That Western civilization grew andnflourished under Christianity is notndebatable. There is the West, and therenare nations trying to westernize. UntilnLenin, no Western nation, whatevernits moral stance or its achievements (ornlack of same), disavowed its Christianity.nI include even Hitlerite Germany,nand I qualify the observation in thenunique case of the United States, evennthough de Tocqueville found Americanto be the most religious of Christianncountries. Western civilization, innwhich all things that we value havenbeen achieved, is, except for the fivenor six centuries of the classical era,nChristian.nBut—I blush to say it—post hoc ornper hoc is not propter hoc. Westernnhistory as seen through the eyes of anschoolboy also includes the Dark Ages,nwhen nothing very memorable happenednunder Christianity for six ornseven hundred years except Christianity.nWe had the Inquisition, the ThirtynYears’ War, the extermination of thenAlbigenses, the Irish troubles, and anlong list of heretics (or losers), fromnArians and Akistitae to Socinians andnNonconformists. How the West becamenthe place of change, of advancement,nof the idea of progress, is a complicatednand obscure matter not easilynexplained. Most people now say thatnthey “believe in God,” and definitionsnare left to theologians and philosophers.nI think it is fair to say that what mostnpeople actually put their faith and trustnin now is not doctrine or ritual so muchnas it is history, that is, the record ofntwo thousand years of men, men like us,nwho lived, bred and died as Christians.nWe cannot escape history, and we honornthe search for God which defined thenlives of all those millions.nEven now believers point, in waysnsimple or profound, plain or circumvolute,nto the cosmos, to existence, asnproof of God. A link in the chain connectingnman to the Creator is still missing,nhowever. If we agree that thenunfolding order of nature proves thenexistence of God, we still may ask: Hown46inChronicles of Culturendo we know that the unknown Godnwho made the universe, this universenthat science is committed to expressingnin laws or formulas as secular knowledge,nalso wants us not to be envious,nto be forgiving, to refrain from takingnlife, our own or another’s.-* And howndo we know that He considers birthncontrol contrary to His natural law,nthat we are constrained to—or mustnnot—circumcise our boys, that abortionnis sinful, or that desire is lustful.” Andnthat we may not get to Heaven by ournown good works (unless we are originalnJews, or Calvinists)? We know thesenthings, if differently at different times,nthrough revelation. God speaks to usnthrough certain persons through Hisnspirit, which gave us reason, free will,nthe power to love and human frailties.nWe are free to believe that, or we cannchoose to believe that Jacques Monodnwas right when he taught that we arenthe creatures of Chance and Necessity.nIt is we who decide which prophet tonlisten to — Moses, Augustine, Mohammed,nKant or Emanuel Swedenborg.nSuch nongodly people, of whomnI am one, do not accept any statementnor rule or explanation simply becausenit is proffered as God’s will or intentionnor expectation. Exhortations to listennto the word of God are all too likelynto reach the ear in the voice of Dr.nBailey Smith or one of his semblables.nBut there is no need for conservativesnto be sundered by the rock of thatndifference. Rather we can come togethernin our admiration of America, a worknof men. Christian men, to be sure, butnChristians wary of each other’s Christianitynand united in their determinationnto keep religion out of the Constitution.nGod is nowhere mentioned, innthe Preamble or in the document itselfn(the language of which is starkly plainnand specific, in contrast to the stirringntendentiousness of the Declaration).nAnd there is that First Amendment, itsnbroad and extreme wording which wenhave traditionally interpreted as thenseparation of Church and State. Evennnnthe oath of office permits “affirmation”nas against “swearing.” Our Presidentsnhave inscribed themselves under tenndifferent sects, and three (includingnLincoln) were nonmembers. We cannunite, we conservatives, in the Constitution,nand not in the Godhead. Itnis the Constitution that establishes mannand man’s reason (those who will mayncall it God-given reason) as the basisnfor a free, responsible life and the realizationnof self. But is not the Constitutionnthe heritage of centuries ofnChristian life, struck off by men whonread the Bible.” Indeed it is. The Constitution,nhowever, is not sacred. Itnhas built into it the mechanism fornamendments, for governing in the lightnof opinions. It trusts men to livendecently by their own laws. But it doesnnot ask men to imitate saints or angels.nIt gives rational pre-eminence to men,nand confides in man the competencento establish his own ethical life. Fornthese reasons I honor the Constitutionnand the country that possesses and isnpossessed by it. I believe that what isnin the Constitution is moral and ethical.nAnd pragmatically so. (And for thensame reason I am loath to try to changenit, especially in the areas of fashionnand sexual morality.)nOur American democracy seems tonme the freest and purest of all, the onenmost capable of persisting as both idealnand actuality—a great human invention.nAnd this country has no state religion,nnor ever had, and was endowednby its founders with a decent respectnfor the troubles that can come to ancountry from contending faiths and antemporal priesthood. While we are,nthen, quite properly remembering thatnthe West is Christian, we must alsonreriiember that the United States isncommodious, and hospitable to change,nperhaps even to the change to a kind ofndeveloping secular religion of rational,nanthropomorphic humanism—the religion,nin short, of constitutional democracy,na religion in which we can errnwithout sinning, and strive in the namenof man. •n