While there is no "state religion" in the USA, this does not mean "the United States is a Godless nation." There appears to be a critical misconception on this subject.
But more importantly, our citizens do not comprise a secular nation.
The United States "freedom of religion" line of reason, has always been about only voluntary, citizen participation with the religion of our choice; not the religion of that current ruler.
Hence, we don't have to attend the "kings church."
At no time has there been consideration of separation of church from the lives of our citizens; who by virtue of their mere citizenship, may choose both their personal relationship with politics and their personal relationship with the God of our creation.
You see, the USA is strong, because our citizens remain strong in both our relationship with: our Creator and with our personal influence and control of those fellow citizens we elected, for operation of this nations varied stations.
There has never been any demand, other than that our nation must never demand, of any citizen, an obedience or observance of any one particular religion.
It was John Adams, the first vice president and the second president of this nation, who first noted: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people[1]. Adams immediately added in the same breath...
"It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Hence, the gravity of our personal responsibility to God, should be clear: Our nation cannot continue to exist, apart from a privately moral and religious people.
James Madison noted as much [2] : “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them (citizens) from destroying and devouring one another."
Hence, without a prevailing, personal commitment, to the tenets of obedience, to our God of creation, we as citizens will experience only an ever decaying responsibility to one another and to our nation.
Why we have neglected this responsibility is not the focus of this writing, but to note that the founders of this nation understood: this nation cannot continue in the form of our Constitution, apart from our active and focused, personal relationship with God.
Note Adams' words: "a moral and religious people."
You see, those who choose chaos and warlike manners will not be contained by our mere mortal paper laws.
It is the God "in" one's obedient conscience who guides the best benefit from us individually, for the best of one's fellow citizens.
Ours is not a secular nation. Because we, to maintain the intent and protection of our laws,
can personally, never turn from the provision of our God of creation.
Should our nation ever choose another frame of laws, our nation will only turn to ever greater chaos, confusion and debauchery.
[1] 1 “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed Feb. 28, 2020,
[2] James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 55. James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”2
Jim Bowman
* * *
One of the reasons we don't have a "king's church" (an established religion) is that the Founders were well aware of the dangers of tyranny and bloodshed arising from a mixture of church and state. As early as the 1640s, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island and famous religious dissident, stressed the importance of separation in his Bloudy [sic] Tenent of Persecution.
James Madison, author of the First Amendment and a future President, maintained that separation was good for both church and state. When spiritual questions were settled by military and political power, war and persecution would be the result. He identified those consequences as "More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, [and] in superstition, bigotry and persecution." He moved beyond mere toleration and embraced liberty of conscience, which would guarantee political and civil liberty. Toward that end, our fourth president opposed not only executive proclamations that used religious language but the appointments of chaplains for Congress, and the Army and Navy as well. To quote Madison, "[T]he establishment of a chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights. . . . "
Of course, Madison was instrumental in the writing of the US Constitution, a secular document for a civil state, which neither mentioned God nor acknowledged the existence of a national creed. In fact, many state ratifying conventions objected to this state of affairs. In New Hampshire delegates complained that "a Papist. . . a Deist, even an atheist" could sit in the helm of government. Pennsylvania's delegates worried that "with no ties to religion will not the central government become arbitrary and absolute, since it recognized no higher law than itself [italics added]?" As we know, these objections to the Constitution fell to the wayside as it was ratified by June, 1788 when the necessary nine states (out of thirteen) approved it
Our second president John Adams, who Bowman also cites, was a Congregationalist with strong Unitarian sentiments. Eventually he discarded trinitarianism, the divinity of Christ, predestination and the total depravity of mankind. While Adams stressed the importance of religion, he also emphasized the significance of rationalism and reason.
Recently, our county mayoral candidates were asked the following question: "Should governmental laws, ordinances, regulations etc. follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?" As law professor and noted scholar of American religious history Stephen Green has observed, "[T]here is an absence in the historical record -- debates at the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions, speeches, papers or personal letters -- of any [italics added] evidence that the Founders referenced the Ten Commandments (or Puritan legal codes) when discussing the justification for republican government or the nation's legal system."
If one wishes to understand the Constitution, a deep dive into Roman law, the Magna Charta, Coke's Institutes, Blackstone's Commentaries, human experience and British common law would be a good place to start. Our founding document owes much more to Montesquieu's separation of powers and Aristotle's doctrine of the mean than to either Paul or Matthew.
Michael V. Woodward, Ph.D.
Hixson