On Religious Freedom Day, January 13, 2016, President Barack Obama followed the example of his predecessors by issuing a presidential proclamation. He began by citing Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Obama observed that religious freedom is “one of our most cherished ideals” that advances and “vindicat[es] the idea of America”:
Since our country's founding, religious freedom has been heralded as one of our most cherished ideals. The right to practice religion freely has brought immigrants from all over the world to our shores, often in the face of great adversity, so they could live their lives in accordance with the dictates of their consciences. Some of America's earliest settlers, the Pilgrims, arrived at our shores in search of a more tolerant society, free from religious persecution. Since that time, people of many religious traditions have added their own threads to the fabric of our Nation, helping advance a profound and continuous vindication of the idea of America.
In this speech, and elsewhere, President Obama recognized a religious freedom consensus that has been a part of American culture for the past four centuries. As Jennifer Marshall Patterson and I describe in our forthcoming edited volume, Religious Freedom: Six Theological Views (2026), this consensus is that humans are innately religious beings, religion is a fundamental force for good in society, and the government should have very little role in religious life.
But, this consensus cannot be taken for granted, and thus President Obama went on to argue for vigilance:
Our commitment to religious freedom has fostered unprecedented religious diversity and freedom of religious practice. But these ideals are not self-executing. Rather, they require a sustained commitment by each generation to uphold and preserve them.
With Obama’s call in mind, and with the semiquincentennial of the U.S. Declaration of Independence approaching, President Donald Trump has organized a Religious Liberty Commission of distinguished experts to consider the state of religious liberty in the country today. I will briefly look first at what we mean by religious freedom and then at the domestic challenges that provide the context of this one-year commission.
What is Religious Freedom?
Thomas F. Farr, founding director of the U.S Department of State’s Office of International Religious Freedom, past Berkley Center scholar, and co-founder of the Religious Freedom Institute, defines religious freedom as “the right of all persons to believe, speak, and act—individually and in community with others, in private and in public—in accord with their understanding of ultimate truth.” Farr’s capacious view of religious freedom is multi-dimensional: individual, community (institutional), private, and public.
With this expansive definition of religious freedom in mind, the first question that often results is, “Are there limits on religious freedom?” Yes, in public life there are two main limits on religious freedom: no violence and no government coercion. Thus, no one’s religious freedom claims warrants torture, widow burning, terrorism, human sacrifice, so-called “religious abortion,” or any other violence against another person. Furthermore, there are no grounds for government coercion in the name of religion, including forced conversion or government-directed invidious discrimination. True, religious communities may peacefully manage their flocks, including free exit for dissenters as well as church discipline, shunning, and even excommunication, but never violence and never employing the state to enforce religious or ideological orthodoxy across the entirety of society.
The social, cultural, religious, and legal grounds for America’s religious freedom consensus go back to the Mayflower Compact, the founding colonial charters and constitutions, and the organic laws of the United States (the Declaration, Constitution, and Northwest Ordinance). Founders such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all publicly espoused religious freedom, including for non-Christian faiths. The consensus was so strong that it took a full century for the first case involving a religious freedom claim to make it to the Supreme Court.
However, about the time of America’s bicentennial, in some circles there were sustained attacks on the religious freedom consensus, in particular rejecting the idea that human beings and civil society have intrinsic religious characteristics and the assumption of the public good of religion in American life. Moreover, it began to appear that in many places government agencies were going out of their way to intrude or restrict religious individuals, schools, and organizations.
Through a simple and elegant response to increasing bureaucratic intrusion in all parts of life, particularly with regards to religious people and organizations, Democratic Congressman (and later Senate Minority Leader) Chuck Schumer promoted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The primary text is few in words but vast and consequential in significance. RFRA “Prohibits any agency, department or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion…” It goes on to say that the government must demonstrate that any such burden must “further a compelling government interest” and also be “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” This language was a dramatic reminder to the ever-growing bureaucracy, and anti-religious elements that wanted to use lawfare to ban religion from the public square, that religious people and institutions were constitutionally protected from government intrusion. The bill had wide support, with co-sponsors from among the libertarian and liberal wings of the Democrat Party, as well as many Republicans. RFRA later served as a model for states, with 28 legislatures passing similar measures.
The Situation Today: Religious Freedom Challenges and the Commission
Religious freedom is a part of America’s DNA, but it has been imperfect in some times or places over the past four centuries. Whether it was how to deal with religious sects, preferential treatment, or racial bigotry, there were times of conflict and limitation but, as Mark David Hall and others have documented, these issues have been overcome in the longer arc of American history. Many of the greatest campaigns for freedom and equality were led by religious people, from the abolition movement through the Progressive Era reforms of the early twentieth century (e.g. child labor, anti-drunkenness and temperance, women’s enfranchisement, safe working conditions), to the Civil Rights Movement. At the same time, America’s churches and religious organizations voluntarily provided education, charitable relief at home, and foreign humanitarian aid in ways unlike any other country. Among our greatest health care enterprises are those owned and operated by Seventh-Day Adventists, Catholics, and Lutherans. To this day, among our most respected organizations are names such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Relief Services, Baptist Global Response, Teen Challenge, Samaritan’s Purse, Prison Fellowship, Operation Blessing, Convoy of Hope, various “rescue missions” and homeless shelters, orphanages and foster care, and a myriad of local charities.
All of these goods and services remain secondary, however, to the fundamental principle that religious freedom is by definition “the right of all persons to believe, speak, and act – individually and in community with others, in private and in public – in accord with their understanding of ultimate truth.” It is the defense of the essential responsibility of the individual to live out their understanding of truth that presents one final challenge in the American experience, and is the justification for the creation of President Trump’s commission.
Until just a few years ago, few could have imagined that people of faith in the United States would be attacked for religious views that are deeply held, long-standing, and rooted in historic religious authority structures. In the past few years the following cases have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court:
- A Colorado baker has been hauled through the courts three times over the past decade for refusing to create a same-sex wedding cake, because the concept violates his religious convictions. (He was willing to design other cakes for those customers and sell them anything else in the shop). Similar cases have involved the intersection of personal religious convictions, freedoms of speech and religion, private businesses, and artistic license in other fields such as website creation.
- Philadelphia’s Catholic Social Services was barred from continuing its longtime foster care placement service because it refused to certify same-sex couples, in alignment with its historic religious teaching on marriage and family. Similar cases have involved Wisconsin’s Catholic Charities and the Little Sisters of the Poor.
- Muslim and Jewish parents were told by school authorities in Maryland that the school knew better than parents what was best for their children, and refused to allow primary age children to opt out of materials with explicit sexual content.
Thus, as the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence prompts us to reflect on the ideals of the American struggle for independence, it is appropriate for Americans to reconsider our long commitment to religious freedom and how we can best protect that for our children and posterity. It is fitting that President Trump appoint the Religious Liberty Commission to consider these issues within a constrained time frame; this diverse group of commissioners also has three advisory bodies to assist its work, and the commission sunsets on July 4, 2026. Let us all hope that this constructive effort leads to greater respect for the rights and responsibilities of every citizen, and that our country can be the better for it.
