Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

America Is Not a Christian Nation

Opinion

America Is Not a Christian Nation
An american flag flying in the wind on a pole
Photo by Cody Otto on Unsplash

This year, many agency heads in the Trump administration sent out official Christmas messages that were explicitly religious rather than universal spiritual. So, for example, War Secretary Hegseth said, "Today we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

This is just one more example of the Trump administration's distortion and perversion of the principles on which America was founded. (See my posts, "The Far Right's Biggest Lie," and "The Radical Right/MAGA Perspective Is Not True to the Intent of Our Founding Fathers," among others.)


America is not a Christian nation. The majority of the population may be Christian, both now and at the time of our founding, but the Founders made very clear in the Constitution that this was not to be a Christian nation.

First, although the Founders were religious people—note the wording in the Declaration of Independence that we are "endowed by our Creator" with unalienable rights—the Constitution makes absolutely no mention of God.

Second, what the Constitution does say in the 1st Amendment is that Congress shall make "no law respecting the establishment of religion," or prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

The Founders were aware of the suffering caused in Europe for centuries by state religions. That resulted in both people of other religions being persecuted and countries going to war over religious dominance. They were determined that the United States government not do anything that raised one religion to a higher status than the others and that no one be persecuted for or prohibited from practicing their religion.

In numerous ways, however, the Trump administration has embraced Christianity. To please his conservative Evangelical supporters, Trump created a repurposed White House Faith Office that seeks in many ways to end the separation of church and state and promotes misleading books such as "The Christian History of the Constitution" to ground its efforts. (See my post, "Trump Violates Freedom of Religion.") He has also embraced the conservative Christian agenda in many ways, most critically in building a Supreme Court that overruled Roe v Wade.

The reader may ask, "What's the problem? The religious wars in Europe were centuries ago. And we would still have freedom of religion even if Christianity were made part of the government's agenda."

Technically, even if Christianity were part of the government's agenda, there would still be freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment. However, if you look at what is labeled "persecution" by Christian media and Trump, you will see that no one has the right to criticize Christians when they act according to their belief.

According to MAGA, Christians have the right to do whatever their religion instructs, regardless of whether it interferes with another person practicing their religion or their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So, for example, a public baker has the right to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding. A Christian who is slandered by someone exercising his right to free speech is being persecuted. And the list goes on.

The point is that with the MAGA perspective that it's only their rights that matter—they have no concern for the rights of others, no one can "unfairly" impinge on their rights—if Christian advocacy by government takes root, no one is safe in their practice of free speech or religion if it conflicts with Christian values/rights. (See my article, "The Far-Right's Biggest Lie.")

But there is another way in which the government's embrace of Christianity would have a chilling effect on freedom of religion. It is a natural desire of people to get ahead in their business/work/school endeavors. Often this has meant assimilating to become part of the majority; history is filled with businessmen, actors, performers, and others who have changed their names and even converted in order not to be stigmatized because of their religion. The psychological push to take this step is increased when there is a state religion, whether official or not, especially if anti-semitism is active.

For context, I should note that at the time of the revolution, 9 of the 13 colonies had official, established religions, a practice brought with them from the old country. The Founders made very clear, however, the importance they placed on the separation of state and church in the new government. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment created a "wall of separation" between church and state. James Madison wrote that religion was beyond the government's authority. John Adams, in signing the Treaty of Tripoli, stated that the United States "is not in any way founded on the Christian Religion." Ultimately, all of the colonies accepted this new way forward by ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments).

I am not a "religious" person but a very spiritual one, a practicing Buddhist who believes that each of us has within us the force of the Universe, the divine essence. It thus is not for the government to mandate for each individual what his spiritual beliefs are or aren't. And that each individual has the right to practice their religious/spiritual belief, so long as it does not impede the practice by another person of their religious/spiritual belief or any other right that they are guaranteed under our Constitution.

There must continue to be a wall of separation between church and state for the country's well-being. Given that the wall is in the process of being broken down, largely at the urging of evangelical denominations, what can people do to not just stop the process, but restore the separation?

The most one can do is make people aware that the Trump administration is not strengthening our freedom of religion—as he says he is—but instead is undermining that freedom by having the power of government favor the beliefs of one religious group—conservative Christians. By turning those beliefs into law (e.g., overruling Roe v Wade, eliminating LGBT protections, not recognizing gender identity issues), he has made "laws respecting the establishment of religion," and thereby restricted others from exercising their right to religious freedom and their right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Whatever happened to, "We are all children of God" and "God loves all his children?"

Trump's actions threaten the equality of all citizens, central to America's founding principles. (See my article, "What Are American Values?") He is threatening the diversity that our country has been built on.

How do you help make people aware? Go to religious and other organizations in your community and encourage them to have programs about this issue. Go to your local school board and encourage them to address this issue through school programs. Let your representatives in Congress know your feelings.

Since next year is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, this is a perfect time to advocate for these programs and hopefully persuade your fellow citizens and representatives to argue for the full restoration of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less