Is the Establishment Clause a joke? USA is a purely Christian Nation

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment, 1791

Until 2025, I had unwavering faith in the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Its promise that the government could not favor one religion over another seemed clear and straightforward. This is common practice in other countries that have a state-sponsored religion: Church of England, Islam in Egypt, or Buddhism in Thailand). Some State constitutions like Washington’s reinforced this principle. It says ““No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment.” — Washington State Constitution, Section 11

In high school, studying mandatory U.S. Government, we dissected the distinction between government actions and private ones. Christmas trees at shopping malls or Rockefeller Center? Fair game for private entities. But public schools? That was another matter entirely. We learned about the 1963 Supreme Court decision (8-1), that public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord’s Prayer. The Court has consistently ruled this way, including in a 6-3 opinion in 2000 that upheld the ban on student-led, prayer at football games.

Until this year, I embraced these rulings as unassailable evidence of our nation’s commitment to the separation of church and state. But now I know the truth. I’ve been hoodwinked.

What Do I Think

As I expanded my outlook, read more, and thought harder, the clarity of the Establishment Clause started to blur. Questions crept in. Why does the White House, funded by public taxpayer dollars, display a Christmas tree every year? Why is Christmas—a religious holiday—the only federally recognized religious public holiday in the United States?

Christmas Tree at the White House, Designed by Freepik, www.freepik.com

Then came another discovery: Congress, along with many state legislatures, begins its sessions with a prayer. Surely, I thought, this practice must have faced legal challenges at some point. How do these traditions coexist with the seemingly firm boundaries set by the Establishment Clause?

Sure enough, I found a 1983 SCOTUS 6-3 decision:

The Court upheld the chaplaincy practice. In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger … rested the Court's opinion on historical custom. Prayers by tax-supported legislative chaplains could be traced to the First Continental Congress and to the First Congress that framed the Bill of Rights. As a consequence, the chaplaincy practice had become "part of the fabric of our society." In such circumstances, an invocation for Divine guidance is not an establishment of religion. "It is," wrote Burger, "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." (Oyez).

This tension between the printed text and cultural norms became even more evident during my career at USAID from 2005 to 2015. I encountered conflicting interpretations of what constitutes separation of church and state. For instance, I was prohibited from inviting religious leaders to a meeting discussing contentious provisions in the proposed U.S. Constitution. Yet, I attended an official iftar event hosted by the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya to mark the end of a day of fasting—a gesture that seemed to blend religion with state-sponsored diplomacy. Even the White House has hosted similar events in the past.

These contradictions extend beyond U.S. government agencies; they reflect the broader inconsistencies embedded in our societal and legal frameworks. It’s apparently acceptable for Congress to begin its day with a prayer but unconstitutional for public schools to allow the same practice. 

This ambiguity crystallized for me over the past two months, prompted by two starkly different events. One was the December 2024 collapse of Syria’s brutal regime in a peaceful revolution. As the new prime minister addressed the world, much of the media’s attention was mistakenly focused on the wrong thing: the symbolism of one of the two flags in the background. NBC News’ coverage reflected the sentiment echoed across many Western outlets:

When Syria’s new interim prime minister, Mohammad al-Bashir, chaired a Cabinet meeting in Damascus on Tuesday, hanging behind him was the flag of the country’s suddenly victorious opposition. Next to it, however, was a second banner popular with the region’s Sunni Islamist fighters, featuring the large Arabic letters of the Shahada, an Islamic declaration of faith. As a new Syria fast emerges from the ruins of the Assad regime, the world is watching for hints of what that might look like — and that second flag has concerned those hoping for a future of moderation and tolerance (NBC News)

But the Muslim declaration of faith has two parts: “There is No God But God” (using the Arabic word for God), and “Muhammad is the Messenger of God”. This is no different from the combination of “In God we Trust”, “God bless America”, and Christmas day holiday that celebrates the birthday of one particular Prophet. 

The second event that solidified my conclusion was the inauguration of our 47th President on January 20, 2025. The ceremony stunned me—not for its grandeur but for its overt religious tone. Before noon, we heard two explicitly Christian prayers, and after noon, two more followed, all heavily referencing Christ. While a Rabbi did deliver one prayer, even that carried a purely “Judeo-Christian” perspective, leaving no space for those of us outside this framework.

I couldn’t help but wonder what Usha Vance, the second lady and a practicing Hindu, was thinking throughout these proceedings. Did she feel as excluded as I did? The ceremony culminated with a military choir—comprised of public servants—singing Glory! Glory! Hallelujah, a hymn deeply rooted in Christian ideology. The lyrics include lines such as:

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:

 In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea."

This wasn’t just an acknowledgment of faith; it was an outright embrace of one particular faith at a national event funded by taxpayer dollars.

Why Should You Care

These events—the revolution in Syria and the U.S. presidential inauguration—highlight the misnomer of the first Amendment, the bedrock of our Constitution appears not to be upheld consistently. Why do public schools face constitutional restrictions on prayer while Congress and inaugurations embrace overt religiosity? 

Or perhaps it is upheld consistently if you believe, as I do now, that it was meant to simply ensure that no one Christian sect dominated. That explains the court rulings, the public Christmas trees, and the December 25th holiday. 

Consider this “real” intent of the Establishment Clause; think back to what some early settlers were fleeing from in England, is to preclude the Government from embracing any one Christian sect or denomination. I think that is why we had 3 different Christian chaplains deliver the prayers on inauguration day.  Is that why easter is not a public holiday? Because there are different interpretations as to the specific date.

I am very thankful that in America I am free to practice my own religion as long as those religious establishments operate under the law. But the U.S. is far from unique. One can do that in a country that has an official religion too — England, Egypt, and Thailand for example. 

But at least now I can understand the difference between the Constitution and practice. I understand why those of us who are not Christian, like myself, may not feel part of the fabric of the U.S. [Christian] society. We run into this when we are forced to take December 25th off but have to use a personal day for Eid, Diwali, Vesak, or Yom Kippur.