American's myths about religion's place in government institutions are argued and negotiated in many different arenas. The focus of this thesis is mythic discourse operating within ideas about religion’s place in the nation’s public life. These discourses attempt to dictate understanding of how religion should operate within American society by using legitimating events and documents from the past. Mythic discourses work to create the impression that American values have always operated thus, making attempts at reconciling conflicting narratives a necessity. This thesis follows a progression of argument that begins with the exploration of the dissonance between the concurrent beliefs that the United States is a religious nation as well as a secular society.

These distinct origin myths are present in politically, socially and personally formed ideas about the creation and development of the American religious landscape. The U.S. government is a site for performing and reinforcing these myths, particularly the United States Supreme Court; a major source of judgments perpetuating these myths. The Court guides its adjudications with language of national ‘founding principals’ which are based on the origin myths of the nation. All of this analysis of origin myths at play in the United States and the ways in which they work within government institutions are applied in this thesis to the primary documents from the Hein v Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc. case decided in June of 2007 in order to explore the discursive patterns therein. The progression of argument within this paper seeks to demonstrate that origin myths do exist as legitimating tools in legal and cultural discourse within the United States.