The Politics of Pushing the US to Become a “Christian Nation”

Last month, a small brick was removed from our Constitutional wall that separates the state and church. The New York Times’s investigative reporters reported in July 2025 that the Internal Revenue Service carved out an exemption from what is referred to as Congress’s 1954 Johnson Amendment in nonprofit law, which bans nonprofits from endorsing candidates.

The IRS joined plaintiffs in asking a federal judge to block this and all future administrations from enforcing the ban, specifically that churches endorse candidates from the pulpit. This exemption did not extend to other non-profit organizations.

The IRS decision responds to efforts, like those of the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) over the past fifteen years, to challenge the constitutionality of this law in court based on the constitutional right to free speech. They proclaim that they are “protecting their God-given right to speak freely and live out their faith, threatened by radical activists in government, education, and the wider culture who would subvert the God-designed role for families.”

Current House Speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson, a former senior legal counsel with the ADF, said in 2008, “I think we would defend that as a constitutional right to free speech” in advocating that pastors be able to endorse candidates from their pulpits. However, Diane Yentel, president of the National Council of Nonprofits, representing 30,000 of them, believed that this IRS ruling was “not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws.” Yentel warned that allowing tax-exempt groups to endorse candidates could lead to “opening the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money to their preferred candidates.” Meanwhile, they can receive generous tax breaks by contributing to churches whose views may be shared by only a portion of the voters.

Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, has studied how churches are regulated in their political activities. He believes that the IRS’s decision will encourage future politicians to promote religious objectives because, “It also says to all candidates and parties, ‘Hey, time to recruit some churches.’”

IRS’s court action weakens the principle of “separation of church and state,” which is attributed to Thomas Jefferson by many, including Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. He wrote in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that, “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”

America’s history is marked by ongoing tension between spiritual and secular forces that shape how a democratic republic should function to serve the needs and protect the freedoms of all citizens. This tension stems from the principles embodied in our Constitution.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution includes two clauses that must be balanced. The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and its second clause is the Free Exercise Clause, which says that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”The second clause is used by conservative religious leaders and many Republicans to advocate for allowing religions to play a significant role in passing laws that are promoted as protecting families and fostering a healthy spiritual environment.

These laws promote their beliefs while ignoring those of other citizens who do not share them. Consequently, some citizens could be punished for breaking what essentially is a religious law, not a secular law meant to protect everyone’s freedoms.There are many instances of laws being passed. One of the less burdensome ones was the Blue Laws, which banned the sale of alcohol on Sundays. However, there are others that are simply unenforceable because most citizens do not agree with them.

Passing the Eighteenth Amendment and Congress enacting the Volstead Act, which imposed Prohibition on all citizens, is a prime example of religious fervor demanding adherence to a noble virtue. Due to organized efforts by the religiously driven Anti-Saloon League and allied Protestant and Catholic churches, Congress overwhelmingly ratified the Eighteenth Amendment with a 68 percent supermajority in the House of Representatives and 76 percent support in the Senate. Toward the end of the 13-year Prohibition, with the passage of the new 21st Constitutional Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment, there was widespread public alcohol consumption. Although public safety was the utmost objective of the Prohibition, more deaths occurred during it than before it began or after it ended.

One hundred years later, another major religious-led effort is underway to ban abortions. This law is unlikely to be widely enforced unless law enforcement increases its arrests. In the case of prohibiting abortions, the public opposes this move even more than banning public alcohol consumption. In both scenarios, religious beliefs and political opinions have been and continue to be protected as free expression from pulpits. However, endorsing candidates for public office from the pulpit might be seen as a form of religious instruction, which blurs the boundary between church and state.

Demarcating the authority of the church from the state has been a long-standing issue, dating back to the country’s founding. Only four of the original 13 colonies were established on the principle of complete religious freedom, with no official state church. Although this process was gradual, religious tolerance allowed the practice of various Christian denominations and some Jewish communities. However, public funds were used to support churches in most of the colonies.

Following European tradition, some of the early state constitutions required officeholders or voters to take an oath affirming their adherence to the major principles of the established church in their state. This practice was rejected when the founders wrote Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits taking such oaths to secure a national office.

While the Constitution clearly states that no religious practice can be mandated as a law applicable to everyone, there have been accommodations made to officially recognize certain religious practices and to tolerate religious expression in public spaces. Some of the earliest examples include adopting Christmas as a federal holiday since 1870 and the use of the Bible for presidents to take their oath of office, with only two not doing so.

This approach is known as accommodationism, which claims that the First Amendment can promote a beneficial relationship between religion and government. What some considered to go beyond mere accommodation was when Congress made significant changes in the 1950s.

A reference to God was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance: “… the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The national motto E pluribus unum (“Out of many, one”), which appeared on the dollar bill and our Great Seal of the United States, was replaced with “In God We Trust.” This change was challenged in court as a violation of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court ruled that it would be considered ceremonial deism , not religious in nature.

These changes stemmed from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)’s 6 to 3 decision in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), which supported accommodationism by stating that the nation’s “institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” and that government recognition of God does not amount to establishing a state church, which the Constitution forbids. As a result, SCOTUS has leaned toward adopting a key principle of accommodationism, interpreting the First Amendment as allowing government actions that promote religion, but not religious institutions.

One of the three dissenting Justices was Hugo Black, who is considered one of the strongest advocates for interpreting the Constitution through the conservative legal theories of textualism and originalism. In this instance, these theories were used to oppose the “liberal” theory of accommodationism, which would allow the government to be “friendly” with religion.

The question is, does accommodationism allow some religions, especially those with the most voters, to fund candidates who promote their religious beliefs? If so, doesn’t that make a church congregation act like a political party? Where is the wall that separates church and state?

This situation should lead citizens to question whether President Trump’s statements, along with those of his cabinet secretaries and Republican Congressional members, reflect the beliefs of a particular religion or if they represent those of a secular democratic government. The first restricts citizenship; the second broadens it to include everyone.

Often, Trump-appointed public officials refer to the Christian God, not just any deity. Are they promoting Christian beliefs or democratic principles? Are they redefining democracy’s freedoms as existing within a Christian society? If so, what happens to those who are not Christians in that society? Or to Christians who do not practice their faith? Here are two examples from public officials in the Trump administration to consider when answering those questions.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted a CNN video on X that examined the beliefs of Doug Wilson, cofounder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). CREC promotes his views, as stated in the CNN report: “I’d like to see the nation be a Christian nation, and I’d like to see the world be a Christian world.” The Pentagon chief spokesman said Hegseth is “a proud member of a church” affiliated with CREC, and he “very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson’s writings and teachings.”

But does Hegseth cross the line from simply promoting belief in a single deity to acting as an acolyte of the Christian God? For instance, he uses taxpayers’ money to hold Christian prayer services inside a government building during working hours. If you want to get promoted by Hegseth, don’t you think you’d show up and be seen as a good Christian?

Meanwhile, Secretary Kristi Noem is framing her Department of Homeland Security’s actions as following the directives of the Bible. Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons from Interfaith Alliance points out DHS videos that boast of their mass deportation efforts using Bible verses. “As images of helicopters and tactical agents ominously scroll, the narrator says: ‘Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’ And I said, ‘Here am I; send me.'”

Does using text from the Bible suggest that the government is acting on God’s will? Isn’t this a religious belief? How does this align with a secular democratic government that isn’t dependent on approval from any church or religious book? These statements and actions from the Trump Administration should raise concerns among all citizens, regardless of their religion.

Once a republican government adopts the language, symbols, and beliefs of a religion, it becomes easy to take the next step: claiming that its authority comes from God. This signals the end of democracy because then the nation’s leaders determine what God wants from all of us.

That is why the founders of our republic aimed to separate church and state—to prevent the rise of another divine king. If a leader or political party claims they are accountable to God, aren’t they really most accountable to those who had the power to place them in office?

Today, billionaires, with their vast wealth, hold the most power to influence who leads the republic. As they collaborate with large religious groups, it is evident that this alliance of mutual expediency advances public policies that primarily benefit their interests, rather than those of the general public. Citizens need to ask themselves with this alliance guiding our nation—how will it end?

The post The Politics of Pushing the US to Become a “Christian Nation” appeared first on CounterPunch.org.