When Theology Justifies War, the Constitution Loses

The purpose of government is not to fulfill prophecy but to protect liberties.

In a recent exchange with Tucker Carlson, Senator Ted Cruz cited Genesis 12:3 — “I will bless those who bless you” as the spiritual basis for unwavering U.S. support of Israel. Carlson, visibly taken aback, pressed Cruz on whether America’s foreign policy should be dictated by a 3,000-year-old religious covenant. The moment, captured here, exposes a profound constitutional question: can theological belief serve as the basis for American war policy?

When biblical prophecy becomes public policy, we risk crossing the bright red line drawn by the Establishment Clause, one that separates faith from the machinery of state power.

The Establishment Clause Means What It Says

The First Amendment begins:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

This is not theological poetry. It’s structural constraint. The Establishment Clause demands government neutrality in matters of religion, not “preference,” not “sympathy,” but total institutional abstinence from religious endorsement.

This wasn’t a rhetorical flourish by the Framers. It was a barricade against holy war.

What Happens When Theology Becomes Casus Belli?

A war fought to fulfill divine mandate or defend a chosen nation for religious reasons is not only morally dangerous, it is constitutionally invalid.

• No Secular Purpose: under the Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), all government action must have a secular legislative purpose. A war declared to defend Israel because of Genesis 12:3 (“I will bless those who bless you”) automatically fails.

• Religious Endorsement: the U.S. cannot endorse or give primacy to a particular theology, per County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). Framing war as a spiritual obligation to Israel endorses Christian Zionist interpretations of Scripture.

• Sectarian Favoritism: Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) bars government from preferring one religion over another. Using theology to justify war favors certain denominations and eschatologies over others is in direct violation.

The Legal Precedent Is Unambiguous

The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that government must not advance religion through its actions. Here's how these decisions apply directly to the issue of war justified by theology:

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
The Court held that “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.” If a war is justified by religious doctrine and funded by taxes, it violates this principle outright. Link

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
The Court prohibited government-composed school prayers. The principle is clear: the state must not write or promote theological content. Just as it may not write a prayer, it may not write a war rationale based on prophecy. Link

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
This case struck down a statute entirely motivated by religious purpose. The Court wrote: “The First Amendment requires that a statute be invalidated if it is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion.” A war justified by Genesis 12:3 or eschatology would be invalid for the same reason. Link

McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)
The Court emphasized that courts must look at the actual purpose of government actions, not just what’s claimed after the fact. If officials publicly state the war is about fulfilling biblical prophecy or defending God’s chosen people, no later secular framing can cover it. Link

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
A state law banning the teaching of evolution was struck down because it attempted to align public policy with religious beliefs. The Court was clear: public policy cannot be molded to fit religious doctrine. Neither can foreign policy or military strategy. Link

Ex Parte Milligan (1866)
This foundational case affirmed that “The Constitution... is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.” No war justification is exempt from constitutional scrutiny—especially under the Establishment Clause. Link

Real Officials Are Saying It Out Loud

This isn’t hypothetical. It’s happening:

• Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo agreed that Trump may be a modern Queen Esther, divinely appointed to protect Israel from Iran. Source: Washinton Post

• U.S. Ambassador David Friedman declared, “Israel is on the side of God.” Source: Times of Israel

• Christian Zionist groups openly campaign for U.S. foreign policy to align with biblical prophecy. See: Christians United for Israel

When officials use divine narratives to drive military policy, the Establishment Clause isn’t just implicated — it’s lit on fire.

Theological War Harms Everyone

Theologically justified warfare:

• Forces taxpayers to fund religious ideology.

• Forces soldiers to die for beliefs they may not share.

• Divides the republic into “believers” and “outsiders” — something Justice O’Connor warned against in Lynch v. Donnelly.

• Puts the U.S. government in the position of divine interpreter which is theocratic territory.

James Madison warned in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785) that:

“The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man… it is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage… as he believes to be acceptable.”

It is not the duty of Congress.

There Is No “War Exception” to the Constitution

Let’s kill this myth at the root.

As SCOTUS stated in Ex Parte Milligan:

“The Constitution… is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace…”

That includes the Establishment Clause. There is no exemption for Middle East strategy, eschatology, or geopolitically convenient scripture.

Even the Founders affirmed this in the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), ratified unanimously by the Senate under John Adams:

“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

That’s not atheism. That’s humility.

What If War Is Declared on Theological Grounds?

Let’s be blunt:

• It violates Everson: public money funding religious activity.

• It violates Lemon: no secular purpose.

• It violates McCreary: primary religious intent.

• It violates Larson: sectarian favoritism.

• It violates Epperson: government tailored to theology.

• It violates Madison’s doctrine: freedom of conscience.

And if the justification is religious, any “secular pretense” would likely fail the McCreary test as a sham.

The Stakes Are Existential

To summarize:

A war waged to fulfill a biblical commandment is not foreign policy.
It is theocratic policy.
And it is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court may never have ruled on a case that outright asked:
“Can the U.S. go to war for religious reasons?”

But the answer is written between the lines of every Establishment Clause case for over 70 years.

War cannot be theological.
The government may not wield its sword in service of religion.
The Constitution demands it.

What You Can Do

• Call out religious justifications for war, whether in media, by officials, or policy platforms.

• Share this article or the case law.

• Hold candidates accountable for blurring the line between foreign policy and divine prophecy.

We didn’t escape Europe’s religious wars to rebuild them in the 21st century.

---

Final Thought

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

---