Is The United States Built on a Foundation of Christian Principles?

by Kimberly Ruff

On February 10, 1947, The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson appeared to answer the question of the Founding Father’s view on the separation of church and state. In the case of Everson v. Board of Education, the court ruled in a 5-4 vote that the 14th Amendment binds States to the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Although this was not the first case to hold states accountable to the Constitution as outlined in the 14th Amendment, this was the first one to consider the meaning of the establishment clause and how that affects states rights. In clear, inclusive language, Justice Black argued in the majority opinion:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another…In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" (Everson v. Board of Education, 1947).

Despite Black’s strong language, the debate over the separation of church and state continues both in and out of court as Americans try to understand what the boundaries are or if, for that matter, boundaries were even what the framers of the Constitution intended.

The desire to draw hard and fast distinctions between the two becomes evident in cases concerning the presence of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, on public property such as in front of state capitols (Van Orden v. Perry, 2005) or county courthouses (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 2005). The Decalogue is both a Judeo-Christian concept, found in Exodus and Deuteronomy of the Old Testament, and a series of laws governing the way man relates to God and his fellow man. Extreme secularists cringe at the mere mention of “ God” on public grounds, while proponents of a Christian Nation on the opposite pole believe that not only is this acceptable, it’s preferable according to our Founding Fathers. In the middle of the debate are those that want to know: where on public property is the Decalogue located? What other, comparable monuments is it with? What was the intention behind its erection? Before answering these questions, however, other questions must be answered first, such as: did our Founding Fathers build our nation on Christian principles with an eye for a Christian Nation, or did they intend for there to be a sharp distinction between church and state? If the latter, how sharp? Without the luxury of their first-person explanation to these difficult questions, we must turn to their writings, specifically the Constitution, to see if so and to what degree.

In a straightforward analysis of the content of the Constitution, it is arguably a godless document. In only two sections is religion ever mentioned, one in passing and the other explicitly. The first is in the main body, Article VI in which all officers elected or appointed are bound by oath to support the Constitution, but “no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (The Federalist, 2006, p. 556). Interpreted literally, the religious test clause means that no officers elected or appointed are to be held to some uniform, religious standard. We can see this in application; during the primaries of the 2008 Presidential Race, we had Mitt Romney, a Mormon, running for a slot on the same ticket as Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist Minister. Obviously, if a uniform religious affiliation were required by the Constitution, this would not have been possible. The second mention of religion in the Constitution is featured prominently in the Bill of Rights as the First Amendment, in two parts. The first part, known as the “establishment clause”, expressly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (The Federalist, 2006, p. 556) which, interpreted literally, means that the House of Representative or Senate, cannot create legislation favoring a religious institution. In application, broad interpretation of the establishment clause has meant that the United States has never been deemed, officially, a ‘Christian Nation’ and that no religious institution is to receive considerations denied to another. The second part of the First Amendment concerns freedom of religion, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (The Federalist, 2006, p. 556). Literally, this clause states that the House of Representatives or the Senate cannot prohibit the citizenry from practicing their religion of choice. In application, this has meant that promotion of a religious lifestyle over secularization, or secularization over a religious lifestyle, or one religion over another is not permissible according to the Constitution. With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, states were similarly bound to the dictates of the Constitution. It would appear that the Framers of the Constitution attempted to be very inclusive, yet firm, in their choice of language concerning religion.

Yet as any student of Communication learns in their first semester of school, to fully grasp the meaning behind the message, one must put it in its proper context. This means looking at the political and social climate at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Our country was, as the tale told in elementary school goes, colonized by religious groups seeking asylum from the perspecution of the Old World. As Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses protesting Rome’s sale of indulgences to the church doors in Wittenberg in 1517, he not only inspired the ire of the entrenched Catholic Church, he began the Protestant Reformation. The bible, previously written in Latin, was translated by Luther into German to make it more accessible to the people. Without relying on Latin-literate priests for interpretation of the Good Book, German-literate faithfuls were free to interpret it as they pleased. In an unexpected consequence of Luther’s desire to make a priesthood of all believers, multiple interpretations resulting in a myriad of religious sects sprang forth, all convinced of the rightness of their beliefs and unwilling to conform. Sensing a formidable ideological threat, countries bound up in their entrenched religious institutions, attempted to stifle dissent by coercing conformity, killing the opposition, or driving them out of their country. Thus, groups that subscribed to the religious views of Martin Luther or his contemporary, Jean Calvin, set sail for the New World at the beginning of the 17th Century. Over the course of the next hundred years, these groups divided and multiplied as a result of disagreements and settled in various colonies across New England, such as William Penn’s Quakers in Pennsylvania, John Winthrop’s Puritans in Massachusetts, Or Roger Williams’ Baptists in Rhode Island. While all believed in one God, used the bible as their compass, and accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Savior of mankind, there were differences in practices, beliefs, and methods for salvation that made these religious viewpoints incompatible. These traditions continued into the late 18th Century and can be evidenced in the Declaration of Independence, signed on July 4, 1776, in which such phrases as “Nature’s God”, “Creator”, and “divine Providence” (American Political Thought, 2004, pp. 49-51) invoke these sentiments without subscribing to one particular religious affiliation. Indeed, many of the framers of the Constitution were Christian; James Madison, credited as being the “Father of the Constitution” (The Federalist, 2006), was an Episcopalian (Muñoz, 2003) as was Alexander Hamilton (Adair & Harvey, 1955), who was responsible for writing 51 of the 85 Federalist papers in defense of the Constitution (The Federalist, 2006).

Does this necessarily mean that Christian authors, writing at a time where Christianity was the dominant religious discourse regardless of which denomination, wrote the Constitution with a design to create a Christian Nation? To understand this, one must look at how Christian principles, as exemplified in the Decalogue, may have factored into the writing of the Constitution by employing a straightforward analysis in which God’s moral imperatives for the faithful as laid out in the Decalogue are compared directly to the Union’s political imperatives for the citizens as laid out in the Constitution.

Church and State: Together at Last!

Depending on the religion interpreting the two passages of the Old Testament that contain the Decalogue, Exodus 20:2-17 or Deuteronomy 5:6-21, the first three to four commandments define God and outline how man is to relate to Him. Similarly, the main body of the Constitution defines the Union and outlines how citizens are to relate to it. In the Decalogue, God is simply defined as, “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 5:6) while in the Constitution, the Union is defined as, “We the People of the United States” (Preamble as cited in The Federalist, 2006, p. 545). In terms of how believers or citizens are to relate to their God or Union, respectively, phrases such as, “This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land” and “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned…shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution” (Article VI as cited in The Federalist, 2006, p. 556) parallel “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 5:6) and you shall not “have any gods before me” (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7). Furthermore, it could be argued that the Constitution’s stance on Treason bears similarity to God’s stance on false idols. Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution carefully defines treason as, “consist[ing] only in levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” and gives Congress the “Power to declare the Punishment of Treason” (The Federalist, 2006, p. 554). In Exodus 20:4-5 and Deuteronomy 5:8-9, it states, “you shall not make for yourself an idol…you shall not bow down to them or worship them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents.”

While the first three or four commandments of the Decalogue and the main body of the Constitution define God, the Union, and their relationship to the adherents of both documents, the remainder of both (i.e., the last six to seven commandments of the Decalogue and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution) outline how man is to treat his fellow man. If we are to take the interpretational tact that the government established by the Articles of Confederation and later refined by the Constitution is comprised of men (e.g. “We the People”), then we must acknowledge that the Bill of Rights is, in effect, a document that discusses the relationship of men (i.e. the government) with men (i.e. the citizenry). That being said, there are a few parallels between the remainder of the Decalogue and the Bill of Rights. “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:19) and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house” (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21) reflects itself in the Fifth Amendment, where “private property [is not to] be taken for public use, without just compensation” (The Federalist, 2006, p. 557). “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) is, to some degree, also covered in the Fifth Amendment, where citizens shall not be “deprived of life, liberty, or property” with the caveat, “without due process of law” (The Federalist, 2006, p. 557). And, in an admittedly loose interpretation, “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20) could be said to parallel The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” in which the accused will be “confronted with the witnesses against him [and] have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor” (The Federalist, 2006, p. 557).

Despite these similarities, there are fundamental differences between the Decalogue and the Constitution. First, the Decalogue was authored by God whereas the Constitution was authored by men. According to Judeo-Christian beliefs, God is an ominiscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being who does not make mistakes; in other words, infallible. Man, on the other hand is quite fallible; even the best of us is still capable of erring. Given that God is infallible, the faithful can be sure of the righteousness of His word. Because man is fallible, his fellow man has no guarantee of the purity of his intent. This leads to the second major difference between the two. The Decalogue was given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God without any room for approval or amendment. The Constitution, on the other hand, was drafted during the Philadelphia Convention after much discussion, debate, and bickering amongst the Convention’s delegates before being submitted to each State for consideration and approval, and was open to a highly publicized debate in the form of newspaper articles between the Federalists in favor of the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists who opposed its less republican features. God does not make concessions or seek approval to gain the Faithful’s compliance. Man, on the other, absolutely must if he wishes for other men to follow his lead willingly. Thus, the Decalogue functions are a religious mandate with a false option (i.e., worship me or be punished) while the other functions as a social contract with concessions made by both parties (i.e., this is how you must behave towards your government and, in turn, your government will behave this way towards you).

This brings us full circle in our analysis, where we can finally answer the question of what our Founding Fathers intended. Given that man, fallible and open to suspicion by his fellow man, must make concessions to gain compliance, coupled with a history of religious sects being born from disagreements on the interpretation of Scripture and subsequently being punished for it, makes it not only possible, but probable, that when the Framers of the Constitution wrote it and its accompanying Bill of Rights, they took great care in their choice of language to ensure that religion was not given any special considerations by widespread public adoption or selective political advocacy. Now it’s simply a matter of determing if it’s acceptable to put one, the Decalogue, in front of the institutions created by the other, The Constitution.
 

References:

Adair, D. & Harvey, M. (1955). Was Alexander Hamilton a christian statesman? The William and Mary Quarterly, 12(2), pp. 308-329.

Dolbeare, K. & Cummings, M. (Eds.). (2004). The declaration of independence. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J. (2006). The Federalist with letters of ‘Brutus’ (Ball, T., Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muñoz, V. P. (2003). James Madison’s principle of religious liberty. American Political Science Review, 97, pp. 17 – 32.
The Ten Commandments. (n.d.) Retrieved October 03, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
 

US Supreme Court (1947). Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP 330 U.S. 1. Retrieved October 03, 2008, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1