .”.
Needless to say, our Constitution
does not resemble these documents at all.
If such a document had been used to found our country, no reasonable
person could argue that we were not a Christian nation. However,
given the documents we do have, it could well be unreasonable to argue the
contrary. Thankfully, those communities were specifically NOT predecessors of
the
In light of this history, why
do the proponents persist? I do not know. It could be that they—like the Congress on
occasion [more about that later]--are erroneously making a kind of quantum leap
from the Puritans, Pilgrims and other early settlers--who did indeed establish
communities with the Bible as their guide—directly to us, as if those early
political entities simply morphed into the United States after a century and a
half or so. Indeed, hardly a week goes by that the Letters-to-the editor page
doesn’t publish a letter based on just such a view.
Fortunately, for our freedom,
most of those early “settlements” have gone by the boards—having left behind a
few remnants in some blue laws. As we have seen, any attempt to say that the
Founders used them as a model will not stand up to careful historical scrutiny.
Besides the foundation
documents themselves, which should be enough, there are other documents that
attest to the intent to found a secular state.
For instance, many of the
Founders were still in the Congress in 1797 (June 10) when President John Adams signed the Treaty of
Tripoli, which had been written under
“As the government of the United Sates 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. . . .”
Neither
the President, nor any Senator raised any objection to anything in the
Treaty. If the proponents read this and
still claim that the Founders wanted to form a Christian nation, then they seem
to think that the Founders did so without knowing it[7].
OK,
the proponents may argue, the Founders did not want to make a, “strictly
speaking, Christian Nation,” but “they were influenced by and guided by
Christian principles.” Since the Constitution is godless, they cavalierly leave
that fact aside and go elsewhere for their so-called “proofs”.
They
will point out that some of the Founders went to church and spoke of
To examine this argument
properly, the first question that must be asked is: What do you mean by
Christian principles? This question
could lead to an, unfortunately, interminable discussion, for Christians themselves
do not agree on all the principles, or there would be only one sect, not
hundreds. But let us not quibble. To be fair, let us assume they mean
principles like goodness, honesty, integrity, the desire to be law-abiding,
etc. Let’s all agree that Christians
believe in those principles.
Alas, since the other main
religions preach these qualities as well, they are not Christian in the sense
that they are unique to Christianity or that Christianity originated them, but
rather only in the sense that Christianity also espouses them or may indeed
have adopted them. But, what about the role of the Ten Commandments? If we
remove them from the Courthouse, how will we know that murder is wrong?
Well, Ancient China,
The Founders were imbued with
the idea of Natural Law, and that is the basis for their adherence to the
precepts that the proponents call Christian. Indeed, the “God” mentioned in the
Declaration of Independence is associated with them: “the Laws of Nature and
Nature’s God.”
Thus, the idea that our laws[9]
are based on the Ten Commandments will not hold up. Not all Christians make that claim, but those
who do and who are advocating they be placed in schools and court houses have
not thought it out very well. Let me
explain:
First, they want the Bible’s
Commandments posted, but they do not want the Bible’s punishments posted. As we have seen, the 17th C.
Marylanders and other early settlers were not so timid. When a law is passed, the punishment is always
indicated, even for littering. I suggest
that once the Ten Commandments are posted everywhere, the real fanatics might
well come out of the woodwork, upset over this half-hearted measure, and begin
quoting Leviticus and Deuteronomy as did the Connecticut General Court in 1650,
where even a rebellious child was to be punished with death[10]. That would be a real Christian nation. These proponents better be careful what they
wish for[11].
Second, how can our laws be
said to be based on the Ten Commandments when it is not at all clear what “Ten
Commandments” the lawmakers were supposed to be following. If
lawmakers read Exodus Chapters 20-35, they will see that Moses came down from
the mountain with various rules on three separate occasions. The first time he gave an oral rendition of
the rules; the second time he carried the stone tablets, which he smashed; the
third time he carried down another set of tablets. Now, these three sets of rules are not the same. For instance, the last commandment God tells
Moses to write is Exodus 34, 26: “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s
milk.” Now, has any law been based on
that? Does any modern law enforce other
commandments such as “strange gods” and keeping holy the Sabbath, etc? We’d be really unlucky on that one, since the
Jews and some groups say it is not Sunday, but Friday or begins at sundown on
Friday. So if such a law does get
passed, to be politically correct, I guess we’d just have to lock up everybody
for the whole weekend[12].
Time does not permit further
discussion of this point, but I have with me side-by-side copies of all three sets
of “rules” which you can see later if you like.
I also have a picture of the Ten Commandments in granite from the
Alabama Court House. Number 10 there is:
Thou Shalt not Covet. Now, some wag has
said that if we made laws to enforce
that one, the whole capitalist economy would collapse. In short, on careful examination, saying our
laws are based on the Ten Commandments borders on the absurd.
Further, and much more
importantly, the Ten Commandments admonish people to do their duty; they do not
speak of “rights”. As you know, the
Bible never even condemns slavery, for instance, so it is not the source for
the ideas of freedom and democracy so dear to the Founders and to us. So, saying we are a Christian nation inexplicably
leaves those principles aside though they are specifically mentioned in the
Declaration and Christianity is not[13].
A corollary to the idea of
the
Along these lines, let’s not
forget that
As I am but a student of
history, let me give you a nice quote from a real historian on the origin of
our rights: Arthur Schlesinger:
“As a historian, I confess to a certain amusement
when I hear the Judeo-Christian tradition praised as the source of our
present-day concern for human rights; that is, for the valuable idea that all
individuals everywhere are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness on this earth. In fact, the great religious ages were notable for
their indifference to human rights in the contemporary sense. They were
notorious not only for acquiescence in poverty, inequality, exploitation, and
oppression, but also for enthusiastic justifications of slavery, persecution,
abandonment of small children, torture, and genocide.
During most of the history of the West . . .
religion enshrined and vindicated hierarchy, authority, and inequality, and had
no compunction about murdering heretics and blasphemers. Until the end of the
18th century, torture was normal investigative procedure in the Catholic Church
as well as in most European states . . .
Schlesinger continues, and I sincerely wish that the next time someone
puts the Ten Commandments into a court
house they install these words beside them in granite:
Human rights is not
a religious idea. It is a secular idea, the product of the last four centuries
of Western history. Tocqueville persuasively attributed the humanitarian ethic
to the rise of the idea of equality. . . . It was the age of equality that
brought about the disappearance of such religious appurtenances as the
auto-da-fé and burning at the stake, the abolition of torture and of public
executions, the emancipation of the slaves. . . . The basic human rights
documents - the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration
of the Rights of Man - were written by political, not by religious, leaders.” [ Arthur
Schlesinger, Jr., speech at
What facts can the proponents
produce to disprove that statement? It
and the historical record should put an end to gift-of-rights part of the BIG
LIE for anyone who cares to investigate openly[15].
Clearly, the essential differences
of our Nation, the differences we cherish, came to the Founders from the
Enlightenment, not the Bible; the only thing in common between the Ten
Commandments and the original Bill of Rights is the number “ten”. There
have been lots of “Christian Nations” throughout
history. Thankfully, we are not one of them. That is what makes us different
from all the rest and freer in every way.
Why then and how does the
Christian-nation proposition get stronger every day? I do not believe in grand conspiracies. I suspect that this may be more the result of
well-intentioned helpfulness, wishful thinking, and ignorance.
Let’s examine the ignorance
hypothesis first. This is not intended
as an insult, I mean by it that they just don’t know. Analogously, three weeks ago President Bush
declared that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Well, given the results of the best national polls
taken earlier that same week, what the President was really saying was that 69%
of the American People didn’t know what they were talking about, they were
ignorant.
I’m not here to discuss
politics, so I’ll leave it to the pundits to figure out how so many people got
so grossly misinformed on that point.
However, I will take a stab at possible major source for part of the
Christian Nation idea, namely: Public Law 97-280. I suspect people may be
affected by it, even if they never heard of it. Since this “Law” is sometimes
quoted by proponents and their followers, a few words about it are in order:
In it Congress declares that Bible
is “the Word of God,” and is . . . “the rock on which our Republic rests.” How Congress determined that the Bible is the
“Word of God” is not made clear.
However, from these and other clauses in this “Law” the proponents would
seem to have a legal basis for their opinion.
Well, I’m here to tell them that, just as in the case of
First of all, this so-called
“Law” is simply a totally non-enforceable Joint Resolution of Congress (1982)
authorizing the President Reagan to proclaim 1983 as the “Year of the
Bible”. This is pure political pabulum, not
binding legislation. (For this we should be thankful, for if the Bible were now
really the Law, murderer Rev. Paul Hill might still be stalking the streets.)
No, Public Law 97-280 is just
like the Joint Resolution declaring 2002 the “Year of the Rose”. A nice
gesture, but not Law in any real sense. If you never heard of it, or did not
honor the rose last year, nothing will
happen to you. These “Year of the . . .(whatever) Resolutions” are often full
of nice sounding phrases that do not stand up to scrutiny. The “Year of the Rose,” for instance begins
by saying:
“Whereas the study of
fossils has shown that the rose has been a native wild flower in the
Now, a child of six will know
that the
In the same manner the “Year
of the Bible” Resolution, to return to good ole Public Law 97-280 again, declares, among other equally inane
statements:
“Whereas deeply held
religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early
settlement of our Nation. . .”.
Now as to the motivation of
the proponents possibly being well-intentioned.
It is well-intentioned in the same way that Church torturers in the
Middle Ages were simply trying to help you by making you confess so you
could save your soul. Only today, it is
modeled on the ancient torture of a thousand cuts, each one not deadly in
itself, but the cumulative effect is death. In this case they are painless;
they constitute thousands of little chinks in the wall of separation between Church
and State, and our “salvation” will apparently come rolling in when it
collapses. Many Christians, of course,
recognize that the Wall preserves religious freedom for all, but their voices
are usually drowned out by the proponents.[17] [Strangely, Pat Robertson recently came out
in favor of a constitutional wall of separation between church and state;
unfortunately he was talking about
In any case, these little
chinks have been inflicted regularly practically since our founding, and there
is a sort of “ratchet effect” that once established they are never allowed to be
pointed or repaired.
Let me give you a few
examples:
State Constitutions: Some of
the original state constitutions did not mention God. However, as they were revised over the years,
God got inserted in phrases like that of
the Florida Constitution: “We, the people of the State of
“In God We Trust”: An Act of
Congress was passed on
Given the recent
controversial court ruling, we are all keenly aware of the similar evolution of
the “One Nation Under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. Again, God
wasn’t included in the original document, but got added later. One more little chink.
Finally, potentially billions
of tax dollars will be used against that wall by a jack-hammer going under the
name of Faith-based-initiatives. The
Congress is not going along on this as yet, so most of the money is being
distributed under the monarchical power known as fiat.
Thankfully, one chink has not
quite reached its full depth yet: prayer in schools. Before they continue
hammering this one, I would respectfully ask my Christian Nation friends to consider
these words of Jesus:
And
when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to
pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they
may be seen of men. . . .
But
thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy
door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret
shall reward thee openly. [Matthew: 6, 5-6]
“Oh, but wait just a minute,”
the proponents might say, there are lots of Christian items that have been
around since the beginning and are still imbued in our culture that prove our
point. After all, “the Constitution is dated the 17th of September
in the Year of our Lord 1787.” I would
suggest that this usage, and many others such as swearing on the Bible, and so
forth, are mere linguistic conventions and do not constitute proof of
belief.
If someone disputes this, I
would ask them if they worship the Germanic god Tiu or Norse gods Woden and
Thor or the Roman gods Janus or Mars. If
not, then they’d better find a new way to say Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
January and March—for starters. While they’re
at it they had better get themselves a new word for Sunday since it is for most
Christians the Sabbath. Otherwise, using
the linguistic logic of the proponents, the descendents of the Egyptian
followers of Ra or the Incas or maybe Japanese traditionalists might come forth
to claim that we are a nation of pagan Sun worshipers. Obviously, the particular wording of its date
is as nothing compared to the fact that God does not appear in the text of the
Constitution.
From all of the above, it is
clear and uncontestable that the Constitution is secular, and we are a secular
nation. So, to say that we are a Christian Nation, or were founded on Christian
principles cannot be justified from history; plus it does not speak to the basic
freedoms we cherish and which made our founding unique and glorious[19].
But, if we are not a Christian
Nation, what will keep us “good”? Well,
as to the means of maintaining our virtue without necessarily living in a
“Christian” nation or even going to church, Ben Franklin suggested: “Industry
and constant employment are great preservatives of the morals and virtue of a
nation.”[20]
God bless
#######
[Presented by Joe Wetzel to the NCUU,
FOLLOWING TALK: Prepare to sing Panis Angelicus
Just because we’re not Christian Nation, does not mean we can’t still appreciate much of the spiritual aspects of Christianity. For instance, being moved by a beautiful Cathedral or hymn. Speaking of Hymns there is one that has always moved me, and I thought, with Catherine’s help I would attempt to sing it for you in lieu of the usual group final hymn. It is in your Order of Service. Words by St. Thomas Aquinas from the 13th C. with music by César Frank from the 19, th it has been a perennial favorite. The most recent recording I’ve heard is a duet by Pavarotti and Sting. As you will soon note, I am neither; but I shall do my best. If you care to read the words as I sing, you’ll find the Latin text with my translation in your order of service.
[1] Anita Lawal, sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery, recently was acquitted. Luckily for her, she got off on a technicality. Unfortunately for the next victim, the law still stands.
[2] E.g., 1) When Presbyterian Minister, Paul Hill, who killed Dr. John Briton (an
abortion doctor) in cold blood, tried to use the Bible in his defense—he
certainly found passages there to justify his action—the Court ruled no. 2) If a parent were to quote the Bible: (“Is
any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them
pray over him. . . And the prayer of
faithful shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. . .” ) [James V:
14-15] to justify not taking his child to the doctor when sick with some
serious malady, and that child should subsequently die, the parent would be prosecuted. Thank God and the
Founders!
[3] A Christian Nation would likely require such a test,
as indeed did the 1780 Constitution of Massachusetts, which later had to be
removed. Some particularly rabid proponents invite those who do not agree we
are a Christian Nation to leave, in this
they are betraying the clear language of the Constitution. Loyal
[4] A good
book on this point is: The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious
Correctness, Kramnick and Moore. Norton, 1997.
[5] Do
proponents really want the Government enforcing religious rules? Should any be listening who do not know the
horrible history of such an arrangement: burning witches, death to blasphemers,
etc., I offer just one example: outlawing anesthetics during childbirth. In
1591, King James VI of
[6]They have
about as much effect as the Mayflower Compact, 1620, namely none. That document
was definitely “Christian,” but of course if it implies that we must be good
Christians to be good Americans, then we must also be loyal servants to the
royal family of
[7] In fact, some die-hard proponents comment on this
Treaty and basically contend that it does not represent an official “position”
on this issue. In short, that it does
not mean what it says, or that George Washington, the Founders still in the
Senate and President Adams himself did not read it carefully. Allow me to point
out that, unlike the Declaration of Independence (more later), this treaty
represented
[8] They will even dispute the carefully documented fact
that many Founders were deists, whose idea of God did not really conform to the
typical Judeo-Christian concept, does not accept miracles or revelation. One can sometimes find quotes from the
Founders that might justify either position, but the full context almost always
demonstrates they were deists. So, on
this point, the proponents are dead wrong. E.g.: “I have recently been examining all the known
superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition
[Christianity] one redeeming feature.
They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies” (Thomas
Jefferson, Letter to Dr. Woods, 1822.)
To counter that statement by
“Believing
with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the
legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole American people which declared what their legislature should ‘make no
law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of
separation between church and state.”
[
The proponents imply that
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into
the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil
and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).
The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as
President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe
rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear
from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance
of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves
for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in
return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
[9] The
reference usually means statutory law.
As for Common Law,
[10] The 1650 Code of the Connecticut General Court is
typical:
“If any person
commits adultery with a married or espoused wife, the adulterer and the
adulteress shall surely be put to death. Lev. 20:10,
If any man have a stubborn
and rebellious son of sufficient years and understanding . . . then may his
father and mother, being his natural parents, lay hold of him and bring him to
the magistrates assembled in Court, and testify unto them that their son is
stubborn and rebellious and will not obey their voice and chastisement . . .
such a son shall be put to death. Duet.
[11] As we saw earlier, in
[12] Yes, I know the Biblical punishment would be death.
[13] Clearly, the purpose of the Declaration was to
“dissolve the political bands,” not set up a religious nation. In any case, we are governed by the
Constitution not the Declaration.
[14] As for
me, I believe that if these freedoms were a gift, it mysteriously stayed
wrapped for many, many centuries, and it wasn’t opened on some special
Christmas day, but was opened and made manifest to the world by our Founding
Fathers who joined with those rights the principles of the Enlightenment, which
they then put into effect. Saying they
were a gift from God, as Jefferson and others certainly did, was another way of
saying they were part of our Nature, inborn and “unalienable.”
[15] As Arthur Schlesinger implies, our nation is founded
on natural and civil rights, as seen by the Founders in the context of the
Enlightenment. In fact, in 1774 the
Continental Congress wrote “An Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec” inviting
the French-speaking Catholics to “unite with us in one social compact, formed on the generous principles of equal
liberty.” It goes on to say that the common ground of “natural
and civil rights” as stated in the
writings of “your immortal countryman,
Montesquieu,” would be the basis for the union. Proponents, kindly note: In appealing to
those Catholics, the First Continental Congress could very easily have
underlined the “bond of common Christianity and belief in Jesus as God” or
other such religious concepts, but they did not. Though most members of the
Congress believed in God, they stressed the secular arguments—because they
wanted to form a secular nation.
[16] We shall leave aside the implied insult to the Native Americans who, of course, were already here.
[17]E.g.: John Leland, Baptist Minister from
[18] Another Act in 1865 allowed the motto to be place on
the gold eagle coin and various others. Then
in 1873 an Act authorized the motto on such coins as shall admit of such “motto”.
Finally a Joint Resolution in 1956 declared
In God we Trust the national motto of the
[19] “What is called democracy in the West is really liberal
democracy, a political system marked not only by free elections but also the
rule of law, the separation of powers and basic human rights, including private
property, free speech and religious tolerance. In the West, this tradition of liberty and
law developed over centuries, long before democracy took hold. It was produced by a series of forces—the
separation of church and state, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the
Reformation, capitalism and the development of an independent middle class. . .
. “
[20] Benjamin Franklin, “Information to those Who Would
remove to