What Religion Was The Usa Founded On
Many of the founding fathers were active in a local church some of them had Deist sentiments, such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington. Some researchers and authors have referred to the United States as a “Protestant nation” or “founded on Protestant principles,” specifically emphasizing its Calvinist heritage.
The Treaty Of Tripoli
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen and, as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Historian Anson Phelps Stokes noted in his 1950 history of this question that “those who wished to deny that the United States as a government has any special regard for the Christian religion… almost invariably failed to call attention to the fact that the treaty was superseded, less than a decade later, by another ‘Treaty of Peace and Amity,’ signed in Tripoli June 4, 1805, in which the clause in question…is omitted.”
First Amendment And Religion
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from “establishing” a religion. The precise definition of “establishment” is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.
Today, what constitutes an “establishment of religion” is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 . Under the “Lemon” test, government can assist religion only if the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens’ right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a “public morals” or a “compelling” governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.
Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.
Read Also: How To Listen To The Bible For Free
Patrick Henry Massachusetts And Connecticut
Jefferson and Madison’s approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson’s Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that “no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience… provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship” , but also that:
Since, in practice, this meant that the decision of who was taxable for a particular religion rested in the hands of the selectmen, usually Congregationalists, this system was open to abuse. It was abolished in 1833. The intervening period is sometimes referred to as an “establishment of religion” in Massachusetts.
Connecticut had a real establishment of religion. Its citizens did not adopt a constitution at the Revolution but rather amended their Charter to remove all references to the British Government. As a result, the Congregational Church continued to be established, and Yale College, at that time a Congregational institution, received grants from the State until Connecticut adopted a constitution in 1818 partly because of this issue.
Us Supreme Court Takes Aim At Separation Of Church And State
Anti-abortion activists hold a cross in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building during the annual “March for Life” in Washington, U.S., January 21, 2022. REUTERS/Jim Bourg/File Photo
WASHINGTON, June 28 – The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the wall separating church and state in a series of new rulings, eroding American legal traditions intended to prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith.
In three decisions in the past eight weeks, the court has ruled against government officials whose policies and actions were taken to avoid violating the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition on governmental endorsement of religion – known as the “establishment clause.”
The court on Monday backed a Washington state public high school football coach who was suspended by a local school district for refusing to stop leading Christian prayers with players on the field after games. read more
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
On June 21, it endorsed taxpayer money paying for students to attend religious schools under a Maine tuition assistance program in rural areas lacking nearby public high schools. read more
On May 2, it ruled in favor of a Christian group that sought to fly a flag emblazoned with a cross at Boston city hall under a program aimed at promoting diversity and tolerance among the city’s different communities. read more
You May Like: What Does The Bible Forbid Sexually
A Consequentialist Ethical System
Secular humanists hold that ethics is consequential, to be judged by results. This is in contrast to so-called command ethics, in which right and wrong are defined in advance and attributed to divine authority. No god will save us, declared Humanist Manifesto II , we must save ourselves. Secular humanists seek to develop and improve their ethical principles by examining the results they yield in the lives of real men and women.
And The 4 Separations That Make Up Separation Of Human And State
the separation of human and state involves 4 critical separations that impact our day to day life. these critical separations include:
bodily autonomy – the idea that you can do what you want with your own body, outside of murder, rape, and assault. murder and abortion go hand in hand here and will be subject to imprisonment of no less than 5 years for non-violent people, with a 3 year reformation period and for violent people, 30 years minimum with a yearly check to see if such person is no longer violent.
all rights within the US constitution, with refinements.
the right to privacy extends the 4th amendment, by not only limiting tech privacy to include enforced informed consent, but also governments cannot collect data on you through tech companies.
the absolute right to free speech includes provisions to literally make censorship in tech and media a thing of the past, the right to assemble and protest even in the capital with no limitations, and the right to address gradiences with elected officials, on top of current provisions.
right of due process extends the 14th amendment to include a set standard of minimum evidence to convict someone of a crime, this includes 3 key and hard pieces of evidence minimum.
the government cannot set standards for individuals to do outside of logical and reasonable minimum standards.
families have the right to be educated and to educate in ways they see fit, within reason under the color and arm of the law.
Don’t Miss: What Does The Bible Say About Foul Language
What The Constitution Doesn’t Say
There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like “right to privacy” or even “right to a fair trial.” Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?
Of course not the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise.
What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
There is nothing there about a “fair trial,” but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc.
School Prayer Declared Unconstitutional
In parts of America, regular school prayer was practiced until 1962, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Engel v. Vitale, ruled it unconstitutional. In writing the Court’s opinion, Justice Hugo Black cited the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment:
“It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America. … Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause … Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion …The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate…”
In the case of Engel v. Vitale, the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9 in New Hyde Park, New York directed that the following prayer must be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:
Also Check: What Passage In The Bible Talks About Marriage
Top 5 Myths Of Separation Of Church And State
The United States of America is one of the most religious and certainly the most religiously diverse nation on the face of the earth. Despite our countrys religiosity, many of us were surprised by a recent poll released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life about how little we know about other religions and even our own religion. Whats more, despite pride in our democracy, the Constitution and Bill of Rights that guarantee our fundamental liberties, we are similarly misinformed about our rights under the First Amendment generally and religious liberty in particular.
Myth #1: We dont have separation of church and state in America because those words are not in the Constitution.
True, the words are not there, but the principle surely is. It is much too glib an argument to say that constitutional principles depend on the use of certain words. Who would deny that federalism, separation of powers and the right to a fair trial are constitutional principles? But those words do not appear in the Constitution either. The separation of church and state, or the wall of separation, is simply a metaphor, a shorthand way of expressing a deeper truth that religious liberty is best protected when church and state are institutionally separated and neither tries to perform or interfere with the essential mission and work of the other.
Myth #2: We do not need or want separation of church and state because the United States is a Christian nation.
How Has The Supreme Court Interpreted The Establishment Clause
The first important Supreme Court case involving the Establishment Clause came in 1947. The case was Everson v. Board of Education. A New Jersey school district was using public money to pay for Catholic school students costs of getting to and from school. The Court voted 5-4 that the policy was constitutional since it applied to both public and private schools. Since the policy was beneficial to the children in the school district and it did not benefit a specific religion, the policy passed constitutional review.
Read Also: What Bible Says About Blood Moon
The Roots Of ‘separation Of Church And State
The phrase separation of church and state can be traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson for the purpose of explaining the intent and application of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. In the letter addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in at least one Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Historians believe that in his words, Jefferson was echoing the beliefs of Puritan minister Roger Williams, founder of the first Baptist church in America, who had in 1664 written that he sensed the need for a hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.
What Did Jefferson Say About Separation Of Church And State
Then in 1802, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, wrote: I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building …
Read Also: What Is Family According To The Bible
Where In The Constitution Is Separation Of Church And State
When Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Christine ODonnell interjected this question in last weeks debate with her opponent Chris Coons, the audiencea law school audiencelaughed and guffawed in derision. But the joke, of course, is on the audience: as everyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Constitution. Even Mr. Coons acknowledged as much. The metaphor of a wall of separation comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticuta dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitutions text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.
What the Constitutions First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution . Nowhere is this more important than with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: forbidding an official establishment of religion is something quite different from the much looser, imprecise term separation of church and state. The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic separationimplying exclusionof religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.
What Did The Founders Intend
Many early colonists left England so they could practice their own religion freely. Most colonies did not give this freedom to all settlers, however, and soon religious discrimination began in many of the colonies. Nearly all of the Founders practiced some form of Christianity. They agreed, however, that the federal government and religious institutions should be kept separate. The Founders wished to keep the national government from interfering in both individual and state religious freedom. Many of the Founders believed that religious belief would help strengthen and support republican government. Therefore, most states had official, state-sponsored , and taxpayer-supported religions. A few Founders believed that only Protestants should be government officials, but the majority wanted opportunities open to all people of good character. Article VI of the Constitution states that there should be no religious test for holding federal office. When the First Amendment was added to the Constitution, there was little debate about the protections it provided for religious liberty.
Read Also: How Did The Bible Come About
Establishment Clause Of First Amendment Often Interpreted To Require Separation Of Church And State
For approximately the first 150 years of the countrys existence, there was little debate over the meaning of this clause in the Constitution. As the citizenry became more diverse, however, challenges arose to existing laws and practices, and eventually, the Supreme Court was called upon to determine the meaning of the establishment clause.
Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, the clause is often interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1933
The separation of church and state requires a government to be neutral in matters of religion. Such a government does not enact laws that are either overtly or historically traceable to concepts grounded only in religious beliefs, without any independent empirical verification. For those of us who are devoted to attaining this legal ideal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs death is tragic.
There has never been any rational basis for laws that automatically presume that men should have more rights than women. Until recently in human history, laws that deprived women of equal rights were prevalent in the overwhelming majority of societies. One of the traditional foundations for much of this was Genesis 3:16, in which Jehovah tells women that their husbands should rule over them. The first case that Ginsburg argued before the Supreme Court was Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 691 . Here, she persuaded the Court to strike down by an 8 to 1 vote a military regulation that allowed male service members to claim their wives as dependents automatically but required female service members to offer proof that their husbands were financially dependent on them.
She was one of two justices who never forgot that government neutrality in matters of religion is violated whenever religious objectors are permitted to avoid complying with an otherwise generally applicable law, especially when that noncompliance harms innocent third parties.
Recommended Reading: What Does The Church Of God Believe