{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:god-in-the-constitution",
  "slug": "god-in-the-constitution",
  "title": "God in the Constitution",
  "subtitle": "Against the proposed \\\"Christian nation\\\" amendment.",
  "excerpt": "A systematic argument against the movement to amend the United States Constitution to recognize God — and a case that the Republic was established, deliberately, as a secular government.",
  "year": 1890,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/god-in-the-constitution/",
  "wordCount": 4354,
  "body": "\"_All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the\ngoverned_.\"\n\nIN this country it is admitted that the power to govern resides in the\npeople themselves; that they are the only rightful source of authority.\nFor many centuries before the formation of our Government, before the\npromulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the people had but\nlittle voice in the affairs of nations. The source of authority was not\nin this world; kings were not crowned by their subjects, and the sceptre\nwas not held by the consent of the governed. The king sat on his throne\nby the will of God, and for that reason was not accountable to the\npeople for the exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people\nobeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his partner, the priest, was\nlord of their souls. The government of earth was patterned after the\nkingdom on high. God was a supreme autocrat in heaven, whose will was\nlaw, and the king was a supreme autocrat on earth whose will was law.\nThe God in heaven had inferior beings to do his will, and the king on\nearth had certain favorites and officers to do his. These officers were\naccountable to him, and he was responsible to God.\n\nThe Feudal system was supposed to be in accordance with the divine\nplan. The people were not governed by intelligence, but by threats and\npromises, by rewards and punishments. No effort was made to enlighten\nthe common people; no one thought of educating a peasant—of developing\nthe mind of a laborer. The people were created to support thrones and\naltars. Their destiny was to toil and obey—to work and want. They were\nto be satisfied with huts and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their\nchildren must expect no more. In the presence of the king they fell upon\ntheir knees, and before the priest they groveled in the very dust. The\npoor peasant divided his earnings with the state, because he imagined it\nprotected his body; he divided his crust with the church, believing that\nit protected his soul. He was the prey of Throne and Altar—one deformed\nhis body, the other his mind—and these two vultures fed upon his toil.\nHe was taught by the king to hate the people of other nations, and by\nthe priest to despise the believers in all other religions. He was made\nthe enemy of all people except his own. He had no sympathy with the\npeasants of other lands, enslaved and plundered like himself., He was\nkept in ignorance, because education is the enemy of superstition,\nand because education is the foe of that egotism often mistaken for\npatriotism.\n\nThe intelligent and good man holds in his affections the good and true\nof every land—the boundaries of countries are not the limitations of\nhis sympathies. Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those who\nspeak other languages and worship other gods. Between him and those who\nsuffer, there is no impassable gulf. He salutes the world, and extends\nthe hand of friendship to the human race. He does not bow before a\nprovincial and patriotic god—one who protects his tribe or nation, and\nabhors the rest of mankind.\n\nThrough all the ages of superstition, each nation has insisted that it\nwas the peculiar care of the true God, and that it alone had the true\nreligion—that the gods of other nations were false and fraudulent, and\nthat other religions were wicked, ignorant and absurd. In this way the\nseeds of hatred had been sown, and in this way have been kindled the\nflames of war. Men have had no sympathy with those of a different\ncomplexion, with those who knelt at other altars and expressed their\nthoughts in other words—and even a difference in garments placed\nthem beyond the sympathy of others. Every peculiarity was the food of\nprejudice and the excuse for hatred.\n\nThe boundaries of nations were at last crossed by commerce. People\nbecame somewhat acquainted, and they found that the virtues and vices\nwere quite evenly distributed. At last, subjects became somewhat\nacquainted with kings—peasants had the pleasure of gazing at princes,\nand it was dimly perceived that the differences were mostly in rags and\nnames.\n\nIn 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They\ndeclared that \"all governments derive their just powers from the consent\nof the governed.\" This was a contradiction of the then political ideas\nof the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure blasphemy—a\nrenunciation of the Deity. It was in fact a declaration of the\nindependence of the earth. It was a notice to all churches and priests\nthat thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically\nit tore down every altar and denied the authority of every \"sacred\nbook,\" and appealed from the Providence of God to the Providence of Man.\n\nThose who promulgated the Declaration adopted a Constitution for the\ngreat Republic.\n\nWhat was the office or purpose of that Constitution?\n\nAdmitting that all power came from the people, it was necessary, first,\nthat certain means be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the will\nof the people, and second, it was proper and convenient to designate\ncertain departments that should exercise certain powers of the\nGovernment. There must be the legislative, the judicial and the\nexecutive departments. Those who make laws should not execute them.\nThose who execute laws should not have the power of absolutely\ndetermining their meaning or their constitutionality. For these reasons,\namong others, a Constitution was adopted.\n\nThis Constitution also contained a declaration of rights. It marked out\nthe limitations of discretion, so that in the excitement of passion, men\nshall not go beyond the point designated in the calm moment of reason.\n\nWhen man is unprejudiced, and his passions subject to reason, it is well\nhe should define the limits of power, so that the waves driven by the\nstorm of passion shall not overbear the shore.\n\nA constitution is for the government of man in this world. It is the\nchain the people put upon their servants, as well as upon themselves. It\ndefines the limit of power and the limit of obedience.\n\nIt follows, then, that nothing should be in a constitution that cannot\nbe enforced by the power of the state—that is, by the army and navy.\nBehind every provision of the Constitution should stand the force of the\nnation. Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon should be there.\n\nSuppose, then, that we amend the Constitution and acknowledge the\nexistence and supremacy of God—what becomes of the supremacy of the\npeople, and how is this amendment to be enforced? A constitution does\nnot enforce itself. It must be carried out by appropriate legislation.\nWill it be a crime to deny the existence of this constitutional God? Can\nthe offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts? Can his lips\nbe closed by the power of the state? Would not this be the inauguration\nof religious persecution?\n\nAnd if there is to be an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution, the\nquestion naturally arises as to which God is to have this honor. Shall\nwe select the God of the Catholics—he who has established an infallible\nchurch presided over by an infallible pope, and who is delighted with\ncertain ceremonies and placated by prayers uttered in exceedingly\ncommon Latin? Is it the God of the Presbyterian with the Five Points\nof Calvinism, who is ingenious enough to harmonize necessity and\nresponsibility, and who in some way justifies himself for damning most\nof his own children? Is it the God of the Puritan, the enemy of joy—of\nthe Baptist, who is great enough to govern the universe, and small\nenough to allow the destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body it\ninhabited was immersed or sprinkled?\n\nWhat God is it proposed to put in the Constitution? Is it the God of the\nOld Testament, who was a believer in slavery and who justified polygamy?\nIf slavery was right then, it is right now; and if Jehovah was right\nthen, the Mormons are right now. Are we to have the God who issued a\ncommandment against all art—who was the enemy of investigation and of\nfree speech? Is it the God who commanded the husband to stone his wife\nto death because she differed with him on the subject of religion? Are\nwe to have a God who will re-enact the Mosaic code and punish hundreds\nof offences with death? What court, what tribunal of last resort, is\nto define this God, and who is to make known his will? In his presence,\nlaws passed by men will be of no value. The decisions of courts will be\nas nothing. But who is to make known the will of this supreme God? Will\nthere be a supreme tribunal composed of priests?\n\nOf course all persons elected to office will either swear or affirm to\nsupport the Constitution. Men who do not believe in this God, cannot\nso swear or affirm. Such men will not be allowed to hold any office of\ntrust or honor. A God in the Constitution will not interfere with the\noaths or affirmations of hypocrites. Such a provision will only exclude\nhonest and conscientious unbelievers. Intelligent people know that 110\none knows whether there is a God or not. The existence of such a Being\nis merely a matter of opinion. Men who believe in the liberty of man,\nwho are willing to die for the honor of their country, will be excluded\nfrom taking any part in the administration of its affairs. Such a\nprovision would place the country under the feet of priests.\n\nTo recognize a Deity in the organic law of our country would be the\ndestruction of religious liberty. The God in the Constitution would have\nto be protected. There would be laws against blasphemy, laws against the\npublication of honest thoughts, laws against carrying books and papers\nin the mails in which this constitutional God should be attacked.\nOur land would be filled with theological spies, with religious\neavesdroppers, and all the snakes and reptiles of the lowest natures, in\nthis sunshine of religious authority, would uncoil and crawl.\n\nIt is proposed to acknowledge a God who is the lawful and rightful\nGovernor of nations; the one who ordained the powers that be. If\nthis God is really the Governor of nations, it is not necessary to\nacknowledge him in the Constitution. This would not add to his power. If\nhe governs all nations now, he has always controlled the affairs of men.\nHaving this control, why did he not see to it that he was recognized in\nthe Constitution of the United States? If he had the supreme authority\nand neglected to put himself in the Constitution, is not this, at least,\nprima facie evidence that he did not desire to be there?\n\nFor one, I am not in favor of the God who has \"ordained the powers that\nbe.\" What have we to say of Russia—of Siberia? What can we say of the\npersecuted and enslaved? What of the kings and nobles who live on the\nstolen labor of others? What of the priest and cardinal and pope who\nwrest, even from the hand of poverty, the single coin thrice earned?\n\nIs it possible to flatter the Infinite with a constitutional amendment?\nThe Confederate States acknowledged God in their constitution, and yet\nthey were overwhelmed by a people in whose organic law no reference to\nGod is made. All the kings of the earth acknowledge the existence of\nGod, and God is their ally; and this belief in God is used as a means to\nenslave and rob, to govern and degrade the people whom they call their\nsubjects.\n\nThe Government of the United States is secular. It derives its power\nfrom the consent of man. It is a Government with which God has nothing\nwhatever to do—and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the\nfundamental fact that the people are the source of authority, should be\nabandoned. In this country there should be no oaths—no man should be\nsworn to tell the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal\nto any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath appears to go in\npartnership with God, and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead of the\nman. A witness should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should\nbe considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presidents should not\nissue religious proclamations. They should not call upon the people to\nthank God. It is no part of their official duty. It is outside of\nand beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing in\nthe Constitution of the United States to justify this religious\nimpertinence.\n\nFor many years priests have attempted to give to our Government a\nreligious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon our\nmoney: \"In God We Trust;\" and we have chaplains in the army and navy,\nand legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this is\ncontrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to the Declaration\nof Independence, and contrary really to the Constitution of the United\nStates. We have taken the ground that the people can govern themselves\nwithout the assistance of any supernatural power. We have taken the\nposition that the people are the real and only rightful source of\nauthority. We have solemnly declared that the people must determine what\nis politically right and what is wrong, and that their legally\nexpressed will is the supreme law. This leaves no room for national\nsuperstition—no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings—and\nthis does away with the necessity for political prayers.\n\nThe government of God has been tried. It was tried in Palestine several\nthousand years ago, and the God of the Jews was a monster of cruelty and\nignorance, and the people governed by this God lost their nationality.\nTheocracy was tried through the Middle Ages. God was the Governor—the\npope was his agent, and every priest and bishop and cardinal was armed\nwith credentials from the Most High—and the result was that the noblest\nand best were in prisons, the greatest and grandest perished at the\nstake. The result was that vices were crowned with honor, and virtues\nwhipped naked through the streets. The result was that hypocrisy swayed\nthe sceptre of authority, while honesty languished in the dungeons of\nthe Inquisition.\n\nThe government of God was tried in Geneva when John Calvin was his\nrepresentative; and under this government of God the flames climbed\naround the limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servetus, because he\ndared to express an honest thought. This government of God was tried\nin Scotland, and the seeds of theological hatred were sown, that bore,\nthrough hundreds of years, the fruit of massacre and assassination. This\ngovernment of God was established in New England, and the result was\nthat Quakers were hanged or burned—the laws of Moses re-enacted and the\n\"witch was not suffered to live.\" The result was that investigation was\na crime, and the expression of an honest thought a capital offence. This\ngovernment of God was established in Spain, and the Jews were expelled,\nthe Moors were driven out, Moriscoes were exterminated, and nothing\nleft but the ignorant and bankrupt worshipers of this monster. This\ngovernment of God was tried in the United States when slavery was\nregarded as a divine institution, when men and women were regarded as\ncriminals because they sought for liberty by flight, and when others\nwere regarded as criminals because they gave them food and shelter. The\npulpit of that day defended the buying and selling of women and babes,\nand the mouths of slave-traders were filled with passages of Scripture,\ndefending and upholding the traffic in human flesh.\n\nWe have entered upon a new epoch. This is the century of man. Every\neffort to really better the condition of mankind has been opposed by the\nworshipers of some God. The church in all ages and among all peoples\nhas been the consistent enemy of the human race. Everywhere and at all\ntimes, it has opposed the liberty of thought and expression. It has been\nthe sworn enemy of investigation and of intellectual development. It has\ndenied the existence of facts, the tendency of which was to undermine\nits power. It has always been carrying fagots to the feet of Philosophy.\nIt has erected the gallows for Genius. It has built the dungeon for\nThinkers. And to-day the orthodox church is as much opposed as it ever\nwas to the mental freedom of the human race.\n\nOf course, there is a distinction made between churches and individual\nmembers. There have been millions of Christians who have been believers\nin liberty and in the freedom of expression—millions who have fought\nfor the rights of man—but churches as organizations, have been on\nthe other side. It is true that churches have fought churches—that\nProtestants battled with the Catholics for what they were pleased to\ncall the freedom of conscience; and it is also true that the moment\nthese Protestants obtained the civil power, they denied this freedom of\nconscience to others.\n\n'Let me show you the difference between the theological and the secular\nspirit. Nearly three hundred years ago, one of the noblest of the human\nrace, Giordano Bruno, was burned at Rome by the Catholic Church—that\nis to say, by the \"Triumphant Beast.\" This man had committed certain\ncrimes—he had publicly stated that there were other worlds than\nthis—other constellations than ours. He had ventured the supposition\nthat other planets might be peopled. More than this, and worse than\nthis, he had asserted the heliocentric theory—that the earth made its\nannual journey about the sun. He had also given it as his opinion that\nmatter is eternal. For these crimes he was found unworthy to live, and\nabout his body were piled the fagots of the Catholic Church. This man,\nthis genius, this pioneer of the science of the nineteenth century,\nperished as serenely as the sun sets. The Infidels of to-day find\nexcuses for his murderers. They take into consideration the ignorance\nand brutality of the times. They remember that the world was governed by\na God who was then the source of all authority. This is the charity of\nInfidelity,—of philosophy. But the church of to-day is so heartless, is\nstill so cold and cruel, that it can find no excuse for the murdered.\n\nThis is the difference between Theocracy and Democracy—between God and\nman.\n\nIf God is allowed in the Constitution, man must abdicate. There is no\nroom for both. If the people of the great Republic become superstitious\nenough and ignorant enough to put God in the Constitution of the United\nStates, the experiment of self-government will have failed, and the\ngreat and splendid declaration that \"all governments derive their just\npowers from the consent of the governed\" will have been denied, and in\nits place will be found this: All power comes from God; priests are his\nagents, and the people are their slaves.\n\nReligion is an individual matter, and each soul should be left entirely\nfree to form its own opinions and to judge of its accountability to a\nsupposed supreme being. With religion, government has nothing whatever\nto do. Government is founded upon force, and force should never\ninterfere with the religious opinions of men. Laws should define the\nrights of men and their duties toward each other, and these laws should\nbe for the benefit of man in this world.\n\nA nation can neither be Christian nor Infidel—a nation is incapable of\nhaving opinions upon these subjects. If a nation is Christian, will all\nthe citizens go to heaven? If it is not, will they all be damned? Of\ncourse it is admitted that the majority of citizens composing a nation\nmay believe or disbelieve, and they may call the nation what they\nplease. A nation is a corporation. To repeat a familiar saying, \"it has\nno soul.\" There can be no such thing as a Christian corporation. Several\nChristians may form a corporation, but it can hardly be said that the\ncorporation thus formed was included in the atonement. For instance:\nSeven Christians form a corporation—that is to say, there are seven\nnatural persons and one artificial—can it be said that there are eight\nsouls to be saved?\n\nNo human being has brain enough, or knowledge enough, or experience\nenough, to say whether there is, or is not, a God. Into this darkness\nScience has not yet carried its torch. No human being has gone beyond\nthe horizon of the natural. As to the existence of the supernatural, one\nman knows precisely as much, and exactly as little as another. Upon\nthis question, chimpanzees and cardinals, apes and popes, are upon exact\nequality. The smallest insect discernible only by the most powerful\nmicroscope, is as familiar with this subject, as the greatest genius\nthat has been produced by the human race.\n\nGovernments and laws are for the preservation of rights and the\nregulation of conduct. One man should not be allowed to interfere with\nthe liberty of another. In the metaphysical world there should be no\ninterference whatever, The same is true in the world of art. Laws cannot\nregulate what is or is not music, what is or what is not beautiful—and\nconstitutions cannot definitely settle and determine the perfection of\nstatues, the value of paintings, or the glory and subtlety of thought.\nIn spite of laws and constitutions the brain will think. In every\ndirection consistent with the well-being and peace of society, there\nshould be freedom. No man should be compelled to adopt the theology\nof another; neither should a minority, however small, be forced to\nacquiesce in the opinions of a majority, however large.\n\nIf there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help—we need not\nwaste our energies in his defence. It is enough for us to give to every\nother human being the liberty we claim for ourselves. There may or may\nnot be a Supreme Ruler of the universe—but we are certain that man\nexists, and we believe that freedom is the condition of progress; that\nit is the sunshine of the mental and moral world, and that without\nit man will go back to the den of savagery, and will become the fit\nassociate of wild and ferocious beasts.\n\nWe have tried the government of priests, and we know that such\ngovernments are without mercy. In the administration of theocracy, all\nthe instruments of torture have been invented. If any man wishes to\nhave God recognized in the Constitution of our country, let him read\nthe history of the Inquisition, and let him remember that hundreds of\nmillions of men, women and children have been sacrificed to placate the\nwrath, or win the approbation of this God.\n\nThere has been in our country a divorce of church and state. This\nfollows as a natural sequence of the declaration that \"governments\nderive their just powers from the consent of the governed.\" The priest\nwas no longer a necessity. His presence was a contradiction of the\nprinciple on which the Republic was founded. He represented, not the\nauthority of the people, but of some \"Power from on High,\" and to\nrecognize this other Power was inconsistent with free government. The\nfounders of the Republic at that time parted company with the priests,\nand said to them: \"You may turn your attention to the other world—we\nwill attend to the affairs of this.\" Equal liberty was given to all. But\nthe ultra theologian is not satisfied with this—he wishes to destroy\nthe liberty of the people—he wishes a recognition of his God as the\nsource of authority, to the end that the church may become the supreme\npower.\n\nBut the sun will not be turned backward. The people of the United States\nare intelligent. They no longer believe implicitly in supernatural\nreligion. They are losing confidence in the miracles and marvels of the\nDark Ages. They know the value of the free school. They appreciate the\nbenefits of science. They are believers in education, in the free play\nof thought, and there is a suspicion that the priest, the theologian,\nis destined to take his place with the necromancer, the astrologer, the\nworker of magic, and the professor of the black art.\n\nWe have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the\ntheologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for\nthe many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children\nof men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in\nrags and skins—they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of\nScience dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities\nof to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences\nand elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But\nabove and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of\nvalue in the brain of an average man of to-day—of a master-mechanic, of\na chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain\nof the world four hundred years ago.\n\nThese blessings did not fall from the skies, These benefits did not\ndrop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in\ncathedrals or behind altars—neither were they searched for with holy\ncandles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did\nthey come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children\nof freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience—and for\nthem all, man is indebted to man.\n\nLet us hold fast to the sublime declaration of Lincoln. Let us insist\nthat this, the Republic, is \"A government of the people, by the people,\nand for the people.\"—The Arena, Boston, Mass., January, 1890.\n"
}