Our secular fundamentalist friends are fond of citing Article VI of our Constitution as proof that this foundational document is non-religious in nature. It reads, ""but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

It's worthy of note that this applies only to federal offices, for the prior clause makes it clear that the Founders were distinguishing between the federal government - "the United States" - and the legislatures of the individual states, which are referred to as "the several State Legislatures." Both are included in the previous phrase, "all executive Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." (emphasis mine)

This makes it clear that while officers at both the state and federal level were required to support the Constitution, the restriction on the application of a "religious Test" was reserved for officials in the federal government. States were left to apply explicitly religious tests if they chose, and most did.

Almost all states required holders of public office to declare a belief in God, and many went beyond that to require a belief in the inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments, which in effect limited public service to self-professing Christians. This was just fine with the Founders, who wanted the states to have complete liberty in such matters.

But they were also clear that no religious test was to be applied as a condition of public service at the federal level. What the Founders meant by this, however, was this and this alone: an individual did not need to belong to a particular Christian denomination to be eligible for federal office. That's it.

The individual states were free to make denominational allegiance a condition of public service. But since the federal government would of necessity include individuals from all the various states, the Founders determined that members of any Christian denomination could serve in the federal government without restriction. There would be no denominational restriction at the federal level, although states retained the liberty to apply one at their level.

This is confirmed in a July 23, 1788 publication by Tench Coxe which he directed to the inhabitants of Western Pennsylvania, urging them to vote to adopt the federal Constitution. Coxe served briefly in the Continental Congress in 1788, and held positions in the Treasury departments of both the Washington and Jefferson administrations. He was an ardent proponent of the adoption of the Constitution.

In urging his fellow residents of Pennsylvania to vote for the Constitution, he argues that one of its best features is that it permits all Christians, regardless of denominational affiliation, to serve in the national government. The Founders were eager to open the door of public service to all Christians of good will, and to refuse to restrict public service to members of certain Christian denominations but not others.

This, Coxe said, makes America superior to the great nations of Europe.

In European countries, adherence to a politically disfavored expression of Christianity would prevent a man from public service in the national government, but not in America:

In other countries religious tests would prevent him, though he were ever so wise, ever so good, or ever so much beloved and esteemed. In Spain a protestant would be disqualified, in Ireland a presbyterian or a catholic would be disqualified, in England a catholic, presbyterian, or any dissenter from their church, would be disqualified. But our new federal constitution admits all, whether protestant, or catholic, or presbyterian, or episcopalian, &c. for it expressly says there shall be no religious test.

Clearly, then the point of Article VI in the federal Constitution was to allow all Christians of whatever denomination - "whether protestant, or catholic, or presbyterian or episcopalian, &c." - to serve in the national government. Rather than being an anti-Christian plank, it was an explicitly pro-Christian plank, affirming the different manifestations of Christianity in all its varied hues, and an expression of tolerance and inclusivity for members of all Christian faiths.

So let's have done with the shallow and historically misguided attempt to turn Article VI into an anti-religious screed. It was nothing of the sort.

As John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court famously said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Sound advice when first given in 1816 by this Founding Father, and still sound advice when repeated in 2009.