RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Supreme Court Declares America a Christian Nation!

In a day and age where there is much discussion and debate over our Christian heritage, who better to settle the argument as to whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation than the United States Supreme Court — the ultimate authority and final arbiter. What if I told you the modern day argument between the secular progressives and Christian conservatives on this contentious debate was already settled by the United States Supreme Court as far back as 120 years ago!

That’s right. In 1892 in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the Supreme Court examined thousands of documents concerning the founding of our great nation, including all state constitutions and compacts leading up to the time of the Revolution. After ten years of research, the court issued a unanimous decision that included the recognition that the United States of America is not only historically and culturally religious, but that the very system of government and our laws are based on a Christian worldview.

Regarding the mountain of documentary evidence, the high court further stated:

“There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.

This is a religious people…this is a Christian nation.”

Regardless of one’s religious, agnostic or atheist persuasion, there is no doubt as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Trinty v. United States in 1892 that founders and the citizens of young America were guided by Biblical principles and Christian ideals. Yes, the United States of America is indeed a Christian nation.

Until next time . . . Wake Up America!

Kevin A. Lehmann

Take a moment to share your thoughts about this article in the comment box below.

If you are a facebook friend and like my articles, blog posts and op-eds, due to time constraints and a rapidly growing list of readers, please subscribe to CatchKevin.com and share my blog and radio show with friends and family who value real, raw and relevant talk radio. Thank you.

Facebook comments:

comments

Trackback URL

  1. 18 Comment(s)

  2. By enigmaticaluna on Feb 8, 2012 | Reply

    What a surprise! I think we already know that this is a Christian Nation, the problem we have today is that the majority of the judicial system is running by corrupt liberals that try to destroy the very core and foundation of this Nation, we’re not in 1892, but it’s sure that at least me, I going to fight this one, as if it’s the only thing out there to fight. Thanks my friend.

  3. By Mary on Feb 9, 2012 | Reply

    So this is not something that just happened and has been held up by the supreme court. This is old news that should not be questioned… But is questioned every day in every court in the land.
    Sadly I feel this can not be shared with my friends because they will say it is old news and will discount them no matter how I beleave it.

  4. By Kimberly on Feb 9, 2012 | Reply

    Kevin, you need to mail your article to CAIR and every other Islamic organization here in the United States. And then also let them know that they can pack up and leave as WE the PEOPLE will not ever convert to Islam or to see our nation turned into an Islamic blood bath.

  5. By Cody on Feb 9, 2012 | Reply

    Although it is undeniable that we were founded as a Christian Nation, this was in the 1700s. Let’s face it, times have changed greatly. Using a case from 120 years ago is silly to think it means a lot now. With rapidly growing numbers in other religions, it is obvious that America retains the “melting pot” idea- including in religion. And in a country that is becoming more secular as we speak, it should become evident that, although we may have ONCE been a Christian nation, we are becoming less and less bound to religion. I think the more accurate “Open your eyes America” would be to realize that state and religion should remain separate, especially in such a diverse nation.

  6. By Thomas Brown on Feb 9, 2012 | Reply

    Perhaps realizing how his phrasing could create mischief and misinterpretation, Justice Brewer published a book in 1905 titled The United States: A Christian Nation. In it he wrote:

    “But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.”

    Justice Brewer’s decision was not, therefore, any attempt to argue that the laws in the United States should enforce Christianity or reflect solely Christian concerns and beliefs. He was simply making an observation which is consistent with the fact that Americans tend to be Christian.

  7. By shaun on Feb 10, 2012 | Reply

    I think the label of a “Christian nation” is meaningless, what good is caling this nation a Christain nation when the growing majority of her citizens only give lip service to God? Where is the “Christian” uproar as state after state approve gay marriage and the divorce rate soars and as drugs and sex crimes against children destroy home after home all across this nation. I am disgusted by the term christian as it loses it’s meaning in today’s modern society, calling a Zebra a Dog does not make it so, and calling America a christain nation is useless as long as the decline continues and the so called christans refuse to stand up against the growing tidal wave of filth and perversion that is growing by the day.

  8. By Tom Bower on Feb 10, 2012 | Reply

    Exactly, but it seems that many zealous Christians tend to ignore this clarification by Justice Brewer. Read a few of the responses right here on this forum to see this in action.

    A quick perusal of Rick Santorum’s FB page is also an indication of denial among these people.

  9. By Mike on Feb 11, 2012 | Reply

    What Justice Brewer followed up with doesn’t discount the fact of what he said prior. Being a Christian isn’t about coercing someone to believe in Jesus nor is having the government making people become Christians. It’s not like the Muslim religion who forces people to convert or die. Or if people try to leave and go to another religion, they die. What Justice Brewer states was exactly what a Christian nation would do to protect it’s citizens from being overpowered by power hungry men who only want to use religion to control people. So, whether in the time of our founding fathers or even now, we have the rights and freedoms because we are a Christian nation. Not in spite of.

  10. By Tom on Feb 11, 2012 | Reply

    A Supreme Court opinion contains several different parts.

    The holding of the case establishes the rule of law as decided on by the court and as it relates specifically to the facts of the case. The rationale of the case contains the different reasons why the Court decided a case the way that it did. Contained within these reasons can be comments by the Court which do not have any bearing on the specific rule of law and are not binding on future cases with similar facts. These non-essential comments are called dictum, and unlike the holding of the case, dictum carries no precedential value. The essential comments, or the holding, becomes precedent which can then be applied to subsequent cases with similar facts.

    In the case of Holy Trinity the essential comments made by the Court concern the scope of an immigration law. The rule was that the Act did not prohibit foreign “toilers” of the brain from accepting employment in this country. The foreign-born professional worker, doctor, lawyer, businessman, or clergyman, would be able to use the rule in Holy Trinity and the rationale regarding the purpose of the Act to support his claim for employment in America. Consider the “absurd” result if a doctor from Russia at the turn of the century were to state that he could be hired by an American hospital because Holy Trinity stood for the proposition that “this is a Christian nation.” It would not make sense for such a person to cite the dictum concerning America’s religiosity as a reason for allowing him access to the American job market.

    Whether or not America was a Christian Nation was not even at issue in Holy Trinity. The actual dispute or controversy the Court had to decide had nothing at all to do with religion. The parties in Holy Trinity did not question whether the Immigration Act’s purpose was “for or against religion” generally or specifically. So when Brewer begins his religious history lesson with, “no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people,” he refers to no particular statute, no particular actor. He has moved outside the actual facts of this case and the statute at issue to address the vague application of general principles to law in general. His statements, therefore, create no rule of law, and provide no useful precedent for future legal disputes. As any basic Legal Research textbook will confirm, the legal researcher will not find precedent in such language, but must look for “the [legal] rules stated by courts [which] are tied to specific fact situations” (The Fundamentals of Legal Research, 1994, Jacobstein et al, page 6).

    Brewer’s comments about religion are not tied to any of the facts as presented in Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity Church did not allege in the facts of its case that the purpose of the Act was to discriminate against a particular religion nor that it was designed to prevent the members of their church from the free exercise of their religion. Since none of the facts suggested that the clergyman was being kept out of the country for the purpose of discriminating against religion or prohibiting religious exercise, the dictum by Brewer addresses no controversy and crafts no rule of law to be applied to other cases as precedent.

    Holy Trinity’s legacy includes a number of Supreme Court cases which cite the opinion as support for either statutory construction based on legislative intent or the use of immigration policy to exclude or include immigrants. Only on three occasions does the Holy Trinity christian nation dictum make an appearance in a Supreme Court case.

  11. By Carlos Sanchez on Feb 13, 2012 | Reply

    Mathew ch 5 vs 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

  12. By troy Jones on Feb 13, 2012 | Reply

    enjoyed reading this today….
    i have found this issue of our “christian heritage” to be one that has been smothered by opinions and watered downed by complacency, and propagated in ignorance, among other things pointing to the fallen nature of mankind.

    I appreciate your initial feed on the subject. and while it may have been 150 years ago, it is in fact still truth… we were founded on christian principles and by leaders who were in fact, confessing christians, all of them. While they were themselves far from perfect….many who still owned slaves and yet declared that “all men are created equal”…. including the first string of presidents…. (until the 14th one)
    I have always considered Lincoln the first president of the “free world” because of this fact. but thats just my opinion.

    Personally, until a true “free world” leader stood up and took a bullet (literally) for the words “all men are created equal” in regards to the total application of the constitutional rights of EVERY man standing on this soil, we had not been a truly “free nation” for all men. This is not to evade the sacrifices many of the others made to secure our country and our place of freedom, I only wish our zeal for freedom could have been tempered with compassion (christian nature) for others… like our native people who were already here, and the slaves we brought here, and the grave injustices we wrought on all those who opposed our “rights” to be free and so take from others what was not ours.

    its a bittersweet subject filled with regretful mistakes and hard lessons of injustices carried out for generations before correcting (way too late) on the tragedies of our ignorance…. historically speaking. Any true “American Christian” should be humbled by this history and pray that our nation would exhibit a repentant heart towards its waywardness from the godly foundations (imperfect as they were) we have build on.

    And as far as our religious (spiritual) heritage is concerned, we have been more of an idolatrous nation, even adulterous nation, than a “christian” nation…. for even our constitution declares freedom of worship for all men, resulting in a nation where you may worship whatever, whomever you choose. Granted, they (the founding leaders) didn’t see this coming, but if they had read their history and had known the follies if Israel, the intent to preserve our godly beginning might have been clearer to the future generations. I see the end state of our nation more like the end of King Solomon’s kingdom, given to a slow decline of standards and complacency until the people have slowly lost their way. But that is not to say we didn’t start out with the greatest of intentions……but i heard something about the road to hell being paved with such.

    never the less, i wonder if any of the critics out there have ever seen a “new england primer”…? it was the first school book of American children in the new nation’s first established school system….. This book was totally Christian, and taught the truths of scripture. This is a fact of our early Christian roots and of course, has been removed from our kids for generations now. No wonder our society struggles so much. We have in fact forgotten God… just like Israel always did.

    Kevin, I enjoy the pieces I’ve seen from you and Im sure i would have a great time if we ever met, there are bits of your heart that i see in myself through your writings, though i admit i havent read very many of them. all that to say… Amen to trusting Christ, not christianity!

    I am an ordained person, active in ministry work, usually against the grain of modern christianity and boldly speaking a wake-up call to believers to own their walk and maturity in Christ for themselves. I do not trust the institutional model and can not find it in scriptures as the mandate for the church, then or now. So while certain pillars of the biblical church will remain (meeting together and communion, water baptism,etc) the forms and liturgy beyond these are nothing but the traditions of men. For it is the transformation of character (Christ in you) that is the scriptural mandate and evidence of your faith… period.

    We need REAL Christ followers, not church goers and religious socialites, but true Christians, willing to stand and take their place. I pray for more of these type of leaders for our great nation, that we may still become all that we are capable of being, as Christians and and as “nation under God”. Though for the believer.. we’re not “home” yet.
    I support our country, with my eyes open and especially on my knees.

    So for all the believers who’s mouths are filled with contempt towards our government, you need to read the Word of God more and learn to pray for our country, vote but do not condemn. bless and do not curse. and you will be part of the solution, that God may still Bless America.

    Strength & Peace
    -Troy Jones

  13. By Suelo on Feb 16, 2012 | Reply

    Jesus said, “By their fruit you shall know them.”
    The world says, “By our courts you shall know them.”

    The above essay is of the world and loves the things of this world, and couching it in Christian lipservice can’t hide it. Worldly courts cannot declare who or what is Christian, only our fruit can. Only someone of the world could believe the “Supreme” court could declare what is Christisn.

    Doesn’t Jesus denounce lthe world’s courts as unrighteous, and Paul seconds this fact?:

    “Yes, and why even of yourselves do you not what is right? (Luke 12:57)

    “Dare any of you… GO TO LAW BEFORE THE UNRIGHTEOUS and not before the saints? (1 Cor. 6:1)

    A Christian nation does not seek after sustenance and stuff, but live by faith. How can the most consumeristic, greedy and warmongering nation on earth be a Christian nation?

    “And do not seek what you should eat or what you should drink, nor have an anxious mind.
    For ALL THESE THINGS THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD SEEK AFTER, and your Father knows that you need these things. But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you.”
    (Luke 12:29=31)

    Thus, no nation on earth is a Christian nation or ever has been one.

    A Christian nation is not of this world:

    “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight’” (John 18:36)

    and Paul seconds this:

    “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers…” (Ephesians 6:12)

    If this were a Christian nation, it would PRACTICE the teachings of Jesus:

    “He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not practice Jesus’ commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1John 2:3)

    “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the teachings of Christ has both the Father and the Son.” (2John 1:9)

    And what are the teachings of Jesus?

    “Blessed are you poor,
    for yours is the Kingdom of God.
    . . . . But woe to you who are rich,
    for you have received your credit.”
    (Luke 6:24)

    “Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.” (Mark 10:21)

    “So likewise, whoever of you
    does not forsake all his possessions
    cannot be My disciple.”
    (Luke 14:33)

    “Blessed [are you] poor, For yours is the kingdom of God. . . .
    But woe to you who are rich, For you have received your consolation.” (Luke 6:20, 24)

    “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you… (Luke 6:27)

    “To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to EVERYONE who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. (Luke 6:29)

    “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. (Luke 6:32)

    “And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. (Luke 6:34-35)

    I could go on and on, listing the teachings of Jesus mysteriously absent from the above essay, mysteriously absent from Bible thumping churches.

    “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46)

  14. By Suelo on Feb 16, 2012 | Reply

    Correction in above quote (I somehow deleted the word ‘judge’):

    “Yes, and why even of yourselves do you not JUDGE what is right? (Luke 12:57)

    The context indicates how Jesus (& Paul) pointed out the ridiculousness of trusting courts to decide what we are perfectly knowing in our own hearts.

  15. By carroll on Mar 19, 2012 | Reply

    Why are Christians so obsessed with claiming this country to be “theirs”. There never was and never will be any official religion for the U.S.A. We were founded on the idea that people should be FREE of government imposed religion, even if its the one that you feel is the only “real” religion in the world.
    Why can’t Christians just go to church and leave the rest of us and the government alone?
    No, America is indeed NOT a Christian nation. Just get over it.

  16. By Corey on Jul 5, 2012 | Reply

    Except that none of the founders were on this court (or even alive) in 1892, so I’m not sure what you think this decision proves. If the Supreme Court today said this is not a Christian nation, would you put as much stock in that as you do this 1892 decision?

  17. By Kevin A. Lehmann on Jul 6, 2012 | Reply

    No Corey, because Chief Justice John Roberts just proved how corrupt the high court is as well. I put a lot more stock in the 1892 decision. They actually venerated and revered the DoI and Constitution.

  18. By Alex Walker on Nov 25, 2012 | Reply

    You have some good points but failed to bring up that the ruling was not actually that america was a Christian nation. It was about foreign labor laws and they only brought that up in a tangent, and if you look back further to the treaty of Tripoli. It says “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]” So it doesn’t matter how much you scream it. We are not in fact a Christian Nation.

  19. By Kevin A. Lehmann on Nov 25, 2012 | Reply

    I quote the Supreme Court in their decision:

    “There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. This is a religious people…this is a Christian nation.”

    The United States wasn’t “Founded” as a monotheistic Christian nation, but it’s founding was certainly based upon biblical and Christian principles. What more proof could we need than what’s displayed in the Supreme Court today . . . The Ten Commandments.

Post a Comment

4) Insert the following HTML code just before your closing tag of your website. Again, remember to change the URL to your own: