God in the Constitution

One of Ingersoll’s finest speeches written 120 years ago and just as relevant today.

The Government of the United States is secular. It derives its power from the consent of man. It is a Government with which God has nothing whatever to do — and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the fundamental fact that the people are the source of authority, should be abandoned. In this country there should be no oaths — no man should be sworn to tell the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal to any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath appears to go in partnership with God, and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A witness should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presidents should not issue religious proclamations. They should not call upon the people to thank God. It is no part of their official duty. It is outside of and beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to justify this religious impertinence.

For many years priests have attempted to give to our Government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon our money: “In God We Trust;” and we have chaplains in the army and navy, and legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this is contrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and contrary really to the Constitution of the United States. We have taken the ground that the people can govern themselves without the assistance of any supernatural power. We have taken the position that the people are the real and only rightful source of authority. We have solemnly declared that the people must determine what is politically right and what is wrong, and that their legally expressed will is the supreme law. This leaves no room for national superstition — no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings — and this does away with the necessity for political prayers.

If God is allowed in the Constitution, man must abdicate. There is no room for both. If the people of the great Republic become superstitious enough and ignorant enough to put God in the Constitution of the United States, the experiment of self-government will have failed, and the great and splendid declaration that “all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” will have been denied, and in its place will be found this: All power comes from God; priests are his agents, the people are their slaves.

Religion is an individual matter, and each soul should be left entirely free to form its own opinions and to judge of its accountability to a supposed supreme being. With religion, government has nothing whatever to do. Government is founded upon force, and force should never interfere with the religious opinions of men. Laws should define the rights of men and their duties toward each other, and these laws should be for the benefit of man in this world.


  1. While I wouldn’t presume to argue Ingersol. My one point for people who argue that the ten commandments are the basis of our law: Why does our First Amendment instill in our constitution the the inalienable right of all men to violate all of the first three commandments? That would seem to completely preclude the entire idea that any of our laws are biblical.

  2. I just forwarded the entire thing to my AZ friend, who is of the belief that Obama is a Muslim/Socialist/Commie/Whatever. She’s an otherwise intelligent person, but I believe she was turned by her friends in the medical community, especially her doctor boyfriend. Suddenly she’s an expert on the ideals of what America needs, and hates Islam. She’s not even a religious person, but it’s important for her to identify the President’s religion suddenly.

    I really hope these awesome words reach her inner rationality.

  3. Fantastic sentiments. I wish more people in the U.S. Would realize the benefits of having a secular government. Thanks for finding this, Chris. I couldn’t agree with it more.

  4. Damn but I’ve missed the Daily Dose of Ingersoll. Thanks for bringing the old boy back on a sadly still-too-timely topic, Chris.

  5. One fantasy dinner party I’d love to throw would seat Palin next to our man Ingersoll. No dessert needed- hearing the conversation between the two extremes of intelligence and reason would be mighty sweet.

    1. That would be like pitting a snail against a velociraptor. It the real world it would be quickly over, but in this case the snail would spew so much senseless goo the velociraptor would have trouble wading through it.

    2. Alas, all we would see would be Palin’s eyes clouding over as the circuits in her brain overload, and then she’ll start babbling a random talking point word salad.

Comments are closed.