COVID-19 has alerted us to the importance of defending the borders between personal liberty, constitutional rights, and governmental authority.
COVID-19 has alerted us to many attacks on the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly.
This present crisis may well be a moment when we too “come to ourselves” and realize, perhaps as never before, just how precious and fragile religious freedom is.
One key realization is that for most faith communities, gathering for worship, ritual, and fellowship is essential; it is not merely an enjoyable social activity.
Gathering, in short, is at the core of faith and religion. Indeed, if the faithful are not gathering, sooner or later they will begin to scatter. And because gathering lies at the very heart of religion, the right to gather lies at the very heart of religious freedom.
I believe it is vital for us to recognize that the sweeping governmental restrictions that were placed on religious gatherings at the outset of the COVID-19 crisis truly were extraordinary. In what seemed like an instant, most Western governments and many others simply banned communal worship. These restrictions eliminated public celebrations of Easter, Passover, Ramadan, and other holy days around the world. No other event in our lifetime—and perhaps no other event since the founding of this nation—has caused quite this kind of widespread disruption of religious gatherings and worship.
But we cannot deny and we should not forget the speed and intensity with which government power was used to shut down fundamental aspects of religious exercise. These decisions and regulations were unprecedented. For nearly two months, Americans and many others throughout the free world learned firsthand what it means for government to directly prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Freedom of religion stands as a bulwark against unlimited government power. It safeguards the right to think for oneself, to believe what one feels to be true, and to exercise moral agency accordingly.
Religious freedom is fragile. As we have just experienced, religious freedom can quickly be swept aside in the name of protecting other societal interests.
The COVID-19 crisis has presented us with a unique opportunity to reaffirm and shore up religious freedom. We have witnessed the government’s swift, well-intentioned, but often dangerous breaching of the boundaries that protect the free exercise of religion. Do we hear the buzzer on the alarm clock? This is a wake-up call for all of us. Those fundamental boundaries and protections must be healed, renewed, and fortified.
While believers and their religious organizations must be good citizens in a time of crisis, never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential. Never again must the fundamental right to worship God be trivialized below the ability to buy gasoline.
Any attempt to reduce that fuller sense of religious freedom, which has been part of our history in this country for more than two centuries, to a private reality of worship and individual conscience so long as you don't make anyone else unhappy, is not in our tradition...It was the tradition of the Soviet Union.
Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms...
There is a paradox in religious freedom — if I want my religious freedom to be protected, then I must protect the religious freedom of those who believe in a fundamentally different way from my own.
These cases are different from Cochran’s, but they do contain a common thread — government officials demonstrated substantial intolerance in the name of “inclusion” and rather than seeking solutions that allowed each member of the community to exercise their liberty (to enjoy rights to cakes and conscience, for example), they took sides against Christians, using their power to send a clear message: Traditional Christianity is incompatible with the progressive state.
That is not a decision the Constitution empowers them to make. Chief Cochran’s case illustrates an emerging First Amendment truth. The personal cost of state bigotry is high, and justice demands that the government pay for its sins.
The freedom to express beliefs about God, which took centuries of struggle to establish, also supports the right to express opinions about morality, society, politics, literature, art, science, or virtually any other subject. The hard-won religious rights to peacefully assemble for worship or to print religious literature also support the rights to assemble for political, social, cultural and familial reasons or to print books or newspapers addressing a host of subjects.
Protecting and respecting religious freedom serves as a training ground for protecting and respecting other human rights and freedoms. It teaches us that government has limits: that there are aspects of life that are so sensitive and personal that the coercive jurisdiction of the state must yield to the jurisdiction of the sacred and individual conscience.
His decisions on whether to design a specific custom cake have never focused on who the customer is, but on what the custom cake will express or celebrate.
Papists are not to enjoy the benefit of toleration, because, where they have power, they think themselves bound to deny it to others.
Although law is essential for providing order, setting boundaries, establishing norms, and incentivizing proper conduct, it is at its finest when it is accompanied by a culture of nurture, trust, and gentleness. If not, the enforcement of law by governments or the assertiveness of social majorities can stunt the vitality of the human spirit.
But religious freedom is not absolute. Limitations are appropriate where necessary to protect the life, property, health, and safety of people of different persuasions of faith and to prevent infringements upon the rights of others. Neither should religious freedom always prevail over the right of democratic institutions to establish the basic framework of society.
Implanted in every human heart is the desire for respect, dignity, equity, and the ability to practice one’s beliefs, alone or in a community of believers. This is now acknowledged through the wider acceptance of the reality that the journey of faith for some may not include organized religion. They are free to explore their journey. Religious freedom has grown to have the force of a fundamental human right, grounded in the very nature of the human soul.
However, any limitations that are imposed should be only those that are essential to protect the rights of all and should not become a way of abridging religious freedom. Moreover, whenever the law constrains religious freedom, religious communities should lead by example by obeying the law while seeking to protect their fundamental rights through available lawful means.
Aligning the interests of the individual with the whole involves a careful dance of reciprocity. So, religious freedom is as much a duty as it is a right, as much an obligation to give as a privilege to receive. If it doesn’t work for everyone, it doesn’t really work for anyone.
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is brief but powerful: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Studies show that protecting different religious practices correlates strongly with greater civil and political liberties, greater press and economic freedoms, fewer armed conflicts, better health outcomes, higher levels of income, better education for women, and higher overall human development.
Countries with more religious freedom have more peace. And countries with less religious freedom have less peace.[4] But peace is more than the absence of conflict. Peace is the habit of engaging differences, the practice of negotiating disagreements between neighbors, a culture of fairmindedness. It’s simply how we treat each other. This is how we tame the enemies of peace—the fear and resentment that fester between people.
We thrive when we honor our legitimate differences, when our religious practices adhere to the law, and when we seek the common good.
In a world of competing ideas, persuasion works better than coercion. Coercion is about pressure, power, winning, even trickery and threat, and cares about only one side. But persuasion entails honesty, mutual concern, authenticity, equal standing, freedom of thought, and a willingness to accept the responses of the other. Persuasion requires patience and acknowledges the slow workings of the mind and heart. But coercion wants everything now and pays little heed to the human nuances that get in the way.
Religious freedom is important because religion itself is important. Religious individuals and communities are uniquely situated to help solve problems in society. Churches are behind a lot of the homeless shelters, soup kitchens, hospitals, schools, youth programs, and countless other efforts that benefit society. Simply put, religion builds social capital. The rich resources, local generosity, and human connections that religion fosters can accomplish things that other organizations cannot.
It has been shown that highly religious people are more likely to volunteer not only for religious causes but also for secular ones.[7] And religious people are three times more likely than the secular to contribute to charities and to volunteer each month.[8] This is not to suggest that charity is a monopoly of the religious, but it confirms that people who are situated in religious congregations have resources and social habits that make charity easier. And our world needs all the help it can get.
Reflecting on what they called “the lessons of history,” scholars Will and Ariel Durant asserted, “There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.”
Italian social scientists have identified a direct link between religious belief and trust. Here is what they said: “We find that on average religion is associated positively with attitudes that are conducive to free markets and better institutions. Religious people trust others more, trust the government and the legal system more, are less willing to break the law, and are more likely to believe that the markets’ outcomes are fair.”
And as one writer has noted, “trust is about more than whether you can leave your house unlocked; it is responsible for the difference between the richest countries and the poorest.”
As the theme of this conference recognizes, strong religious values are essential to creating healthy societies. A groundbreaking study[14] released in 2014 by researchers at Georgetown University and Brigham Young University looked at GDP growth for 173 countries in 2011, controlling for two dozen different financial, social, and regulatory influences, and found that the presence of religious freedom in a country is one of only three factors significantly associated with global economic growth.
First, the presence of religious freedom is associated with lower levels of corruption. Corruption has a corrosive effect on society, weakening public trust in leaders and institutions and impoverishing entire economies. The absence of corruption, on the other hand, is often cited as one of the key ingredients necessary for sustainable economic development.
Second, Grim points to a growing body of research demonstrating that religious freedom fosters peace in society. This freedom helps reduce incidents of religious violence and conflict. And in societies where religious freedom is not respected and protected, the result is often the opposite—there’s an increase in violence and more frequent conflicts disrupting the everyday economic activities essential for business to flourish.
Third, religious freedom encourages broader freedoms. Significant empirical evidence points to a strong correlation between the presence of religious freedom and other freedoms, along with a variety of positive social and economic outcomes ranging from better health care to higher incomes for women.
In the meantime, missionaries had to know the law better than the local magistrates who were often threatening to them. As scholar William Mulder noted, “The Mormons knew their rights better than many local prosecutors, who, while often sincere enough, did not always know what the new religious freedoms were or to whom they might be extended.” Many an uproar around Mormon proselytizing in mid-nineteenth century Denmark was quelled by a missionary who knew the law.
What is religious freedom? Among our First Amendment rights are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Religious freedom means more than just freedom to believe what you want. It is also freedom to talk about and act on your beliefs without coercion or interference, subject to certain narrow limitations.
What is the public square? The “public square” refers to all settings outside private homes and houses of worship. These include public parks and sidewalks, government buildings and meetings, public schools and universities, private property that the owner opens to the general public and many other similar settings. The public square may also include media—books, newspapers, magazines, the Internet—and, in general, anything that is accessible and open to the public.
What laws protect religious freedom? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom in two ways: The “Establishment Clause” prohibits the government from adopting an official religion, and The “Free Exercise Clause” prohibits the government from interfering with people’s practice of religion. The First Amendment applies to all levels of government: federal, state, and local. The government must provide at least as much protection for religious liberty as the Constitution requires, but they can choose to provide more. In fact, state constitutions and laws often provide greater protection for religious freedom than does the U.S. Constitution.
What is “separation of church and state”? “Separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, nor is it a legal term. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase to describe religious freedom as including a healthy independence between government and religious organizations to protect the interests of both. However, the phrase is sometimes used to claim, incorrectly, that the Constitution requires government to be religion-free. In reality, government may actively cooperate with religious organizations in common causes, such as public heal or social welfare. The government also has a duty to accommodate religion when necessary to guarantee the right to free exercise of religion. For example, police must protect religious communities or speakers from harassment or persecution, religious organizations must be allowed to use public facilities and government employees must generally be allowed to wear religiously required clothing to work.
Is protecting religious freedom important? Yes. Religious freedom is an essential protection allowing people with strong differences of opinion and belief to live together in peace. The people who wrote the Constitution knew that violent conflicts about religion had plagued Europe for hundreds of years, as rulers tried to control the religion of their subjects. Some of the early colonies also tried to regulate religion and experienced similar problems. The Founders sought to avoid these conflicts in the new nation by forbidding official religions and by protecting all religions from government interference. The Founders also believed that government interference in religion was an assault on human rights. The Constitution protects people from government attempts to deny people’s basic human rights, including the right to have and exercise one’s own religious beliefs.
How do we know what is constitutional in specific situations? The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts decide cases in which someone claims that a government action is unconstitutional.
Does religious freedom include more than belief? Yes. The Constitution protects not only people’s right to believe as they choose, but also to worship, to share their beliefs, and to act according to their beliefs. All these rights apply to both individuals and groups.
Does religion have to be a private matter? No. The Constitution protects religious liberty both in private and in the public square. The right to religious freedom does not disappear when a person enters a public setting such as a school or a government buildings, when he or she accepts government office or employment, or when he or she operates a business open to the public. In fact, the government is obliged to protect religious liberty in all these settings, with only very limited exceptions.
Are there limits on the free exercise of religion? Yes. As with any right, religious freedom is not absolute. While the government may never tell people or communities what to believe, in a few circumstances it may restrict the way they exercise those beliefs, such as to protect public safety or the fundamental rights of others. To take an obvious example, the government could forbid human sacrifice even if a religion’s teaching approved of or required it. The Supreme Court has developed a test for when the government is allowed to restrict religious practices under the Constitution.
May religious groups and people of faith participate in politics? Yes. Religious groups and individuals have the right to take positions and influence public opinion on all public and political matters. Religious leaders and organizations frequently do so. Some types of political involvement, while constitutional, may affect a religious organization’s ability to keep its federal tax-exempt status.
May religious beliefs influence public policy? Yes. All kinds of beliefs influence the policy preferences of voters and legislators, including religious ones. The simple fact that a policy coincides with a religious teaching or grows out of religious values concerning right and wrong does not make it unconstitutional so long as the policy itself has a secular purpose, does not advance or inhibit religion, and avoids excessive government involvement with religion. For example, just because many religious teachings oppose violence does not mean that laws prohibiting assault are unconstitutional. To take a more controversial example, some types of laws restricting abortion are constitutional even though they coincide with certain religious beliefs, because they have secular justifications, are neutral regarding religion, and don’t unduly involve the government in religion.
May elected officials speak about God? Yes. Elected officials have a First Amendment right to express their religious beliefs. However, they may not use their official capacity to establish religion, such as by favoring, promoting, or discriminating against a particular religion.
May government meetings open with prayer? Yes. So long as the prayers are not used to proselytize or advance any particular faith or belief. Good practice is to invite chaplains or representatives of various faiths, including non-Christian denominations, to take turns offering prayers and to make the prayers generic in content.
May the government require that government officials or employees belong to a certain religion or believe in God? No. The government cannot require any kind of religious test as a condition for public office or employment. The government may require people to take an oath of office or make a similar affirmation, but it may not require them to place their hand on the Bible or any other religious book or to use the phrase “so help me God,” although the person can do these things if they wish
May local governments use zoning laws or other means to keep religious groups out of their communities? No. Local land use laws, such as zoning ordinances, may not target religious organizations for exclusion, discriminate against them, or place unreasonable burdens on them. An example of a government action that would not be allowed is a zoning ordinance that prohibits places of worship, while allowing non-religious places of assembly for clubs or other associations.
Do tax exemptions for religious organizations violate the Constitution? No. Religious organizations are tax-exempt under all state and federal tax codes, Ub fact, the Constitution may require this, as the Supreme Court has suggested that taxing churches would cause excessive involvement between church and state.
May the government favor on religion over another? No. The government may not give special privileges or place special penalties on any specific religion or religious group, or show preference for one religion or religious group, or show preference for one religion over another or for atheism.
Does government property have to religion-free? No. Government property need no be free of religious references, symbols, or messages, so long as the government does not appear to endorse any specific religion. Whether a particular display is constitutional depends heavily on the particular circumstances. Temporary displays (such as holiday displays), may contain religious elements if the display, taken as a whole, does not promote a religious message or indicate government endorsement of religion. For example, a Nativity scene together with non-religious holiday symbols, such as Santa Claus and candy canes, would probably be allowed, but not a Nativity scene standing alone would not be. Permanent displays (such as monuments) may contain religious element if the purpose and primary effects of the display are secular—in other words, if a reasonable observer would not believe the government means to endorse a particular religion.
May individuals and religious organizations use government property for religious expressions and activities? Yes. In general, the government must provide religious groups the same access to public facilities that it provides for other types of groups. For example, a state university that hosts a variety of student activities may not exclude a religious student group simply because it is religious, although certain other restrictions may apply.
May government employees wear religious dress or symbols to work? Yes. All employees generally have the ability believe and act consistently with deeply-held religious beliefs while in the workplace, subject to some narrow limitations. Government employees may enjoy these rights as well.
Do public schools have to religion free? No. Public schools and universities must be neutral toward religion; they can’t favor it or be hostile to it. Schools have a duty to accommodate a student’s exercise of religion, unless it is disruptive to discipline or interferes with the rights of others. Schools may teach about religion in an academic, neutral, non-denominational way. Schools may not sponsor “religious speech.” For example, school-sponsored prayers or devotional scripture readings during the school day or at school events are inappropriate.
What laws protect religious speech? The First Amendment provides extremely broad protection for freedom of speech of all kinds, including religious speech. The government cannot forbid speech because of its content, religious or otherwise, even it if is extremely offensive to others. This is subject only to very narrow exceptions, such as speech that poses a clear and present danger by inciting imminent violence. This strong protection of speech safeguards the free public exchange of ideas that is essential in a democracy.
Does freedom of speech include more than speaking? Yes. Freedom of speech, religious or otherwise includes not only speech, but other forms of expression such as displaying, publishing and distributing signs, banners, pamphlets, books, magazines, websites, or other materials. The government may regulate some aspects of these activities, such as solicitation of donations or commercial agreements between religious groups and publishers or distributors, but it may not control the content.
May privately owned newspapers, magazines, television stations, and other media outlets publish religious (or anti-religious) speech? Yes. The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of the press. With very limited exceptions, people and groups have the right to publish any views in any media available to them. These views may be religious, non-religious, or even anti-religious. For example, laws against blasphemy would be unconstitutional. However, the government does not have to provide the means for publishing these messages.
May a privately owned media outlet such as a newspaper, magazine, or television station refuse to publish religious speech? Yes. Private media outlets have the right to decide whether to publish or broadcast any materials. Individuals or groups may not demand that a private media outlet publish or broadcast their speech, religious or otherwise.
May the government forbid religious speech or expression on government property? No. The government may not forbid or restrict speech on government property simply because it is religious or because of its particular religious content. In fact the government has a duty to accommodate such speech, for example by providing police protection, if needed.
May the government prohibit religious speech because if offends others? No. The government cannot restrict speech because it is unpopular or offensive, even if it is extremely offensive or likely to provoke protests. On the contrary, police have a duty to protect speakers by controlling crowds and hecklers.
May the government prohibit religious speech on private property? No. Individuals and organizations have the right to express their religious faith or views on their own property, including displaying religious symbols or messages. Certain land use or zoning restrictions may limit religious and non-religious displays alike, but they may not single out religious speech or unreasonably limit it.
Is there a constitutional right to religious speech on the private property of others? No. Even if the private property is open to the public, such as retails stores or shopping centers, permission must be obtained from the owner.
Can the government require permits for door-to-door proselytizing or advocacy? No. However, the government may impose reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of door-to-door advocacy, so long as they apply equally to everyone who engages in kind of activity.
May the government control the content of religious sermons? No. Even if anti-discrimination laws were to prohibit messages that might offend certain groups of people, applying these laws to church sermons, would be unconstitutional, as would any law prohibiting churches from preaching their own views on social and moral issues.
Can professionals (such as bakers, florists, and doctors) refuse to provide services that violate their conscience or religious beliefs? It depends. Each state has its own anti-discrimination laws applying to businesses and professionals providing goods or services to the public. Some of these explicitly allow exemptions when providing a service that would violate a provider’s religious beliefs. Others do not. Similarly, some states have conscience laws that affirm the right of doctors or other professionals to refuse to provide services they oppose. While it is clear that government enforcement of anti-discrimination laws must not be hostile to religion or to religious believers, this area of the law is still in development. Cases will depend on the law in question and a variety of other circumstances. When considering the constitutionality of such laws, courts may seek to balance the government’s interest in limiting discrimination against individual freedoms of speech and religion.
Can a religious organization that rents its facilities to the public for events refuse certain types of events? It depends. Some states have laws that specifically protect religious organizations’ right to refuse to rent their facilities for events contrary to their beliefs. But as with the issue of businesses or professionals refusing to provide services, the answer is not always clear.
Can employers discriminate based on religion? Generally, no. Most employers may not hire or fire employees on the basis of their religion or their need for religious accommodations in the workplace (such as an exception to a dress code for a religious head covering, or reasonable excuse for religious holiday observances), and must general accommodate their employees’ religious practices, unless doing so would place an undue burden on the business or other employees. One major exception is that a religious organization has the right to require its ministers and many other kinds of employees to be members of that religion and to live by the religion’s standards of conduct even outside the workplace.
May religious organizations receive federal funding for social programs and services, such as health care or education? Yes. Religious organizations may apply for and receive federal funding for such programs on the same basis as non-religious organizations, and often do so.
Religious freedom is not absolute. Today and throughout history some people have done terrible things in the name of religion — terrorism, racial violence, murder, theft, abuse. The law rightfully prohibits such activities and puts safeguards in place to prevent them. Religious freedom does not include the right to be violent, endanger public safety or health, steal or damage property or prey on the weak.
Implanted in every human heart is the desire for respect, humane treatment and the space to practice beliefs alone or in a community of believers. In this way religious freedom has the force of a fundamental human right, grounded in human expectations even before laws are made.
Documents such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the United States Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights preserve ideals of freedom on paper and influence the actions of governments worldwide. The words create beautiful moral norms — dignity, liberty, equality, inalienable rights. But these words have little binding effect if they are not incorporated in law and backed by society.
Disobeying the law in pursuit of religious freedom will leave believers empty-handed. A healthy respect for just laws lays the best foundation for a lawful reform of unjust laws.
The challenge is to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don't think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection.
COVID-19 has alerted us to the importance of defending the borders between personal liberty, constitutional rights, and governmental authority.