When I immigrated to the United States from England 35 years ago, it didn’t take me long to discover the devoutly (Christian) religious core of this country. Out of curiosity, I would occasionally tune into a local evangelical FM radio station that was purely and vehemently conservative Christian during the week, with wall-to-wall infomercials on the weekend. For me, that station represented the epitome of religion in the U.S. — the free market at its most assertive and unapologetic.
Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States, but thanks to freelance creativity and the First Amendment, there is a buffet of religious identities, denominations, sects, communes and cults that people are free to express — all the religions I can imagine, and quite a few I cannot. There is nothing to compare to in the United Kingdom.
In reaction to the Christian fundamentalists, I joined the American Humanist Association, Atheists United, and Center for Inquiry. I even helped establish an atheist “congregation” called Sunday Assembly Los Angeles. I ventured into various creative projects with film and music. I read everything written by the 19th-century “great agnostic” Robert G. Ingersoll, and waded through the works of Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens and many other prominent atheists.
Over time I’ve become a keen observer of church-state separation, and am deeply concerned for its integrity. A government-endorsed National Day of Prayer — an idea brought forward by the Rev. Billy Graham as a response to communism’s perceived atheism and opposition to “religious values” — was established by Congress in 1952 and has since been held annually in the month of May, undermining the crucial barrier between church and state.
In addition, since the inception of the National Day of Prayer, many civic leaders throughout the country have created their own local day of prayer, quite often under the banner of a “Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast.” Back in 2015, there was an attempt to establish such an event in my community in Southern California, when a local church created a nonprofit called Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast of South Pasadena. The church leaders’ intention was to persuade the city to hold this event annually during the National Day of Prayer month. Two city council members signed up, and it became the first official prayer breakfast in the city’s 135-year history.
On the day of the event, the city government brought in the military honor guard, members of the police department — including the chief — and the fire department and other city employees, most of whom were on the clock. Tickets to this event were sold by the local chamber of commerce, which receives taxpayer subsidies. Making matters worse, the guest speaker was an anti-terrorist expert, and the terrorism spoken about was Islamic.
This government-sanctioned prayer breakfast, with a theme of “We are All Coming Together,” veered off into a darker, more sectarian tone. There were no Muslims present; none were invited, and if they had bought a ticket they would have felt extremely uncomfortable as a religious minority. Members of the local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were also not invited. Of the many churches in South Pasadena, only three participated in the creation of this exclusive event.
After talking with several of the organizers, it became clear to me that they assumed from then on, and in perpetuity, every mayor, whether Christian or not, would want to participate in or promote this event. But what if a subsequent mayor didn’t believe in a god or the efficacy of prayer? Would they stay quiet and just surrender for fear of being found out?
Not believing in a god still carries a stigma in much of the country, and, despite Article VI of the Constitution mandating that “ … no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” there are still a handful of states with religious tests on their books. A mayor’s prayer breakfast is a great way to shut up the atheists among us, whether that’s the intention or not.
Concerned, I attended a city council meeting to give public comments on why I felt the government was taking sides with Christianity rather than representing all of us. One council member told me the adjacent city of Pasadena had held such an event for decades, essentially giving me the “everyone else is doing it so why can’t we” argument.
If it had not been for our local newspaper’s excellent and in-depth reporting of the prayer breakfast, I would not have had the details needed to push back. Fortunately, I was not the only person upset about this egregious error of judgment by city officials.
After my public comments were reported, a few people contacted me. Some were religious and some were not, but none liked the idea of our city council wading into a relationship with local church leaders. We wrote letters to the editor, which then spurred the supporters of the event to write their own. A dialogue began.
Several members of the city council met with our group in an attempt to allay our concerns. One other city council member spoke with me in private, telling me they were not religious, and expressing worry about being asked to attend future breakfasts. As a non-believer living in a diverse and relatively tolerant place and practicing inclusiveness, I found it strange our city officials and church leaders were being disrespectful of other people’s religious beliefs.
Eventually the matter was settled, in my mind, when the event planners changed the name of the nonprofit from Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast of South Pasadena to South Pasadena Prayer Breakfast, and offered a public apology. City council members are now free to go as attendees, but our local government steers clear of the event in an official capacity.
Many are concerned that the lines are blurring between government and religion. Project 2025, initiated by the Heritage Foundation, has proposed, among other things, robust government funding of certain religious institutions and the promotion of a government based on selective, self-serving “biblical principles.” I think the lines are not blurring at all. Rather, there is a systematic attempt to erase church-state separation.
The religious fundamentalists have been attacking the Establishment Clause ever since it was ratified and are now emboldened to finish the job. They have substantial financial backing and, alongside other powerful interests, want to make it their business to merge their brand of Christianity with the state. The warning signs have been clear for some time: Areas of scientific research are being dismantled, and data collected by our government are being erased because a fact-based worldview is in conflict with the orthodoxies of certain religious institutions.
Science and religion are “non-overlapping magisteria,” to quote the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. Science is about observation and evidence, religion is about personal values and faith. Two separate domains that are utterly incompatible. Hasn’t history already made this abundantly clear?
We can see the oppression and human rights violations that occur under theocracies around the globe, and we have no reason to believe America’s Christian Nationalists would be any different if they’re able to seize and monopolize the reins of our government. I respect the religious beliefs of individuals, but I don’t give deference to any religious leader or institution no matter what belief they have. I don’t want to live in a theocracy any more than I would want to live in an atheist state.
It should be obvious to anyone that government is for the people — “E pluribus unum,” not “In God We Trust.” While it is true that Christianity is the most common religious expression within the United States, each and every one of us should be free to live and thrive according to our personal beliefs and values, glued together through common cause with others, living our true selves. Only in a secular democracy can church-state separation be maintained.
David Beadle is an Emmy-winning sound editor in Hollywood, working on many high-profile network and streaming television shows. He is also an experimental music composer. (This article/post represents the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of Americans United.)