What is the best way to protect religious freedom? Some in America think that the religious freedom of all can best be protected under the benign dominance of their own particular form of Christianity. Others, though, argue that religious freedom is best protected by the state staying out of religious affairs — and that the Constitution was written specifically to reflect this.
- The word God does not appear in the Constitution. It grants neither the president nor the Congress any religious powers. ...The framers of the Constitution had learned the importance of protecting religious freedom. The colonies had a long history of intolerance and persecution enforced by the state. Although they came to America to escape persecution, the settlers reversed roles and became persecutors themselves.
- Jeanette B. Welch, Column in the Kansas City Star, July 19, 2003
When people claim that America is a "Christian Nation," what do they mean? If they simply mean that a majority of people in America are and have been Christian, then they are right — but in a trivial way. America is a "White Nation" for the same reason, but only white supremacists bother trying to make the assertion.
The "America is a Christian Nation" claim has more to do with the idea that America is "Christian" in the sense that it represents Christian doctrines, beliefs, and goals. It is "Christian" in the same way that a Methodist congregation is "Christian" — it exists for the sake of believing Christians and is supposed to aid people in being Christians.
Upon what can such a position be based? If we are to make any claims about the "nature" of America as a political entity, we must rely first and foremost upon the document which forms the legal basis for America's political institutions: the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is America described or even implied as being "Christian"? Nowhere.
It is occasionally argued by a few desperate people that the Constitution ends with the date stated as "in the year of our Lord." This is not, however, an effort to establish a Christian nation. It is simply the way people dated documents at the time and the fact is the West operates on a Christian dating system. Using Christian dates, then, is a reflection of the influence Christianity has had on our culture but not a reflection of the basis for our political system.
Moreover, if 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. The fact that they chose not to should say a great deal.
Contrary to the claims made by some from the Religious Right, America was not founded as a Christian Nation which was then later undermined by godless liberals and humanists. Just the opposite is the case, actually. The Constitution is a godless document and the government of the United States was set up as a formally secular institution. It has, however, been undermined by well-meaning Christians who have sought to subvert its secular principles and framework for the sake of this or that "good cause," usually in the interest of promoting this or that religious doctrine.
Jeanette B. Welch points to something perhaps even more important than the absence of any serious references to "God" or "Christianity" in the Constitution: also absent is any delegation of authority in religious matters to either elected politicians or appointed bureaucrats. People working for the government are granted civil and political powers, which is to say that they have authority over civil matters but absolutely no religious powers are granted in the Constitution.
This is very, very important. People seeking to eliminate or even just soften the separation of church and state frequently advocate policies which would, in effect, grant authority over religious matters to politicians and government bureaucrats. For some reason there is the misconception that people working for the state should have the power to decided when is a good time to pray, what religious documents should be endorsed, or what sort of god people should acknowledge.
Nowhere in the Constitution, however, will you find even the slightest hint of such authority being granted. It's curious that those who think that such authority does exist are also those who tend to argue against interpretations of the Constitution that stray from the plain text or original understanding. Not even the most tortured interpretation from the most "activist" judge would be able to identify any authority over religious matters in the Constitution.
