The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American

by Andrew L. Seidel

“We…the Representatives of the united States…our intentions…in the name and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies….” The paragraph is bent to this world—to here, not to the hereafter—and written on the people’s authority, not that of a divine judge. According to the language, “the Supreme Judge” is judging “the rectitude of our intentions.” Basically, the Continental Congress was saying that their intentions were good, as any who knew their genuine intentions would understand. Even if this language had been in the draft and could therefore be considered integral, it is not part of a statement on self-government or political philosophy. It’s window dressing. “We promise we’re telling the truth” is all it amounts to. It’s strategic piety calibrated to appeal to a candid, credulous world and a pious king. As a justification to a candid world, the writers were wise to choose language that would take advantage of the majority’s religiosity but still remain wholly nonsectarian. The language drew in a broader audience instead of alienating those who would be made outsiders by its expressing a religious preference. One historian labels this “equivocal religiosity” and asserts that it is specifically “designed to be acceptable to deists and orthodox believers alike.”85 When the Continental Congress relied on “divine Providence,” they did so to make a pledge. But they did not pledge to that god—they pledged to each other. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and...