The “Freedom from Religion Foundation,” which boasts on its web page that it is, “…an educational association of non-believers and secularists, (which) has been working since 1978 to keep state and church separate…” (http://www.ffrf.org) has posted a list of reasons the United States of America is not a Christian Nation. (http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php)

Well, no, that’s exactly true. There is no way to logically prove a negative, so they have instead taken ten well-established, generally-believed concepts regarding Christianity in America, and attempted to explain them away, using secularists ideals. This is commonly known as “revisionist” history.

Here are the arguments, in an abbreviated version, with my comments regarding why these arguments don’t hold water in Bold…

1) “The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of ‘God’ or ‘Christianity.’”

The Constitution does not mention, “non-believer,” or “secularism,” either. So, how is it a secular document. Remember, “secularism” is not simply a neutral position between the religious and the non-believers. It is a an active political and social movement…see http://www.secularhumanism.org, and http://www.secularism.org.uk. Secularism seeks to provide “freedom from religion” in public places.

2) “In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that ‘the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’ This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.”

This statement is found only in the Arabic first version of the treaty of Tripoli, and probably was not found in the English translation…it was not included in the either the Arabic or English versions of the treaty written a few years later.

The best answer I have read thus far to this argument is a lengthy and excellently-researched article by James Patrick Holding, called Yo Ho Ho and a Bottle of Flub? He concludes by saying, “The essential message would be that America was not a Christian theocracy, or a state where the church had political power, as the religious authorities in Muslim nations had power -- which is something no one argues for America…Our conclusion: Article 11 is a skeptical dud that proves nothing about the founding principles of this nation and says nothing about to what extent Christian influence has shaped us or our government.

3) “What about the Declaration of Independence? We are not governed by the Declaration…The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.”

Interesting…the FFrF is Willing to include the first version of a foreign trade agreement as a legitimate “founding document,” (see #2 above), but not the Declaration of Independence?

References to “Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" don’t exactly endorse secularism, or a system of non-belief. Thomas Jefferson may have been a Deists, but does not make the United States a “Deist” nation?

And actually, the term “Providence” is specifically a Christian term. See http://jennsierra.com/2006/07/providential-declaration.html

4) “What about the Pilgrims and Puritans? The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom…Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the ‘wrong’ faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.”

Here’s an excerpt from the Mayflower Compact: “In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten…by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith…Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith….” Sounds pretty “Christian,” to me. (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/mayflower.htm).

The remainder of this topic is addressed in the next two sections.

5) “Do the words ‘separation of church and state’ appear in the Constitution? The phrase, ‘a wall of separation between church and state,’ was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear in the Constitution; neither do ‘separation of powers,’ ‘interstate commerce,’ ‘right to privacy,’ and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.”

Again, I’m puzzled...the letter to the Danbury Baptists is considered a legitimate founding document, while the Declaration of Independence is not?

Also, see #1 above…the FFrF is willing to use the absence of certain religious terms in the Constitution as evidence that this Nation is not a Christian one, yet when it is pointed out that its most important doctrine (separation of church and state) is not mentioned in these same documents, it simply brushes of the argument by saying that many “well-established constitutional principles” are not mentioned either. How does the FFrF justify this double standard?

6) “What does ‘separation of church and state’ mean? Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, ‘the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.’ Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

“The Supreme Court has forged a three-part ‘Lemon test’ (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

“The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.”

The First Amendment only prohibits the Federal government from establishing a state religion (i.e., the Church of England). It also protects freedom of religion for Christians and all others. The states, however, were free to make their own laws regarding religion, and other civil rights issues. An example of the states exercising the right to exercise their religion, with the full support, but not legislative interference, of the federal government is found in excerpts of the constitutions of all 50 states. (See http://faithinfocus.org/index.php?action=website-view&WebSiteID=73&WebPageID=4967)

Please note the date on the Lemon test – 1971. This could hardly be considered a Founding Document. In Fact, it is the type of judicial activism which Christians have been fighting ever since the 1940’s and 1950’s, the ACLU became adept at using the 14^th amendment – ratified almost a century earlier - to enforce the 1^st amendment – ratified almost two centuries earlier - in a way that would prevent the free exercise of the majority in cases in which the individual liberties of minorities were deemed to be violated; the federal government was now able to effectively override state’s laws in freedom of religion and other civil rights cases. (Meese III, E. (2005). The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Washington D.C., pp. 302-316). In short, this Lemon test is an example of why we’re even having this discussion.

7) “What about majority rule? America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion. Not only is it unAmerican [sic] for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.”

In answer to the first part of this regarding majority-minority rule, see #6 above. This nation is a republic, and as such, the government represents the majority of Americans.

And what is this? “…because it’s “rude?” Might offend someone? Christians are deeply offended when someone goes around proclaiming that the God they love and serve does not exists…that anyone who needs religion is weak-minded and superstitious…we find this behavior quite “rude.” But we really just have to get over it and get on with our lives. The Constitution of the United States does not give us the right not to be confronted with opinions that may offend us…it only gives us the right to practice our religion according to our consciences.

8) “Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion? No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers…Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.”

A quick study of the history of Marxism and Communism will reveal striking similarities between what has happened in Communist regimes, and what is happening in our government and public school system since the ACLU became active, and began systematically removing religion from the textbooks and public places across America. Iran certainly has not welded “church” and state – the church is a Christian institution. Iran is an Islamic Republic that has many characteristics of a Theocracy…as do most other Muslim nations. For a discussion on the difference between a Theocracy, a State Religion, and a Christian Republic, see (http://jennsierra.com/2006/08/theocracy-state-religion-christian.html)

Again, secularism is not neutral… It is a an active political and social movement… “…(Secular Humanists are) opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values…” (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration)

9) “The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies? Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.”

Again, see excerpts of the constitutions of all 50 states. (See http://faithinfocus.org/index.php?action=website-view&WebSiteID=73&WebPageID=4967. Some of these were ratified before and some after the 14^th amendment.

10) “What about ‘One nation under God’ and ‘In God We Trust?’ The words, ‘under God,’ did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, ‘In God We Trust’ was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as ‘Mind Your Business.’ The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum (‘Of Many, One’), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.”

Again…I’m seeing some inconsistency here. In #6 above, the FFrF quotes a 1979 Supreme Court ruling as being part of the Founding Documents, but summarily dismisses congressional action taken twenty years later as being irrelevant, because of the date? What this shows is that right up until the ACLU began to gain momentous influence, most American’s took it for granted that they lived in a Christian Nation, and apparently desired to keep it that way.

11) “Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments? Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against ‘coveting,’ free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional. Our secular laws, based on the human principle of ‘justice for all,’ provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.”

A system of law is “the collection of rules imposed by authority” (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:law&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) and will reflect a value system. If a country is settled by Muslims, the legal system is probably going to reflect Muslim law and values, even if its dictator proudly claims to be a secular Marxist (as in the former Iraq). If a country is settled by Jews, the system of laws will be based on Jewish law. If a country is settled by secular humanists…You get the idea. The United States was settled primarily by Christian Protestants, and the system of law obviously reflects Christian values – otherwise, why would the secular humanists be complaining?

12) “Why be concerned about the separation of church and state? Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state. America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: ‘There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent.’”

Freedom to dissent? Is the anyone at the FFrF seriously worried about personal retribution for publishing this website? They have freedom to dissent, as does everyone else. This is a free country, for women, religious minorities, atheists, and GLBT’s, And no one is suggesting that church and state unite. America was founded by and for Christians, but welcomes others who are willing to participate in the “E Pluribus Unum,” idea.

It is not logical or reasonable to expect the majority of Americans to act as political schizophrenics…living according to one value system at home and another in public. No one is guaranteed the right not to be offended. Be offended. Speak up about it if you wish. But don’t be surprised if the Christians in America talk back.