essay on freedom of religion

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of Religion

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 28, 2023 | Original: December 7, 2017

Freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits laws establishing a national religion or impeding the free exercise of religion for its citizens. While the First Amendment enforces the “separation of church and state” it doesn’t exclude religion from public life. From the colonial era to present, religion has played a major role in politics in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court over the years has ruled inconsistently on matters of religious freedom, such as the display of religious symbols in government buildings.

Religion In Colonial America

America wasn’t always a stronghold of religious freedom. More than half a century before the Pilgrims set sail in the Mayflower , French Protestants (called Huguenots) established a colony at Fort Caroline near modern-day Jacksonville, Florida .

The Spanish, who were largely Catholic and occupied much of Florida at the time, slaughtered the Huguenots at Fort Caroline. The Spanish commander wrote the king that he had hanged the settlers for “scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these Provinces.”

The Puritans and Pilgrims arrived in New England in the early 1600s after suffering religious persecution in England. However, the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony didn’t tolerate any opposing religious views. Catholics, Quakers and other non-Puritans were banned from the colony.

Roger Williams

In 1635 Roger Williams , a Puritan dissident, was banned from Massachusetts. Williams then moved south and founded Rhode Island . Rhode Island became the first colony with no established church and the first to grant religious freedom to everyone, including Quakers and Jews.

As Virginia’s governor in 1779, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill that would guarantee the religious freedoms of Virginians of all faiths—including those with no faith—but the bill did not pass into law.

Religion was mentioned only once in the U.S. Constitution . The Constitution prohibits the use of religious tests as qualification for public office. This broke with European tradition by allowing people of any faith (or no faith) to serve in public office in the United States.

First Amendment

In 1785, Virginia statesman (and future president) James Madison argued against state support of Christian religious instruction. Madison would go on to draft the First Amendment , a part of the Bill of Rights that would provide constitutional protection for certain individual liberties including freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press, and the rights to assemble and petition the government.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It established a separation of church and state that prohibited the federal government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” It also prohibits the government, in most cases, from interfering with a person’s religious beliefs or practices.

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, extended religious freedom by preventing states from enacting laws that would advance or inhibit any one religion.

Religious Intolerance In the United States

Mormons , led by Joseph Smith , clashed with the Protestant majority in Missouri in 1838. Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs ordered that all Mormons be exterminated or expelled from the state.

At Haun’s Mill, Missouri militia members massacred 17 Mormons on October 30, 1838.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the U.S. government subsidized boarding schools to educate and assimilate Native American children. At these schools, Native American children were prohibited from wearing ceremonial clothes or practicing native religions.

While most states followed federal example and abolished religious tests for public office, some states maintained religious tests well into the twentieth century. Maryland , for instance, required “a declaration of belief in God,” for all state officeholders until 1961.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Reynolds v. United States (1878): This Supreme Court case tested the limits of religious liberty by upholding a federal law banning polygamy. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but not from actions such as marriage.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961): The Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to close on Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews argued the law was unfair to them since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays as well.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. In this case, Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, worked in a textile mill. When her employer switched from a five-day to six-day workweek, she was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. When she applied for unemployment compensation, a South Carolina court denied her claim.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): This Supreme Court decision struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to reimburse Catholic schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in those schools. This Supreme Court case established the “Lemon Test” for determining when a state or federal law violates the Establishment Clause—that’s the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from declaring or financially supporting a state religion.

Ten Commandments Cases (2005): In 2005, the Supreme Court came to seemingly contradictory decisions in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry , the Supreme Court ruled that the display of a six-foot Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capital was constitutional. In McCreary County v. ACLU , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses violated the First Amendment.

Muslim Travel Bans

In 2017, federal district courts struck down the implementation of a series of travel bans ordered by President Donald J. Trump , citing that the bans—which discriminate against the citizens of several Muslim-majority nations—would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

America’s True History of Religious Tolerance; Smithsonian.com . Religious Liberty: Landmark Supreme Court Cases; Bill of Rights Institute . First Amendment; Legal Information Institute .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Religious Freedom, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1663

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

There is religious liberty to the documented sources on how it impacts every discussion input and their ability to understand every detailed historical analysis in America, which has led to controversial opinions. In the United States, the history of religion has seen it adopt and undergo many amendments to incorporate the establishment of diversified choices and show the importance of freedom development (Curtis 2016). The American religious society is still on a halt when pondering the main establishments in every clause of the existing religious beliefs and relative functions. The main question is relishing the existing establishment with a focus on understanding the importance of belief in religion to different human beings.

The declaration on the existing models states that someone’s belief in a religion should not be questioned on any grounds, and the declarations are only relative to function, and a unanimous decision can be handling the listed requirements on efforts planning and associational differences. A tussle in the court proved that it is important to understand a basic planning choice in understanding a positional requirement over the choices and options. Arguments by Murray shows that variated philosophical arguments can be essentially documented in a religious freedom context(Thomas, Jolyon Baraka 2019). In so making, the contented approach considers religious freedom as a natural law that protects human dignity

In Maryland, religious freedom and empowerment are used as a basic agenda in turning things around and analyzing major concepts, which serves as a philosophical concept in understanding and causing the emergence of western ideologies as a basic concept with development ideas. The state generational law is a relief system that brings firms’ belief into the proposition that the main declarations are prohibited from taking diversified state positions. The public office is a unanimous concept of position. Therefore any congress must make laws to understand the establishment of the diversified religious concepts that shall help redress the diversified differences in religious freedom. In understanding agenda, the United States safeguards interests in religion as the amendment provides freedom of expression belief and expression, and this makes the government request the damages and complaints, which has an indirect relationship right offering an establishment of religion having direct light access, which offers partial damages to complaints over religions and bars, anyone, from favoring religion against each other.

Religion is important and should be partial to all regardless of the relative social institutions. According to (Hurd, Elizabeth, and Shakman 2015), the admission selection in a school, for instance, was denied access from a radiotherapy class, which affected a major understanding of similar happenings, which questions everyone’s guiding principle as a regulated thought process and analysis. Similar happenings are observed as Dr. Doughterty tells Brandon that “religion is a field that requires to be exercised in another location.”Who guides this location addresses that religion cannot be practiced in any school despite the contributions that come with religion as a major undertaking into the required process. The major reason for undertaking various record labels is that an undertaking is anti-discriminatory, and every conscious choice is justifiable, which makes it entirely unconstitutional. Since every university should offer training to any qualified student regardless of their rational concept or choices, the federal court system calls for diversified cases on achieving this as a personal direction. This concept is key as every religious principal shall have a display showing the main regulated concepts in analyzing the main tools of practice as a major introductory element of success. This principle offers integrity when handling religion as it is direct from a morality of underlying principles of religion.

The morality concept underlies every meaning with a commitment to the underlying informational speech concept as a term for understanding the main laws of an individual as a justice system. Reiterating GeorgeWashingtons’ farewell analysis(Hurd, Elizabeth and  Shakman 2015) where every character is promoted as a promotional planning occurrence, the important requirements are offered as an object of interest, and the justice system is expressed as a tool of operation, which helps to build an analysis output. In his statement, He observed that religion could be a characteristic that operates on the minimum underlying principles as an objective planning agenda, and the expressions can be limited to options and choices. This can be a leading principle in understanding the morality of options when respecting the laws and the justice systems since everything is sustained in a built-in concept model where the sustainability of the main analysis impacts the choice planning model. The views and opinions are obligated to the religious freedom development concept where there should be existing regulations controlling the practice of religion.

According to ideals made in a court system, religious freedom should only be based on ideals, not concepts. The American government shows a morality of choice and operation when putting the decisions from self-regulated ideals on how religion can be conceived to show an end of an operation, and the basic survival skills can be a religious affiliation or adaptation to interest. A choice panel is a religious description of the ascertained interest in the program, which is ideal for any American system(Kaufman, Robert and Stephan Haggard 2019). The moral society observes a diversified conflict of interest, and this religion self affects the principled agenda from a pragmatic context, and the arguments are based on a religious operation.

The liberty of religion should be preserved as a necessary anchorage with a personal rule to the free will of choice and concept operation. This basic liberty agenda has tools for activity, and this is a liberation concept with an established choice of interest, which prohibits regional influence, and this is religion affliction which offers a free exercise of the regulated thought system(Thomas, Jolyon Baraka 2019). Moreover, the congress system should make no laws regarding the religious establishment. This can offer laws respecting religious establishment and planning, which offers confirmation of interest and prohibition of the choice model on a free exercise of the amendment with an average choice. The amendment observed in the constitutional affiliation offers a free exercise of will and planning; this makes everyone assemble

American technology follows the regulated knowledge gap and influences the prohibited choice of interest with a bridge freedom of speech and the right to understand amendment issues and criteria for the First Amendment in analyzing some of the religious affiliations as congress is limited from making any laws concerning having an establishment that affects comprehension of thoughts and ideas. The amendments and petitions are important in regulated awareness.

There are existing court cases, such as the Johnson and Gregory case, where the Republican conventional agenda protested the violation of interest held in Dallas. Moreover, in the Texas statute, the desecration of objectivity is venerated in defense of the  American flag, which was observed to be a religious emblem. Their reasoning was on a 5-4 basis, making it a religious symbolic speech(Thomas, Jolyon Baraka ,2019). In observation of the constitutional amendment is an offensive statement that suppresses the anger aroused solely based on apprehension, which is venerated in practices. The diversity observed in belief systems is conclusive feedback of the McCreary cases v.ACLU, which has led to the unconstitutional crisis, and this displays the ignorance of the political offices in some of the religious beliefs which led to the “establishment clause.”It prohibited access to religious beliefs, which happened to a different extent. Another case is a court examining the anti-bigamy statute in the First Amendment, which banned every regulated belief system which allowed the government to function regardless of the existing religious belief.

The American society, the statute shows that the religious practice in America is believed to be a public life crisis, and the federal government upholds this religious practice. The examination of plural marriage is a religious practice upheld in federal law courts(Lewis and Andrew., 2019). The republicans lament the religious trends in America, while the democrats hold a chain of mixed reactions over the issues. The gap issues show that religious activities in America are activity-based, and the dependence can only be manifested in a free-will organization that makes every one of the existing languages available (Kaufman, Robert R., and Stephan Haggard  2019). The religious basis is a religious belief, and organizations that seem to do good strengthen the religious organizations. American society believes that the republican institutions regulate religious institutions, making the parties have a highly regulated jurisdictional functional difference. The existing gaps are uniformly religious with a religious acumen under different religious Acumen, a religious role from a diversified societal outlook.

In conclusion, Religious Freedom in America can not be tolerated, and the amendments exist based on religious practice, which means discrimination cannot help different countries to diversify. However, a country can tolerate religion to a certain extent, which helps the government to speak against people’s discrimination with a regulated government belief. Altogether, the government should not discriminate against the existing religious difference since there exist establishment claws where there is supposed to be the authority with freedom of religion in the American government where the delegations have a standstill w with a civic authority. The constitutional basis is a provision on the amendment choices which prevents a vast majority of outcomes from any of their particular belief system, and this has been a destructive measure against involving the government in any of the existent affairs. The essential existence holds a diversified passion of existence holding a different position, but all the same, religious practice should be a liberty to every different individual.

Works Cited

Curtis, Finbarr. “The production of American religious freedom.”  The Production of American Religious Freedom . New York University Press, 2016. Curtis, Finbarr. “https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.18574/9781479823734/html/

Hurd, Elizabeth Shakman. “Beyond religious freedom.”  Beyond Religious Freedom . Princeton University Press, 2015. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400873814/html/

Kaufman, Robert R., and Stephan Haggard. “Democratic decline in the United States: What can we learn from middle-income backsliding?.”  Perspectives on Politics  17.2 (2019): 417-432. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/democratic-decline-in-the-united-states-what-can-we-learn-from-middleincome-backsliding/1D9804407AAD81287AA0CA620BABDEA6/

Lewis, Andrew R. “The inclusion-moderation thesis: The US republican party and the Christian right.”  Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics . 2019. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-665/

Thomas, Jolyon Baraka.  Faking Liberties: Religious Freedom in American-Occupied Japan . Class 200: New Studies in Reli, 2019. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WQOHDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Religious+Freedom+in+America&ots=5VZKkyalIz&sig=b_lBgP6LeB3Jq-h4kSz6qYPWajA/

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Health Diary Project, Essay Example

Exploring the Benefits and Risks of Electronic Flight Bags, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Essay: The Constitution, the First Amendment, and Religious Liberty

The Constitution, the First Amendment, and Religious Liberty

Directions: Read the essay and answer the critical thinking questions.

Throughout world history, religious conflicts have been widespread and bloody. In contrast, Americans of various faiths have been able, with some exceptions, to live side by side in relative harmony. What has made the difference? Religious liberty is one important answer. To support religious liberty, the Founders worked to ensure that government was properly limited in its purpose, as well as in its power.

Virginia’s Religious Revolution

At the time the Constitution was ratified, many of the original 13 states still supported established churches. Many Americans believed that government should support religion because religion promoted virtuous lives and nurtured the social order needed for self-government.

The Anglican Church was the established denomination in Virginia, though citizens could belong to any Christian church. Baptists were a fast-growing minority in Virginia. They did not believe that the government should have so much control over religion, and did not follow Virginia’s law that required a license to preach. As a result, Baptists were arrested, fined, and sometimes physically assaulted. Baptist preachers were whipped and dunked into mud to the point of near drowning. Baptists petitioned the Virginia government to disestablish the Anglican Church, and give all churches equal rights and benefits.

In 1776, the Virginia legislature adopted a Declaration of Rights, which included a provision dealing with religion. George Mason, the Declaration’s chief draftsman, first wrote: “All Men shou’d enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience.” But a young James Madison thought Mason’s draft did not go far enough. Madison believed that the language of “toleration” meant that a government could grant—or deny—citizens the privilege of exercising religion. Madison recommended new wording affirming that free religious belief and exercise were a natural right and duty of all. The final Declaration declared “That Religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.…”

Religious dissenters, who were not members of the established church, thought the logic of the provision would place all churches on an equal footing before the law and lead to disestablishment. However, Virginians would continue to debate the implications of this provision for the next decade.

Religious Assessments

By the mid-1780s, taxes to support the Anglican Church had been suspended. In 1784, Patrick Henry proposed a general tax called the Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers [Ministers] of the Christian Religion. Similar to some New England state laws, citizens would choose which Christian church received their support, or the money could go to a general fund to be distributed by the state legislature.

One notable supporter of the bill was George Washington. He wrote to James Madison: “No man’s sentiments are more opposed to any kind of restraint upon religious principles than mine are; yet I must confess, that I am not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they profess, if of the denominations of Christians; or declare themselves Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise, & thereby obtain proper relief.”

Opponents of the bill included James Madison. Madison wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance (1785) opposing the proposed tax. He asserted that religion could not be forced on people, and that state support actually corrupted religion. Government properly limited, rather, would promote a civil society in which people of different faiths could maintain their beliefs according to their own consciences. Madison’s side won the debate and Henry’s religious assessments bill did not pass.

The next year, the Virginia legislature passed The Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson. This 1786 law (still on the books in Virginia) banned government interference in religion and individual beliefs. Some, but not all, other states gradually followed the example of Virginia.

The Constitution and the First Amendment

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the delegates did not discuss basing the government on a religion. The only mention of religion in the body of the U.S. Constitution is to ban religious tests for national office in Article 6, Section 3. Federal employees and elected officials did not have to belong to a specific church or even be religious. This provision passed without debate.

The Constitution likely would not have been ratified without the promise of a Bill of Rights. Many states sent Congress proposed amendments that would add protections from the national government. Included in the proposals was protection for freedom of religion. Congress spent weeks debating different wordings. Finally, amendments were sent to the states for ratification. The religion clauses of the First Amendment read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The first part, known as the Establishment Clause, prohibited the national government from having anything to do with a national religion. Second, the Free Exercise Clause denied the national government the power to pass laws that stopped individuals from practicing their religions.

States did not have to disestablish their churches because the Constitution and Bill of Rights only applied to the national government. Some of the states maintained established churches and many maintained religious tests for office for many years.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

• What was the Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion? What arguments were put forth for and against it?
• George Washington supported religious liberty, but did not oppose the proposed Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion. How did he reconcile these positions?
• Why could states establish religions and require religious tests even after the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
• Today, there are over 55 countries with established religions. However, a similar number of countries have moved toward religious freedom over the last 150 years. Why do you think the trend over the last 150 years has been to disestablish religions?

Freedom of Religion

• Living reference work entry
• Latest version View entry history
• First Online: 03 May 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Anne Kühler 3  

Introduction

Freedom of religion (often called “freedom of religion or belief”) is guaranteed in numerous legal documents at national, supranational, regional, and international levels. It is a widely recognized constitutional and human right all over the world. In a historical perspective, a major impact for the legal development of freedom of religion in the Western world had the provisions in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, in the Bill of Rights of 1791, and in the French Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (although in the latter only as a subcategory of freedom of opinion). This long tradition has helped to establish the reputation of freedom of religion as a primordial fundamental right (“Ur-Grundrecht”, Jellinek 2013 ) – a much disputed thesis that has to be integrated into the persistent broader controversy on the origins of human rights. In this context, it is important to highlight that freedom of religion is not a purely Western...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Augustine A (1845) In Joannis Evangelium, Tractatus CXXIV. In: Migne J-P (ed) Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina. Migne, Paris

Google Scholar  

Benhabib S (2002) The claims of culture. Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford

Book   Google Scholar  

Benhabib S (2004) The rights of others. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Bielefeldt H, Ghanea N, Wiener M (eds) (2016) Freedom of religion or belief. An international law commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

de Tocqueville A (2004) Democracy in America (trans: Goldhammer A). Viking Press, New York

Forst R (2013) Toleration in conflict: past and present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Greenawalt K (2006) Religion and the constitution. Vol. 1: Free exercise and fairness. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Habermas J (2005) Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

Jellinek G (2013) Urrecht der religiösen Freiheit. In: Jellinek G (ed) Die Erklärung der Menschen- und Bürgerrechte, 4th edn. Duncker und Humblot, Berlin

Kant I (1968) Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In: Weischedel W (ed) Werkausgabe Band VII. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

Kymlicka W (1995) Multicultural citizenship: a liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Leiter B (2013) Why tolerate religion? Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford

Locke J (1968) Epistola de Tolerantia. In: Klibansky R (ed) A letter on toleration (trans: Gough JW). Oxford University Press, Oxford

Mahlmann M (2009) Freedom and faith – foundations of freedom of religion. Cardozo Law Rev 30(6):2473–2493

Mahlmann M (2014) Vielfalt der Religionen, Einheit der Gleichheit? In: Kokott J, Mager U (eds) Religionsfreiheit und Gleichberechtigung der Geschlechter. Spannungen und ungelöste Konflikte. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 3–33

McCrudden C (2018) Litigating religions: an essay on human rights, courts and beliefs. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Mendelssohn M (1983) Jerusalem, or, on religious power and Judaism (trans: Arkush A). University Press of New England, Hanover/London

Mendus S (1989) Toleration and the limits of liberalism. Macmillan, Basingstoke

Mill JS (1978) In: Rapaport E (ed) On liberty. Hackett, Indianapolis

Milton J (1888) Areopagitica. Cassell’s, London

Nussbaum MC (2008) Liberty of conscience. In: Defense of America’s tradition of religious equality. Basic Books, New York

Nussbaum MC (2012) The new religious intolerance. Overcoming the politics of fear in an anxious age. Belknap, Cambridge, MA

Rapporteur’s Digest on Freedom of Religion or Belief (2011) http://​www2.​ohchr.​org/​english/​issues/​religion/​ . Accessed 15 Oct 2018

Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. The Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA

Spinoza B (1991) Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (trans: Shirley S). Brill, Leiden

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institut für Rechtsphilosophie, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Anne Kühler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Kühler .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for International and Comparative Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore, USA

Mortimer Sellers

Department of Legal Theory, International and European Law, University of Salzburg, Austria, Salzburg, Austria

Stephan Kirste

Section Editor information

Law, Ankara University, Yenimahalle/Ankara, Turkey

Gülriz Uygur

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Konstantinos Papageorgiou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Kühler, A. (2023). Freedom of Religion. In: Sellers, M., Kirste, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_692-3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_692-3

Received : 01 September 2022

Accepted : 01 September 2022

Published : 03 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-6730-0

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-6730-0

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Law and Criminology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_692-3

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_692-2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_692-1

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• About Us - Overview
• Job Opportunities
• Master Plan Development
• Enabling Legislation
• The Constitutional Memorandum
• The Freedom Trail
• Legal Notices
• Press Releases
• Photo Library
• Video Library
• Logo Library
• By the Numbers
• Story Ideas
• Government Relations
• Tour Guide Licensing
• Directions Overview
• Driving Distances
• Parking - Cars
• Motorcoaches - Arrival & Departure
• Parking - Motorcoaches & Buses
• Bus Driver's Survival Guide - Cheap Eats & More
• Events Overview
• Partners & Offers
• Feedback - Group and Guided Tours
• Brochure Request

Search form

For more information: 215.525.1776 [email protected]

• Buy Tickets
• Field Trips Overview
• Make a Reservation
• Scavenger Hunts
• Yellow Fever Tour
• Independence Hall Tickets
• Liberty Bell Visitor Guide
• Virtual Field Trip
• NEW: Flat Stanley Field Trips
• NEW - Combo Package - Museum of the American Revolution
• Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts & Girl Scouts
• Constitution Day & Essay Contest
• Educational Standards
• Suggested Itineraries For Visits To Historic Philadelphia
• Teacher Resource Guide for Grades K-12
• Testimonials
• Top 10 Reasons To Take The Constitutional Walking Tour of Philadelphia
• Certificate of Achievement
• Black History Field Trip Combo Package
• Performance Opportunities - Parades & Other Venues
• Field Trip Grants
• Timeline - Road to Nationhood
• Philadelphia Firsts
• Founding Documents Overview
• Group Tours Overview
• Theme Tours
• The Constitutional Bus Tour of Philadelphia
• Guided Tours Overview
• Combo Package - The Constitutional & Spirits of '76 Ghost Tour
• Independence Hall Tickets & Visitor Guide
• Philly Attractions Guide
• VIP Tours Overview
• VIP Tour Map
• VIP Tour Reservation Request
• The Constitutional App Overview
• The Constitutional App - Tour Map
• The Constitutional Walking Tour App - Credits
• Purchase a CD - Audio Tour
• Field Trips
• Essay Contest Winners

The Importance of Freedom of Religion

Our country is a society built on freedom . While all our freedoms are spectacular, I believe that the greatest of them is freedom of religion. As stated in the first Amendment to the United States Constitution, freedom of religion prevents our govenunent from forcing citizens to practice any single kind of religion. Thanks to this wonderful Amendment, all sorts of religious practices have taken root and spread in our beloved country, from Catholicism to Hinduism . In fact, as reported in the New York Times and Staten Island Advance, my local newspapers, the leader of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, proclaimed his interpretation of our Amendment in his recent Philadelphia speech, fittingly delivered near Independence Hall. We witnessed history unfold before our eyes, as the Pope moved people with his words, announcing that religious freedom is a "fundamental right" for all citizens. Freedom of religion definitely makes the lives of citizens of the United States better. As a citizen myself, I can say with resounding truth that freedom of religion has made life on Staten Island better. No person has to worry about being punished wrongly or being ridiculed for his or her beliefs. For instance, I can freely attend a Catholic school and Sunday mass. One of  my mother's closest friends is Jewish, but my family is Catholic. Thanks to freedom of religion, we can be very close with one another (I even refer to her as my "aunt"), despite the fact that we celebrate different holidays and believe different things. Most importantly, religious freedom means respecting the beliefs of others, and, in the words of Pope Francis, renouncing the use of "religion ... for hatred and brutality". All in all, religious freedom is a special privilege; it should bring all people together and encourage "peace, tolerance, and respect".

U.S. Constitution.net

Founders’ vision of religious freedom, religious beliefs of the founding fathers.

The American founding era encompassed a vast spectrum of religious beliefs, reflecting the diversity of the population itself. Approximately 98% of Americans of European descent identified with Protestantism , predominantly adhering to the reformed theological tradition. This demographic shaped the religious landscape the Founding Fathers traversed.

Thomas Jefferson's beliefs straddled Enlightenment rationalism and deism. He advocated for a strict separation of church and state, yet he was deeply spiritual, rejecting organized religion. An Enlightenment rationalist, he saw reason as a guiding light planted by God, responsible for guiding human actions. Jefferson's commitment to religious freedom shone through his crafting of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom , ensuring that no man should suffer on account of his religious opinions.

James Madison championed religious freedom, opposing the imposition of any religious taxes in Virginia. His efforts culminated in the adoption of Jefferson's statute, reinforcing the vision that religious liberty covered all religious denominations.

Benjamin Franklin's approach to religion was more pragmatic. While he believed in a higher power and moral righteousness, Franklin was known for his skepticism about organized religion's dogma. His contributions to religious liberty focused on the broader philosophical underpinnings that allowed a multitude of beliefs to coexist peacefully.

John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister, emphasized virtue and morality grounded in Christianity as essential for the newly formed republic, acknowledging that religion played a crucial role in maintaining civic order and virtue.

Roger Sherman, another devout Christian, advocated for a government that allowed religious exercises but did not mandate them, demonstrating an understanding that personal faith should not infringe upon the liberties of others.

John Adams leaned towards Unitarianism. His letters often reflect a belief in a moral divine order, yet he resisted the idea of a state-endorsed church, seeing the danger in intertwining religious authority with governmental power.

Thomas Paine represented the far end of the spectrum. His pamphlet "Common Sense" galvanized support for independence while critiquing institutionalized religion heavily. Unlike many founders, Paine was openly skeptical of Christianity, advocating for a deistic approach that celebrated reason over religious dogma.

The Founding Fathers' vision ranged from Jefferson's enlightened deism to Witherspoon's orthodox Christianity. This variety ensured a balanced approach to religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment, aiming for a secular state allowing for varied religious practice, free from religious tyranny.

Influence of the Bible on the Founding Fathers

The Bible's influence on the Founding Fathers is evident in their understanding of human nature. They were aware of mankind's fallibility and moral imperfections, a worldview endorsed by biblical teachings, particularly those in Genesis. The notion that man is inherently flawed led the Founders to design a system of government with checks and balances to prevent the concentration and abuse of power, reflecting the biblical wisdom gleaned from texts such as Jeremiah 17:9 and Romans 3:23 . 1,2

Regarding social order and the legitimacy of authority, the Bible served as a cornerstone. Exodus 18:21 , where Jethro advises Moses to select capable men who fear God, are trustworthy, and hate dishonest gain to help govern Israel, influenced the Founders in their conceptualization of a righteous and accountable government led by virtuous individuals. 3 They perceived that the moral character of leaders was paramount, echoing the sentiment in Proverbs 29:2 . 4

In seeking to justify resistance against tyranny, the Founders turned to biblical precedents, most notably in the Old Testament accounts. These stories reinforced their belief that it was both a right and a duty to resist tyrannical authority, thus informing the revolutionary spirit that characterized the American struggle for independence.

The principle of liberty was another area richly informed by the Bible. The Founders frequently cited Galatians 5:1 , using it to underscore the value of personal and communal freedom. 5 Though this text fundamentally speaks to spiritual liberty, the revolutionary approach adopted it to highlight the broader human yearning for freedom from oppression.

As these biblical principles were interwoven into the Constitution, they also found expression in practical governance:

• The Bible's call for justice and equity under the law is mirrored in the equal protection and due process clauses.
• The Judeo-Christian ethic, promoting societal moral standards and personal responsibility, provided a foundation for the rule of law as envisioned by the Founders.

The Bible was a vital text that informed the Founding Fathers' public and political lives. Its teachings on human nature, social order, and righteous leadership influenced their construction of the American constitutional republic. They envisaged a system where a virtuous citizenry, guided by reason and moral integrity, could sustain a free and just society. The result is a legacy where religious freedom flourishes within a secular government framework—a testament to the foresight of the Founding Fathers and the timeless wisdom they drew from biblical scripture.

The First Amendment and Religious Freedom

The inclusion of religious freedom in the First Amendment was a profound philosophical and political statement, reflecting the lived experiences and aspirations of the American colonists. Many colonists had fled their homelands to escape the tyrannical reach of state-endorsed churches, seeking a place where they could worship freely without fear of oppression.

These personal experiences deeply influenced the Founding Fathers' views on religious liberty:

• Thomas Jefferson witnessed the harsh persecution of dissenters in Virginia, particularly Baptists who were imprisoned for preaching without a license. This sparked his commitment to safeguarding religious freedom and his creation of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom .
• James Madison understood the dangers of a state intertwined with religious authority, believing that true religious faith could only flourish without government interference.

The philosophical and political theories of the Enlightenment also played a crucial role in shaping the Founders' views on religious liberty. Thinkers like John Locke argued that belief could not be coerced and that individuals had an inherent right to religious liberty—a view that resonated with the Founding Fathers. 6

The Founders recognized that for a society to truly respect personal liberty and foster civic virtue, it must allow individuals the freedom to believe and worship as they choose. The separation of church and state was seen as a means of ensuring that faith could thrive without the corrupting influences of political power.

Politically, the Founders were wary of the religious conflicts that had plagued Europe for centuries. Their aim was to prevent such turmoil in the nascent United States by ensuring that government neither mandated nor restricted religious practices.

The varied religious composition of the American colonies necessitated an approach that could accommodate a broad spectrum of beliefs. The First Amendment, with its establishment clause and free exercise clause , sought to provide this accommodation:

• By prohibiting the establishment of a national religion, the Founders ensured that no single denomination could claim governmental endorsement.
• Simultaneously, by protecting the free exercise of religion, they guaranteed that all individuals could practice their faith without fear of government reprisal.

The First Amendment embodied a blend of philosophical ideals and practical considerations. It was the product of Enlightenment rationalism, historical experiences of persecution, and a pragmatic recognition of the pluralistic nature of American society. The result was a constitutional framework that allowed for a vibrant diversity of religious expression while maintaining a government that was neutral in matters of faith.

Thus, the inclusion of religious freedom in the First Amendment was a cornerstone of the Founders' vision for a nation where liberty and justice could prevail for all, uninhibited by the specter of religious domination or discrimination. It ensured that Americans could build a society rooted in moral integrity and personal liberty, reflecting the profound insights and foresight of the enlightened minds that crafted this unparalleled document.

The Wall of Separation Between Church and State

The phrase "wall of separation between church and state," coined by Thomas Jefferson, has become a cornerstone in understanding the American constitutional approach to church-state relations. Jefferson's intent was crystallized in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, where he sought to assure the Baptists that their religious freedoms would be protected from governmental interference. He asserted that the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between Church & State," reinforcing his commitment to religious liberty as outlined in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Jefferson's metaphor stemmed from his Enlightenment ideals and rationalist principles, believing that reason should guide human governance—including religious matters. His advocacy for a clear delineation between the roles of religion and government was shaped by his observations of the oppressive religious practices in Europe and the colonial experiences in America. He contended that religious belief should be a matter of personal conviction, free from state coercion.

Initially, Jefferson's notion was closely aligned with the efforts to ensure that no single religious denomination could wield governmental power, thus maintaining a pluralistic and equitable civil society. However, his phrase has been subject to various interpretations since its inception. Scholars and jurists have debated whether Jefferson intended an absolute separation where no acknowledgment or accommodation of religion in public life would be permissible, or merely a prohibition against the establishment of a state-sponsored religion.

Supreme Court interpretations have varied over the decades. In the landmark case of Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Court referenced Jefferson's phrase in defining the scope of the First Amendment. The opinion affirmed that laws could not interfere with religious belief but could regulate practices that were subversive to good order. This case set a precedent, framing the wall as a barrier to legislative imposition on religious belief while allowing for legal constraints on religious practices that conflicted with civil obligations. 1

Significant shifts occurred with the mid-20th-century jurisprudence. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court emphasized a strict interpretation, asserting that no aid or preferment should be granted to religious institutions by the state, although it upheld the state's provision of transportation subsidies to parochial schools. This case underscored the interpretation that the government must remain neutral in religious matters, avoiding any entanglement which might suggest state endorsement of religion.

Conversely, some critics argue that an overly rigid interpretation of the "wall" inhibits reasonable and historical intersections of faith and governance. Historical practices such as legislative prayers, the employment of chaplains, and public religious expressions by government officials have been seen by some as congruent with the Founders' intent to allow public religious practices within a framework that avoids preferential treatment. 2

The debate over the phrase "wall of separation" persists, influencing contemporary discussions on religious displays on public property, religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, and the extent of permissible religious expression within public institutions. Jefferson's vision was fundamentally about preventing an official state religion and ensuring that government could not coerce individuals in matters of faith, thus fostering a society where religious liberty could thrive.

Therefore, while Jefferson's "wall of separation" is a defining concept, its practical application has evolved, demonstrating the dynamic interplay between maintaining religious freedom and accommodating religious diversity within a constitutional republic.

Modern Interpretations and Controversies

In recent times, the discourse surrounding religious freedom and the separation of church and state has persisted as a dynamic and often contentious area of American constitutional law. Modern interpretations of Jefferson's "wall of separation" continue to inform contemporary legal challenges and societal debates, illustrating the evolving nuances of the Founding Fathers' vision in today's diverse religious landscape.

One of the significant modern studies contributing to this ongoing discussion is the Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy's annual Religious Liberty in the States Index. This comprehensive index analyzes state laws and regulations across fourteen categories, examining the impact on both individuals and religious organizations. The findings from the latest report reveal an intriguing spectrum of religious freedom protections across the United States, highlighting the intricate balance states attempt to achieve between safeguarding religious liberties and adhering to secular principles.

For example, Illinois , a state with a predominantly liberal political climate, ranks highest in religious freedom protections. This stands in contrast to West Virginia , a state with a more conservative orientation, ranking lowest. Such results suggest that safeguarding religious freedom transcends political boundaries and reflects a broader approach.

Discussions within the judicial and legislative frameworks continue to shape the understanding and application of religious freedom. Landmark cases such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission underscore the ongoing legal balancing act between religious liberties and other fundamental rights, such as non-discrimination. These cases reflect the judiciary's approach to ensuring that religious freedom does not impinge upon the rights and freedoms of others, maintaining the delicate equilibrium envisioned by the Founding Fathers. 3

As these legal challenges unfold, it becomes evident that religious freedom in the United States embraces a bipartisan appeal. Jonathan Den Hertog, a professor at Samford University, underscores that this fundamental liberty necessitates bipartisan support to remain a vital force in American public life. His insights remind us that the protection and preservation of religious freedoms must transcend political affiliations.

Yet, despite the non-partisan ideal, certain aspects of religious freedom continue to spark debate. Issues such as exemptions related to marriage and healthcare often reveal ideological divides. While some argue for broader religious accommodations, others raise concerns about potential infringements upon civil rights and equality. The intricacy of these debates mirrors the diverse religious and societal fabric of the nation, necessitating a legal and political approach that respects both religious convictions and fundamental rights.

Modern studies also reflect the significant role of religious liberty in protecting minority faiths. Asma T. Uddin, a legal scholar, highlights how these protections are vital for communities like American Muslims. Provisions for religious school absences, religious ceremonial life, and opt-out provisions for public school curricula on sexual orientation and gender identity are crucial in ensuring that religious minorities can practice their faith freely within a secular framework. 4

The Religious Liberty in the States Index employs quantitative measures to assess the impact of laws on religious freedoms. This empirical approach provides policymakers and legislators with valuable insights to reform and enhance religious freedom protections in their respective states. As the Center for Religion, Culture and Democracy plans to expand its index and possibly undertake a similar project in Europe, it underscores the transatlantic relevance of religious freedom debates.

In conclusion, the modern interpretation of religious freedom in the United States remains a dynamic and multifaceted endeavor. The Founding Fathers' vision, encapsulated in the First Amendment, continues to guide contemporary legal and societal debates, ensuring that religious liberty thrives within a constitutional republic.

The Founding Fathers' commitment to religious freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment, remains a cornerstone of American values. Their vision of a society where liberty and justice prevail, free from religious tyranny, continues to guide contemporary discussions on church-state relations. This legacy underscores the importance of maintaining a constitutional framework that respects individual conscience while fostering a diverse and harmonious society.

• Election Integrity
• Border Security

Political Thought

• American History
• Conservatism
• Progressivism

Domestic Policy

• Government Regulation
• Health Care Reform

National Security

• Cybersecurity

Government Spending

• Budget and Spending

International

• Global Politics
• Middle East

Energy & Environment

• Environment

Legal and Judicial

• Crime and Justice
• The Constitution
• Marriage and Family

Religious Liberty

• International Economies
• Markets and Finance

Why Does Religious Freedom Matter?

Select a Section 1 /0

Religious liberty and a thriving religious culture are defining attributes of the United States, characterizing the American order as much as its political system and market economy. [1] From the earliest settlements of the 17th century to the great social reform causes led by religious congregations in the late 19th century and again in the 20th century, religion has been a dominant theme of American life.

Today, almost 90 percent of Americans say that religion is at least “somewhat important” in their lives. [2] About 60 percent are members of a local religious congregation. [3] Faith-based organizations are extremely active in providing for social needs at home and in sending aid abroad.

Why does religious liberty matter—to America and to the world?

Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of the American experiment. That is because religious faith is not merely a matter of “toleration” but is understood to be the exercise of “inherent natural rights.” As George Washington once observed: “[T]he Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” And “what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator,” James Madison wrote in his 1786 Memorial and Remonstrance . “This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”

The model of religious liberty brilliantly designed by Madison and the other American Founders is central to the success of the American experiment. It is essential to America’s continued pursuit of the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence, the ordered liberty embodied in the Constitution, and peace and stability around the world.

The key to America’s religious liberty success story is its constitutional order. The Founders argued that virtue derived from religion is indispensable to limited government. The Constitution therefore guaranteed religious free exercise while prohibiting the establishment of a national religion. This Constitutional order produced a constructive relationship between religion and state that balances citizens’ dual allegiances to God and earthly authorities without forcing believers to abandon (or moderate) their primary loyalty to God.

This reconciling of civil and religious authorities, and the creation of a Constitutional order that gave freedom to competing religious groups, helped develop a popular spirit of self-government. All the while, religious congregations, family, and other private associations exercise moral authority that is essential to maintaining limited government. The American Founders frequently stated that virtue and religion are essential to maintaining a free society because they preserve “the moral conditions of freedom.” [4]

Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness. – Samuel Adams October 16, 1778

Today, the religious roots of the American order and the role of religion in its continued success are poorly understood. One source of the confusion is the phrase “separation of church and state,” a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson in a widely misunderstood letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802. [5] Many think this means a radical separation of religion and politics. Some have gone so far as to suggest that religion should be entirely personal and private, kept out of public life and institutions like public schools.

That is incorrect: Jefferson wanted to protect states’ freedom of religion from federal government control and religious groups’ freedom to tend to their internal matters of faith and practice without government interference generally. Unfortunately, Jefferson’s phrase is probably more widely known than the actual text of the Constitution’s First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The American model of religious liberty takes a strongly positive view of religious practice, both private and public. While it does not mean that anything and everything done in the name of religious liberty is not subject to the rule of law, it does mean that the law ought to make as much room as possible for the practice of religious faith. Far from privatizing religion, it assumes that religious believers and institutions will take active roles in society, including engaging in politics and policy-making and helping form the public’s moral consensus. In fact, the American Founders considered religious engagement in shaping the public morality essential to ordered liberty and the success of their experiment in self-government.

Defying predictions that political and social progress would eventually marginalize religion, religious belief and practice remain widespread and vibrant around the world.

“The very things that were supposed to destroy religion—democracy and markets, technology and reason—are combining to make it stronger,” write the authors of a book about religion’s persistence in culture and politics around the world. [6]

In this era—as in all prior human history—God has occupied the thoughts of man. Conscience, the mystery of existence, and the prospect of death challenge every human being to grapple with questions of transcendence and divine reality.

Religious freedom recognizes the right of all people to pursue these transcendent ends. This right is granted not by government but by the Creator. By respecting it, a government acknowledges that such ultimate issues are outside its jurisdiction, and that conscience is answerable to a higher authority than the law of the land. Individuals and institutions should be free to believe and to act in response to divine reality.

Because religious liberty is the bedrock for all human freedom, it provides a sturdy foundation for limited government. Liberty of conscience demands, and ultimately justifies, limited government.

Conversely, limited government requires individual responsibility. Freedom engages the moral responsibility of each and every person. In a free society, religion is an ally of good government as it forms the moral character of individuals and communities.

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right that ought to be enjoyed by the people of all nations. This principle has been recognized in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent international agreements. Despite widespread recognition, many people are unable to exercise this basic liberty.

Even with religion’s global prevalence, religious freedom is far from universally respected. About a third of the world’s nations restrict religion to a high or very high degree, according to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Seventy percent of the world’s population lives in these countries. [7]

In some cases, totalitarian governments have oppressed religious individuals and groups generally. In others, statist regimes built on an established religion have persecuted religious minorities.

Countries designated by the U.S. State Department as “countries of particular concern” because they restrict religious freedom (such as North Korea, Iran, and Burma) suffer in other ways as well. They also tend to have the least economic liberty—and some of the worst economic outcomes.

On the other hand, governments that respect religious liberty tend to respect other freedoms as well. Religious freedom is strongly related to political liberty, economic freedom, and prosperity. As one researcher of international religious liberty notes, “[W]herever religious freedom is high, there tends to be fewer incidents of armed conflict, better health outcomes, higher levels of earned income, and better educational opportunities for women.” [8]

The 1998 International Religious Freedom Act made religious liberty an official part of U.S. foreign policy. The United States committed to promote freedom of religion as “a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries” and to “identify and denounce regimes” that engage in persecution on the basis of religion.

Condemning and curtailing religious persecution is a critical goal, but religious freedom includes much more. Our vision of religious liberty must be robust.

Attempts to relegate religion to private life or to prevent religious institutions from conducting their business according to their beliefs threaten this fundamental freedom. Religious individuals and institutions should be free to exercise their religious belief within their private spheres as well as to engage publicly on the basis of religion. Believers should be free to persuade others to embrace their beliefs. Individuals should be able to leave or change their religion without fear of reprisal, and all should have the right to protection under the rule of law regardless of belief.

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. – Martin Luther King, Jr. 1963

The most secure and consistent protection for religious liberty needs to be rooted in constitutional government. U.S. public diplomacy can support the development of such robust religious freedom by telling America’s success story.

That requires that U.S. policymakers understand and be able to articulate the role of religion in the American constitutional order. In the 21st-century war of ideas, U.S. public diplomacy must rely on the bedrock of American founding principles in the fight against potent ideologies that present strong, coherent, and deeply misguided explanations of the nature and purpose of human existence. Evaluating religious dynamics around the world should become a regular function of analysis, and articulating the role of religion in the U.S. should be a consistent feature of communications strategy.

Religion and traditional morality continue to play a significant role in American public life. Most Americans continue to attach great significance to religious faith and practice, marriage, family, and raising children in a morally rich and supportive environment—values shared in many highly religious societies around the world.

Religious freedom is the birthright of all people, but too few governments around the world acknowledge it and far too many people have never enjoyed it.

One of the gifts of providence to the United States is a Constitution that has successfully safeguarded this fundamental right. It is a gift Americans should cherish and a model for all throughout the world.

Jennifer A. Marshall is Director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation .

Enduring Truths

• George Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport, Rhode Island The first president’s letter to this Hebrew Congregation—and by extension to one of the most persecuted religious groups in world history—eloquently articulates the American position that religious liberty is not merely a matter of tolerance but is an inherent right to be guaranteed by government.
• Gerard V. Bradley, Religious Liberty in the American Republic In this monograph, Bradley explains the Founders’ view of the relationship between religion and politics, and demonstrates how the Supreme Court radically deviated from this view in embarking on a project aimed at the secularization of American politics and society.
• J. D. Foster and Jennifer A. Marshall, “ Freedom Economics and Human Dignity ” The way we talk about freedom in the economic sphere tends to overlook the aspects of human experience that transcend the material. This essay explains how economic freedom helps order our lives together in a way that reflects the nature of man, the purpose of human life, and the satisfying of material needs and wants.

Current Issues

• PROMOTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. Thomas Farr, Ph.D. and Ambassador Terry Miller, “ Diplomacy in an Age of Faith: How Failing to Understand the Role of Religion Hinders America’s Purposes in the World ,” December 17, 2008. Farr and Miller argue that the American foreign affairs establishment has failed to grasp the significance of the resurgence of public religion around the world. As a result, it has missed an opportunity to incorporate the advancement of international religious freedom and the promotion of religious liberty into the general freedom agenda. This missed opportunity has harmed our interests.
• DEFAMATION OF RELIGION. Steven Groves, “ Why the U.S. Should Oppose ‘Defamation of Religions’ Resolution at the United Nations ,” November 10, 2008. The United Nations, with the backing of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, seeks to promote the concept of “defamation of religion,” which would establish an international ban on any speech that would insult, criticize, or disparage any religion. But the First Amendment to the Constitution protects the freedom of religion, which includes the right both to follow a faith and to criticize it. Groves demonstrates that the U.S. must oppose any effort to make “defamation of religion” part of U.S. law, and must resist spread of this concept inside the U.N. system.
• PUBLIC DIPLOMACY. Jennifer A. Marshall, “ Religious Liberty in America: An Idea Worth Sharing Through Public Diplomacy ,” January 15, 2009. U.S. public diplomacy seeks to impart to foreign audiences an understanding and appreciate of American ideals, principles, and institutions. In the United States, religious freedom is compatible with a positive and public role for religion. This is an American success story that should be told around the world. Marshall shows that, if public diplomacy is to play its full role in advancing American interests and ideals, it must systematically address both the role of religion and religious audiences.

Download the Report:

• PDF (Black and White)
• PDF (Color)

[1] Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (New York: Madison Books, 1991), p. 16.

[2] Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant,” June 2008, p. 22, at http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf (November 16, 2010).

[3] Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant,” pp. 36 and 39.

[4] Thomas G. West, “Religious Liberty,” Claremont Institute, January 1997, at http://www.claremont.org/writings/970101west.html (November 16, 2010).

[5] Daniel L. Dreisbach, Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York: New York University Press, 2002).

[6] John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World (New York: Penguin, 2009), p. 12.

[7] Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “Global Restrictions on Religion,” December 2009, at http://pewforum.org/Government/Global-Restrictions-on-Religion.aspx (December 6, 2010).

[8] Brian Grim, “Religious Freedom: Good for What Ails Us?” The Review of Faith & International Affairs , Vol. 6, No. 2 (Summer 2008).

Former Senior Visiting Fellow

The moral and religious beliefs of individuals and organizations should be respected in law.  

Learn more policies that protect right of conscience in everyday living with Solutions .

Download Our “What You Need To Know About Religious Freedom” Guide Here .

COMMENTARY 2 min read

LEGAL MEMO About an hour read

COMMENTARY 3 min read

Subscribe to email updates

© 2024, The Heritage Foundation

Library of Congress

Exhibitions.

• Ask a Librarian
• Digital Collections
• Library Catalogs

• Exhibitions Home
• Current Exhibitions
• All Exhibitions
• Loan Procedures for Institutions
• Special Presentations

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1

In response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

Religion and the Constitution

When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, "many pious people" complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained "no recognition of his mercies to us . . . or even of his existence." The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: first, many delegates were committed federalists, who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments; second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to introduce such a politically controversial issue as religion into the Constitution. The only "religious clause" in the document--the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six--was intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.

That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.

Franklin Requests Prayers in the Constitutional Convention

Benjamin Franklin delivered this famous speech, asking that the Convention begin each day's session with prayers, at a particularly contentious period, when it appeared that the Convention might break up over its failure to resolve the dispute between the large and small states over representation in the new government. The eighty one year old Franklin asserted that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth--that God governs in the Affairs of Men." "I also believe," Franklin continued, that "without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel." Franklin's motion failed, ostensibly because the Convention had no funds to pay local clergymen to act as chaplains.

Speech to the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787 . Benjamin Franklin, Holograph manuscript. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (145)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj145

Prohibition of Religious Tests

The language prohibiting religious tests as a qualification for federal office holders, ultimately incorporated into Article Six of the Constitution, was proposed by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina on August 20, 1787, and adopted by the full Convention on August 30. Here we see the language as it was added to the first working draft of the Constitution, the so-called Committee of Detail report of August 6, 1787, by the Convention secretary, William Jackson.

Constitution of the United States (William Jackson Copy), Committee of Detail report . Broadside, August 6, 1787. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (146)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj146

Back to top

Religion and the Bill of Rights

Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.

James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments

The Virginia Ratifying Convention approved the Constitution with the understanding that the state's representatives in the First Federal Congress would try to procure amendments that the Convention recommended. The twentieth proposed amendment deals with religion; it is an adaptation of the final article in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 with this additional phrase: "that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others."

Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States . [page one] - [ Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States . Page two. Virginia Ratifying Convention, Broadside, June 25, 1788. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (147) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006498.jpg ">page two ] - [ Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States . Page three. Virginia Ratifying Convention, Broadside, June 25, 1788. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (147) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006499.jpg ">page three ] - [ Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States . Page four. Virginia Ratifying Convention, Broadside, June 25, 1788. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (147) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006500.jpg ">page four ] Virginia Ratifying Convention, Broadside, June 25, 1788. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (147)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj147

Baptist Preacher's Objections to the Constitution

The influential Baptist preacher, John Leland, wrote a letter, containing ten objections to the Federal Constitution, and sent it to Colonel Thomas Barbour, an opponent of the Constitution in James Madison's Orange County district. Leland's objections were copied by Captain Joseph Spencer, one of Madison's Baptist friends, and sent to Madison so that he could refute the arguments. Leland's final objection was that the new constitution did not sufficiently secure "What is dearest of all---Religious Liberty." His chief worry was "if a Majority of Congress with the President favour one System more than another, they may oblige all others to pay to the support of their System as much as they please."

Objections to the Federal Constitution, [February 1788] . [page one] - [ Objections to the Federal Constitution, [February 1788] . Page two. John Leland. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (148) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006654.jpg ">page two ] John Leland. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (148)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj148

Madison's Notes for the Bill of Rights

Madison used this outline to guide him in delivering his speech introducing the Bill of Rights into the First Congress on June 8, 1789. Madison proposed an amendment to assuage the anxieties of those who feared that religious freedom would be endangered by the unamended Constitution. According to The Congressional Register Madison , on June 8, moved that "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed."

Notes for a speech introducing the Bill of Rights, [June 8, 1789] . [page one] - [ Notes for a speech introducing the Bill of Rights, [June 8, 1789] . Page two. James Madison, Holograph notes. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (149) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006644.jpg ">page two ] James Madison, Holograph notes. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (149)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj149

The Bill of Rights

The necessary two thirds majority in each house of Congress ratified the Bill of Rights on September 28, 1789. As sent to the states for approval, the Bill of Rights contained twelve proposed amendments to the Constitution. Amendments One and Two did not receive the required approval of three fourths of the states. As a result, Article Three in the original Bill of Rights became the First Amendment to the Constitution. This copy on vellum was signed by Speaker of the House Frederick Muhlenberg, Vice President John Adams, and Secretary of State Samuel Otis.

The Bill of Rights (the John Beckley copy) September 28, 1789 . Holograph manuscript on vellum. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (150)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj150

The Rhetorical Support of Religion: Washington and Adams

The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government. As citizens of Virginia and Massachusetts, both were sympathetic to general religious taxes being paid by the citizens of their respective states to the churches of their choice. However both statesmen would have discouraged such a measure at the national level because of its divisiveness. They confined themselves to promoting religion rhetorically, offering frequent testimonials to its importance in building the moral character of American citizens, that, they believed, undergirded public order and successful popular government.

George Washington, Episcopal Vestryman

Washington was for many years a vestryman at Truro Parish, his local Episcopal Church. The entry of June 5, 1772, shows Washington and his neighbor, George Mason, the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, engaged in parish business, including making arrangements for replacing the front steps of the church, painting its roof and selling church pews to the members as a means of obtaining revenue. The minutes of the meeting also reveal that Washington and George William Fairfax presented the parish with gold leaf to be used to gild letters on "Carved Ornaments" on the altar.

The Vestry Book of Truro Parish, Virginia, 1732-1802 . Manuscript volume. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (152)

George Washington . Chalk drawing on paper, ca. 1800, by St. Memin. Prints and Photograph Division , Library of Congress (151)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj151

Washington's Prayer

The draft of the circular letter is in the hand of a secretary, although the signature is Washington's. Some have called this concluding paragraph "Washington's Prayer." In it, he asked God to: "dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."

Circular to the chief executives of the states, June 11, 1783 . George Washington, Manuscript. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (153)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj153

"To Bigotry no Sanction"

President George Washington and a group of public officials, including Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, left New York City, the temporary capital of the United States, on August 15, 1790, for a brief tour of Rhode Island. At Newport, Washington received an address of congratulations from the congregation of the Touro Synagogue. His famous answer, assuring his fellow citizens "of the Stock of Abraham" that the new American republic would give "to bigotry no sanction, to persecution not assistance," is seen here in the copy from Washington's letterbook.

George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in New Port, Rhode Island . [page one] - [ George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in New Port, Rhode Island . Page two. Manuscript copy, Letterbook 1790-1794. Manuscript Division. Library of Congress (154) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006485.jpg ">page two ] Manuscript copy, Letterbook 1790-1794. Manuscript Division . Library of Congress (154)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj154

Washington's Farewell Address

George Washington's Farewell Address is one of the most important documents in American history. Recommendations made in it by the first president, particularly in the field of foreign affairs, have exerted a strong and continuing influence on American statesmen and politicians. The address, in which Washington informed the American people that he would not seek a third term and offered advice on the country's future policies, was published on September 19, 1796, in David Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser . It was immediately reprinted in newspapers and as a pamphlet throughout the United States. The address was drafted in July 1796 by Alexander Hamilton and revised for publication by the president himself. Washington also had at his disposal an earlier draft by James Madison.

The "religion section" of the address was for many years as familiar to Americans as was Washington's warning that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with foreign nations. Washington's observations on the relation of religion to government were commonplace, and similar statements abound in documents from the founding period. Washington's prestige, however, gave his views a special authority with his fellow citizens and caused them to be repeated in political discourse well into the nineteenth century.

Hamilton's Draft of Washington's Farewell Address

George Washington's Farewell Address was drafted by Alexander Hamilton who made a stronger case for the necessity of religious faith as a prop for popular government than Washington was willing to accept. Washington incorporated Hamilton's assertion that it was unreasonable to suppose that "national morality can be maintained in exclusion of religious principle," but declined to add Hamilton's next sentence, written in the left margin of this page: "does it [national morality] not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative Religion?"

Draft of Washington's Farewell Address, [July] 1796 . Alexander Hamilton. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (155)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj155

The Farewell Address

In his Farewell Address, the first president advised his fellow citizens that "Religion and morality" were the "great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens." "National morality," he added, could not exist "in exclusion of religious principle." "Virtue or morality," he concluded, as the products of religion, were "a necessary spring of popular government." The "religion section" is located in the lower right portion of page one and continues to the upper right portion of page two.

The Farewell Address . [page one] - [ The Farewell Address . Page two. George Washington, Broadside. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (156) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006506.jpg ">page two ] - [ The Farewell Address . Page three. George Washington, Broadside. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (156) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006507.jpg ">page three ] George Washington, Broadside. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (156)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj156

Adams on Religion

John Adams, a self-confessed "church going animal," grew up in the Congregational Church in Braintree, Massachusetts. By the time he wrote this letter his theological position can best be described as Unitarian. In this letter Adams tells Jefferson that "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."

John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817 . [page one] - [ John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817 . Page two. Holograph letter. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (157) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006646.jpg ">page two ] - [ John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817 . Page three. Holograph letter. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (157) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006647.jpg ">page three ] - [ John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817 . Page four. Holograph letter. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (157) //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006648.jpg ">page four ] Holograph letter. Manuscript Division , Library of Congress (157)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj157

Adams's Fast Day Proclamation

John Adams continued the practice, begun in 1775 and adopted under the new federal government by Washington, of issuing fast and thanksgiving day proclamations. In this proclamation, issued at a time when the nation appeared to be on the brink of a war with France, Adams urged the citizens to "acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation; beseeching him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offences, and to incline us, by His Holy Spirit, to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction."

Fast Day Proclamation, March 23, 1798 . John Adams. Broadside. Rare Book and Special Collections Division , Library of Congress (158)

Bookmark this item: //www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html#obj158

Connect with the Library

All ways to connect

Subscribe & Comment

• RSS & E-Mail

Download & Play

• iTunesU (external link)

About | Press | Jobs | Donate Inspector General | Legal | Accessibility | External Link Disclaimer | USA.gov

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A Sociology of Religious Freedom

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Freedom of and from religion is a key concept to understand the place of religious and spiritual identities, beliefs, and practices in the contemporary world. Sociology can assist in explaining why and how religious freedom holds a variety of meanings in society and may be perceived differently by individuals, social groups, and institutions. This book addresses three major questions of a sociology of religious freedom. First, how to define religious freedom as a multidimensional concept considering its complex and controversial nature. Second, what are the recurrent sociological conditions and relevant social perceptions that will foster an understanding of religious freedom in varying political, legal, and socioreligious contexts. Third, what are the mechanisms of social implementation of religious freedom that contribute to making it a fundamental value of human rights culture in a society. The book suggests that a sociological definition of religious freedom requires taking into account historical, philosophical, legal, religious, and political considerations of a given society. By disclosing the interplay of structural conditions and individual and group perceptions, sociology develops an understanding of the normative and value-laden nature of religious freedom, as well as its societal functions. The book argues that the social mechanisms of incorporation of religious freedom principles into institutional culture are as important as its legal implementation.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Freedom by coercion: augustine’s limitation of coercion by the state  †, 1. introduction, 2. a brief history of donatism in africa, 3. religious coercion in the roman empire.

Emperors had always been expected to have a firm religious policy in order to be sure of the support of the gods. From 250 onwards, and especially during the Great Persecution initiated by Diocletian, the authorities had shown no hesitation in fostering the traditional religiones of the empire by ‘taking out’ the Christian Church—by forbidding its meetings and destroying its property and sacred books. Constantine and his Christian successors did the same in reverse. ( Brown 2013, p. 74 )

4. Augustine on Freedom and Coercion

God knows that this attitude of my mind is directed toward peace and that I am not trying to force anyone involuntarily into the Catholic communion, but to reveal the plain truth to all who are in error. Then, once our ministry has made it evident with God’s help, the very truth may be enough to persuade them to embrace and follow her. 31

Indeed, no one ought to be forced against his will to faith, but unfaithfulness is usually—through God’s severity, or rather through his mercy—chastened by the scourges of tribulation. Because the best morals are chosen by freedom of will, is it therefore the case that the worst morals are not punished by the fullness of the law? But discipline, the avenger of an evil life, is entirely inappropriate except when previous training in a good life is scorned. If, then, there are laws that have been enacted against you, you are not being forced by them to do what is good, but you are being prevented by them from acting badly. For no one can do what is good unless he chooses and unless in his free will he loves [what is good]. On the other hand, fear of punishment, although not possessing the pleasure of a good conscience, at least sequesters evil desire within the confines of thought. Yet those who enacted the laws against you by which your recklessness is held in check—are they not the ones of whom the Apostle says that they do not bear the sword without cause, for they are God’s ministers, punishers in anger towards him who acts wickedly? 34

If I were to ask you how God the Father draws to his Son men whom he has left with free choice [ libero arbitrio ], you would perhaps answer with great difficulty. For how does he draw a person if he leaves him in such a way that he may choose what he wishes? And yet both things are true, but few are able to fathom this intellectually. 37

We have also taught that human beings were given free choice [ liberum arbitrium ] in such a way that it is still entirely correct that penalties are established by divine and human laws for serious sins, that it is the task of the religious rulers of the earth to restrain by due severity not only adulteries, murders, and other such crimes or outrages but also sacrileges. 39

What, then, does the medicine of the Church do here, as she seeks the salvation of all out of her motherly love, caught up as it were among those who are manic and those who are lethargic? Ought she or can she scorn them or leave them? She is necessarily bothersome to both, because she is an enemy to neither. For the manic cases do not want to be restrained, and the lethargic do not want to be stirred up. But loving concern continues to chastise the manic and stimulate the lethargic, but to love them both. Both are offended, but both are loved; both are bothered. As long as they are ill, they are angry, but once healed, both are grateful. 43

Not everyone who is merciful is a friend, nor is everyone who scourges an enemy. Better are the wounds from a friend than the spontaneous kisses of an enemy (Prv 27:6). It is better to love with severity than to deceive with leniency. It is more beneficial to take bread away from a hungry man if, when sure of food, he would neglect his salvation, than to break bread with a hungry man in order that he might be led astray and consent to injustice. And someone who ties down a crazy person and who rouses a lazy person loves them both, though he is a bother to both. 45

we desire that, by making use of judges and laws that cause fear, they be corrected, not killed, so that they do not fall into the punishments of eternal condemnation. We do not want discipline to be neglected in their regard or the punishment they deserve to be applied. Repress their sins, therefore, in such a way that those who repent having sinned may still exist. 47

by the mercy of Christ these laws, which seem to be against them, are rather in their favor since many Donatists have been corrected by them and are being corrected each day, and they give thanks that they have been corrected and set free from that mad destruction. And those who hated the laws now love them, and the more they hated the laws in their insanity, the more they are thankful, once they have recovered their health, that the laws so very conducive to their salvation were harsh toward them. And they are aroused by a similar love along with us for the others with whom they had been perishing. Hence, they strive equally with us in order that the others may not perish. 53

5. Conclusions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Augustine. 1990–. The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century . Hyde Park, NY: New City Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. 1998. Religions of Rome . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown, Peter. 1972. Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine . London: Faber and Faber. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown, Peter. 2000. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography , rev. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown, Peter. 2013. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A. D. 200–1000 , rev. ed. Chichister: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cameron, Alan. 2007. The Imperial Pontifex. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 103: 341–84. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30032227 (accessed on 25 July 2024).
• Congar, Yves M.-J. 1963. Introduction générale. In Bibliothèque Augustinienne . Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, vol. 28, pp. 7–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crespin, Rémi. 1965. Ministère et Sainteté: Pastorale du clergé et solution de la crise donatiste dans la vie et la doctrine de saint Augustin . Paris: Études Augustiniennes. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drake, Harold Allen. 1976. In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Trecennial Orations . Berkeley: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drake, Harold Allen. 2007. The Church, Society and Political Power. In The Cambridge History of Christianity . Edited by Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, pp. 403–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evans, Robert F. 1972. One and Holy: The Church in Latin Patristic Thought . London: SPCK. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frend, William Hugh Clifford. 1971. The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa . Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaddis, Michael. 2005. There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire . Berkeley: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hannan, Sean. 2021. The Enforcement of Violence and the Force of Love in Augustine: Epistle 93 and Its Aftermath. Studia Patristica 118: 71–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Josephus. 1997. The Jewish War . Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by Henry St. John Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, vol. 210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenski, Noel. 2016. Imperial Legislation and the Donatist Controversy: From Constantine to Honorius. In The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Contexts . Edited by Richard Miles. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, pp. 166–219. [ Google Scholar ]
• Markus, Robert A. 1970. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St Augustine . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Markus, Robert A. 1983. Saint Augustine’s Views on the ‘Just War’. Studies in Church History 20: 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rebillard, Éric. 2016. Augustine in Controversy with the Donatists before 411. In The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Contexts . Edited by Richard Miles. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, pp. 297–316. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaff, Philip. 1884. History of the Christian Church , rev. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, vol. 3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shaw, Brent D. 2011. Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanner, Norman. 1990. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils . London: Sheed & Ward, vol. 2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tilley, Maureen A. 1996. Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa . Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Dam, Raymond. 2007. Bishops and Society. In The Cambridge History of Christianity . Edited by Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, pp. 343–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Waldstein, Edmund. 2021. Spiritual Ends and Temporal Power: An Integralist Reading of City of God . In Augustine in a Time of Crisis: Politics and Religion Contested . Edited by Boleslaw Z. Kabala, Ashleen Menchaca-Bagnulo and Nathan Pinkoski. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 149–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willis, Geoffrey Grimshaw. 1950. Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy . London: S.P.C.K. [ Google Scholar ]

Share and Cite

Debusschere, A.P. Freedom by Coercion: Augustine’s Limitation of Coercion by the State. Religions 2024 , 15 , 1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091049

Debusschere AP. Freedom by Coercion: Augustine’s Limitation of Coercion by the State. Religions . 2024; 15(9):1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091049

Debusschere, Aaron P. 2024. "Freedom by Coercion: Augustine’s Limitation of Coercion by the State" Religions 15, no. 9: 1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091049

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Religious Freedom

by Matthew J. Franck

Federalist Papers referenced in essay:  #’s 1, 2, 10, 23, 47, 51, 52, 55, 84

A. Questions of religion, of religious freedom, and of religious strife are not major themes of the Federalist Papers.  Not a single one of the 85 essays takes up the protection of religious liberty as a distinct subject worthy of a sustained focus.  Yet we know that during this period of American history, from the revolution through the ratification and amendment of the Constitution (1775-1791), the protection of religious liberty, and the proper relationship of religion to politics, were of great concern to the Founders.  Why, then, in the single most important contemporaneous commentary on the Constitution, do the authors have so little to say on this subject? And when the subject is treated—always just in passing—what do the Federalist Papers have to teach us about religious freedom?

  B.  In the midst of the Revolutionary War, after the Continental Congress passed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, most of the thirteen former colonies—now calling themselves states—created new constitutions for themselves.  These replaced royal charters that were now either of no use to them, or fundamentally flawed as charters for self-governing republics. Most of these new state constitutions had something to say on the subject of religion and religious freedom, since most American states exhibited a good deal of religious diversity, and many had been settled by refugees from religious persecution.  Practically all Americans were Christians, though there were a few Jews. Practically all the Christians were Protestants, although there was a substantial Catholic population in Maryland.

C. However, the diversity among the Protestants was considerable, from Episcopalians to Presbyterians to Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, Methodists, Baptists, and Quakers.  In the politics of the newly independent states, it was vital that all these groups accommodate one another peaceably, and not make their different beliefs the basis of political conflict.  Everyone should therefore be free to worship as he or she saw fit, without being coerced to believe (or pretend to believe) in the doctrines of an official faith. On this much, all were agreed.

D. But, much else was negotiable.  Should officeholding be restricted to Christians, or even more narrowly to Protestants?  (Most of the states had some test of this sort.) Could a state recognize one particular church as privileged over others, even while leaving people otherwise free to worship where and as they please?  Should tax dollars support religious ministries or religious education? If so, should citizens be entitled to direct their own tax dollars to support ministries of their choosing—or to opt out altogether?  To all these questions, the states gave widely different answers.

E. In the state of Virginia, a religious controversy is much remembered today because James Madison was in the thick of it.  The state’s new constitution, adopted in 1776, had a strong statement on religious freedom. As a result, the Episcopal Church, which had served as the established (official) church of the Virginia colony, largely lost its predominant position.  But in 1785, a bill was proposed in the Virginia legislature to support Christian clergymen with tax dollars. Madison successfully opposed it in a petition famously known as the Memorial and Remonstrance.  He argued that such legislation interfered with the rights of individual conscience and the duties that men owe first to the “Governor of the Universe” before any human government.  The clergy support bill was defeated. Instead, the very next year the Virginia legislature adopted Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.   This law bolstered the protection already in the state constitution.  From this episode, we know that Madison was deeply concerned about state limitations on all freedoms, especially religious freedom.   The lack of much discussion of this subject in the Federalist Papers cannot be taken as evidence that the authors did not care about it but, rather, that they had little or no concern about the federal government’s potential for limiting religious liberty.

   E.  America’s first attempt at a constitution binding all the states together, the Articles of Confederation, does not contain any provision on religious freedom.  But the presumption of the Articles was that nearly all the important business of politics was to take place at the level of the states, with the Confederation loosely uniting them for defense and diplomacy.  When the Constitution was drafted in 1787, its aim was to change that equation and to give a new national government much more responsibility for the internal affairs of the United States. Still, the states would presumably remain closest to the people’s everyday lives (an idea the Federalist Papers themselves underscore repeatedly.)  Many of the specific protections of individual liberty—including religious liberty—that one commonly found in the state constitutions were not thought to be necessary or appropriate in the new Constitution.  The Framers believed that issues related to religious freedom would mostly occur in the context of state laws and policies, and be governed by each state’s constitution.

F. Moreover, the Federalist Papers are a series of essays intended to defend the proposed Constitution, and to advance the cause of its ratification by the states.  The three authors have no interest in picking unnecessary fights by pointing to the things the Framers left out of the Constitution.  They are concerned with defending what is in the Constitution, and the way in which it fundamentally reforms–for the better–the relationship of the states to the nation, and the relationship of the people to both of those levels of government.

G. The Constitution does make one statement about religious liberty.  Article VI requires public officials of both the state and federal governments to take an oath to “support this Constitution,” and then adds “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  The phrase was introduced by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and elicited little debate or discussion during the Constitutional Convention. Even today this seems one of the least controversial clauses the Constitution could possibly contain.  Madison never offers any explanation or defense of it, merely alluding to it in No. 52 when he remarks that service in the House of Representatives is “open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”

H. There are two major reasons that Article VI, Section 3 is barely referenced in the Federalist Papers.  Firstly, the most extended objections to the lack of a religious test were not raised until July, 1788–and the last of the Federalist Papers was published in May, 1788.  (However, in January, some delegates to the Massachusetts Convention had noted that the lack of a religious test for office contradicted the motivations of the earliest settlers, many of whom came to America to preserve their religious traditions.)   Secondly, the authors did not anticipate that there would be any significant opposition to this provisions. When Charles Pinckney presented this idea at the Convention, it was accepted almost without debate. The Framers did not expect any real concerns to be raised in the state ratifying conventions.

I. Yet various Anti-Federalists objected to the clause.  Why? Some openly worried that the “no religious Test” principle would permit non-Christians to hold public office.  Others were concerned that “papists” (Catholics) or Jews could hold office. Still others thought the clause might open officeholding to persons who believed in no God at all.  A test for specifically Christian belief would be problematic, so widely varied were the forms of Christianity.  If one were not prepared to state up front what forms of religious belief were ruled in, it would be very difficult to state what was ruled out.  And no one, it seems, was prepared to write “no Jews, Muslims, or atheists” into the text of the Constitution.

J. The July 1788 debates from the North Carolina ratifying conventions provide useful insights into concerns about “no religious test.”  Delegate Henry Abbot feared this would lead to “papists, deists, and Mahometans” taking office.  David Caldwell wanted a test because “the Christian religion was best calculated, of all religions, to make good members of society on account of its morality.”

K. Supporters of the clause argued that a religious test was, in and of itself, a limitation on religious liberty and contrary to American ideas.  Supporter James Iredell commented that “I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs . . . that it was the intention of those who formed this system to establish a general religious liberty in America.”  Samuel Spencer noted that “Religious tests have been the foundation of persecutions in all countries.” Some delegates expressed concerns that requiring such a test would lead to an established church at the national level.

L. In general, Anti-Federalists throughout the country had three major reservations on the status of religion under the proposed Constitution: 1) The “no religious Test” clause might result in the election of the “wrong” kind of people (and the definition of wrong varied from state to state);  2) The new federal government might interfere with the states’ systems of preference for Christianity, Protestantism, or particular denominations, and several states’ established churches could be threatened; and 3) Religious liberty in general would not be protected from invasion by the federal government.  Some people held all three views at once.

M. It may seem as if the third reservation cannot be squared with the first two.  However, it was common, at the time of the Founding, for political thinkers to be concerned about striking a balance between support for religion (owing to its perceived connection to sound morality) and freedom of religious belief.    They did not automatically think either that absolutely equal status for all religious views was required by the principle of religious freedom, nor that complete religious equality was the best way to provide support for religion and thus for morality.  Today, we are more inclined to think both those things, and thus to insist on all religious views (and even irreligious views like agnosticism, atheism, or secularism) being treated equally. Many of the Framers would not have agreed.

N. However, the demand for a bill of rights turned out to be one of the most significant Anti-Federalist critiques.   Nearly everyone agreed that the federal government should be stronger than it had been under the ineffective Articles of Confederation, and it was not difficult to make the case that the Constitution filled the bill nicely.   But the Framers’ omission of a bill of rights—an idea considered and rejected in the Constitutional Convention—gave the Constitution’s opponents their most powerful weapon. This omission was not enough to defeat the Constitution in any state.  It was not even enough to force the amendment of the Constitution as a precondition of its ratification. But it was enough to produce, in about half the states’ ratifying conventions, resolutions calling on the new Congress to propose amendments for the states to consider.

O. In the first session of the First Congress in the summer of 1789, James Madison, now a member of the new House of Representatives and eager to ensure ratification of the Constitution, consolidated over 37 proposed amendments and persisted in his campaign until a dozen proposed amendments were sent to the states.  Ten of them were ratified by December 1791 and are popularly known at the Bill of Rights. The one that became the First Amendment begins with a protection of religious liberty: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This language satisfied those who wanted a general protection of religious freedom; those who wanted to prevent the establishment of an “official” or preferred church by the federal government; and those who wanted to prevent that government’s interference with any preferences then existing at the state level.

P. Given his experience in 1785 with the Virginia controversy over support of clergymen, it is not surprising that Madison also proposed an amendment that would protect the “rights of conscience” (as well as free speech and press, and jury trials) from violation by the states .  While this proposed amendment survived the debate in the House, it was rejected by the Senate and not sent to the states.  Madison later said that this was the “most valuable” amendment of all, and he regretted its defeat.

   Q.  Madison regarded a limit on states’ authority over religious liberty as “more valuable” than the protection of religious liberty from federal power.  He shared Alexander Hamilton’s arguments (No. 84) for the omission of a bill of rights from the original Constitution.  Statements of the rights the federal government was forbidden to violate, Hamilton argued, might be “fine declarations,” but no language we might place in the Constitution could be so precisely drafted as to secure those rights with perfect success, protecting everything that should be protected and no more than that.  The language would require interpretation; interpretation would necessarily involve the branches of the very government one was trying to restrain; and the one restraint to which the government would answer would be the people’s authority.  Therefore, concrete freedoms, ultimately, “must altogether depend on public opinion.”  A bill of rights added really nothing to the Constitution.  As Hamilton concluded (No. 84), the Constitution as it came from Philadelphia in its original form was “itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a bill of rights” , and would thus safeguard all liberties, including religious freedom. What did he mean by this?

R. The Federalist Papers emphasize that the essential goal in designing a constitution for a free people is not the use of fine words about rights that amount only to “parchment barriers” against tyranny (No. 47), but, instead, the design of an “internal structure” (No. 23) that tilts all the outcomes of the political process in favor of freedom.  Whether it was religious liberty, or freedom of speech and press, or the free use of one’s ability to acquire property, the real protection was provided by federalism, the separation of powers and checks and balances, and other features of the Constitution’s system of republican government.  These principles themselves relied on public opinion, kept it at arm’s length, and shaped and directed it in ways friendly to freedom.

S. From the very first essay, the Federalist Papers are skeptical that we can simply trust majority rule to maintain liberty.   Even when people’s motives are good, they can be misled into thinking that they have all the answers, and can justifiably force others to agree with them.  Hamilton reminds his readers of bloody religious strife, still fresh in the memory of people only removed by a generation or two from European soil:

“nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit, which has, at all times, characterized political parties.  For, in politics as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword.  Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.” (No. 1)

T. Over and over, the authors of the Federalist Papers push their readers to recognize the unique pitfall of a democratic republic: the principle of democratic rule can lead to the oppression of minorities, with the majority itself turning out to be freedom’s enemy.  Therefore, the most important goal of the Constitution is to restrain, channel, and moderate the great power of the majority, without abandoning the principle that in a republic, the people’s will ultimately rules.

U. This recurring theme is most comprehensively fleshed out (No. 10 and No. 51) when Madison makes the novel argument that majority rule at the level of the whole United States will be more trustworthy than majority rule at the level of any individual state.  In the larger, more diverse political environment of the entire country, there will be many more “factions”: self-forming groups of people, organizing and pressing their views in the public sphere. None of them will hold the upper hand as the majority all by itself, and so all of them will have to learn to make compromises with one another, accommodating each other’s particular interests in order to form the shifting, temporary, cobbled-together majorities that can win elections and pass laws.  In such an environment, there are no permanent winners and losers. Everyone wins some fights and loses others.

V. Madison explicitly includes different religious viewpoints in this political analysis.  In addition to factions organized around economic self-interest, he considers “zeal for different opinions concerning religion” (No. 10) as a strong basis for organizing.  But, in this new democratic republic, the urge to impose one’s own view on the whole world, “by fire and sword” (No. 1) will be replaced by moderation, and toleration of fellow citizens’ different views, precisely because so many different views exist, and power must be shared.   “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.  It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects” (No. 51).  He continues a little later in the same essay:    “In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.”

W. This could be contrasted with a less favorable outlook in the smaller environment of a single state: “A religious sect, may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must secure the national councils against any danger from that source” (No. 10).  This helps explain why Madison, in the First Congress, thought a constitutional statement protecting religious liberty (and other freedoms too) from state governments was more vital than a similar statement aimed at the new federal government.  The states could be restrained by the federal government, but for restraining the federal government itself, a different calculation was required, as no political authority higher than itself would exist.  In national politics, then, a free and dynamic process of democratic rule would be its own best insurance policy, supplemented by the backup mechanisms of the separation of powers, and checks and balances among the branches of government.

   X.  If Madison sometimes seems skeptical of the good motives of religious citizens, does that mean that he is skeptical of religion?   Or does he think of religious faith as sometimes inclining people toward bad behavior rather than good? Not at all. He is realistic about what Christians call man’s “fallen” nature, and is concerned to give our politics a structure and shape that control what is worst in us and bring out what is best in us.

Y.  Madison is certain that if the unrestrained power of majority rule falls into the hands of a single-minded group, without any need for it to compromise with others, “neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control” of the majority’s behavior (No. 10).  This recognition that morality and religion need the help of wisely formed institutions is coupled with a faith that, if we do wisely design our politics, the good sense and sound morality of most people, grounded in their religious upbringing, will be the bedrock on which our constitutional order and our liberties rest:

As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.  Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.  Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.   (No. 55)

Madison is ultimately hopeful about human nature, or else he could not endorse the idea of a democratic republic at all.

Z. The authors of the Federalist Papers assumed that, for all their religious diversity, the American people are by and large the children of a shared culture, with a shared moral foundation:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.  (No. 2)

Certainly this statement exaggerated, for political purposes, the degree of cultural, ancestral, and even linguistic sameness among the Americans of 1787.  Still, the essential teachings of the Christian faith, the use of the English language as the common speech nationwide, the inheritance of British legal principles and political traditions, and the shared and unifying experience of the Revolution itself made the Americans into one people with a shared consciousness of a shared identity.  As the nation matured after the Founding, it faced problems of assimilating new groups—immigrants from every land, emancipated slaves, and formerly independent Native Americans—into the American mix.  Language, law, and a kind of “civic religion” melded elements of Judeo-Christian teaching with patriotic political principles, and became the essential tools of that assimilation.  And, among these essential principles of the American psyche is the protection of full religious freedom for all, whatever their beliefs.  As President George Washington said, in a famous 1790 letter to the Jewish congregation of Newport, Rhode Island:

“. . . happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. . . . everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Back to Essay Contest

Home — Essay Samples — Religion — Religious Freedom — The Importance of Freedom of Religion

The Importance of Freedom of Religion

• Categories: Art and Religion Religious Freedom

About this sample

Words: 702 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 702 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Historical context, legal framework, importance for social harmony, individual well-being, challenges and threats.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Arts & Culture Religion

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2096 words

5 pages / 2124 words

2 pages / 1008 words

1 pages / 427 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Religious Freedom

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right that encompasses the freedom to practice, change, or abstain from any religion or belief system. It is recognized as a cornerstone of democratic societies, ensuring individuals' [...]

The right to freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that plays a pivotal role in shaping personal and societal values. In this essay, we will delve into the significance of this right and how it can be harnessed to [...]

Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of democratic societies worldwide. This cherished freedom, enshrined in numerous international declarations and constitutions, allows individuals to practice [...]

Religious freedom is a fundamental principle that has been advocated for centuries. Nevertheless, it has not always been honored and protected. Today, many people are still denied the right to practice their religion freely, [...]

In the time period of 1692, when the Puritans came to this country for religious freedom, they had a strict moral code which everyone in the village lived by. Religion was especially important. The state was founded on religion, [...]

There has been much debate dating back to the 17th century over whether or not the English Revolution brought with it increased religious tolerance. Much of the discussion centers on whether or not the Parliamentary Acts [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free