Why God Isn't in the Constitution and Other Thoughts on Liberal Religion...
 Noreen Kimball
1 July 2007

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that in discussing my topic this morning I am discussing the words and actions solely of men—with only one exception. Because I am not comfortable rewriting quotations or indulging in revisionism for the sake of gender equality, I am flummoxed. I apologize for the fact that sensitivity to the issue notwithstanding, I lacked the competence to arrive at a solution before this morning.
Ours is the oldest written national constitution, 220 years old, and it, along with our other founding documents asserts several extraordinary principles: that we are all equal, that we have the right to speak without restraint and to pursue freedom, and that each of us gets to participate in determining and preserving our government. The Constitution affects every part of our lives. It is the foundation of our faith and expectation that our government will control by the rule of law and that our political struggles will be resolved at the ballot box and in the courts—not at the barricades or in our streets. With the heartbreaking exception of the Civil War, our belief in our system of government has been justified. That is until last year.

When Congress passed, to its everlasting shame, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, it virtually destroyed the Bill of Rights by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and for that matter, rendering the Geneva Convention null and void. Most of us believe that a change in administration will rectify these depredations to our freedoms but it is up to us, the people, to insist that suspension of this scurrilous piece of legislation be a part of the conversation in the next election. Equally as tragic is the erosion of respect for the Supreme Court as it becomes more apparent that Americans can no longer count on their court to make decisions based on law, not politics.

But, to move on, up until last year, the experiment that is the United States has managed to maintain an open political system that has continued to provide rights and freedom for more and more people. Our bedrock principle is that none of us is above the law; we do not hold to the theory of the “divine right of kings” where those in power need not adhere to same standards to which the rest of us are answerable; rather, our theory of governance is rule by consent of the governed—it is here that we find the foundation for the exercise of legitimate authority by one citizen over another citizen.

It is interesting to me, as it has been to many others before me, that the United States Constitution which has declared so clearly our rights and the protections of those rights, unlike the Declaration of Independence, makes no mention of God, the Divine, or any higher power. Nor does the oath that our president takes upon assuming office have any such phrase as “so help me God.” And although presidents traditionally take that oath while holding a bible, the bible is not required and at least five presidents have not used one. John Quincy Adams used a law book. Lyndon Johnson, who took the oath on Air Force One, used a Roman Catholic daily missal.

In commenting on this curious lack in the Constitution, Gordon Wood, a Professor of History at Brown University and a prolific writer on American history, said, “It is one of the striking facts of American history that the American Revolution was led by men who were not very religious.” Professor Wood, who has won, among other awards, the Pulitzer Prize for History and the Ralph Waldo Emerson Prize, continued, in a piece he wrote for the New York Journal of American History, “At the best, the Founding Fathers only passively believed in organized Christianity and at worst they scorned and ridiculed it. When asked why the Constitution did not mention God, Alexander Hamilton is said to have answered, ‘We forgot.’ ”

Peter Luton, minister of the East Shore Unitarian Church in Bellevue, Washington doesn’t believe Hamilton. Luton says they did not forget. He writes, “They left God out quite consciously. The American Constitution does not mention God… even in Deist metaphors. The Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for holding public office. So let us not think we are changing anything or secularizing America when we keep Church and State apart. The United States of America,” Luton goes on, “…is not a Christian nation… The men—and it was men—who debated the principles of liberty and human rights, who envisioned a form of government accountable to the people governed, who consciously and deliberately established the separation of Church and State, these men were not interested in theocracies or enacting laws that enforced theological opinions. They were creating a liberal—as in free, infused with liberty—democratic government. The liberal democratic political philosophies of the founders were grounded in humanistic, rational Enlightenment philosophy and theology…”

The founding fathers held many differing views on religion but if you look at Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, arguably the most influential of the founding fathers, you are looking at men who were Deists or Unitarians. The Deists, with their belief in natural rather than revealed religion, were entirely in synch with the Unitarians as liberal religionists. Thomas Paine likely spoke for them all when he wrote in his book, Age of Reason, “I believe in the equality of man and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.”

As I read more history about this period I came to understand that in keeping the name of God out of the Constitution, in forbidding religious tests for officeholders, and in eschewing government support of religion, the intent of these patriots was, effectively, to protect religion. While many of them may have been indifferent churchgoers, they nonetheless believed in and respected religion’s role in providing social support, a sense of purpose, and a reason to focus beyond the self, all of which help root people in their communities. In addition, Luton points out, they had certainly observed how, historically, state religions became corrupted with power and violated the freedom of citizens. And, as liberal philosophers, they surely believed that, as with other areas of thought, religion would only benefit and be strengthened by unrestricted conversations about religious ideas and opinions.

Now, I admit that I am making a very broad leap here but this topic reminds me of an ongoing conversation begun in this congregation not so long ago about whether a mention of God should be included in the Unitarian Universalist Principles and Purposes. “We should truly welcome the deists and theists already among us by expressly referencing God in our statement of principles,” is the specific recommendation. But, we Unitarian Universalists come in many flavors and stripes. We are theists and atheists, Buddhists, Pagans, UU Christians, and actually, in this community we even have a group of UU Catholics. We have pantheists, humanists, panentheists, and UUs who celebrate Passover and make sure their children are bar mitzvah’d. And each of us is embraced by this incredible religion. Right now this freedom of belief is expressed clearly and respectfully in our Principles and Purposes without any mention of a higher power just as surely as freedom of religion is expressed in our Constitution.

Our current Principles and Purposes articulate our common values without attempting to identify any particular creed—this is the very language that keeps us truly inclusive. There are many beliefs held by a great many Unitarian Universalists that are not acknowledged in the Principles—from pantheism to the power of healing thought. I think to acknowledge one approach to spirituality and not others in our Principles is to imply a hierarchy of belief that is antithetical to our faith. And, in the list of Sources that accompanies the Principles and Purposes, we acknowledge the roots of the religion we practice today. I love the sources because to me they embody the true beauty of our religion—one that respectfully and joyfully acknowledges the beliefs of others and of our forebears while leaving generous room for each of us to go wherever our personal spiritual journey takes us. It is there we acknowledge freely what Unitarian Universalists owe to theist spiritual traditions.

I find myself agreeing fervently with Jane Rzepka, minister of the UU Church of the Larger Fellowship when she writes of Unitarian Universalists, “We are awash in imagery and metaphor, but still, many UUs proclaim a deep, mature, heartfelt and complete religion quite aside from any notion of god. It doesn’t take a god for compassion to move us, for love to prevail, for connection and awe and luck and joy to move to center stage. Justice requires no god, goodness requires no god, deep emotion requires no god, beauty requires no god. That needs to be said. Every Unitarian Universalist needs to feel included in our midst.”

As talk of spirituality, God, worship, prayer, spiritual healing and other language of reverence becomes increasingly more common and welcome in Unitarian Universalist services and writings, we must be sure that we do not lose our balance. We must take great care that our language remains welcoming to all genuine religious approaches without succumbing to the temptation to articulate one path above others.

Dr. Bernard Haisch, an astrophysicist and one-time Roman Catholic seminarian writes, “Somewhere between the hardcore reductionists who explain all things as merely the sum of their parts and greet every suggestion of spirituality with a sneer, and the unquestioning faithful who receive their beliefs full-blown from prophets and preachers, lie the skeptical but open-minded free thinkers curious to investigate their own nature and purpose in life.” I believe most Unitarian Universalists are liberal religionists who lie in exactly that spot.

We are theists and atheists both—equally welcome. Here is Rzepka again, “So let me state the obvious: a belief in God does not make you a good person. Jails are full of God-fearing people who have no problem pulling a trigger or misdirecting an ax. And atheism does not make a person bad: people who are atheists love their children, care about their neighbors, feel the awe in the universe, and try to do the right thing, the same as the theists. Observation and experience assure us that religious feelings and ethical behavior don't [necessarily] correlate with a belief in a supreme being or a theological doctrine.”

A few months ago the sixth graders here at FUSN were curious about that very issue. Bart Wright and I were invited to speak with them about how, if one were an atheist, one knew how to behave morally and even more interesting, why one would want to. It was a fascinating and lively discussion. I love our religious education program. And of course, I continued to think about that discussion for many weeks after it was over. It actually sent me back to an old copy I had of our previous hymnal, the one called “Hymns for the Celebration of Life.” There is a reading in that book that I love. It’s called the Stoic’s Prayer. The Stoics, if you recall your Junior High history, were nontheists who valued a world that consisted of formal logic, materialistic physics, and naturalistic ethics. Of these, they emphasized ethics as the main focus of human knowledge. The prayer was written in the 3rd century:

May I be no man’s enemy, and may I be the friend of that which is eternal and abides.
May I never quarrel with those nearest me: and if I do, may I be reconciled quickly.
May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good.
May I wish for all men’s happiness and envy none.
May I never rejoice in the ill fortune of one who has wronged me.
When I have done or said what is wrong, may I never wait for the rebuke of others, but always rebuke myself until I make amends.
May I win no victory that harms either me or my opponent.
May I reconcile friends who are angry with one another.
May I never fail a friend who is in danger.
When visiting those in grief may I be able by gentle and healing words to soften their pain.
May I respect myself.
May I always keep tame that which rages within me.
May I accustom myself to be gentle, and never be angry with people because of circumstances.
May I never discuss who is wicked and what wicked things he has done, but know good men and follow in their footsteps.”

This is the prayer of a good man wanting to be a better man; his was a faith that, while it had no belief in a higher power, provided a sense of purpose and a reason to focus beyond the self. In like manner, Unitarian Universalism’s “…basic respect for freedom of individual belief, its faith in the deeply human origins of all sacred emotions, and its conviction that improving this world is a more religious endeavor than getting saved in the next,” these are the beliefs that make “Unitarian and Universalist men and women of conscience [into] …activists and peacemakers, holy scientists, and heretical saints.” (Charles Rzepka of Boston University, in the UUA pamphlet, “The Many Paths to Unitarian Universalism”)
I believe that the true substance of religion is the role it plays in the lives of individuals and the life of the community. While doctrines differ from denomination to denomination, what religion does for people doesn’t change. As a Religious Humanist, I believe doctrine should never subvert the higher purpose of meeting human needs. It is true that this is defining religion by its function, but for me, that function is the most lasting and universal part of religion. For me Unitarian Universalism, and Religious Humanism, are defined by how they are lived.

The recent bringing of God talk into politics and the public declarations made by many politicians that “Jesus is their personal savior” makes me deeply angry. And not the least of my reasons is how unpatriotic such pronouncements are in the context of seeking public office. I recall a time when to make such declarations, which would have been described as wearing one’s religion on one’s sleeve, would be to court instant and profound mistrust. What has happened to change a once decent reticence about personal faith in the public marketplace involves, it seems to me, a most curious campaign of intimidation and the co-opting of language—the meaning of the word liberal, for example—and all in the name of God.

I can remember my grandmother saying, “The louder she proclaimed her honesty, the tighter I clutched my purse.” These religionists who offer their Christianity as proof of their patriotism seek to intimidate all of us into thinking that we are somehow unpatriotic if we are not, publicly, theists at the least and Christians at best. Luton points out that if we were to be really loyal to our own Constitution, we would loudly disavow the current efforts of fundamentalists to define us as a Christian country founded by Christians. This is revisionist history of the worst kind and it is a betrayal of the gift the framers of our Constitution prepared for us. And this huge lie is so pervasive that most of us shrink from the very thought of taking on its purveyors. It seems even our most liberal public figures avoid any attempt to engage in this debate and to defend our liberal religious roots.
It is my dream that by some miracle the celebration of our national holiday will imbue us with the courage we have been lacking, the courage to say out loud what Peter Luton wrote in the Quest newsletter just this May:

I hope, along with the Rev. Luton, that we will be the defenders of that liberty.

The Portions of this sermon regarding the mention of God in the Constitution owe a great deal to the Rev. Peter Luton’s piece, “Looking for God in the Constitution,” published in the May, 2007 issue of Quest, the Newsletter of the Church of the Larger Fellowship. The piece provided me with inspiration, direct quotes, and a number of facts to add to my own thoughts about the state of our government, the issue of God being mentioned in the Principles and Purposes, and whether theism is necessary to religion and morality. NK