freedom of religion essay

• 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

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?

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About The American Journal of Jurisprudence
• About the Notre Dame Law School
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Why Religious Freedom is a Human Right

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Daniel Philpott, Why Religious Freedom is a Human Right, The American Journal of Jurisprudence , Volume 68, Issue 3, December 2023, Pages 177–194, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auae003

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This essay presents a fresh defense of the human right of religious freedom. It addresses two versions of skepticism of this human right, one a liberal variant, which questions religious freedom’s distinctiveness, the other a post-modern variant, which questions religious freedom’s universality. The case for a universal and distinct human right of religious freedom rests upon the claim that religion is a basic human good, manifesting human dignity and warranting a human right. The essay details four respects in which religion fulfills the meaning of a basic human good. Religion is a purposive set of acts, or practices; is a definable phenomenon whose core meaning is right relationship with a superhuman power; entails both an intrinsic good and derivate goods; and is universal in its scope. Finally, crucial to the human right of religious freedom is religion’s interiority, that is, its critical involvement of will, mind, and heart.

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.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2049-6494
• Print ISSN 0065-8995
• Copyright © 2024 Notre Dame Law School
• 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.

• 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

Arguments for the Human Right to Religious Freedom

Arguments for the human right to religious freedom 1.

John Courtney Murray, S.J.

The following article is the closest that the later Murray came to a "purely natural law," philosophical argument. As mentioned in the general introduction, Murray began his 1945 philosophical argument with "essential definitions" of key terms that he though relevant to that debate—terms such as "conscience," "law," "state," and "God." Here he is defining the term "human dignity" that serves as the philosophical foundation for the right to religious freedom. In doing so, however, he is not delineating a timeless essence. Rather, he is making explicit a notion that, he contends, has emerged within Western societies. After the mid-1950s, natural law had become for Murray a developing tradition of ideas, commitments, and procedures that course through the social and political thought of a secular society that is continuously on the move.

In terms of the structure Murray established in "The Problem of Religious Freedom," this complex, secular notion of human dignity "converges" with the church's own, theologically-based judgments concerning the church's place in human history and its own freedom. That the secular society's and the church's judgments ought to converge is of course based in Murray's notion of Gelasian dualism (and concordia), as is his judgment that the church ought to affirm and defend human dignity as a social good. Since Murray is here simply trying to tone up Dignitatis's philosophical argument, the theological presuppositions of his earlier arguments recede into the background.

Here Murray strengthened his conciliar argument by adjusting the relative positions of the various principles that he had clarified in those conciliar discussions. The reader might especially note the positioning of the principle "as much freedom as possible" in this article, in contrast to its place in "Problem."

Yet a question remains: Is this what Western societies affirm when they proclaim commitments to human dignity? For Murray, the notion is intrinsically social and historical. It involves a view of the human person as constantly active within, and possessing responsibilities toward, the societies in which they live. Some criticisms of Western individualism do not find such a social notion of the human person at the heart of the Western experiment, while others find sociality there, but also a reticence to talk about those implied social commitments. Murray's understanding of human dignity also includes an intrinsic drive toward all that the human mind and heart can question, including the reality of God. Again, some criticisms of Western culture find at its core a constraining materialism. At the least, Murray's exposition perhaps can demonstrate that our alternatives are not simply between individualistic isolation and communitarian emersion, materialistic constriction and spiritualistic escapism. It might be possible to develop an understanding of the human person that preserves both the strong sense of personal integrity and worth of the individualist traditions, the social interdependence of more communitarian traditions, and a strong concern for material existence that is involved in commitments to social justice—Editor.

The Vatican Declaration " Dignitatis humanae personae " affirmed that the human person has a right to religious freedom. It showed that the concept of religious freedom is clear, distinct, and technically exact regarding both its ground and its object, and adequately developed concerning what it embraces. First I will reiterate what the council meant and what generally is meant by religious freedom. Then I will address the more difficult question of how to construct the argument—whether derived from reason or from revelation—that will give a solid foundation to what the Declaration affirms. For nearly four years the conciliar Fathers and experts vigorously debated this justification, eventually completing the brief argument found in the Declaration (n.2,3). Even so, it is fair to say that this argument has pleased or pleases no one in all respects.

We can legitimately debate how better to construct the argument. For the Council's teaching authority falls upon what it affirmed, not upon the reasons it adduced for its affirmation. The Council did not intend that the Declaration establish an apodictic proof. The Declaration was merely to outline certain arguments, mainly to demonstrate that the affirmation of religious freedom is doctrinal. 2 The church's affirmation is based upon arguments drawn both from human reason and from Christian sources. Please allow me, then, what you have allowed others: to discuss this whole matter briefly.

I. Civil Religious Freedom

To begin with, it will be useful carefully to delimit what we must argue. This will not be difficult if we keep in mind that the concept of religious freedom includes a two-fold immunity from coercion.

First, in the sphere of religion no one is to be compelled to act against his conscience. Nowadays this principle is one upon which all persons of judgement agree, unshakably. Enough, then, to recall that for us Christians this principle derives its strongest argument from the necessary freedom of the act of Christian faith, a doctrine licitly and necessarily extended to the profession of every religion.

Second, in the sphere of religion no one is to be impeded from acting according to his conscience—in public or in private, alone or in association with others. It is around this second immunity that the conciliar debate turned. This second immunity had long been a historical problem; it remains a theoretical or doctrinal problem. It will help to clarify the problem.

Discussion of the human right to religious freedom calls for further inquiry into the foundations of the juridical relationship among human beings in civil society. The concept of a juridical relationship properly includes the notion of a correspondence between rights and duties. To one person's right there is a corresponding duty incumbent on others to do or give or omit something. In our case, the human person demands by right the omission of all coercive action impeding a person or a community from acting according to its conscience in religious matters. Therefore, the affirmation that every person has a right to such immunity is simultaneously an affirmation that no other person or power in society has a right to use coercion. On the contrary all others are duty- bound to refrain from coercive action. The second immunity, then, requires a compelling argument that no other person can raise, as a right or duty, a valid claim against that immunity or, put positively, that all are obliged to respect that immunity. The whole matter hinges on this argument for the juridical actuality of the second immunity.

To clarify this point, let us suppose that there does exist in human society a power that possesses the right to prohibit religious practice. Such a power could only be the public power (the state). Certainly a right of this kind could not be possessed by any private person or intermediate social group. One could argue—indeed, many have so argued—that the public power does possess such a right because of its duty toward the good of society and because it has a monopoly on coercive power that it must exercise for the good of society either by means of legislation or of administrative action.

To establish, then, that the human person enjoys a right to full religious freedom, one must first establish that the public power has no right to restrict religious freedom but has rather the duty to acknowledge and protect it.

Such being the case, clearly our inquiry, although of its nature ethico-juridical, is nevertheless finally and formally political, or what is called constitutional. By this I mean that it deals with the duties and rights of the public power—their nature, their extent, and their limits.

The classic difficulty in this matter is well known. It begins in the human person's obligation to act intelligently, i.e., according to his conscience. Yet it sometimes can and often does happen that someone who acts according to his conscience can act contrary to the objective order of truth—for example, by practicing a form of public worship not wholly in agreement with the divine ordinance or by disseminating religious opinions not in conformity with divine revelation. Surely spreading religious errors or practicing false forms of worship is per se evil in the moral order. About this there is no doubt. But our inquiry is not about the moral but about the juridical order. Does the public power have the duty and the right to repress opinions, practices, religious rites because they are erroneous and dangerous to the common good?

The Vatican Council's Declaration denies that such duty and such right fall within the competence of the public power. Yet we still must ask: On what justifying argument does this denial rest? Why may the limitation placed on the public power in matters of religion be considered just and legitimate? Thus is the state of our question. I will now evaluate the various arguments that were put forward to confirm the person's right to freedom in religious matters.

II. Arguments for Religious Freedom

First we must note that the doctrine of the Declaration is today supported by the sense and near unanimous consent of the human race. This is also intimated at the very beginning of the Declaration. The Declaration also suggests that this consent does not rely upon the laicist ideology so widespread in the nineteenth century but upon the increasingly worldwide consciousness of the dignity of the human person. It relies, therefore, upon an objective truth manifested to the people of our time by their own consciousness. Before adducing other arguments, then, the presupposition obtains and prevails that the teaching of the Declaration is also true. Securus enim iudicat orbis terrarum . 3

From this it follows that the Council's sole purpose in adducing the argument in favor of the right to religious freedom is to clarify and strengthen under the light of both reason and Christian revelation the more of less confused contemporary consciousness of human dignity.

A: From Conscience

The first conciliar attempt to do so was laid out in the arguments of the first and second schemata. 4 The basis of that argument was the moral principle that in religious matters man in held bound to follow his conscience even if erroneous. From this moral principle the schema deduced, as if immediately, the moral-juridical principle that to man is due the right to be free in society to follow his conscience.

This moral argument if correctly expounded has its force. But ultimately it is defective because unable to demonstrate what, in line with our statements above, has to be demonstrated.

The moral principle is entirely valid that man is duty-bound always to follow his conscience. From this follows the moral-juridical principle that man has the right to fulfill his duty. No difficulty arises if the conscience in question is right and true. This is evident. But if the conscience in question is right but erroneous, it cannot give rise to a juridical relationship between persons. From one human being's erroneous conscience no duty follows for others to act or perform or omit anything. Some might insist that the first two schemata additionally presuppose that the public power lacks any right to prevent human beings in society from acting according to erroneous consciences. Perhaps it does, even though this is not immediately apparent from the text. Even so, the schemata's argument failed to demonstrate why the public power lacks this right.

This being the case, the argument fails to support that immunity upon which our whole inquiry hinges. Hence it is not surprising that the Council's third schema—entitled "corrected text"— abandoned this line of argument that would ground the right to religious freedom in the dictates of conscience. From the third schema down to the promulgation of the Declaration, the foundation for the right to religious freedom is placed in the dignity of the human person. Rightly and wisely.

I shall leave aside the justifying arguments found in the subsequent schemata and come at once to the final, definitive text. The text sets forth two main arguments and, to give completeness to the doctrine, a third additional argument based upon the faith. 5

B. From the Obligation to Search After the Truth

In keeping with the wishes of many council Fathers, the first argument attempts ontologically to ground religious freedom in the fact that all men "are impelled by their nature and are bound besides by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially truth regarding religion. They are also bound, once they have learned the truth, to adhere to it and to regulate their whole lives according to its demands" (no.2). From this moral obligation the argument next deduces the human right to immunity from external coercion in fulfilling his obligations. The further assertion is made that "the exercise (of this right) cannot be impeded if the just public order is preserved."

Obviously this argument aims to vindicate the whole concept of religious freedom insofar as it imports the double immunity from coercion. What are we to think of this argument?

The argument is valid and on target. Undeniably the demand for freedom has its basis in man's intellectual nature, in the human capacity to seek, to embrace, and to manifest by his way of life the truth to which he is ordered. In no other way can he perform his duty toward truth than by his personal assent and free deliberation. What is more, from this single consideration it is already clear that no one is to be forced to act against his conscience or against the demands of the truth that he has in fact found, or at least thinks that he has found. If so forced, he would be acting against his intellectual nature itself.

Yet we may still ask whether this demand for freedom, which flows from the source just mentioned, has enough power to establish a true right in keeping with which no one is to be impeded from acting according to his conscience in religious matters. Put differently: Are man's natural and moral links to truth powerful enough to engender a political relationship between the human person and the public power so that the latter is duty-bound not to prevent the person from acting according to his conscience—whether the person acts alone or in association with others? It seems not.

Man is certainly impelled by his nature, and is obliged morally, to seek the truth so that he might conform his life to the truth, once found. Yet quite a few, either after searching for religious truth or not searching for it, actually cling to more or less false opinions that they wish to put into practice publicly and to disseminate in society. To highlight again the point upon which our investigation hinges, let us imagine public powers speaking to these erring people as follows:

"We acknowledge and deeply respect the impulse to seek truth implanted in human nature. We acknowledge, too, your moral obligation to conform your life to truth's demands. But, sorry to say, we judge you to be in error. For in the sphere of religion we possess objective truth. More than that, in this society we represent the common good as well as religious truth—in fact religious truth is an integral part of the common good. In your private and in your family life, therefore, you may lawfully act according to your errors. However, we acknowledge no duty on our part to refrain from coercion in your regard when in the public life of society, which is our concern, you set about introducing your false forms of worship or spreading your errors. Continue, then, your search for truth until you find it—we possess it—so that you may be able to act in public in keeping with it."

Is this proclamation imaginary? Hardly! Time and again over the centuries public powers have issued similar statements. And what answer can the poor people make who are thus judged to be living in error? None, certainly, if we stay within the principles laid down in the Declaration's first argument. For we can grant the premiss of those principles: that those in error have an obligation to seek the truth in order to learn it and act in keeping with it. But we deny that from those principles the conclusion follows that those in error have the right not to be impeded from acting in public according to their consciences. It seems correct to deny this conclusion, since it appears to extend beyond its premisses.

Assuredly those judged to be misguided would like to object that the public power has no right to issue judgements about objective truth in the religious sphere, that even less has it the right to transform those judgements into coercive legislation, thereby preventing its citizens from acting according to their consciences. This is as valid an objection as can be. But I ask: Does its validity proceed from the ontological basis of religious freedom as the Declaration claims and conceives that it does? It seems not.

For it may be said, and some at times have so claimed, that the right of civil power to repress false forms of worship or religious errors is compatible with man's moral obligation to seek the truth in order to act according to it. For such repression does not in the least prevent the quest for truth, nor does it prevent acting according to the truth. What it does prevent are public activities that proceed from a basis in error and that thus cause harm to the public good. This opinion is not to be scorned. It has even been widely received at times within the Church itself.

Admittedly it was mainly pastoral considerations that led the Fathers to accept this first argument in the Declaration, the argument that situates the ontological roots of religious freedom in the obligation to seek the truth. Some Fathers feared the establishment of a kind of separation between truth and freedom, or more exactly, a separation between the order of truth and the juridical order that equips man with right against others. Of course this was an entirely legitimate concern. Still, the speculative question remains: Is it correct to place the ontological ground for religious freedom in man's natural and moral relationships to truth? On this point doubt may be allowed.

C. From the Person's Social Nature

The same pastoral uneasiness apparently controls the second major argument in the Declaration. This argument begins with the divine law to which every human being is subject and in which his nature makes him a participant. From this premise the argument at once concludes to man's moral obligation to investigate what the precepts of the divine law might be. The point is made that this investigation ought to be conducted in a social manner. The argument then lays down another moral principle—that man perceives the dictates of the divine law through the mediation of his conscience, which he is therefore always bound to follow. After positing these moral principles, the argument proceeds to a conclusion that is juridical: that not surprisingly man has a right to the two immunities that form the object of the right to religious freedom.

I acknowledge the value of this argument, provided the following distinction is made that always must be made. Indisputably the argument validly shows that no one is to be forced to act against his conscience, for by so acting a person would be doing wrong. But the second question recurs. Does it follow from this argument that no one is to be prevented from acting in public according to his conscience? To establish immunity from this kind of coercion—and this is specific to religious freedom in its modern meaning—the argument appeals to the necessary connection between internal acts of religion and those outward acts by which, in keeping with his social nature, a human being displays his religious convictions in a public way. Given this connection, the argument runs as follows: A purely human power cannot forbid internal acts; it is therefore equally powerless to forbid external acts.

But does not the fallacy of begging the question somehow lurk in this argument? It supposes that in society no power exists with authority reaching far enough to warrant its legitimately forbidding public acts of religion, even acts that transgress objective truth or divine law or even the common good. This must be established; it is the very heart of the matter under discussion. It is not proved by stating that persons are morally obliged to obey divine law as known by them through the mediation of their consciences. Nor is it proved by stating that human nature is social and requires that people profess their religion in a public and communitarian manner.

D. From the Limits of Public Power

Finally, there remains the third argument of the Declaration. It does concern the limits of the public power. This argument is introduced with the word Praeterea ["Furthermore"]. This suggests that the argument is added as a complement to the argument so far presented, a complement to an argument that is presumed in itself sufficient to justify the human right to religious freedom in its double sense.

But if the state of the question about this human right is examined thoroughly, it is at once evident that this political argument is of primary importance. Without it any other argument would not sufficiently settle the question. For the very question concerns the limits of public power in religious matters.

The Declaration makes the felicitous assertion that public power "must be said to exceed its limits if it should presume to direct or to impede religious acts" (n.3). Felicitous, I repeat, and altogether true. But it is a simple assertion for whose truth no reasons are brought forward. May I be permitted, as long as time allows, to develop this political argument. I proceed in outline form, schematically, by enumerating the principles without further development. The intention of the argument I offer is the same as that prefixed to the Declaration: "to develop the teaching of recent Popes about the inviolable rights of the human person and about the juridical ordering of society" (n.1).

The argument begins properly from a first principle: Every human person is endowed with a dignity that surpasses the rest of creatures because the human person is independent [in charge of himself, autonomous]. The primordial demand of that dignity, then, is that man acts by his own counsel and purpose, using and enjoying his freedom, moved, not by external coercion, but internally by the risk of his whole existence. In a word, human dignity consists formally in the person's responsibility for himself and, what is more, for his world. So great is his dignity that not even God can take it away—by taking upon Himself or unto Himself the responsibility for his life and for his fate. This in the Christian tradition, especially from the Greek Fathers on, is the dignity of the person conceived, fashioned in the image of God. The person's intellectual nature is a prior condition, the absence of which would render his assumption of responsibility impossible. Formally, however, human dignity consists in bearing this responsibility.

Now, from the first, ontological principle (the dignity or the human person), there follows a second principle, the social principle, which Pope Pius XII and later John XXIII began to develop somewhat fully. The social principle states that the human person is the subject, foundation, and end of the entire social life. 6

For our purpose, the chief force of the social principle lies in its establishing an indissoluble connection between the moral and the juridical orders. This connection must not be conceived in some abstract manner but in a wholly concrete way. For the connection is the human person itself, really existing, in the presence of its God and Lord, in association with others in this historic world, but in such wise that it transcends by reason of its end both society and the whole world. The human person exists in God's presence as a moral subject bound by duties toward the moral order and toward the historical order of salvation established by Jesus Christ. The human person exists with others in society as a moral-juridical subject furnished with rights that flow directly and altogether from human nature, never to be alienated from that nature. The juridical order cannot be sundered from the moral order, any more than the human person can be halved.

Evidently, in this subordinate place we can and ought to collect and situate those things that the Declaration said so beautifully about the natural human impulse to seek truth and about the person's moral obligation to live according to the truth once found. They do illustrate the first ontological principle and the second social principle. 7

Now, from the first and the second principles, the ontological and the social, taken together, there follows a third principle, the so-called principle of the free society. This principle affirms that man in society must be accorded as much freedom as possible, and that that freedom is not to be restricted unless and insofar as is necessary. By necessary I mean the restraint needed to preserve society's very existence or—to use the concept and terms of the Declaration itself—necessary for preserving the public order in its juridical, political, and moral aspects

Parallel with the third principle, a fourth issues from taking the first two, the ontological and the social, together. This principle is juridical and maintains that all citizens enjoy juridical equality in society. 8 This principle rests upon the truth that all persons are peers in natural dignity and that every human being is equally the subject, foundation, and end of human society.

Finally, there follows a fifth principle, the political principle. It is admirably expressed in the following words of Pius XII, later quoted by John XXIII. "To protect the inviolable rights proper to human beings and to ensure that everyone may discharge his duties with greater facility—this is the paramount duty of every public power." 9 This constitutes for the public power its first and principal concern for the common good—the effective protection of the human person and its dignity. This definition of the paramount function of public power rests clearly upon the first four principles.

Further, all five principles cohere with one another in such a way that they form a kind of vision of the human person in society and of society itself, of the juridical ordering of society and of the common good considered in its most fundamental dimensions, and finally of the duties of the public power toward persons and society. Upon this vision, which recent pontiffs have newly elaborated while working within the tradition, rests the whole doctrine of the Vatican Declaration on Religious Freedom. In other words, the five principles just enumerated taken together finally bring our whole investigation to a point of decision. For they are sufficient to constitute that relationship between the human person and the public juridical power. Together they fully characterize the notion of religious freedom.

They are also sufficient to confirm the other human and civil freedoms with which John XXIII dealt in an eminent manner in his Encyclical Pacem in Terris . Along with these freedoms religious freedom constitutes an order of freedoms in society. Religious freedom cannot be discussed apart from discussion of this whole body of freedoms. All human freedoms stand or fall together—a fact that secular experience has made clear enough.

This said, it is not difficult to construct an argument for the human right to religious freedom.

III. A needed Argument

The first thing to note is that the dignity and the freedom of the human person should receive primary attention since they pertain to the goods that are proper to the human spirit. As for these goods, the first of which is the good of religion, the most important and urgent demand is for freedom. For human dignity demands that in making this fundamental religious option and in carrying it out through every type of religious action, whether private or public, in all these aspects a person should act by his own deliberation and purpose, enjoying immunity from all external coercion so that in the presence of God he takes responsibility on himself alone for his religious decisions and acts. This demand of both freedom and responsibility is the ultimate ontological ground of religious freedom as it is likewise the ground of the other human freedoms.

Now, this demand is grounded upon the very existence of the human person, or, if one prefers, in the objective truth about the human person. Therefore it is revealed as a juridical value in society, so that it can impose upon the public power the duty to refrain from keeping the human person from acting in religious matters according to his dignity. For the public power is bound to acknowledge and to fulfill this duty by reason of its principal function, the protection of the dignity of the person. Once this duty is demonstrated and acknowledged, the immunity from coercion in religious matters demanded by human dignity becomes actually the object of a right. For the juridical actuality of a right is established wherever a corresponding duty is established and is acknowledged, once the validity of the ground for a right is assured and recognized.

Furthermore, the above mentioned principle of a free society—taken together with the principle of the juridical equality of all citizens—likewise sets the outer limits on just how far the public power must refrain from preventing someone from acting according to his conscience. The free exercise of religion in society ought not be restricted save insofar as it is necessary, that is, save when a public act ceases to be an exercise of religion because proven to be a crime against public order.

The following considerations will clarify this. The foundation of human society lies in the truth about the human person, or in its dignity, that is, in its demand for responsible freedom. That which in justice is preeminently owed to the person is freedom—as much freedom as possible—in order that society thus may be born toward its goals, which are those of the human person itself, by the strength and energies of persons in society bound together with one another by love. Truth and justice, therefore, and love itself demand that the practice of freedom in society be kept vigorous, especially with respect to the goods belonging to the human spirit and so much the more with respect to religion. Now this demand for freedom, following as it does from the objective truth of the person in society and from justice itself, naturally engenders the juridical relationship between the person and the public power. The public power is duty-bound to acknowledge the truth about the person, to protect and advance the person, and to render the justice owed the person.

Again, from this follows the conclusion that no one is to be prevented in the matter of religion from acting according to the demands of his dignity or according to his inmost religious convictions. Nor does this immunity cease except where just demands of public order are proven to have the urgency of a higher force.

Quod erat demonstandum. Or rather, this argument from the five principles mentioned is sufficient; nothing else is required.

IV. The Question of a Theological Argument

Of course there remains the argument for religious freedom as drawn from Christian revelation, but this is a lengthy question and my discussion has already been too long.

Suffice it to say that the line of argument that the Declaration follows is entirely valid and sound. It embraces three major statements. (1) The human person's right to religious freedom cannot itself be proven from Holy Scripture, nor from Christian revelation. (2) Yet the foundation of this right, the dignity of the human person, has ampler and more brilliant confirmation in Holy Scripture than can be drawn from human reason alone. (3) By a long historical evolution society has finally reached the notion of religious freedom as a human right. And a foundation and moving force of this ethical and political development has been Christian doctrine itself—I use "Christian" in its proper sense—on the subject of human dignity, doctrine illuminated by the example of the Lord Jesus.

Difficult and important questions remain. The primary one concerns the relationship between the Christian freedom proclaimed in Holy Scripture, especially by St. Paul, and the religious freedom we have been speaking of, to which our contemporaries lay claim. 10 On this question no consensus exists. According to some, these two freedoms are so different from their inception that only a limited harmony can exist between them. According to others, of whom I am one, in the very notion of Christian and gospel freedom—or, better—in free Christian existence itself—a demand is given for religious freedom in society. To demonstrate this is no mean task. Add to this the difficult historical question, as yet not investigated: Why has humanity had to travel so long a journey on so tortuous a course to reach at last a consciousness of its dignity and to bring to fulfillment in civil society all that that dignity demands?

Evidently these question belong to the ecumenical order. Equally evident and pressing is the need for us to enter into conversation with our separated brothers and even with our non-believing brothers. These have contributed much and still contribute toward the establishment and preservation in society of the full practice of freedom, including also religious freedom.

( 1 )This was delivered as a talk on September 19, 1966 and published in Latin as "De argumentis pro iure hominis ad libertatem religiosam." In Acta Congressus Internationalis de Theologia Concilii Vaticani II , edited by A. Schoenmetzer, 562-73. Rom, Vatikan, 1968.

( 2 )i.e., that it is not simply based in expediency—Ed.

( 3 )"The whole world concurs in this judgement," probably an allusion to Augustine, Contra ep. Parm., II, 10, 20. Parts of this argument find a parallel in 1966b: "The Declaration on Religious Freedom." In Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal , edited by John H. Miller, article, pp. 565-76, and discussion, pp. 577-85 (Notre Dame: Association Press, 1966). Certain points, such as the international political and ecclesiological support given to religious freedom, are more fully spelled out in that latter article—Ed.

( 4 )For a discussion of the various texts that preceded Dignitatis, the introduction to "The Problem" in this volume. By Murray's count there were five such texts, the third and fourth were of Murray's creation—Ed.

( 5 )The remainder of the article presents actually three philosophical arguments and a fourth based on faith. As we will see, Murray was unhappy with the first two "main arguments." (They both suggest an individualism (that often cloaks itself in abstraction) and an a-historicity that he found in the "conscience" argument.) He will here present a third argument that he considers core to the church's affirmation and to contemporary affirmations of human dignity. This third line had been primary in the third and fourth drafts of the Declaration (the ones Murray wrote), and had been reduced to an ancillary position in subsequent drafts and in the final document.

Since Murray's own numbering is off, I felt free, by way of headings, to grant to the "conscience" argument the status of first in a line of arguments. In fact, the language of the "rights of conscience" argument was not limited to the first two drafts. There remains some residual "rights of conscience" terminology in the Declaration, a fact used by some who want to argue that the Council did not advance beyond the "conscience" argument—Ed.

( 6 )Cf. Pius XII, Nunt. radioph. 24 dec. 1944, in: A.A.S. 37 (1945) p. 12; Ioannes XXIII Litt. enc. " Pacem in terris , in A.A.S. 55 (1963) p. 263; Dz.-S 3968.

( 7 )By situating the drive for truth within the second, social pole of the human person, Murray apparently thinks that he has escaped the individualism and abstraction of the Declaration's main argument. Within that second pole, the argument must take account of the structures and forces that are active within historical societies as well as of the transcendental openness of the human person.—Ed.

( 8 )Just as the first two principles call up the individual/social aspects of human nature, similarly for Murray these third and fourth principles have individual/social references. The third points to the creative powers of persons and subgroups in society, while the fourth focuses on the largest social reality, the state. Murray has attempted to highlight the intrinsic social aspects of the human person throughout the various levels of this argument—Ed.

( 9 )Pius XII, Nunt. radioph . 1 iun. 1941, in: A.A.S. 33 (1941)p. 200; Ioannes XXIII "Pacem in terris." ed. cit., p. 274; Dz-S 3985.

( 10 )Elsewhere Murray spelled out a broader list of freedoms that must be reconciled:

The Declaration therefore does not undertake to present a full and complete theology of freedom. This would have been a far more ambitious task. It would have been necessary, I think, to develop four major themes: (1) the concept of Christian freedom—the freedom of the People of God—as a participation in the freedom of the Holy Spirit, the principal agent in the history of salvation, by whom the children of God are "led" (Rom. 8, 14) to the Father through the incarnate Son; (2) the concept of the freedom of the Church in her ministry, as a participation in the freedom of Christ himself, to whom all authority in heaven and on earth was given and who is present in his Church to the end of time (cf. Matt. 28, 18. 20); (3) the concept of Christian faith as man's free response to the divine call issued, on the Father's eternal and gracious initiative, through Christ, and heard by man in his heart where the Spirit speaks what he has himself heard (cf. John 16, 13-15); (4) the juridical concept of religious freedom as a human and civil right, founded on the native dignity of the human person who is made in the image of God and therefore enjoys, as his birthright, a participation in the freedom of God himself.

This would have been, I think, a far more satisfactory method of procedure, from the theological point of view. In particular, it would have been in conformity with the disposition of theologians today to view issues of natural law within the concrete context of the present historico-existential order of grace. Moreover, the doctrine presented would have been much richer in content (1966c: "The Declaration on Religious Freedom," p. 4)—Ed.

• 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

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.

• 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".

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

Home — Essay Samples — Religion — Religious Freedom — Freedom of Religion: A Cornerstone of Liberty

Freedom of Religion: a Cornerstone of Liberty

• Categories: Freedom Religious Freedom

About this sample

Words: 734 |

Published: Sep 12, 2023

Words: 734 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The historical development of freedom of religion, the significance of freedom of religion, challenges to freedom of religion, preserving and promoting freedom of religion, 1. ancient roots:, 2. the enlightenment era:, 3. american experiment:, 4. international recognition:, 1. protection of minority rights:, 2. promoting pluralism:, 3. preserving individual autonomy:, 4. preventing religious conflict:, 5. advancing human rights:, 1. religious intolerance:, 2. state control:, 3. cultural clashes:, 4. blasphemy laws:, 5. social media and disinformation:, 1. education and awareness:, 2. legal protections:, 3. international cooperation:, 4. interfaith initiatives:, 5. countering extremism:.

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: Life 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 / 2348 words

5 pages / 2124 words

1 pages / 624 words

2 pages / 1122 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' [...]

Dearden, Lizzie. “France Burkini Ban: What Is It and Why Is It Controversial?” The Independent, 17 Aug. 2016, [...]

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 [...]

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, [...]

It has been made clear to me that there is no such thing as "religious liberty" within this once great country of ours. We have completely fallen short of what our forefathers intended us to be. Foundations and religious [...]

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

First Amendment

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices . It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government .

Learn more...

Primary tabs

Amendment i.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wex Resources

The establishment clause.

Establishment Clause

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Van Orden v. Perry (2005 )

Free Exercise Clause

State Action Requirement

Free Speech

Captive Audience

Prior Restraint

Absolute Privilege

Advocacy of Illegal Action

Fighting Words

Commercial Speech

Government Speech

Brandenburg Test

Schenk v. United States (1919)

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Roth v. United States (1957)

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Peaceful Assembly

Unlawful Assembly

Redress of Grievances