America was not founded as a Christian nation.
I continue to hear people say that the Unites States of America was founded as a Christian nation. They are either ignorant and believe something they were told or they are lying. Not only was the US not founded as a Christian nation, it protected us against religion.
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
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.
The word God does not appear in The United States Constitution.
“separation of church and state” is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that 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 & State.”
“Under God” wasn’t added to The Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. It is an unconstitutional use of the phrase and should be removed.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister who did not use the the word God.
“Under God” has only been a part of it for the last 50 years.
“In God We Trust” wasn’t added to US currency until 1957. It is an unconstitutional use of the phrase and should be removed.
This country is 220 years old and “In God We Trust” has only been a part of it for the last 50 years.
I looks to me as if some religious politicians in the 50′s decided to go against the Constitution and make the Church part of the State. These things should have never been passed, they completely go against the basis in which the country was founded.
Our founding fathers knew what they were doing with the First Amendment. They were protecting us from the very thing we declared our independence from, the singular religious rule of Great Britain.
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 6th, 2008 at 2:44 am and is filed under Constitution, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Very good post Rob. It is very rare that someone writing about “separation of church and state” actually gets it right. Most politicians miss use the term and most people don’t understand it. You are exactly right. Our forefathers created a government that was supposed to be religiously neutral. Ultimately, it was a response to the religious abuse of the English government. So, the first amendment protects me, no matter what religion I am and government doesn’t have the right to create laws to respect establishment or prohibit any religion.
I was unaware that the phrase “In God We Trust” was not added on money until recently. I did actually find out just two nights ago that the “Under God” was added to the pledge recently. My dad was telling me how he said the pledge every day at school (he was born in 1942) and how they didn’t use the phrase “Under God.” Interesting.
About 10 years ago I studied this whole thing of separation of church and state and came to a conclusion that the “Christian” in me didn’t like. :) I agree with you. In the context of prayer in school, so many Christians are fighting to get it back in school. I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be illegal to do so. It’s against the first amendment. I don’t know the context of “why” they put the phrase “Under God” or “In God We Trust” on money and in the pledge… so I feel like I’d need more information… but off the cuff I’d say that it very well may have been a violation of the first amendment to place them there. The Christian in me doesn’t like this because I’d like there to be prayer in school, and I like the pledge the way it is. I like the phrase on the money. BUT, I also respect the first amendment. The same first amendment that protects my religious freedoms is also the same that is designed to protect the religious freedoms of others.
Here is where you and I may differ… but maybe not. Apparently you have done your homework and are reasonable. I know it’s arguable as to how many of the founding fathers were Christians, how many were deist and whatever else they could have been. However, there isn’t any doubt that America has deep religious roots that certainly influenced our culture. I agree that the United States was not created as a Christian nation, but a good majority of the nation were Christians and they influenced the culture.
So, I think a lot of the hot debates about “church and state” today are dealing more of a culture war. Today, America is a nation where the majority are not Christians… or at least many of them are simply nominal. So what we’re dealing with today is that as the non-Christian population grows, they’re feeling more uncomfortable with the “Christian” segment pushing Christianity on them because they justify that America is a “Christian” nation. It merely “was” a nation with a strong Christian culture because there were so many Christians.
Where I feel the church and state argument crosses the line is when it is used to censor. I have every right to where my Jesus t-shirt to school just as anyone else has their right to wear a shirt that states their religious belief. The line is crossed when I’m told I can’t wear it because of separation of church and state. Or when they’re told they can’t wear theirs. When either one of us is shown favoritism, then that is wrong.
I think the line is crossed when people get up in arms to remove the 10 commandments from a government building. Some documents, memorials and even buildings are historic monuments. Again, many of these buildings, monuments and documents were created within the culture of a Christian nation. Many of our forefathers were greatly influenced by their beliefs. However, just because the 10 commandments are on the walls of the supreme court doesn’t mean you’re going to be judged by the 10 commandments. You’re going to be judged by the law of the land. The 10 commandments are there because of our culture. I think the line is crossed when people feel we have to erase Christian references from our nation’s history.
If I moved to Greece, it would be completely wrong of me to demand they cover up the monuments that represent their ancient beliefs. I can respect the history and the culture that built them, even if it doesn’t at all represent the religion and culture of the day.
So, to wrap it up I would say that I agree with you. Our founding fathers created a religiously neutral government. They were much smarter than we are today. However, I feel that we shouldn’t be christian-phobic and delete and destroy segments of our nations history because it is heavily “christian.” It’s a part of our past and our culture… but certainly not an indication of who we are today.
Does any of that make sense? I feel like I rambled. Just my 2 cents.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Oh, one more thing. Just a quick thing I found on Wikipedia. “In God We Trust” has been on currency longer than 50 years. It was officially adopted as the “Nation’s Motto” in 1957 and was then required to be on all money from then on. The phrase had been the “unofficial” motto for a very long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
March 6th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Great comment. Let me point out that any government money spent on religion is a violation of the constitution. Let’s guess for a moment that a nice “10 Commandments” plaque costs $500. Multiply that times the number of government buildings it exists in (I don’t know what that would be). Let’s guess that more than one hundred thousand dollars was spent on these things but less than a million. Whatever that number is. Now let’s discuss where that money came from. That is tax payer money, tax payers such as Muslims, Christians, Atheists and the undecided, etc. Only one of these groups even supports and believes in the “10 Commandments” but we all had to pay for it, didn’t we?
March 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Yeah, I think I can agree with you on that. My greater concern would be the need to tear down the 10 commandments from historical monuments or buildings because having them there offends someone of a different religion however many years down the road. More than likely they got there because it was part of our culture. I’m pretty sure that the founding fathers (I’d have to do a little research on this… so I’m kind of blowing smoke) based many of our laws on the Judeo-Christian principles… or at least claimed this as inspiration. This would be the reason the 10 commandments are on so many courthouses.
This is where it gets sticky. I think it does present itself as an issue for when they build more monuments or courthouses. I can see the side of the argument against putting the 10 commandments on the wall as it is religious and we’re not a nation that embraces this. However, regardless of the current religious majority, it doesn’t change the fact that the 10 commandments was the inspiration for our legal system and provides a symbolic representation of where the system came from. So, I can see that side as well. However, I admit that I am probably biased and will have difficulty seeing this objectively.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I will agree that you’re being biased :-) If “In God We Trust” is a violation of the Constitution, are we just suppose to leave it there because it’s already there? You should consider reading “The God Delusion”, I don’t think you realize just how much the founding fathers did not want this to be a religiously mandated country. I found this.
The Ten Commandments Vs the Constitution
1. You shall have no other gods before Me
By the First Amendment to the Constitution, I am expressly permitted to have other gods than Jehovah.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
By the First Amendment to the Constitution, I am expressly permitted to have and make graven images of other gods. I have an image of Ganesa hanging on my desktop monitor right now. That violates the 2nd commandment, but I am in compliance with United States law.
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
By the First Amendment to the Constitution, I am expressly permitted to take in vain the name of Jehovah, Jesus or any other god that is holy to any other citizen. It is part of my right of free speech.
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
By the First Amendment to the Constitution, I am expressly permitted to keep the Sabbath as holy or unholy as I choose. I chose to go grocery shopping this morning whilst Christians were at church celebrating their dead god. There was no one in the checkout line. Thank you, 4th commandment!
5. Honor your parents
While this is a good idea, there is no legal implications of it. I am permitted by American law to not honor my parents. It would make me a dick, but you couldn’t send me to jail for it unless accompanied by an action that was illegal in and of itself.
6. You shall not murder
Commandment #1 that is in line with the law and also one Westmoreland mentioned.
7. You shall not commit adultery
At the federal level, there is no legal implication of this commandment. Depending on the sodomy laws of the state or locality, this may or may not be in compliance with the law.
8. You shall not steal
Commandment #2 that is in line with the law and also one Westmoreland mentioned.
9. You shall not bear false witness
Commandment #3 that is in line with the law and also one Westmoreland mentioned.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife and house
Under United States law, I am allowed to covet my neighbor’s wife, house and donkey. I could not commit an action that was illegal in and of itself to act on that, but there is nothing illegal in thinking about it. If you talk your neighbor’s wife into divorcing him and marrying you, there is no legal implication of that.
A link to the full article http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2007/04/08/the-ten-commandments-vs-the-constitution/
March 6th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Ha! Well, even if I am biased, I’ll still try to be objective. I promise! :)
Your question is a good one is a good one, but multi-faceted deserving more than a pat yes or no answer.
If “In God We Trust” is a violation of the Constitution, are we just suppose to leave it there because it’s already there?
Yes and no. I’m going to be specific on this because it can become a slippery slope. First of all the phrase is synonymous with American History… so it has value. If the phrase was plastered all over monuments, buildings and whatever else because the phrase was relevant to the culture who claimed it at a motto, then I think we’re equally wrong to tear it down. If it was in violation of the constitution, then I do not think we should leave it there just because its already there. To me… it’s paper that represents value. It’s something we print by the billions every year. I could care less what is on my money. This is something we’re reprinting and to stop printing “In God We Trust” on money we use is far different from tearing down monuments… things that are our history. Does that make sense. One day I can take my son to Washington DC and show him the monuments and the inscriptions that reveled the Christian roots of our country, even if it no longer is. It’s a history lesson, but more personal. Money… that doesn’t matter to me. I’ll show him pictures of what our money used to look like. Big deal. If it is unconstitutional, then take it off the money.
However, I can’t get past the “if it’s unconstitutional” part. I don’t think it is. It was a motto, a saying that what known by our nation.. our founding fathers. Similar to “remember the Alamo,” it was a motto held by the early Americans. Putting “In God We Trust” on currency does not imply that the holder of the money must put their trust in God. It’s not a command, it’s not a law… it’s a motto (although officially adopted in 1956) that is as a part of America as the phrase “give me liberty or give me death.”
Again, I see much of this as being a heritage, historical and cultural issue. Although many Christians would love to put prayer back in school, I believe that would be in violation of the constitution. I feel it would be in violation of the constitution to build a monument of a cross. But I feel there is a difference between legislating laws and honoring the past. There’s no way of getting around it… this nation has strong Christian roots. It doesn’t mean you have to be a Christian to appreciate our heritage.
I’d be happy to read the book. I can’t promise that it will be in the immediate future, but I will read it.
Oh, and I do understand how much our founding fathers did not want the US to be a religiously mandated country. I’m crystal clear on that. I believe the created a religiously neutral government where any religion can flourish. However, so many of the founders were deeply religious. I think they didn’t realized that we’d become a nation that wasn’t as rooted in Christianity as they were then. But I think the fact that as many other religions are flourishing in this country as they are is a testament to their forethought. Sure, there have been some bumps in the road, but there have been no religious skirmishes or civil wars fought in the name of religion since we’ve become spiritually diversified.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
I don’t think the phrase has value because it goes against our freedoms. I don’t Trust in God. I believe that you’re trying to be objective, but how different would your answer be if it said “In Allah we Trust” or that there were so many Muslims in America that they were trying to get that put on money?
Then you might begin to feel as though your freedoms were being encroached opon. Because you certainly don’t Trust in Allah.
What if I got ten million people to sign a petition to have the Klingon God used on money (I don’t think there actually is one). Sounds ridiculous to you, but we believe in what he stands for. “It is a good day to die.”
It’s hard to be objective when what seems right for you isn’t for others.
I get what you’re saying about culture and history. I wouldn’t change the monuments either (I think) but money would have already been changed.
Our governments should not apply their personal beliefs to the population in which they server. I understand the level of difficulty in that but they are paid plenty.
March 7th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I hear what you’re saying. It’s a sticky situation any way you look at it. If our motto had been “Give me Liberty or Give me Death,” This wouldn’t be an issue at all. It’s a famous saying, a part of American history right there on our money. There probably wouldn’t be any movement to remove it. However, because the motto is is religious in nature, it causes a stir. The culture of our nation has changed and that phrase, which is religious in nature does not represent our culture like it once did. Just because I do trust in God doesn’t mean I can’t objectively appreciate the religious conviction of many of our nation’s founders who made this phrase their motto.
I’ve traveled the world and have been to countries where Hindu Gods were on the money, where references to Allah were on the money as well as many others. It didn’t bother me at all to receive, carry or spend their money. I can appreciate their culture, even if it represents a religion different than mine. Some of these countries I’ve been to do offer religious freedoms even though the national religion is Islam or whatever.
But I agree. If they reprinted the money today and it said “In Allah we Trust” it would be wrong. It’s not our history or the culture of our nation’s past, it’s not our motto, it’s expressly a religious statement. Although “In God We Trust” is religious in nature, it is our history, it is the culture of our nation’s past.
Petitioning the Government to add the Klingon God to money, which I think would be very funny, just won’t happen because our constitution doesn’t allow for that. However, I could see people petitioning having the phrase “In God We Trust” taken off money. There’s nothing unconstitutional about that. And, if enough people fought to have it removed, then it very well might be. I’d be disappointed because I believe it to be more than a religious statement… it’s history. And I feel that if we took the first step in removing this from our money, who’s to say that our monuments and other historical places aren’t next. What a tragedy it would be if sections of great speeches of our presidents or founding fathers were censored because of references to their faith. I just wouldn’t want to set that kind of precedent. I’m 100% for religious freedom, I just don’t want religion getting confused with history. I don’t want our history selectively erased.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I think we have come to an agreeable point. It’s unfortunate that the people who are protecting everyones religious freedoms (by requesting prayer be taken out of school and “In God we Trust” be removed from currency) are seen as bad guys. And the only reason they are seen that way is because someone else violated the constitution and they are trying to reverse that violation.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Ha! Now that’s a great discussion, when both sides can come to an agreeable point. I enjoyed the discussion as I’m sure we’ll have more.
I agree. It’s ignorance that plagues our nation. Too often you can’t have a reasonable debate or discussion because of ignorance or people not clearly looking at the issue at hand because of how it will affect them personally.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
While discussing our discussion with Karen something dawned on me. The very moment “In God we Trust” was printed on money, it was wrong and a violation of the constitution. To put this into perspective, would you consider induced abortion to be more OK today, than when it passed in 1973? Based on you comments about money, I get the impression that just because it’s been there so long, somehow it’s less wrong than it was in 1957.
By the same token, I could say that legal induced abortion is part of our culture. I, however, am absolutely certain you wouldn’t give our culture a single thought when overturning Roe v Wade. Am I right?
I’m not equating a simple phrase with abortion. I’m trying to have you use the same thought process.
The passage of time does not right a wrong.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Again, I’m not ready to agree that “In God we Trust” on out money is a violation of the constitution. It’s our national motto. Although it only became officially our motto in the 1950′s when congress put their stamp of approval on it, but it had been a phrase common to this country much longer than then. Francis Scott Key wrote about it being our motto in the early 1800′s. I don’t know enough about it and the history of the phrase as it relates to our country’s history. Perhaps it was the rallying cry of our founding fathers during the revolution. I don’t have enough facts to say “yes, putting it on currency is a violation of the constitution.” If it was put on the currency for religious purposes, I would wholeheartedly agree, it is in violation of the constitution. But if it was put on the currency because it’s a historic phrase, a rallying cry of the revolution… a piece of American History, then I see no harm, neither is it a violation of the constitution. I would feel no differently about this even if it were another phrase such as “give me liberty or give me death.”
I’m not exactly sure where you are coming from on the abortion side. I don’t feel like either are less wrong. I know that induced abortion still happens today and I’m just as against it as I am against abortion in a Doctors office. So, I’m not sure the point you were making if you’d like to clarify.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I do understand what you’re saying about it being a motto for the country. But because it was religious in nature is exactly why they should have not used it. It doesn’t matter WHY they decided to use it. The motto picks religious sides and the government agreed it was right for everyone.
I believe our countries government is suppose to be 100% secular. Our government is suppose to ignore religious popularity. Our government officials are not suppose to impose religious affiliations.
It’s their job to ignore what is happening with religion in this country. They did not do that.
If every person in America hangs a sign on their front door that says “God is Great”, the government should not hang one on the front of every court house. They should not do it one reason and one reason only, it picks religious sides. But it’s motto, doesn’t matter. But it’s what everybody believes, doesn’t matter. But the people want it on the court house, doesn’t matter.
You can’t protect my religious freedoms and violate them at the same time.
“Give me liberty or give me death” Does not choose religious sides. It’s not the same.
I only used the abortion scenario to indicate that when something is wrong it doesn’t matter how much time passes, if it’s was wrong when they passed it, it will be wrong until they overturn it. That could be 100 years.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I gotcha now… I think. I agree, the passage of time does not right a wrong. Are you asking me if I feel abortion is now a part of our culture because it’s been legal since 1973? You are right, I wouldn’t give it a second thought if they decided to overturn Row v. Wade. And yes, abortions have become sociably acceptable in our society, although hotly debated. I’m certainly not interested in getting into an abortion debate, but my convictions tell me that abortion is ending a life and it’s unfortunate that it’s become legal and somewhat accepted in our culture. But it doesn’t change the fact that there are unshakable values that I believe trump “cultural sensitivity.” Sanctity of life is one of them. Freedom is another. The argument about abortion is about when “life” begins which everyone has a different feeling on. But I think that 99% of the population would agree that life is worth protecting… it is worth fighting for. I don’t care if it’s been culturally acceptable to take life for 1000 years, but if there is something I could do to stop it, I would. In dozens of nations around the world, it’s been culturally acceptable to make children work 15 hours a day in poor working conditions. Most of the world, regardless of religious convictions have stood up against those who abuse child labor laws… because it’s wrong, regardless of culture.
I know the point you’re trying to make. You’re trying to apply my reasoning to a variety of situations… this one being an extreme and highly unstable issue. I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. I wholeheartedly stand behind the first amendment. Everyone has the right to practice their faith. However, if someones faith involved taking another life, I’m absolutely opposed to the practice of their religion. Why, because the sanctity of life trumps their protection of religion. Am I being wishy-washy by feeling that way? Am I two-sided? Yeah, maybe I am… but are there exceptions to the rule on occasions? In this case, I would say so.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I agree I do not want to have an abortion conversation here, that wasn’t my point. It was only the thought process I was after. No more abortion talkie, my mistake.
I actually think we disagree on the whole money issue because you don’t see the harm. You think it has more to do with tradition of the people than malicious intent. And I think the reason doesn’t matter. I can agree that no physical harm may have ever come from “In God we Trust”. I don’t know that I agree it’s apple to oranges.
I know what it’s like to want something for myself that limits other peoples options.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
He he… that’s a can or worms. I figured you’re weren’t opening another facet for discussion… just to challenge my reasoning.
Yes, I agree with your assessment. I do believe it has more to do with tradition (I would actually use the words “historical significance”) than malicious intent. I think we are who we are and we shouldn’t forget from where we came from… even if we’ve become something totally different.
Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me if one day the motto is changed. In that case, what goes on our money may change… then this wouldn’t really be an issue. Bottom line though, I think this is the point where we’ll agree to disagree and there’s probably precious little we can do about that.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
On the way home I saw an Indiana license plate that had “In God we Trust” on it. Damn it, I just can’t win.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Ha! I laughed out loud! I’m thinking I know what to get you next Christmas….
March 17th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Don’t you mean the Winter Solstice? :-)
June 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
>Not only was the US not founded as a Christian nation, it protected us against religion.
Good discussion here, with civil dialogue and valid points on both sides.
I do, however, take issue with the premise that America was definitely not founded as a Christian nation. There is evidence to support both propositions which is why the debate still rages.
In The Declaration of Independence, one of America’s most important documents, the very first sentence references God. The second – and most famous – line does so as well (“…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”). Jefferson, to whom the “separation of church and state” concept is ascribed, penned these words. That is not the act of someone who was opposed to having the principles and ideals of Christianity be the bedrock for this new nation (the finer point of this would be the delineation between “deist” and “Christian”). Christianity had a heavy influence upon our nation’s founders, as evidenced by their frequent quotations from the Bible. In fact, the first official act of the First Continental Congress was to open in prayer.
There are many historical documents corroborating America’s Christian roots here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
The revolution which made possible the United States was a political event born from the idea of religious liberty from the coercion of the Church of England. It’s not by coincidence that the First Amendment deals with religion. That said, our Founding Fathers certainly did NOT mean to establish a government religion of their own. And they certainly did not intend to establish America on evangelical Christianity, as some would have us believe. The founders wanted liberty in all things secular AND religious. But the words and actions of our founders definitely did indicate a Christian BASIS.
They did not intend to protect us FROM religion, just against religious compulsion. And in that, I can see some people’s offense at the statement of faith in the Pledge. But I fail to see any reason to remove our motto from our currency or monuments. Therein lies the difference between the historic tradition of the motto vs. the amending of the Pledge’s words.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Vampyr, when anyone refers to the way in which this country was founded they are talking about Constitution not the DOI. The DOI is a group of people saying “We’re not following your rules anymore”. The Constitution (which I think is significantly more important) is what’s used to govern the country. The DOI has nothing to do with how this country is governed. That’s why the courts always look to, refer to and rely on the Constitution, because it was designed to be used as a basis to govern this country. And as the basis of this country it is quite clear that it does not want anyone to be required to be of any religion and protects us from the religious.
I think you are mistaken, those men were protecting us from the garbage in religion they were already familiar with in Britain. The Constitution is written as if by people who lived in a religious country and wanted to protect this new country from the same religious garbage.
I believe they wanted a secular government while protecting peoples rights to believe whatever they want to believe. The fact that our government has chosen a religion to promote is in fact a violation of the Constitution.
It’s not just a Motto, it has religious meaning beyond the words. That’s not secular and should be removed.
Great post, thanks