The Czar resists discussions of religion for very complex reasons. However, sometimes enough becomes, well, enough. And he is forced to render a final opinion.

A persistent question lingers (which is what persistent questions do) regarding the religious intent of our Founding Fathers. You have seen this how many times: Was America founded as a Christian nation?

Reading the back-and-forth of the opinions as well as the equally inane commentators on both sides, it’s pretty clear the argument falls into two (predictable) camps: yes, the Founding Fathers were all Christians and expected America to be as well, and no, the separation of Church and State prohibits this idea.

All right, the Czar is forced to say it: the facts are irrelevant in the case. Yes, the Founding Fathers were a mix of people, mostly Christian. And yes, they borrowed heavily from the Christian theology of the time and baked a lot of this into the document. And yes, they were heavily concerned about one religion dominating another toward ill-will. Both sides have got it right, which is why the facts do not matter.

Because here is what matters: it does not matter. Confused? Follow along—the Constitution is a remarkable document that stands apart from any one religion. In fact, the Czar challenges, you would be hard-pressed to find a major religion in the world today that can point to any part of the Constitution (or the Declaration of Independence, for that matter) and say “This conflicts.” Heck, the very writing of both documents meets a Confucian model of good government. And Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Shintoists, Jainists, Sikhs, Hindus, and more can look at the document and say “This is really good.”

Indeed, if you found some lost tribe of Israel wandering around, who had no contact with civilization for the last 600 years, translated the Constitution word for word for them, they would say “That’s really good; I would want to live there.” And if you told them the authors were Jewish, they would agree they probably must have been. Find a Lamaist temple up in the Himalayas that had been forgotten for centuries; show the monks a Tibetan-language copy of the Constitution and suggest it had been written by Theravadists, and they would declare it truly enlightened.

Neither side of this debate can deny this, in faith. Instead, there are two unter-arguments at work here. One side (you can guess which) is really trying to further the idea that Šarīʿa law must be rejected in the United States because it conflicts with Christian principles. And yeah, it does. But Šarīʿa (contrary to what a lot of frightened right-wing folks believe) is going to be incredibly difficult to enact and enforce in this country for a variety of common sense reasons. Trying to dispell concerns that Šarīʿa will gain no ground because the Constitution is a Christian document is a non sequitur. Simply, Šarīʿa will not take hold here for the same reasons that a free-spirited republic of innovative do-it-yourselfers like we are do not tolerate vigilanteeism.

And the other side (you can guess which even more easily) is using this argument to further the idea that faith plays no role in law, and that the Founding Fathers intended us to be secular across the board. This argument is attempting to suppress religion entirely. And this is equally wrong, because the Constitution by intent or luck embraces all practical religions. The idea that it accepts no religion is just as fallacious as the notion it embraces only one. Trust us: if the Constitution only tolerated Christianity, non-Christians would not bother to come here by the millions from their homelands.

But they do, and it is because they realize something that a lot of Americans apparently do not: there is freedom of religion in our country, and no matter what faith a person is, he will fight very hard for you to worship whatever your faith is.

But Czar: that isn’t the core of the argument at all! All right, then—but be honest: what is? Quibbling over little-endian/big-endian arguments like this misses the big picture: isn’t it great that we live in a country where you can even wonder what the religious preference of the Constitution might be?

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.