We are a Christian Nation

At the beginning of each session of the court, as the Justices stand before their desks, the crier opens with the invocation: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

Check this out!!!! United Supreme Court 1844, in the case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 132,Justice Joseph Story delivered the court's opinion. The case concerned one Stephen Girard, a deist from France, who had moved to Philadelphia and later died. In his will he left his entire estate, valued at over $7 million, to establish an orphanage and school, with the stipulation that no religious influence be allowed.

The city rejected the proposal, as their lawyers declared:"The plan of education proposed is anti-Christian, and therefore repugnant to the law…The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a Christian man derives his faith- the Bible…There is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality… Both in the Old and New Testament (religious instruction's) importance is recognized. In the Old it is said, "Thou shalt diligently teach them to thy children," and the New "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not…" No fault can be found with Girard for wishing a marble college to bear his name for ever, but it is not valuable unless it has a fragrance of Christianity about it."
The United States Supreme Court rendered its unanimous opinion stating:
"Christianity…is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public…It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of…Deism, or any other form of infidelity.
Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country…Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics…And we cannot overlook the blessings, which such laymen by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay, must impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the (school)- its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?…Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania…"

United States Supreme Court 1952, in the case Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 307, 313, Justice William O. Douglas delivered the court's decision stating:

"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency of one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.
Municipalities, would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policeman who helped parishioners into their place of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls, the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamation making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals our ceremonies, would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: God save the United States and this Honorable Court.
We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being- When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe…
We find no constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects… We cannot read into the bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion."

United States Supreme Court 1890, in the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints v. United States, 136 1 (1890), forbade the practice of polygamy in the United States, stating:

"It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world."

All that sleepin' round???

United States Supreme Court 1889, stated in the case of Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-343, 348 (1890), that the United States considers bigamy and polygamy as crimes. A man named Samuel Davis was caught in the crime, fined and jailed. He argued that he was being imprisoned for his religious belief and that he should have the freedom to commit bigamy and polygamy under the first Amendment. The decision of the Court was delivered by Justice Stephen Field, who had been appointed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It stated:

"Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade women and debase men…
To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.
There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions of its members…
Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretence that…their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the Constitution of the United States.
Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world…must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect…may be carried out without hindrance.
The constitutions of several States, in providing for religious freedom, have declared expressly that such freedom shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness…
The constitution of New York of 1777 provided: 'The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed, within this State, to all mankind. Provided, that the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed to excuse acts of licentiousness…The constitutions of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, and south Carolina contain a similar declaration.'