America: A "Christian Nation?"
In 1992, Republican Mississippi Gov. Kirk Fordice referred to America as a "Christian nation", a point which is still debated hotly today. In this 2004 op-ed from the Boston Globe (and circulated widely through the blogosphere) that incident is recalled in connection with the Texas GOP's 2004 plank that asserts that we a Christian nation and, while specifically affirming religious freedom, "affirms that... the public acknowledgment of God is undeniable in our history". The Globe piece was part of a general paroxysm (here and here) of outrage from those who believe that religious conservatives are endangering our secular heritage. Of course, religious conservatives believe just as strongly that they are protecting our Christian heritage from the history-rewriting secularists (here).
David Barton, of WallBuilders (and Texas GOP Vice-Chairman) asserts here that 88 percent of Americans call themselves Christians and that this is a good basis for calling us a Christian nation. I believe, however, that only a fraction of those who would call themselves Christians have a very strong understanding of and commitment to their faith, and that we might better be described as a "post-Christian" society.
However, to deny that this country's foundations are rooted in Judeo-Christian thought is somewhat ludicrous. Those who insist that there is no God in the Constitution should take a gander at another founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which declares: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Our founders clearly state here that the rights that Americans hold dear were not conferred by them (the founders), but instead flow directly from God. If rights come from God but there is in fact no God, it follows then that He could not bestow rights upon humanity. Hence the Declaration not only acknowledges the existence of God but in fact credits Him as the source of the rights of Americans.
Below is the first chapter of a book called The Godless Constitution, whose authors argue that Americans have always carefully separated their government from religion.
WashingtonPost.com: The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness
By the second paragraph the book hits on what the key misconception in this entire debate when they mention "constitutional separation of church and state." "Separation between church and state" is a phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, and is not contained in the Constitution or any other founding document. He was referring to the First Amendment, which addresses free speech, but also clearly says that "Congress" may not establish religion or prevent its free excercise.
This Amendment would prevent, for instance, any church from enjoying the official sanction of the federal government, as the Church of England does with England. It would also preclude the federal government from outlawing a religious act, such as a Christian baptism or a Muslim prayer. However, the key point in this debate is this: a literal reading of the First Amendment makes it clear that its intent was not to keep religous people and religious sentiment out of government, but to keep the government from interfering with religion. If the goal of the founders was to make sure no religious thought ever emanated the government, then they blew it with the very first act of that government, the Declaration of Independence!
Not to mention putting "In God We Trust" on the money.
filed: politics.us

3 Comments:
"Those who insist that there is no God in the Constitution should take a gander at another founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which..."
...uses deistic language.
""Separation between church and state" is a phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, and is not contained in the Constitution or any other founding document."
Neither are the phrases "right to a fair trial" or "separation of powers." Does that mean these principles do not exist in the Constitution? No.
"If the goal of the founders was to make sure no religious thought ever emanated the government, then they blew it with the very first act of that government, the Declaration of Independence!"
The American government didn't issue the DoI. The American government was not established until the Constitution, which lays out what the government consists of and what the government may do. This is why the DoI has no legal force.
"...uses deistic language." I agree, the language used in the DoI wouldn't necessarily point to a Christian God. The leading crafter of the Declaration was one of the most clearly non-Christian of the founding fathers, so this is hardly surprising.
"Neither are the phrases ‘right to a fair trial’ or ‘separation of powers.’ Does that mean these principles do not exist in the Constitution? No."
This is hardly a strong argument. It’s an irrelevant conclusion. You ignored whether or not the Constitution even suggests separation of church and state, and instead brought up two things that it clearly suggests and tried to use them to prove your point. The fact remains that if you read the language of the Constitution you find that the only comments on religion have to do with keeping Congress from establishing religion or restricting religious exercise. You seem to be saying that the Constitution implies separation of church and state in the sense that we think of it, which I don't see anywhere in the document.
"The American government didn't issue the DoI. The American government was not established until the Constitution, which lays out what the government consists of and what the government may do. This is why the DoI has no legal force."
I think that you again chose to miss the point. Some of the same people were involved in the crafting of both documents. Many people who share your ideas rely heavily on the intent of the founders, and do so choosing to ignore letters and the like that conflict their opinions of the founders intent. The opinions expressed by these people in other official documents and even in correspondence should aid us in discerning their views. No claim was made in this post that the DoI was a government document, but your post seems to ignore the actual points being made and gives cookie-cutter answers that address periphery issues rather than the substance of the points.
Alright, we've got a little controversy here. That's what I like to see. I'll answer anonymous' points:
anonymous said: "...uses deistic language."
First of all, while the Declaration's language might be acceptable to Deists, it is also perfectly in line with Christian thought--not surprising for a Constitutional Convention where Christians far outnumbered Deists. It is, however, completely out of line with the idea of a 'Godless constitution', which is precisely my point.
anonymous said: "Neither are the phrases "right to a fair trial" or "separation of powers." Does that mean these principles do not exist in the Constitution? No."
You argue that certain phrases do not appear in the Constitution but describe elements thereof. You are correct. I think that I made it clear in the next sentence that I agree when I noted that that phrase refers to the First Amendment, which is a part of the Constitution.
I mentioned that the phrase "Separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution as I argued that that phrase is widely misunderstood, not that the concept is not in the Constitution. Your argument is a red herring and does not address my point.
anonymous said: "The American government didn't issue the DoI. The American government was not established until the Constitution, which lays out what the government consists of and what the government may do. This is why the DoI has no legal force."
I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say for sure whether the Declaration should be considered to have been issued by "the American government" or something like "duly elected representatives of the people as they formed the American government". Either way, I agree with Ben that arguing about "legal force" misses the point, which is that the people who formed this country saw fit to credit God as the giver of the rights that Americans hold so dear.
BTW, the American government DID exist before the Constitution under the Articles of Confederation.
Post a Comment
<< Home