Religious Freedom And The Constitution

First according to the Constitution all the signers were Christian as they declared Jesus is their Lord with the words "in the year of our Lord". When someone declares another Lord it means the later is the ruler of the earlier's actions such as approving the Constitution. So it follows that the signers declared Jesus the ruler of themselves, the Constitution, and the United States with those same words.

But if you obey Jesus you know he commanded Christians not to use the weapons of the world but to preach the gospel with a zeal kept in check by their reverence for God and so the rights of others. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 below is an example of this.

NEW INTERNATIONAL TRANSLATION

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

James Madison who drafted and proposed the Bill of Rights agreed with this sentiment in writing his Memorial and Remonstrance to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia in which he quoted that state’s Bill of Rights.

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence…. “

Christians believe and hold to the doctrine do unto others as you would have them do unto you and this is an important doctrine when considering the application of the First Amendment. The First Amendment clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” is protecting the right to practice religion which in itself is an aspect of the right to liberty. That leads to the logical conclusion that the free practice of religion does not excuse license. We can also reasonable conclude that if we enforce the first clause in such a way as to violate the second then we violate both parts of the religious clause. To correctly interpret the clause we need to know what it is all about. The Antipaedobaptist churches in New England sent Isaac Backus with the below claim to liberty to plea with the First Congress of the United States.

we claim and expect the liberty of worshipping God according to our consciences, not being obliged to support a ministry we cannot attend, whilst we demean ourselves as faithful subjects.

So the reason to forbid the Government from establishing a religion is so that citizens do not have support a religion that is not according to their conscious, which is just a part of their free exercise of religion. In applications this explains why chaplains are not violations of the establishment clause as the practice of an individuals religion often requires the consultation with clergy. Those chaplains also have the right to practice their own religion which may include evangelism, but in doing so they must remember that if their practice of that religion has a significant detrimental effect on their employers business then they are exceeding their right to liberty as liberty does not justify license. So it follows if you apply the non-establishment in such a way to forbid individuals from practicing their religion, even when they work for the government you are violating the Constitution and for all practical purposes establishing the Atheist religion. The wisest way to correctly apply the non-establishment clause is for the government to follow the example in Article VI and apply no religious test to their employees actions, the funds the government distribute or any other religious related action they might take.