The Godless Constitution

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

The central idea is that church and state should not be considered mutual. In the article, “Letter to Danbury Baptist,” Thomas Jefferson respectfully rejects the Danbury Baptist pursue to making their religion the only religion known to state. He also explains that the separation of church and state is a part of the first amendment and it is one that we are going to keep and adhere to. Another article, “First Amendment to the US Constitution” it states the first amendment and all the freedom we have as Americans. An image, “No Union Upon Any Terms” shows how religion is not part of state. Therefore, church and state should be separate.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson believed the best government was the one that governs the least . Jefferson stressed how a small government with limited powers is most likely to leave the people alone and have them enjoy the Blessings of Liberty. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was a man who had numerous accomplishments in his life. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence, author of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, founder of the University of Virginia, and the third President of the United States. His strict interpretation of the Constitution was due to his belief that the charter was designed to provide the people with a say in governmental affairs. Mr. Jefferson won the approval from the working class because he fought for them and not the powerful interests of the wealthy. Although Jefferson was a vocal and active leader in the rights of states, his recommendation of the Embargo Act and his support of the Non-Intercourse act resulted in his failure as the Commander In Chief.

Jefferson’s idea of the citizen’s natural moral wisdom convinced him that limited government, where power remained in the hands of the people, was the best structure to ensure America’s freedom. He stated, “A wise and frugal Government…shall leave them [men] otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Jefferson pushed for a government with a strict interpretation of the Constitution in order to limit governmental powers to those that were

With sounds of youthful laughter, conversations about the students’ weekends, and the shuffling of college ruled paper; students file into their classrooms and find their seats on a typical Monday morning. As the announcements travel throughout the school’s intercoms, the usual “Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance” becomes no longer usual but rather puzzling to some students. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.” Confusion passes through some of the student’s minds. With the reoccurrence of “God” in the backdrop of American life, the relationship between church and state has become of little to no matter for American

In American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, Jon Meacham explores the dynamic relationship between religion and government in America in the hope that contemporary America can learn from the past. The period covered by the book spans from 1620 until Reagan’s presidency in the late 1980s. However, Meacham focuses on the Founding Fathers stances and their continued impact on American politics. More specifically, the book details the conflict over the separation of private religious expression and the more neutral ‘public religion’.

Summary: The division between church and state is a gray line that is often crossed and argued about. For example, Gwen Wilde, the author, argues that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance requires people who do not believe in God to recite something they do not necessarily believe in. If a person chose not to say the full Pledge, including to utter the words “under God” they run the risk of being called unpatriotic. The author continually argues that the words “under God” add a religious doctrine that not all Americans believe in.

The Constitution reflects our founder’s views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. Some will argue religion, specifically Christianity, played a large role in the creation of this great nation’s government, the United States Constitution; however the facts reveal otherwise. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated

Jefferson wanted a separation of powers within the government in order to prevent one person or group having a tyrannical hold over the nation. He believed

Another belief that Jefferson did uphold is his belief of power to the people.Jefferson believed that if people were well informed or well educated, they can surely be trusted with their own government. In document 3 it states,"My bill proposes: Elementary schools in every

In the First Amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is known as the Establishment Clause, and it has been a controversial topic of many Supreme Court cases throughout America’s history. There are three different methods of constitutional interpretation--textualism, intentionalism, and pragmatism—that have shaped the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is usually interpreted in two different ways: “The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions—federal, state, or local—that promote religion,” and that “The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion.” There is a common metaphor that accompanies the Establishment Clause know as the “wall of separation.” The Establishment Clause has this “wall” in order to keep the church and state separate. This is a reoccurring theme I have seen develop throughout various court cases. I studied four different cases that made it to the Supreme Court: Everson vs. Board of Education, Lynch vs. Donnelly, Lee vs. Weisman, and Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe. During the brief period of me studying these four cases involving the Establishment Clause, I have inferred that pragmatism has indicated the utmost dominance in shaping the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause.

Jefferson conceded that foreign affairs and national defense were best controlled by the power of a large central government, but stood by his convictions that domestic affairs should be handled at a state level, common people should have power over their state governmental policies. (Boyer, et., al., 2008)

This paper is a book critique of The Godless Constitution. The first chapter of the book is titled “Is America a Christian Nation?” and it is an introduction for the rest of the book. In this chapter, the main idea is to open the reader’s mind about that the constitution was created with the idea that religious believes will not influence in the politics of the nation. The authors state that “The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics” (Kramnick and Moore, 23). Actually, the creation of a constitution without influence of religion was not an act of irreverence. The authors believe that the creation of the constitution was a support to the idea that religion can preserve the civil morality necessary for democracy, without an influence on any political party. The end of the chapter is the description of the following chapters and with a disguise warning that both authors were raise in religious families and they wrote the book with high respect for America’s religious traditions (Kramnick and Moore, 25). The second chapter, called “The Godless Constitution” explains how the different terms to talk about God were taken out and a “no religious test” clause was adopted with little discussion. This clause was a “veritable firestorm” during the ratification debates in several states (Kramnick and Moore, 32). For many people the “no religious test” clause was considered as the gravest defect of the Constitution (Kramnick

     This essay is dedicated to the expression of the various official views of religious bodies within our nation. Most major denominations are represented. These religions have long been the custodians of the truth, serving to check the erratic and unpredictable tendencies of political, judicial and social bodies which would have Americans killing off their elderly and handicapped.

There has been much debate on whether or not the United States has been doing the right thing by keeping church and state as separate entities rather than keeping them entwined as had been the standard for centuries prior to the country’s founding. The list of influences this law could affect is substantial, ranging from the workplace to school functions. Even the way people decorate their offices and houses has come into question from time to time. However, remarkably, every person has a different style of argument and a different way of looking at the available facts. I intend to compare two very different argument styles on both sides of this issue, and how two capable writers use completely different methods of research,