The Founding Myth

by Andrew L Seidel

  William Shirer’s prediction about witch-hunting proved prescient. Conformity was soon valued more highly than civil rights. During this era, Congress passed the Alien Registration or Smith Act of 1940, the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, and the Communist Control Act of 1954. All were designed to punish nonconformists. Any thinkers not strictly orthodox—i.e., American, capitalist, and Christian—were suspicious. According to polls, people suspected their neighbors of being communists because they “would not attend church,” “talked against God,” “didn’t believe in the Bible” or were “poisoning the minds of young people…with things that are contrary to the Bible.”63 President Truman, a failed businessman with no college degree (the last president elected sans degree and one of only a few since Reconstruction) and probably touchy about that shortcoming, attacked “ivory tower professors.”64 It became fashionable to vilify academics and the intelligentsia.65 According to Ronald Oakley, “By the time the Great Fear had run its course, six hundred college professors had been dismissed” for being insufficiently orthodox.66

  This climate essentially made it impossible for citizens to speak out against legislative piety, such as “In God We Trust” and “one nation, under God.” The same year that “under God” was added to the pledge, a Presbyterian minister, Reverend George MacPherson Docherty, gave a sermon in Washington, DC, that President Eisenhower attended and took to heart. Docherty “came from Scotland, where we said, ‘God save our gracious queen,’”67 and pressed for adding “under God” to the pledge because “an atheistic American is a contradiction in terms.”68 The Scotsman’s mistaken notion that to be American is to be Christian is now central to the Christian nationalist identity, and the stubborn idea that all atheists—or more accurately all non-Christians—were communists, and vice versa effectively silenced opposition to those measures. To be anything but an outspoken Christian was to set oneself up for alienation and even investigation, perhaps before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Citizens, and particularly politicians, had to play up their Christianity. As the legislative history of the law shows, when Congress amended the pledge, it played upon this fear: “At this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own…. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would…serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.”69

  Between Armageddon, McCarthy, and Madison Avenue advertising, it would have been social or political suicide for citizens or politicians to challenge the religious verbiage Christian nationalists now rely on to argue that the United States was founded on Christian principles.

  Eisenhower’s own words about the new pledge encapsulate the era: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim…the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country’s true meaning.”70 That’s it in a nutshell—Eisenhower, Graham, Schwarz, McCarthy, the Knights of Columbus, Madison Avenue, the anti–New Deal businesses, and the rest were rededicating this country, not to founding principles, but to a very vague religion. “True Americans” no longer believed in American principles. They believed in being Christian, though most were unsure what that meant in the theological sense.

  Even the Supreme Court was not immune to the plague of shallow religious nationalism. In April 1952, the court decided that releasing children from public school classes to receive religious education did not violate the Constitution.71 The entire rationale underlying religious release time is flawed, as three justices pointed out in three separate dissents. Each explained that religious release time allows churches to piggyback on the machinery of the state and mandatory attendance laws to inculcate religion. For Justice Robert Jackson, the “released time program is founded upon a use of the State’s power of coercion, which, for me, determines its unconstitutionality.”72 To Justice Hugo Black, the purpose of religious release time class was clear. It was meant to “help religious sects get attendants presumably too unenthusiastic to go [to religion class] unless moved to do so by the pressure of this state machinery…. Any use of such coercive power by the state to help or hinder some religious sects or to prefer all religious sects over nonbelievers or vice versa is just what I think the First Amendment forbids.” But the majority agreed with Justice William O. Douglas who, in a gratuitous paragraph, wrote one of the Christian nationalist’s favorite lines, which does not mention Christianity: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”73 Scholars and Wilson biographers are critical of this anomalous Douglas opinion (“There has always been one Douglas opinion that doesn’t fit—the opinion for the Court in” this case).74 This “presuppose a Supreme Being” line is a curious statement given that our institutions (including the Supreme Court) were established by a godless Constitution that prohibits religious tests for public office and fails to mention a god. But this decision and Douglas’s fallacy are products of that fearful time, when even a Supreme Court justice might not wish to be seen as opposing religion, especially if that justice was contemplating, as Douglas may have been, a presidential run that would have begun shortly after or even as the opinion in this case was released.75 (In 1961, after the fear of the ’50s died down, the Supreme Court decided the case that held that Sunday-closing and other laws could only be upheld and justified on secular grounds. Douglas then clarified his remark in a way that speaks against the government’s adding religious language to the pledge: “If a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government. This necessarily means, first, that the dogma, creed, scruples, or practices of no religious group or sect are to be preferred over those of any others.”)76

  In a pluralistic society, religious fervor cannot endure when coupled to a representative government. People grow tired of the divisiveness that religion spawns. As it did during the Civil War, piety began to wane. In 1957, McCarthy died, and the Supreme Court curbed HUAC’s power.77 The signal moment of the decline might be John F. Kennedy’s September 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, where he famously declared:

  I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.78

  Soon after, citizens began to fight for their right to a secular government in court. The Supreme Court obliged, declaring that non-Christians and nonbelievers could not be barred from office (1961), that organized public school prayers were unconstitutional (1962), that bible-readings in public school were unconstitutional (1963), and that public schools could not prohibit the teaching of evolution (1967).79 Though the fervor and fear died, future generations were saddled with the religious verbiage from that age of fear and suspicion. The ratchet had turned a few more stops, the noose had tightened.

  These epigrams have survived even though the religion they proclaim divides us. Fear is part of the reason they’ve survived, but there is another factor. For the average American during the 1950s, afraid of facing societal backlash, the question may simply have been: Which god or which religion? Today, the question is not which god or religion, but: Should I accept any god or religion? Increasingly, the answer is no. America is seeing a surge in atheism. A 2018 survey found that 21 percent of Americans born after 1999 are atheist or agnostic.80 Another 14 percent have no religious affiliation.81 These Americans do not trust in a god; they do not consider thems
elves or their nation to be under a god. Evangelical Christians, right-wing Catholics, orthodox Jews, and other hardline believers often find themselves in bed together, defending these idioms against secular Americans trying to uphold the Constitution. The advance of atheism and the rise of the “nones” have oddly unified religion, forcing believers to circle the wagons for a common defense of phrases that were imposed on a fearful nation. But such a legacy cannot last. For these phrases, the end is near.

  26

  “God bless America”: The Diversionary Motto

  “Politicians say it at the end of every speech as if it were some sort of verbal tick that they can’t get rid of…. They should admit that ‘God Bless America’ is really just some sort of an empty slogan, with no real meaning except for something vague like ‘good luck.’ ‘Good luck, America, you’re on your own,’ which is a little bit closer to the truth.”

  — George Carlin, It’s Bad for Ya, 20081

  “God bless America. Let’s try to save some of it.”

  — Edward Abbey, Postcards from Ed: Dispatches and Salvos from an American Iconoclast, 20062

  Richard Nixon, Eisenhower’s vice president, tried to revive the popular piety of the 1950s when he became president in 1969. He was attempting, as one Catholic lay theologian put it, to resurrect the “corpse of civic religion.”3 The presidential tradition of troubling deaf heaven with bootless cries by closing presidential remarks with the phrase “God bless America” dates to Nixon and is rooted in one of the worst scandals to mar the presidency. Nixon used religion to distract Americans from Watergate.

  On April 30, 1973, Nixon announced that three White House staffers—Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman, Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst, and Chief Domestic Advisor John Ehrlichman—had resigned and that White House Counsel John Dean had been fired. It was Nixon’s first address to the nation about “the Watergate affair.” Nixon spoke to the nation from his “heart” and found occasion to mention “Christmas”—in April—and “God-given rights.”4 The address marks the first of many times a US President concluded an address with an appeal for supernatural support: “I ask for your prayers to help me in everything that I do throughout the days of my presidency. God bless America and God bless each and every one of you.”5 The four staffers were later convicted of, among other crimes, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Nixon had resigned within eighteen months.

  That wasn’t the only time Nixon used religion and this phrase in particular to distract from his wrongdoing. Eleven months later, Nixon’s popularity had plummeted, his desperation soared, and his impeachment loomed larger, so he set off on a tour to win over southern members of the House committee in charge of that impeachment. His first stop was the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, where he closed the evening by playing “God Bless America” on the piano.6 (Trump set off a national debate when he tweeted about bible classes in public schools just days after his close associate Roger Stone was arrested and the day before Stone’s initial court appearance.7)

  Watergate, like the Civil War and Red Scare, was a moment of national turmoil. This time however, piety was being used to distract the masses and, as is so often the case, to cloak a criminal in the mantle of religion. The next two presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, abjured the phrase “God Bless America,” perhaps seeing it for what it was or associating it with Nixon. But Ronald Reagan saw a powerful political weapon and used it to curry favor with the voters and, presumably, his deity. Reagan revived Nixon’s Watergate distractor and did so early, when he accepted the Republican nomination for president in 1980:

  I’ll confess that I’ve been a little afraid to suggest what I’m going to suggest—I’m more afraid not to—that we begin our crusade joined together in a moment of silent prayer.

  [about ten seconds of silence]

  God bless America.8

  Reagan’s supplications are now standard practice for every president. With this speech, Reagan inaugurated a modern strain of Christian nationalism.

  David Domke and Kevin Coe point out in The God Strategy (2008) that this phrase is a political expedient. As with the Continental Congress’s appointment of Reverend Jacob Duché to say a prayer during the American Revolution (see pages 94–96), this phrase is strategic piety. Domke and Coe examined every major presidential address, starting with Franklin Roosevelt’s 1933 inauguration through 2007, and noticed that although pre-Reagan presidents occasionally requested divine favor, most did so less than 30 percent of the time. After Reagan rediscovered religion’s power as a political weapon, those numbers jumped. Reagan “ended 90 percent of his major addresses by requesting divine guidance. George H. W. Bush also did so in 90 percent of his speeches, and Bill Clinton and George W. Bush followed suit 89 percent and 84 percent of the time, respectively.”9 Religion became the weapon in a rhetorical arms race, with each president needing to match the piety of his predecessors. The ratchet had tightened on presidential rhetoric.

  Religion is a cheap shorthand for tribal allegiance, but it also has the power to distract from important issues that actually affect governance. Nixon asked people to pray for him and ended with “God bless America” to remind the nation that he was religious and therefore moral, and either innocent or deserving of forgiveness. It was an emotional ploy, but his final note would ring in American history.

  When religion is used as a political weapon, it becomes weakened and tainted. And this is the flip side of the state-church separation coin. The separation of state and church is also meant to allow religion to remain free of the taint of this world, of the day-to-day political power struggle. This is why Madison wrote that “religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”10 Nixon, Reagan, and many of today’s politicians have tainted religion by using it as a political tool. Indeed, Madison’s writing is a prescient warning about Donald Trump.

  Like Eisenhower’s, Trump’s personal religion seemed to appear alongside his political ambitions. During the campaign, it became clear that he was not familiar with the bible, as the “two Corinthians” gaffe and his inability to name a favorite bible passage show.11 Whenever he spoke of religion he seemed uncomfortable and, above all, insincere. Trump was simply exploiting religion, casting it about like a net to snare voters, and, as we saw in the discussion of religion’s role in leading to the Civil War, to immunize his policies from criticism. In Trump’s case, we actually have Trump admitting to “using” religious leaders, especially black religious leaders. In a tape released by his former attorney Michael Cohen, Trump asks Cohen, “Can we use him any more?…Are we using him?”12 Trump was referring to two African American pastors who helped legitimize Trump’s campaign and whom he and Cohen seemed to have difficulty distinguishing from one another. Trump’s exploitation and say-anything tactics are what Madison meant when he warned that injecting religion into politics is an “unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.”13

  Nixon, Reagan, and Trump’s abuse of religion for political gain signals to every other politician that lying about religion is perfectly acceptable. Lawrence O’Donnell wrote some dialogue in The West Wing that captures this point perfectly: “And I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there: if you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians, you are just begging to be lied to…. And it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell to get your votes.”14 Voters are not just asking to be lied to—they are demanding it. This is a voter-imposed religious test, an auto-da-fé for public office. Religious voters are willingly handing over the tools of their own manipulation, and they may come to regret it. Typically, the majority religion is content to let itself be corrupted by politics, so long as it is in the majority. But as soon as it becomes a minority it seeks to buttress the wall of separation. Christianity is declining in this country, so it will be interesting to see whether American Christians come to realize the value of state-church separation as they lose their majority.


  THE MARRING OF AMERICAN CURRENCY, the religious revision of the pledge, and the diversionary religious blessing of America are not evidence that we are a Christian nation or founded on Christian principles. They are catchphrases. They are slogans Christian nationalists can remember even when they can’t name a single gospel or right protected by the First Amendment.15 Small groups of fanatics exploited times of fear and superstition to force their religion upon all citizens and violate our founding principles in the process. These shibboleths exemplify how religious entitlement, which every religious majority enjoys, has eroded the Bill of Rights. If we truly care about America’s founding principles and about keeping religious freedom, these phrases ought to be excised from our laws, currency, pledges, and government.