A Christian Nation? Founding Fathers were More Interested in Locke than Leviticus

By Jimi Wilson
Staff Writer

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.” – Thomas Jefferson, author of the Constitution of the United States

In her March 20 op/ed “Homosexual Marriages Are Wrong,” Myra Frederick asserts that Americans should reject homosexual marriage on the grounds that such unions violate Christian doctrine, and that America, as a Christian nation should therefore oppose those unions.

I hate to disappoint Ms. Frederick, but America is a Democratic Republic, not a Theocracy.

Both times I was sworn in to the U.S. Army, I pledged, among other things, to “Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.” At no time was I asked to so swear before any god--in keeping with Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution—and at no time was there any mention of Christian values. Were such the case, I, a Hindu, would not have served.

The Constitution is specific, stating in the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Only 7 percent of Colonists belonged to a church at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, so theocratic rule wouldn’t have garnered wide support anyway.

In addition to liberal Bible quotes, Ms. Frederick cites as governmental support for her position the phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance, “One Nation Under God.” That part of the Pledge was added in 1954 in the midst of the McCarthy Era, a shameful time in this nation’s history hardly notable for its respect of Constitutional rights. It might interest Ms. Frederick to know that as this article goes to press, the Supreme Court is preparing to review the Constitutionality of that phrase. Most Constitutional Law scholars agree that it is un-Constitutional, though few believe it will be rescinded in a pledge that citizens cannot be forced to recite anyway, in accordance with Section 3 of Article VI.

Although Ms. Frederick didn’t cite it, readers should be reminded that the motto, “In God We Trust,” wasn’t passed down by the Founding Fathers. In fact, the phrase was introduced on U.S. coinage in 1861, when Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase ironically replaced “liberty” with the new phrase, bowing to pressure of a growing Christian constituency, led by Reverend M.R. Watkinson. (Watkinson also proposed revising the Preamble to the Constitution to include specifically Christian references, but this bid failed.) “In God We Trust” didn’t become an “official motto” until 1956—again, a McCarthy Era addition.

Our nation’s original official mottos, in fact, are quite secular. Included in The Great Seal designed by Secretary of the Continental Congress Charles Thomson, and adopted on June 20, 1782, they are:

· E. Pluribis Unum, or “Out of One, Many.”
· Novus Ordo Seclorum, or “New Order of the Ages.”
· Annuit Coeptis, which is generally translated as “Providence has Favored Our Undertakings.”

There is no reference to God—much less Christianity—in the former two mottos. In the latter there is no direct reference to God per se, and even if “Annuit” was intended to mean “God,” it could just as easily be seen as in keeping with the Deist and Unitarian teachings that were popular with many of our nation’s founders—religious philosophies which, by definition, reject the claims of Christianity.

That the Founding Fathers extrapolated rights from the works of philosophers such as John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau is no secret, but seldom did they cite Biblical passages as rationale for giving and taking rights in the way that Ms. Frederick suggests we should today. Blanket statements such as “There is no legitimate reason for the world to go against what is written in the Bible,” would have been preposterous to such critical thinkers.

Remember, Leviticus not only condemns homosexuals, it also forbids any work on the day of the Sabbath ( 23:3, 26:2); shaving of beards and heads (19:27, 21:5); handicapped individuals from making offerings (21:17-23); marriage of non-virgins, divorcees and widows (21:13-14); and cross-breeding of plants or animals (19:19). It also recommends burning of a priest's daughter if she does anything whore-like (21:9), and the standard “eye for an eye” punishment (24:20). Obviously, most modern Christians find strict adherence to some, if not all, of these precepts ludicrous.

As the philosopher James Rachels has pointed out,
The Christian tradition may be ambiguous about a certain issue, including elements favorable to both sides. But because a believer feels strongly that one side is right, he or she will emphasize the elements of the tradition that support the favored moral view, while paying no attention to its other elements. Then, without quite realizing what has happened, he or she will conclude, sincerely enough, that Christianity mandates the favored moral position. (The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill: Boston, 1999.)

Furthermore, it isn’t clear that such influential Christian philosophers as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Arthur Schopenhauer or C. S. Lewis would agree with Ms. Frederick. Thus, not only, then, is Christianity not America’s yardstick on homosexual marriages, but the religion itself isn’t even clear on the issue.

If history is any indication, then no amendment banning homosexual marriages could fly. Only one amendment has even been passed which took away rights from the citizenry, and that was the 18th Amendment (January, 1919), which banned the distribution, sale, possession and use of alcohol. It was a poorly-conceived, moralistic amendment, aimed at appealing to a populist religious base (much the same as the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment). Subsequently, that amendment was overturned by the 21st Amendment (December, 1933).

Apparently, this precedent spoke volumes to the Senate panel that voted the proposed amendment down.

Sen. John Marty (D-FL) told the Associated Press before voting against the gay marriage ban, “I didn't hear a single person tell me a single way Jeff and Jack's wedding is going to affect their marriage or anyone else's marriage.''

Nor have I.