Printer Friendly Version of this Document (PDF)

Religious Freedom in America

Analysis and Implications for Contemporary Christians

Becoming a nation with religious freedom has been a trial and error process. Remaining a nation with religious freedom will require constant vigilance.

There can be no question that the founders of America were by and large Christian and that they founded this country on Christian principles. After all, Christ stands for liberty and freedom (1 Cor 8-9; Gal 3:28) and Christianity with its radical concepts of liberty, equality, and freedom has powerfully and dramatically influenced all of western civilization. This is a good thing. We should celebrate the influence of Christ in our world and in our history.
Many of the colonists who settled and established this country fled the old country because of religious persecution. In Europe and England, some of the state churches restricted and limited the forms of worship and imposed specific creeds on the people. The founders of the United States were men and women of conscience and conviction. They had endured ridicule, persecution, imprisonment, and a variety of physical and economic hardships because their beliefs differed from those of the established religions. Things got so bad that they chose to leave their homeland to seek a land where they could worship freely as their conscience dictated.

Not Freedom of Religion but Freedom for My Religion

However, not all of the founders came to America seeking freedom of religion. Many came here seeking a place where they could worship freely in their own way. There is a very significant difference. These men and women weren’t looking for a place where everyone could be free. They were looking for a place where they could be free. They were looking for a place where they could practice their religion free from persecution. Some of the founders were convinced that their interpretation of scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit had led them to TRUTH. For them, the problem in the old country was that the established religions had been seduced by false doctrine and corruption. They believed they had the Truth with a capital T. They did not see any need to allow freedom for false doctrines. They saw America as their turn to be in charge.
As a result, when people with different interpretations of the scripture and different convictions tried to move into their colonies or into neighboring colonies, some of the founders, who had suffered so much under the persecution in Europe, quickly became the persecutors. The Quakers were convinced that the Puritans and Baptists had false doctrine. The Puritans were convinced that the Quakers and Baptists were following false doctrine, etc. etc. It soon became apparent to many of the colonial leaders that the American experiment was not solving the religious freedom problem. Instead, we had just traded one persecutor for another.

The Situation Deteriorates

Patrick Henry, a well-known attorney in the Virginia colony was one of the earliest of the founders to decry the situation. Baptists were routinely jailed in Virginia for holding unauthorized worship services. In order to worship their way, the Baptists had to start meeting in secret. In some cases the worship services were raided and all attendees jailed when the militia got word that a Baptist service was being held in someone’s home or barn. At first, Patrick Henry was the only attorney who would defend the Baptists. Doing so destroyed his reputation and cost him so much of his law practice that he lived in poverty for a number of years. Patrick Henry’s efforts in the courts and in the legislature of Virginia were eventually rewarded when Virginia passed laws permitting Baptists to hold services and even to build churches. However, it was not until 1786, 10 years after the revolutionary war, that the Virginia legislature passed the religious freedom act.
Our understanding of what it means to have freedom of religion developed slowly. We have only gradually come to understand what freedom of religion means. We have had to learn from the mistakes of our predecessors. For example, there were the atrocities associated with the witch trials of Salem in the 1600’s and the persecution of the Mormons in the 1800’s. The Mormons homes and barns were burned. Many were imprisoned, murdered, and tortured. Finally, they left everything behind and made the famous pilgrimage to Utah, where history shows, the same Mormons who had suffered so much persecution at the hands of the colonists quickly became the persecutors of all who dared to challenge the authority of their hierarchy.

The Great Experiment

No, the colonies were not good examples of religious freedom, but by the time the founders came together to write the constitution, many of them were keenly aware of the dangers and abuses that occur when one religious sect is permitted to impose its ideas on the rest. That is why the framers of the constitution established a secular government and not a Christian nation even though most of them were committed believers themselves.
American democracy is an experiment. We have spent over 200 years trying to figure out how to have and preserve freedom. It has been trial and error, two steps forward and one step back. Our understanding of religious freedom continues to grow and develop along with our understanding of what it takes to have a democracy. We understand religious freedom much better now than the founders.
Even though they included separation of church and state in the constitution, it is unlikely that many of them had ever though about what religious freedom would entail in a pluralistic society. When the founders wrote the constitution, they were thinking about freedom of worship for Quakers and Baptists not Muslims and Wiccans. Even the relatively small differences among the Christian sects that were active in early America were enough to lead to serious abuses. The problem is multiplied today by the much greater diversity of religions that are active in our culture.

Lessons from the Islamic Fundamentalists

     In the days following the fall of Baghdad and the ouster of Sadaam Hussein the media reported the joy with which the long suppressed Shiite sect resumed worship services. This relatively small Islamic sect had been horribly persecuted and suppressed under the Hussein regime. The media reported on one of the first worship services. In his sermon the cleric expressed thankfulness and rejoicing that Hussein had been deposed and then commented that now what the Iraqi people needed to do is get the Americans out of their country, get their women covered back up, shut down the nightclubs, stop the alcohol sales, and get MTV turned off. He was calling for reinstating the restrictive fundamentalist regime only this time with the Shiites in power.
     How would that work? What would it take to do what this cleric was calling for? What would happen if a woman decided she didn’t want to cover herself? Would she be allowed to adopt western attire? Would she be permitted to disagree with those in power? What would happen to those in the country who were caught with alcohol or western music CD’s? Would non-Muslims be allowed in the country? Would they be allowed to practice their religions?
     In Iran and Afghanistan, the fundamentalist regime recruited volunteers from among the congregations of the various mosques who served as “morals police.” These women and men watched their neighbors for suspicious behavior and then turned them in to the ruling party. Homes were raided and searched. Violators arrested, jailed, and tortured. Is this the vision this Shiite cleric had for a “free” Iraq?
     A country is only free if people have a right to disagree. Freedom is not freedom unless everyone is free. Dictators have always allowed those who agree with them to speak freely but that is not freedom of speech. Fundamentalist regimes have always allowed those who believe the same why they do to practice their religion freely but that is not freedom of religion.

Pluralism and Secularism and Democracy

     Some of the founders of the United States argued against establishing a secular government here. Many congregations were upset that God had not been given His rightful place in the government established by the constitution but in the end the majority went for separation of church and state. For one thing, it was the only way to get the states to agree since different religious sects controlled different states. But did they understand that they were establishing a pluralistic, secular state. Some of them such as Ben Franklin, James Madison, and Patrick Henry probably did. Many did not.
     Pluralism is the idea that you can have a country in which people with very different beliefs can live and work and worship and raise their families side by side in tolerance and understanding. The idea of a secular state is that the government will remain neutral in matters of religion. Tolerance and understanding are moral principles. In a pluralistic secular state, the morality of tolerance and understanding takes precedent over other moral principles. How does this work?   Suppose that one sect believes that it is immoral for young men and young women to swim together (the prohibition of mixed bathing as it is called) and another sect permits the youth group to have pool parties at a members home after the Sunday evening service. Even if the group that believes mixed bathing is immoral is the majority and they could pass laws that prohibit mixed bathing, the moral principle of tolerance must take precedent over other moral principles held by the majority.
     But in a democracy, what is there to stop the majority from enacting laws that establish the moral codes and impose them on everyone. In the American system of checks and balances, even if the legislature doesn't understand tolerance, the courts can step in and set it right. Does that mean that the nation can have no moral code, no laws based on morality? Of course not! It simply means that our nations laws and moral codes must be written, interpreted and applied with tolerance and understanding. A strong sense of morality is essential for a stable society. Morality does not preclude diversity of opinion.

The Call for a Christian Nation

     Not everyone in United States agrees that a pluralistic, secular society is a good idea. The religious right takes the position that the founding fathers established this country as a Christian nation. Their position is that we have allowed pluralism and secularism to creep into our nation and as a result we have lost what the founders intended. We as Christians should work to "take our country back" for Christ. According to some, secularism and pluralism have undermined morality in the nation, have nearly destroyed the family, and have led to a situation in which anything goes. We need revival. We need to restore morality to our government, our courts, and our schools. The way to deal with pluralism is to evangelize. We wouldn't have to tolerate people who disagree with us if we would just win them all to Christ. These people are all lost and hurting and seeking Christ. They just don't know it. All we have to do is tell them and they will see the error of their false religions and switch over and believe like us. Then when we all believe the same way we can have a Christian nation the way God and the founding fathers intended.
     Wait a minute. That isn't true. That is not the way it works. Muslims and Jews for example, know perfectly well what Christians believe and they reject it. There are many people who know very well what Christians believe and are convinced that Christians are wrong. They are not at all bothered by the fact that Christians believe they are going to hell. They simply don’t believe it. Some other religions teach that Christianity is of Satan and hell.
    Paul understood that a missionary’s responsibility was simply to tell people the truth. If they chose to reject it, a missionary should shake the dust off his heels (symbolic of granting them their choice) as he moved on. The idea that everybody wants to be a Christian is just silly.
     Even if everybody in America were Christian, diversity and pluralism would still be a problem. The various Christian sects can't even agree on basic moral issues such as how to interpret the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." Some Christians believe that the commandment prohibits killing another person even in self defense (the traditional Quaker position). Others believe it is ok to kill in cases of self defense or defense of country. And what about the death penalty. Some Christians support the death penalty while some strongly oppose it. If we did have a Christian nation, which group of Christians would get to dictate the moral laws? How would they go about enforcing them? Would we have “morals police” to spy on their neighbors. Would we jail people for mixed bathing or wearing their skirts too short or listening to rock-n-roll?

The Elements of Religious Freedom

What does it take to have religious freedom? What have we learned so far in this great American experiment?

The Nature of Freedom in a Democracy.

    Freedom only exists if everyone is free. Sadaam Hussein allowed freedom of speech for those who agreed with him. But those who disagreed or dared to challenge him were imprisoned or tortured. The Taliban allowed freedom of religion for those who believed and worshiped their way. Those who dared to disagree were punished or killed.
    Unlimited freedom results in chaos, anarchy, and ultimately degenerates to loss of freedom. For freedom to survive it must be limited. Some people think that since this is a free country they can do anything they want to. Wrong. In a free country you can only do what you want to if it doesn’t impose on the rights of others to do what they want to. The freedom we have is a limited freedom based on respect for the rights of others. It is a freedom based on the golden rule. It is a freedom based on tolerance and understanding.
    Likewise, religious freedom must be based on limitations. The government (majority) must be limited in what they can do to various religious groups. But also, the religious groups must accept limits on what they can do, say, and how they can practice their religion.

Tolerance for Disagreement.

Religious freedom can only exist if religious people are willing to allow others to disagree with them. We must allow those whom we believe to be wrong to hold their own beliefs, teach their false doctrines to their children, and to practice their religion their way. This can be a serious problem since some religious groups are convinced that their beliefs are absolute truth given to them directly by a God who will not tolerate any compromise and will not tolerate any disagreement. Such religious ideas are incompatible with democracy, are incompatible with religious freedom, and the influence of these ideas must be limited because they are a threat to freedom and democracy.

Limits on the Majority.

    No religious group can be allowed to impose their beliefs and creeds on others. Even the majority cannot pass laws to force others to recite their creeds, bow to their gods, or bend to their moral codes. For example, if the majority in a jurisdiction is Muslim and they enact laws requiring all women (including non-Muslim women) to wear the traditional covering then religious freedom violated. If a Catholic majority that controls the school board requires all students to say “Hail Mary’s” at the start of each school day, then religious freedom is denied. Similarly religious freedom is compromised if the majority is protestant and the school board has the Lord’s Prayer read over the loudspeakers at the beginning of each school day.
    Some people misunderstand how a democracy works. Some people think that in a democracy, the majority can do whatever they want – the majority rules. Actually, for democracy to survive, the majority must limit itself to only enacting laws that do not infringe on the rights of the minorities. In other words, the majority is in charge of protecting the rights of the minorities. This is one of the places where Christianity and democracy come closest. Christ taught us that the most important things we do are the things we do for others and not just others who are loveable and like us, but for the undesirables, the poor, the sick, the ugly, and those who are vile and wrong. This is the way we express the golden rule, in democracy.
    As a result there are certain things that the majority cannot prohibit or require. These include:

Requiring prayer or other religious observances in the schools and at public events. Of course the majority cannot prohibit individuals from praying in public places as long as such a performance is not disruptive to the proceedings. (It is reasonable for the government to say you cannot hold a prayer meeting in the middle of the interstate highway stopping traffic at rush hour, for example).
Requiring the posting of creeds such as the Ten Commandments in schools and public places. Of course the majority cannot prohibit individuals from carrying or professing creeds in public places as long as it is not disruptive.
Regulating the behavior of consenting adults out of view of unwilling observers. While it is appropriate to regulate behavior the of consenting adults in public places in accordance with community standards, the private, voluntary behavior of citizens which does not harm others or infringe on the rights of others should not be regulated by law even if the majority perceives a particular behavior as immoral or inappropriate.

Limits on Religious Groups

In America we have religious freedom. That means that religious groups can hold beliefs that others disagree with, they can teach these beliefs to their children, and they can practice their religion their own way. But there are limitations to what you can do in the name of religion and religious freedom. Your religious practices cannot infringe on the rights and freedom of others including children and persons who are or have been members of the sect or group. That means that an individuals right takes precedent over religious laws. In America, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a higher moral law than other so called laws of God. So for example, assume a religion teaches that if a woman disobeys her husband that he must kill her. Or if a religion teaches that if someone tries to leave the group they must be hunted down and killed. Do we have to allow persons in these religions to follow through on these beliefs in the name of religious freedom? Of course not! An individual who follows through on such a religious belief can rightfully be prosecuted for murder.
What this means is that even though we have religious freedom in this country there are some religious practices that can and should be illegal.

Human sacrifice
Suicide rituals
Forcing people to do things against their will.
Religious groups cannot stop people from leaving the group.
Religious groups cannot stop people from joining other groups with which they disagree. .
Believers cannot kidnap individuals who have joined a “cult” or other “false” sect and send them off to “deprogramming camps” to have their religious beliefs changed back to the “true religion.” (Unfortunately, this is still being done in the United States indicating that we still haven’t figured out this religious freedom thing. Rescuing minors (children) from such groups is probably in a different category but involuntary deprogramming is still sometimes used with adults.)
Proselytizing children of parents of other religions. It is inappropriate, in a free country, to proselytize children without their parent’s permission. Of course, when parents bring their children to Sunday School or enroll them in a Parochial school, Vacation Bible School, church sponsored after school program, or a Christian day care, there is implied permission. This principle places a special responsibility on schoolteachers and childcare workers who themselves may be very committed to their religion and who have students of other religions in their classes. Individuals in sensitive settings working with other people’s children must voluntarily limit their own public religiosity to avoid the appearance of proselytizing children. So while a Buddhist businessman is fully within his rights to display a shrine with a lighted candle and offering of fruit in his place of business and to perform a purification ritual at the beginning of each business day, it would be irresponsible for a schoolteacher to display such materials or perform such a ritual at school. Similarly, Christian schoolteachers must limit the use of Bibles, Bible verses, crosses, etc. as part of classroom displays. On the other hand, as a college professor, whose students are adults, I feel free to keep a Bible on my desk and to display religious quotes, etc. in my office; and that is an appropriate expression of personal religiosity. However, it would be inappropriate for me to use classroom time in my statistics course to try to convert students who have paid to study statistics.
Child abuse (both physical and sexual) in the name of religion cannot be allowed. The law must carefully and diligently protect minors. Forcing young girls (minors) into marriages, sex rings, etc. is clearly not protected by religious freedom.
Public performance of religious rituals that are offensive under community standards is properly illegal. While religious freedom protects a religious groups right to dance naked in the moonlight, it is appropriate to require that the ritual be performed out of view of unwilling observers.

Dynamic Nature of the Limits on Freedom

Clearly, these lists are not complete and what is properly legal and illegal depends partly on changing community standards. As a result these will always be dynamic lists that need to be updated and corrected as times change. Our society must engage in a vigorous, ongoing, debate on issues of freedom and freedom of religion.
For example, we must decide what limits to put on parents in disciplining their children. Clearly, parents have a right and responsibility to discipline their children but what form that discipline should take and when it crosses the line to become child abuse are a matter of debate. Many years ago, Sweden made it illegal for a parent to hit a child. They outlawed spanking in school and in the home. A couple of generations later, the crime rate in Sweden is no worse than in countries that permit spanking, the people of Sweden are as happy and productive as any, and the Swedish moral fiber has not collapsed. Yet in the United States, many Christians argue that the Bible requires that children be spanked to avoid moral decay. Where should the line be drawn? What do we allow in the name of religion? What can the majority prohibit in the name of protecting children and the rights of adults?

Back to New Reformation Home Page
Send comments to:

Steve Falkenberg

Steve.Falkenberg@eku.edu