“Make America Pray Again” Is a Power Claim, Not a History Lesson


“Make America Pray Again” Is a Power Claim, Not a History Lesson

By Colin Smith
Attorney • Politician

There’s a familiar story making the rounds again: America was founded as a Christian nation, America has fallen into moral decay because we drifted from Christianity, and the fix is to “return” the country to God—by policy, by courts, by schools, by public ritual. The current wave has its own branding—“Make America Pray Again,” “bring back religion,” “Christian nation” rhetoric—coming from politicians and influential religious leaders alike. (The White House; Politico) (The White House)

But this isn’t just general talk about spirituality. The rhetoric is increasingly paired with governmental action—especially around public schools—where the state’s authority and social pressure can turn “voluntary” into compelled participation. That’s why these campaigns are so often framed as “religious liberty,” even when the practical effect is to privilege one tradition in shared civic space. (The White House; Politico) (The White House)

Here’s the problem: that story confuses demographics with design, and it turns certainty into a moral credential. Once you see religious dogma as a manufacture, you stop mistaking certainty for virtue. You start treating it as evidence. And if you’re going to demand something of others—especially under penalty—evidence is where you must begin. If you can’t justify it, you don’t get to demand it.

1) America was not founded as a “Christian nation” in the way the slogan requires

Yes, the early United States had many Christians. It also had dissenters, deists, freethinkers, and minorities who were often mistreated. But the question is not “Were many founders religious?” The question is: What did they build—legally and structurally? (AP News) (PBS)

They built a national government that:

  • Bars religious tests for federal office (“no religious Test shall ever be required…”). (Congress.gov) (Legal Information Institute)

  • Forbids Congress from establishing a religion (and protects free exercise). (National Archives) (Supreme Court)

  • Avoids installing Christianity as the nation’s operating code—a point even mainstream explainers emphasize when people claim the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. (AP News) (AP News)

And when the young republic needed to speak clearly to a Muslim state abroad, the ratified Treaty of Tripoli included language denying that the U.S. government was founded on Christianity. Whatever one argues about theological “influences,” the diplomatic posture is unmistakable: this is a state that does not define itself as a Christian polity. (Avalon Project) (CBS News)

So when modern figures say the U.S. “is and always will be a Christian nation,” or dismiss separation-of-church-and-state as “junk,” that’s not restoration. That’s revision—and it’s being said out loud now. (Religion News Service; People) (RNS)

Consider how explicit it’s become:

  • Vice President JD Vance was reported declaring the U.S. “a Christian nation” in remarks at AmericaFest 2025. (Religion News Service) (RNS)

  • Rep. Lauren Boebert has called separation of church and state “junk” and said “the church is supposed to direct the government.” (People) (People.com)

That’s not “heritage.” That’s an argument for religion as civic authority.

2) “Make America Pray Again” isn’t harmless—because it’s not just about prayer

Private prayer is already protected. The fight is rarely about whether people may pray; it’s about whether government should promote, privilege, or pressure religious practice—especially in schools and public institutions where coercion hides behind “tradition.” That’s why “bring prayer back” initiatives so often arrive with policy machinery attached. (The White House; Politico) (The White House)

And the policy push is not hypothetical. It’s already appearing in concrete proposals and mandates:

  • Louisiana passed a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public classrooms; courts have since blocked it as unconstitutional. (AP; PBS) (AP News)

  • Oklahoma saw a directive pushing Bibles in classrooms and classroom use—followed by legal challenge; the subsequent superintendent later ended the plan. (KGOU; KOSU) (KGOU)

  • Texas passed a law allowing public schools to employ or accept chaplains to provide student services (without educator certification requirements described in the enrolled bill text). (Texas Tribune; Texas Legislature bill text) (The Texas Tribune)

This is how “pray again” moves from a slogan into governance.

Meanwhile, the legal climate around public-school religion has changed dramatically. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton strengthened protections for a coach’s on-field prayer and is widely understood as reshaping Establishment Clause analysis (including abandonment of the old “Lemon” approach noted in major case summaries). (U.S. Supreme Court opinion; National Constitution Center) (Supreme Court)

And the movement is not shy about its endgame. Some politicians openly embrace “Christian nationalism.” The point is governance—religion as operating system. (Newsweek) (Newsweek)

3) The “moral decline” narrative doesn’t do the work people claim it does

The argument usually goes like this: “We stopped being Christian, therefore we became immoral.” That’s not evidence. It’s a mood with a target.

For one thing, “morality” is not a single metric; it’s a bundle of contested values. People who say “moral decline” often mean “less cultural dominance for my tradition.” They may sincerely mean it—but sincerity is not proof.

For another, many of the clearest forms of American moral progress arrived in conflict with dominant religious institutions, not because of them: expanded civil rights, women’s rights, protections for minorities, the slow recognition that the state should not enforce a single theology. You can find religious allies in those struggles, yes. But the pattern is that moral progress tends to happen when we reduce the state’s permission structure for who counts as fully human.

And if someone insists that Christianity must be privileged by government because “most people” are Christian or because it’s “our roots,” they still haven’t justified why that entitles them to demand conformity from everyone else—especially under penalty. (Notably, most Americans say the federal government should not declare Christianity the official U.S. religion.) (Pew Research Center) (The White House)

4) A real “return” worth defending: return to pluralism and equal citizenship

If we want a tradition to “return,” here’s a better one: the American experiment in equal civil standing—where citizenship isn’t graded by creed.

The First Amendment’s genius is not hostility to faith. It’s humility about power. It recognizes what history teaches: when government picks winners among religions, it corrupts religion and abuses citizens. (National Archives) (Supreme Court)

So when leaders insist the U.S. must become a Christian nation “again,” the right reply is simple:

  1. Show that it was designed that way (not merely populated that way). (AP News) (AP News)

  2. Show that enforcing it improves freedom and justice for everyone, not just the in-group. (Pew Research Center) (The White House)

  3. If you can’t justify demanding it, you don’t get to demand it.
Location: White Plains, NY 10601, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
A County’s Conscience: Why Westchester’s Immigrant Protection Act Still Matters By Colin Smith Attorney • Politician We are living through a period in which the sharpest edges of immigration enforcement have become unavoidable: families separated in real time, heavily publicized raids, and rhetoric so supercharged that “undocumented” is treated not as a legal category, but as a moral stain. And that matters—because “undocumented” is, in the first instance, a legal claim about paperwork and status, not a moral verdict about a human being’s worth. In moments like this, it’s important that we remind ourselves what government is—and what it is not. It is not only a sword. It is also a shield. Not only a cudgel, but a salve. Not only a machine that can compel, but an institution that must protect human rights—and, where necessary, the human conscience from becoming numb to suffering labeled “necessary.” That is the frame through which I support Westchester County’s Immigrant Prote...
Read more
Image
Pluralism vs. Birthright Politics By Colin D. Smith Attorney • Politician   If you want to know where a society is headed, listen to what it says it is defending. At the recent Munich Security Conference held on February 14, 2026, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered Europe reassurance: America and Europe “belong together.” But he didn’t ground that bond primarily in mutual interests or shared constitutional commitments. He grounded it in inheritance. America and Europe, he said, are “part of one civilization—Western civilization,” bound by “centuries of shared history,” “Christian faith,” “culture,” “heritage,” “language,” and “ancestry,” a “sacred inheritance” carried from the old world to the new. (Full transcript here:) U.S. State Department transcript of Rubio’s Munich speech That is not merely a story about origins. It’s a theory of membership. And because Rubio describes mass migration as an “urgent threat” to “the survival of our civilization itself”—a danger to “...
Read more