Religious Liberty in a Pluralistic Society
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
Jun 5, 2015 -
What religious obligations must we give up to live in a pluralistic society? This question has vexed our country recently as some people have tried to more narrowly redefine religious liberty to promote their political agenda. Yet, our nation and community is stronger with robust religious liberty.
From our nation’s beginning, religious liberty has been a fundamental principle as many people came to America to practice their faith as they chose. Our Founders believed that religion would help develop the virtues in people necessary for democracy and that religious freedom would promote freedom of thought in other areas so that we can seek and find truth. This belief is one reason that the religion clauses are mentioned first in the First Amendment because without the freedom of thought and conscience, the right to act (e.g., speak, publish, assemble, and petition the government) is useless.
Throughout our history, we have defined religious liberty as the ability to express, follow, and live out one’s faith and applied these protections to individuals and faith based institutions. Constitutionally, the free exercise clause has protected minority religious beliefs and practices from oppression by the majority by arguing that the government cannot burden religion unless it has a compelling state interest that is achieved through the least restrictive means possible. And when the Supreme Court overturned this standard in 1990, Congress voted to impose the previous standard to governmental decisions that burden religion.
Consequently, the religion clauses have protected unpopular religious beliefs and actions by protecting Jehovah Witnesses’ right not to salute the flag, allowing 7th Day Adventists to receive unemployment compensation because they lost their jobs for refusing to work on Saturday, letting Catholics send their children to parochial schools, exempting Amish teens from compulsory education laws, and allowing Muslims to grow beards in prison or not be denied jobs for wearing a headscarf. Moreover, the government has permitted conscientious objectors to war since the Founding, banned religious tests for holding office, protected faith based institutions’ religious right to hire, and protected medical providers from performing medical procedures contrary to their conscience.
Today however, some wish to redefine religious liberty as the right to worship. This definition limits religious freedom to activities performed in a religious building and the privacy of one’s own home. This narrow definition essentially privatizes religion by banning its influence from the public. It expresses hostility toward religion, as one religious liberty advocate argued, like claiming that one could play music in concert halls but not parks and one could show art in museums but not sidewalks expresses hostility to art and music.
This definition would also limit religious liberty protections to faith based institutions that provide most of their services to members of their faith. In Jackson and West Tennessee, such a definition could potentially change the tax exempt status of religious groups and handicap interfaith efforts to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, mentor at-risk kids, house orphans, reduce abortions through counseling and adoption services, and alleviate poverty.
The evidence is clear that religion promotes civic virtues, increases social capital through greater community involvement, and promotes freedom by providing a separate morality that can counter the self-interested claims of the state. Protecting the vital role of religion in society will help us create better and stronger communities and justifies strong religious liberty protections.