Constitution and Jesus

Myths About the Separation of Church and State

• Church / State Separation • Church / State Myths • Ten Commandments • Sabbath Laws • Jehovah's Witnesses • Separation of Church & State

• Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews

• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

Myth:
The Constitution refers to Christianity and Jesus.

Response: One common argument in favor of the separation of church and state is that the Constitution, which is the founding legal document of this nation, makes no reference to religion except in terms which would exclude it from government authority, and certainly makes no reference to Christianity. Therefore, the position which argues that Christianity was essential to the founding of this nation and should continue as a partner with the government is supposed to be refuted.

Accommodationists and others opposed to the separation of church and state respond to this by arguing that the Constitution does refer to Christianity: in Article VII, the Constitution is dated with the words "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

What relevancy does this point have for the debate over religious liberty? Absolutely none. Yes, the authors and signers of the Constitution relied upon a dating system which marks as its beginning the birth of the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ. Yes, it was custom at the time of the Constitution to set forth dates by writing them out in long hand and to use the phrase "the Year of our Lord."

Contrary to what some may think, however, this does not even mean that all of the authors and signers were Christian, much less that they considered Jesus Christ their "Lord" or that they regarded him as somehow the sovereign over the government. Quite the opposite, in fact: the Constitution is designed to ensure the sovereignty of the people, not of any religious figure.

Moreover, if the use of this phrase was designed to communicate a favored status for Christianity, why use such an obscure method coming at the very end of the document? Had the authors wished to establish Christianity as a partner with the American government, they could have done so much more explicitly and in dozens of more substantive ways. However, they did not - and that silence speaks very loudly.

In addition, if a Christian really wants to argue that the use of Christian dating implies a Christian basis to the government, they're in a lot of trouble because the names of the months and days have pagan rather than Christian origins. This was evidently a source of some consternation of Quakers who refused to use the pagan-based names, but the authors of the Constitution refused to employ the Quaker numerical system. This suggests that the authors really didn't read much into such naming conventions, effectively undermining the argument that the phrase "Year of our Lord" has any significance worth discussing.