Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where is God in the Constitution?
Faith and Action ^ | Nov 04 | David W. New, Esq.

Posted on 12/10/2004 3:38:41 PM PST by Ed Current

Secularists believe that they have the right view of America. They are convinced that America should be a secular state or a godless state. They believe that religion was not a decisive factor in the formation of the Constitution of the United States and therefore, this proves that the framers of the Constitution did not want religion to influence public policy. Simply put, politics and religion don't mix. Government and religion should be kept as far apart as possible. There are several historical "facts" secularists use to support their views. Apparently, one of the most important historical facts is the absence of the word "God" in the U.S. Constitution. To secularists, the absence of the word "God" is extremely significant. Indeed, it has a deep, almost mystical significance to them. It suggests that the framers of the Constitution had little or no interest in religion. Secularists are convinced that the absence of the word "God" proves that there should be a strict separation of church and state in the United States.

The purpose of this article is to argue that the conclusions reached by the secularists goes far beyond what the historical evidence will allow and to offer some reasons for why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.

The U.S. Constitution Before and After Charles Darwin

Most people would not consider Charles Darwin to be someone important in order to understand the U.S. Constitution. Most people would consider the writings of men like John Locke, Blackstone and James Madison as important in order to understand the Constitution. Obviously, these men had a great influence on the Constitution. But there is a sense in which Charles Darwin is more important than all of them. Charles Darwin, the author of The Origin of Species (1859) had a profound impact on the U.S. Constitution. In fact, a case could be made that he has had a greater or equal impact on the Constitution than the delegates at the constitutional convention! The reason is simple. Charles Darwin changed the way we see the Constitution. For better or for worse, the way many Americans see the Constitution today is very different from the time before Darwin. The dominant legal philosophy in the United States today is secularism. The U.S. Constitution is seen today as a "secular" document. This is what Charles Darwin gave us. Charles Darwin gave us secularism. Secularism as a philosophy is based on the principle that there is an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe. Secularists believe that only scientific evolution is valid. They are not atheists as often claimed. Many secularists believe in God. However, secularists believe that in terms of the government, it does not matter whether God exists or not. The impact of secularism on the Constitution was revolutionary. Secularists read the Constitution in a way that is totally foreign to its framers. In a nutshell, secularists think that religion was not important to the framers of the Constitution. As one of their writers said concerning the majority of the delegates at Philadelphia: ". . . most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone." Note 1.

The Constitution Before Darwin

To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationist. This is the reason the framers did not create a "secular" state in the modern sense of the term. Indeed, the concept of "secularism" as it is used today didn't even exist in 1787. It is largely a twentieth century concept. Since the framers of our Constitution predated Darwin and the theory of evolution, the desire to have a "secular" state would have made as much sense to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics. It is only with the advent of Darwin and an alternative explanation for the existence of the Universe that a secular state becomes desirable. There were atheists in 1787 to be sure but they lacked a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of the Universe.

At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. However, this is not to say that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, it called on President George Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ." Note 2. The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.

The Constitution After Darwin

The rise of modern secularism made the debate about the word "God" in the Constitution very intense. It was not until the legal community in the United States adopted secularism that the absence of the word "God" took on the kind of significance it has today. It is true that before the rise of modern secularism some Americans objected to the fact that the word "God" was not in the Constitution. There were suggestions to amend the Constitution to add it. There were efforts to add "Almighty God" and "Jesus Christ" to the Preamble for example. Some members of Congress suggested that "In the Name of God" should be inserted before the Preamble. As early as the time of the Civil War, Americans have been trying to amend the Constitution to add some sort of reference to God. These efforts did not get very far with the public. Thankfully, Americans were content with the Constitution the way it was. However, in all of these early debates about whether the word "God" should be added to the Constitution, the debate was between one group of creationist verses another. Almost no believed that the United States was a godless country just because the word "God" was not in the Constitution. Today, this is no longer true. Today the fight is between creationist and evolutionist. Secularists insist that the absence of the word "God" means that the Constitution created a godless government in America.

Where is "God" in the Preamble to the Constitution?

Secularists are very quick to point out that the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be 'under God' in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point. The word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. However, it is doubtful that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word "God" will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word "God" appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is "Almighty God." This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words "Almighty God" appear in the state religion clauses. In the case of the U.S. Constitution however, no divine reference appears in either the Preamble or in the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Why is this true?

The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word "God" in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: "Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . and Georgia." When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People.Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word "God" does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their 'spin' on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Where is "God" in the First Amendment?

The most likely reason why the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here however the textual reason is due to the subject matter of the First Amendment. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clauses in the First Amendment is the government or "Congress." This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference in the subject matter is the reason the word "God" does not appear in the First Amendment's religion clauses. Let's compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . . " The subject of the clause is clear. It is "All men." The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses' better wording. It says "Every individual . . ." In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual. In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a "natural right" of an individual to worship "Almighty God" according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the "right" of an individual, the word "God" naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the "Congress." The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words "God" "natural right" "worship" or "conscience" do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word "God" in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.

Where is "God" in the Constitution?

The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like "secularism" and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn't even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is "God" is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: "Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers." Note 3.

Special Note: Even if the word "God" was in the Constitution it probably would not make any difference. Secularist groups like the ACLU would probably dismiss it as a mere formality. There are 50 reasons to believe that this is true. Since secularists dismiss all references to God in the state constitutions, there is no reason to believe that they would behave any differently with the federal Constitution. Their commitment to secularism will not allow for the possibility that they might be wrong. Interestingly, in 1915 there was one state supreme court which said that the reference to "in the year of our Lord" in the U.S. Constitution was a reference to Jesus Christ! Note 4.

For a more in-depth discussion of how monotheism and the Ten Commandments influenced the U.S. Constitution read new my booklet: "The Ten Commandments For Beginners." Visit: www.mytencommandments.us for ordering information.

Notes.
1. Clinton Rossiter, 1787, The Grand Convention, pg. 126 (1966).
2. Vol 1. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, p. 64 (1896).
3. State v. City of Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78 (1950).
4. Herold v Parish Board of School Directors, 136 L.R. 1034 at 1044 (1915).


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: churchandstate; founders; usconstitution; wrongforum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: Ed Current
A Godless Constitution? A Response
21 posted on 12/10/2004 5:01:35 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
The Importance of Morality and Religion in Government
22 posted on 12/10/2004 5:02:53 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

read later. looks like interesting stuff.


23 posted on 12/10/2004 5:04:38 PM PST by Sam Cree (We still pray......that there's beer in the fridge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
The Founders on Public Religious Expression
24 posted on 12/10/2004 5:05:28 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
After reading this and seeing the uhmm,...secular groups' (mis)understanding of our founders intentions, it's easy to understand the "reasoning" of"...."That depends on what the meaning of is is".

I was going to say Lord help us...but I think he is already.

FMCDH(BITS)

25 posted on 12/10/2004 5:13:38 PM PST by nothingnew (Kerry is gone...perhaps to Lake Woebegone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges
And if someone could explain how The Ten Commandments are the basis of the Constitution I'm all ears.

The Constitution and the ideas on which it rests was influenced in large part by the Christian idea of 'Original Sin'. That we are imperfect/corrupt/sinful. A well-known phrase reflects this: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't recall who said this. It's the basic idea that matters. Whereas many held the position that people are basically good and any evil that results is an aberration. Governments founded on this latter principle have not done too well.

26 posted on 12/10/2004 5:16:07 PM PST by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
The main body of the Constitution concluded with this statement:

"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 and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"

Granted, it is not part of the regulatory language, but it is the operative paragraph which confirms that those who signed witnessed the drafting and passage of the Constitution. Also granted that "year of our Lord" was a common formulation on legal documents in the founders' time. Nevertheless, if they wanted to ban all religiously based references, they could have eliminated the phrase.

27 posted on 12/10/2004 5:27:15 PM PST by Wolfstar (Counting down the days to when the new White House puppy arrives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

A 'mein gott' ping.


28 posted on 12/10/2004 5:34:46 PM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nosofar

I believe it was Lord Acton who said 'Absolute Poewer corrupts absolutely'. But I don't deny the Christian basis. I just deny the Ten Commandments as being any sort of meaningful legal precedent. The two that are law (The prohobitions against killing and stealing) actually predate The Ten Commandments going back to the code of Hummarabi which many legal scholars say is one of the three primary influences on the Constitution along with the Magna Carta and English Common Law.


29 posted on 12/10/2004 6:17:41 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I posted some of this in another thread, but it fits in here too:

No doubt the Framers were all deeply influenced by growing up in a land where virtually everyone is Christian. But you'd never know it from reading the Constitution. Other than the date at the end, there's no mention of religion, except to prevent religious tests for holding office. As we often point out in the science threads, the bible isn't a science book. Similarly, the Constitution isn't a theological work.

The Federalist Papers (mostly by Madison & Hamilton) are universally regarded as the most authoritative source for the intent of the Framers. You can search the Federalist Papers on line (I have done this), but you'll find not one mention of the words "bible," "scripture," or "Jesus." The word "Christian" appears once, in a reference to an historical period. "Lord" appears 5 times, but always in reference to aristocracy or the House of Lords. "God" appears 3 times, respectively refering to demi- gods, pagan gods, and nature's god.

Don't take my word for it. Here's a searchable copy: The Federalist Papers.

30 posted on 12/10/2004 6:23:41 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lindykim; DirtyHarryY2K; Siamese Princess; Ed Current; Grampa Dave; Luircin; gonow; John O; ...

Moral Absolutes Ping.

A long read, but it looks well worth it.

(Currently have been very busy with volunteer work and other stuff, so I can't freep as many hours as I would like...)

Will comment later after I read it maybe. Looks like it's right up my alley.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.


31 posted on 12/10/2004 6:28:32 PM PST by little jeremiah (What would happen if everyone decided their own "right and wrong"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

"I would disagree in saying that the French Enlightenment (Volatire, Diderot...) was the birthplace of Secularism not Darwin. And they did have a primary influence on the writing of the Constitution."

The French Enlightment may have had some influence but not nearly so much as Locke and co from England.

The French Revolution with its massacres and drowning priests in sunk barges by the thousands had more obvious influence from the Voltaire crew.


32 posted on 12/10/2004 6:33:22 PM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mission9

You hit the nail on the head.

The use of the phrase "in the year of our Lord" in the US Constitution replaced the conventional "in the year of our reign" use by kings in royal decrees. For example, see the Magna Carta, which repeatedly refers to the year of the reign of King John and is executed thus: "Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign." ( (i.e. 1215)


33 posted on 12/10/2004 6:33:47 PM PST by RBroadfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Borges

". I just deny the Ten Commandments as being any sort of meaningful legal precedent."

Would you say that Hammurabi's Code is of no effect as well? That it bore no relevance in impact to the US Constitution?

How about the Magna Carta?


34 posted on 12/10/2004 6:38:47 PM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mission9
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

Thank you for this post, I was looking to see if it was here before I typed it.

35 posted on 12/10/2004 6:39:32 PM PST by HoustonCurmudgeon (May God Bless the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Borges

I'd agree with you ... The Enlightenment dismissed the relevance of God. Darwin just created a "rational" origin for the existence of life on this planet that made it all seem scientific.


36 posted on 12/10/2004 6:46:21 PM PST by RBroadfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Borges
The Bible was read and understood by all educated men of the Founder's generation. All the major universities founded in the colonies were seminaries first. Hammurabi's code was later commented upon by the archaeological community, but it was not part of the history of law going back to Medieval times, Roman times, Greek times, etc. The founders well understood the difference between speculative ethics - the laws of men (inherently flawed) verses theological ethics - laws given by God (Divine and Supernatural).
Just as all our rights are divinely given, all our true laws are divinely given. (The Ten Commandments) I must remind you, the record of the Bible was considered to be accurate and historical. Time itself was measured from that point at which God supernaturally entered the world to reveal his true nature.
37 posted on 12/10/2004 7:08:25 PM PST by mission9 (Be a Citizen worth dying for in a Nation worth living for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nosofar
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't recall who said this.

Lord Acton.

38 posted on 12/10/2004 7:26:47 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

The preamble does include the words "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," seemingly referential to the Declaration of Independence "endowed by our Creator with ... Liberty." There is also the argument of whence the source of "Blessings" if not God. Even if it were argued that "liberty" is a "natural right" independent of a God - the term "blessing" would not be appropriate to that interpretation. Ergo, the presence of God is implicit in the 'raison d'etre' of the Constitution.


39 posted on 12/10/2004 8:02:11 PM PST by dougd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I agree. I don't think our Founding Fathers anticipated the cultural war we'd be fighting today, though. They'd have fought it another way, of that I'm certain. We need to start thinking not as they would, but as effectively as they would. This world is just as much on the edge as theirs was.


40 posted on 12/10/2004 8:27:17 PM PST by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson