The U.S. Constitution is 100 Percent Secular—or Is It?

March 1, 2013 By 28 Comments

Is the Constitution secular? Yep.In other blog posts, I’ve made the point that the secular U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from getting involved with religion, which makes the best environment for both atheists and Christians. However, on several occasions, I’ve gotten pushback that the Constitution isn’t secular. Let’s investigate this claim.

First consider a historic document that is easily seen to be religious, the Mayflower Compact (1620). It’s quite short, and the majority of the body is here:

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic.

This is one of the documents that David Barton likes to use while bending history to take on his preconception of America as a Christian nation. There are also several federal Thanksgiving declarations that acknowledge the Christian god. For example, George Washington in 1789 created the first national Thanksgiving Day with this statement:

[Congress requests that the president] recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God.

The constitution of the Confederate States (1861) was adopted with few changes from the U.S. Constitution, one being the addition of “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God” in the preamble.

However, when we read the U.S. Constitution, this overtly Christian language isn’t there. Neither is the vaguely deist language present in the Declaration of Independence. It’s 100 percent secular. It’s not God making this constitution; it begins, in big letters, We the People. In fact, Article 6 says in part, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

But is it secular? Some Christians assert that it’s not. The first example is from Article 1:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law.

In other words, it recognized Sunday as a holiday. The second example is the wrapup in Article 7:

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.

In other words, it replaces AD (Anno Domini—“in the year of our Lord”) with its English translation, as was customary for formal documents at the time.

That’s it?? Those are the powerful counterexamples? Compare this to the Mayflower Compact—a constitution with some balls that not only affirmed God’s existence but said that the entire project was for his glory.

That Sunday was a holiday simply acknowledged the custom of the people of the time. Spelling out AD and saying that this acknowledges Yahweh is like saying that the use of the names Thursday, Friday, and Saturday acknowledges the gods Thor, Frigg, and Saturn, respectively. Or that the use of the names May and June acknowledges the Roman goddesses Maia and Juno. “AD” is just another part of the same calendar.

The final irony is that “in the year of our Lord” isn’t even correct from a Christian standpoint. The few clues we have of Jesus’s birth in the gospels make clear that he wasn’t born in the year 1 but probably around 5 BCE.

So, yes, the Constitution does reflect the customs and calendar of the people of the time. But it’s still obviously and boldly secular. Isn’t that the best for everyone who is governed by it?

None are more hopelessly enslaved
than those who falsely believe they are free.
— Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

(In honor of the upcoming anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, this is a modified version of a post originally published 1/30/12.)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

Filed Under: Separation of Church and State Tagged With: , 28 Comments
  • Bob Jase

    I see nothing overtly Christian in the quote from Washington cited. An all-mighty god that isn’t named might be any imaginary deity be it Yahweh, Jesus or Azathoth. Especially as all-loving and all-knowing weren’t mentioned as characteristics of said god.

  • Norm

    Actually George was well known to be overtly Christian and there isn’t any doubt which God he was referring too.Its the most basic understanding of history and simply denial to see it any other way.

    • Greg G.

      There’s a Wikipedia article on the subject. It seems that George was not known to be a Christian.

      Thomas Jefferson wrote in his journal shortly after Washington’s death.

      “Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed Genl. Washington on his departure from the govmt, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn religion and they thot they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the states when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion. “I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.”

      (Emphasis mine.)

  • Greg G.

    Sundays off could be to worship any sun gods – Ra, Helios, Mithras, or Amaterasu, to name a few.

  • smrnda

    Even if the Mayflower compact was explicitly Christian, the Mayflower compact is a document that has nothing to do with the actual founding of the government of the United States. It is a document from people who settled here, but it has no legal standing given our current constitution.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      About the Mayflower Compact, I agree. I was simply giving that as an example that was explicitly religious, unlike the US Constitution.

      • smrnda

        I’m pretty sure you got it, but lots of people arguing that the US is a Christian nation pull that out, forgetting that the Mayflower compact isn’t a US government document.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          The same is true for the Declaration of Independence.

          For me, any reference to any historical document besides the Constitution for our Christian-ness is an admission of defeat.

  • http://nw-politics.blogspot.com/?spref=fb Virginia Fitzpatrick

    I don’t think it is accurate to claim our country as a Christian Nation. I just bet many came here so they didn’t have to go to church nor pay money to ecclesiastical coffers.
    According to http://www.atheistscholar.org/AtheistPsychologies/AtheistDemographics.aspx , only 4% of the colonial population attended church. So obviously Christianity was not a BFD to the other 96%. So it was probably was politically incorrect to assert religion into legal agreements. Of those going to church, many go along to get along e.g. My parents took us to church every Sunday , but when we moved to Japan we never went to church even though I had a Japanese friend (foreign exchange student) who attended the Christian Univ. in Tokyo. As Voltaire said back then: “don’t tell the servants”. “Candide” was written in 1759. How many of our colonial fathers do you think read Voltaire’s novel. Now I like them must go figure out how I am going to get along here in Stanwood since I was just appointed to political office.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Virginia:

      I was Mt. Vernon 2 weeks ago to speak to the Humanists of N. Puget Sound. Pretty conservative area, I’m guessing?

      • Virginia Fitzpatrick

        Yes, I heard you speak at that Humanist meeting. You certainly had a command of your subject. Unfortunately I won’t be able to go this month, but I did join and look forward to another session.

        As for Stanwood, it went overwhelmingly Republican , which is why I volunteered to be a PCO for the Snohomish County Democrats. Most disgraceful – only 67% of our Stanwood population of 6,500 voted when the rest of the State set a record of 82%.

        Some of my older neighbors have already told me how disgusted they are with me being a Democrat. We are still friends, mostly because I am friendly, “well behaved” and spent some money to fix up my Condo.

        Wish you could help me with my apologetic for Germans. I am in the midst of a debate with some Ivy League African American FB friends who are carrying on about Germans killing Jews. I am claiming we are all good and evil and we should be trying to figure out why and not just call any group of people evil. Of course, Christians have an answer for this but I would rather refer to social psychology. Unfortunately I lost my texts on Nietzsche and Fuerbach’s “Essense of Christian” that I used at Berkeley, so now I have to reorder them from Amazon.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          What is the debate about Germans killing Jews? They’re not Holocaust deniers, are they?

          • Virginia Fitzpatrick

            No one was denying the holocaust. Quite the opposite i.e. The discussion started with a current discovery in the news quoted by one of the AAs i.e.: “The work being done by researchers to uncover the extent of the atrocities committed against the Jews is important but it is no more or less important than revealing the full extent of the inhumane and barbaric behavior of the Axis powers toward millions of others in Europe, Asia and other places in the world.” The debate was over the cause of this evil, which I think is crucial because we all have proven capable of it not just Germans. I threw up a straw man – my Polish philosophy professor at Berkeley who claimed that Germans were inherently evil. My opponent said: “About Germans. I would say Poles have sound grounds to feel that way about the Germans. Indeed, they do.” I have known too many German citizens – not part Germans in the diaspora like us – to believe that. When I lived in Munich for 6 months, I never brought up the subject because I thought it would be boorish but when we were alone German women would bring it up with me. Most of them were children during the war. I was a baby. They like me are still trying to come to grips with the conflagration. They narrated what happened to them. My neighbor’s father died in a concentration camp before the war because he was a communist. He was not Jewish.

          • Bob Seidensticker

            Interesting.

            I can’t add much to that conversation, but it is interesting to contrast Germany and Japan and how they accept (or don’t) their bad actions during the war. The Germans seem to see the problem quite clearly, just like the rest of us in the West. The Japanese, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of apologists in politics who downplay Japan’s role. Apparently textbooks also don’t give an objective perspective.

  • Virginia Fitzpatrick

    About 10 years ago, I became interested in what happens to a modern country after beeing defeated and taken over after a war, because that subject is glossed over in most history courses. One terrific book about Japan is by John Dower – “Embracing Defeat”. Although a book about tragedy, Dower did make me laugh a few times. When General McArthur ordered the Japanese to become democratic they had no idea what he was talking about – but the following year the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau became a best seller. I also appreciated the irony of an absolute dictator telling people to be democratic. But at the local level they did have elections which were sometimes won by prostitutes because they were the ones with enough money to run for office. (Meanwhile the end of the war sent status of American women backwards and created a dreadful babyboom). The Japanese felt that the imposition of “daylight savings” was an evil plot to destroy them. Really.

    • smrnda

      Funny, there is a scientifically illiterate critique of the Theory of Relativity by Ayn Rand where she somehow draws a parallel between that theory and daylight savings time.

      My brother lives in both Japan, Germany and China – he commented that the amount of text devoted to WWII in China and Germany are much larger than the amount of text it’s given in Japan (he pointed out that it’s longest by far in China.)

      I wanted to comment on church attendance in the colonies – part of the lack of regular church attendance might be indifference to religion, but part of it could be a lack of churches but a population that is still religious to some degree, or at least I’ve encountered some sources that suggest that which I need to find and look up. In a sparsely populated area, churches will be few and far between and travel is difficult, and building a church is a labor intensive activity which would probably be a smaller priority than building houses, barns and last but not least, distilleries :-)

      • Virginia Fitzpatrick

        “In a sparsely populated area, churches will be few and far between and travel is difficult,”

        Well by definition there are not many people in sparsely populated areas. Most of the population lived in cities. So maybe 10% didn’t go to church because it was too far.

        • Virginia Fitzpatrick

          Second thought. The Amish have regular religious meetings and they live in rural areas and use pre-industrial modes of transport to their destinations.

          • smrnda

            I just mentioned that since a source I had run across had tried to account for non-church attendance by the ‘sparse population and limited mobility’ argument, though now I think it might have just been an attempt to exaggerate the early religiosity of American settlers.

          • Virginia Fitzpatrick

            I am a historical junky, but maybe I should reform a bit and keep a spreadsheet of the sources for the more interesting factoids I run across. I remember reading that 35% of the colonial population was religious, but I don’t know where. Fortunately our moderator’s books are on kindle, so we can just use a search engine on them.

  • Castilliano

    Bob S. said:
    I can’t add much to that conversation, but it is interesting to contrast Germany and Japan and how they accept (or don’t) their bad actions during the war. The Germans seem to see the problem quite clearly, just like the rest of us in the West. The Japanese, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of apologists in politics who downplay Japan’s role. Apparently textbooks also don’t give an objective perspective.

    Having lived in Japan, that’s not completely fair. I’m two generations too young and I had strangers apologize to me for attacking. Yes, there are strong (even dangerous) nationalistic memes (probably stronger since the economic downturn), but the majority understood the horrors they initiated, and even children’s books showcased anti-war themes.
    Likely we’re hearing the most obnoxious apologists, much like the rest of the world hears ours.

    • Virginia Fitzpatrick

      Thanks Castilliano. I find your words comforting.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Castilliano:

      My sources said that Japan’s role in the war (Rape of Nanking, Manchuria, conquering Korea and much of China, Bataan Death March, “comfort women,” and so on) is minimized in textbooks. You’re saying that they actually give a fair account?

      • Castilliano

        Bob S.,
        Textbooks: No data.
        Given how US textbooks dampen atrocious events, Japan’s likely do the same.
        Can’t say I learned about any horrors inflicted by the US until an adult.

        Children’s storybooks: Many popular ones paint war as horrific.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithful_Elephants
        A decade later, my mother still gets shaken when reminded of the abridged retelling I shared. This is a woman who’s sent criminals to their deaths.
        And Sadako and the 1000 Cranes is one of their most commonly read schoolbooks.
        Elementary school kids are tackling the consequences of war much earlier than ours, and field trips to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum are common.
        http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/index_e2.html
        Been there. It’s a sobering visit, and many of my compatriots (adults from various countries) broke into tears.
        There’s a stronger anti-war meme in Japan than here, and there’s little or no pro-war meme to compare to ours.

        The other side of the coin:
        Once a year, in a city of 1 million+ with few foreigners (seeing one I didn’t know was rare), an armored RV (military-style, but privately owned) would roll through town blaring jingoistic slurs against foreigners’ presence, and touting Japanese supremacy.
        Those I knew (friends of foreigners, of course) held them in contempt. The crowds at large went about their days. Then another 364 RV-less days would pass quietly…

        Nobody harassed me. Ever. (Though a half-Japanese American got cursed at for being with me by a 70 yr old+ individual. She tongue-whipped him soundly.) On several occasions, strangers invited me into their homes for meals with their children, and I can’t recall feeling unwelcome. Watched intently, perhaps.
        Japan embraces much about other cultures, French & Chinese nearly as much as American.
        So, yes, there are strong nationalists and racists among them, and being very homogenous, there’s fertile soil there. But the virulent seeds don’t seem to be taking.
        I worry more about us then them. (Yes, I’m talking to you, you uber-right Fundamentalists.)

        If anybody’s still of a worrisome mind and wants to research further or play watchdog, I’d look into their Civics curriculum more than their History one. What should be taught in Civics was a debated topic among Japanese, who prefer harmony to debate. That’s where I’d strike were I a Japanese “David Barton”.

        Cheers, JMK
        (BTW, love your blog, and its commentators.)

        • Virginia Fitzpatrick

          @JMK, your experiences were similar to mine. When I visited my parents in the summer of 1965 and when I went back with my daughter in 1985 many Japanese were friendly, most were very polite to me and each other, and some let me know they didn’t like Americans. On my first visit an older man behind me gave me a good hard shove when the train door opened. I was so angry I turned and shouted “watakshi wa ichiban desu” which I believe has triple meaning – I am first, I am biggest (which I was) and I am best. The train was packed. Eyes widened but no one said anything. Meanwhile I was drafted to teach swimming on the army base and the American lifeguard gave me a big speech about how much he hated Japanese. That did not have much effect. I dated the librarian who was a Japanese University Student. He asked me out, but the Japanese have no idea what dating is American style. He brought another man with him to join us. So I spent all day running after them from one train down a platform to another train as fast as I could in a dress and heals. I saw so many more nooks and granny of Tokyo that day than any of ever will. Due to national pride I never let on how exhausted I was. The men were impressed by how much energy American women have. LOL. I decided I would rather date Japanese in the USA who had been a bit more Americanized.

  • Virginia Fitzpatrick

    This week marks the 65 anniversary of McCollum vs the Board of Education, which was the first time the Supreme Court ruled on the First Admendment barring the establishment of a State religion. The justices voted 8 to 1 in favor of Vashti McCollum, whose 3 sons had been pressured to attend religion classes in the public school. She showed much courage in coming out as an atheist. She and her husband were labeled as communist. Her family was tormented by the most of the people of Urbana Illinois. Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority decision. Thanks to that decision many religious classes throughout the Illinois and other States were dismantled and the McCollum family was finally accepted.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Wow. Being a hero isn’t for sissies.

  • Pingback: Does Prayer Actually, Y’know, WORK?