Can you be an Originalist AND a Christian Nationalist?
I’ve found myself contemplating this question quite a bit as of late, particularly given many of the SCOTUS rulings since and including the Dobbs decision. So I thought I would explore the question here. I do not pretend this is a scholarly or research heavy exploration, but merely a start, for my own edification if you will.
The first question to consider is What is an ‘Originalist’?
According to the National Constitution Center,
“Originalism is a theory of the interpretation of legal texts, including the text of the Constitution. Originalists believe that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law. The original meaning of constitutional texts can be discerned from dictionaries, grammar books, and from other legal documents from which the text might be borrowed. It can also be inferred from the background legal events and public debate that gave rise to a constitutional provision.”
In short, Originalism is a theory of interpreting legal texts (such as the constitution) holding that a text in law, should be interpreted as it was understood at the time of its adoption, that the meaning of constitutional texts are fixed. Juxtapose this to living constitutionalists who believe that constitutional law can and should evolve. On today’s court, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are originalists, as is, for all intents and purposes, Roberts. The same holds true for Justice Barrett (one need only look to her confirmation testimony to draw this conclusion).
The second question to consider is, Were we founded as a Christian Nation?
There are of course many who claim that we were founded as a Christian Nation, pointing to the founders as their evidence. However, if one actually explores this, it is easy to see this statement as false. Yes, many of the founders were members of various Christian religious traditions. For example, many, but not all, belonged to one of the many existing Protestant denominations. However, others were from the Deist tradition, and many that were Protestant were also influenced by Deism. Although I’m sure there are many sources that would provide a rich and in-depth discussion and analysis, I found this thought from Britannica to adequately sum things up:
“Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.”
In reviewing just this simple assessment, it is fairly easy to draw the conclusion that we were not, in point of fact, founded as a Christian nation. One need only delve into the rich source of historical texts, from the Federalist Papers, to the correspondence between the founders, and other publications to also draw this conclusion.
What then about the notion of Separation of Church and State?
Many of those who claim that we were founded as a Christian nation, also frequently insist that the separation of church and state is wrongly assumed. It is true that while the words “separation of church and state” do not appear explicitly in the Constitution, the idea is clearly articulated in the First Amendment, and is in fact the first freedom guaranteed in what we reference as the Establishment Clause. It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is followed by the phrase, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The latter part is referred to as the Free Exercise Clause. According to uscourts.gov, this latter clause can be interpreted as such, “The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.”
While Thomas Jefferson was not the first of our founders to suggest such a separation, it is he who is attributed with saying that when we adopted the Establishment Clause, we ‘built a wall of separation between the church and state.” According to the Free Speech Center and Middle Tennessee State University,
“Both Jefferson and fellow Virginian James Madison felt that state support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper. They argued that compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they did not follow violated their natural right to religious liberty. The two were aided in their fight for disestablishment by the Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and other “dissenting” faiths of Anglican Virginia.
During the debates surrounding both its writing and its ratification, many religious groups feared that the Constitution offered an insufficient guarantee of the civil and religious rights of citizens. To help win ratification, Madison proposed a bill of rights that would include religious liberty.”
In contemplating each of these questions, and the historical facts that abound, I would conclude that one can not be an Originalist AND a Christian Nationalist. This begs the question, were justices such as Alito and Thomas being dishonest when they stated their originalist leanings? Looking at the gyrations they went through to twist the laws to support the overturning of Roe, one would think not. However - when one considers their opinions and dissents over the last 4 years (and we could go further back), they certainly seem to support the idea of a Christian nation (heck, I’m sure Mrs. Thomas and Alito would concur). So, which is it? Can one be both? Or are we instead witnessing yet another example of blatant dishonesty and an abject lack of credibility? Inquiring minds want to know.