The United States Constitution, you may be surprised to learn, mentions religion only twice: Once, in Article VI, where it states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” and again, in the First Amendment, where it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s it; you’ve now just read everything there is to read about religion in the nation’s most significant founding document.
This turns out to be an awkward revelation for the Christian nationalist; if the founders were, as Christian nationalists maintain, creating a “Christian nation,” it is quite odd that the words God, Jesus, Christianity, and the like are entirely absent from the “supreme law of the land,” and that religion is only mentioned twice and in an entirely negative sense. Clearly, the US was established as a religiously neutral secular government—the first of its kind in the history of the world.
Frankly, I’m not sure how the founders could have been any clearer in their intentions without literally writing the words “THE US IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.” Of course, some of the founders actually did write these words in the Treaty of Tripoli, which in 1797 was signed by President John Adams with the unanimous consent of the US Senate, and which says that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
We can keep going. While Thomas Jefferson’s exhortation for a “wall of separation” between church and state is well-known, what may be less well-known is that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights and father of the Constitution, was equally vociferous against the idea of mixing religion with government. On the issue of congressional chaplains, for example, Madison wrote, in the Detached Memoranda, “the establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.” He noted that minority religions would likely never achieve chaplainship, and, therefore, that the promotion of one religion above all others using government resources was a clear violation of constitutional principles—principles, keep in mind, that he would be very familiar with on account of the fact that he drafted them.
Further, note that the Constitution opens with the words “We the people,” which is a direct philosophical declaration that the government draws its power from the consent of the governed, not from a deity. Additionally, the idea that all persons are created equal, embodied in the Declaration of Independence, is fundamentally at odds with the idea of Christian supremacy. As one Supreme Court decision put it (before it was overtaken by conservative Christians), “A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.”
Therefore, under no reasonable interpretation of the founding documents—not even and especially under the flawed, conservative interpretive scheme of originalism—can we possibly conclude that the country was founded as a “Chrisitan nation.”
And yet that is exactly what the Supreme Court is attempting to turn the nation into, as constitutional attorney Andrew Seidel masterfully explains in his latest book, American Crusade: How the Supreme Court Is Weaponizing Religious Freedom. By analyzing several key Supreme Court cases over the last thirty years, Seidel shows us how these cases are being increasingly decided against the principles and sentiments of the founders—and against our best interests as a country.
There is no doubt that there can be an inherent tension between the freedom to practice one’s religion and the obligation to adhere to the country’s secular laws, especially when the two directly conflict. In these more tricky situations, which principle should take precedence? Religious freedom or general adherence to the law?
It turns out that this question is not as complicated as one might imagine. In the third chapter of the book, Seidel provides a simple interpretive framework we can use when thinking about religious freedom cases, a framework that requires that we draw three lines, as follows:
Line # 1: Action versus belief - This line ensures that no government body can legislate your thoughts, and if they attempt to do so, it is clearly unconstitutional. The First Amendment grants you the unlimited right to think or believe anything you’d like; you can believe in one god, one hundred gods, no gods, or the flying spaghetti monster for all the government should care, with one caveat—that your beliefs don’t materialize into actions that harm others. Which brings us to line # 2.
Line # 2: The rights of others - The First Amendment guarantees your freedom to think whatever you’d like (an unlimited right) along with the freedom to act on those beliefs (a limited right), granted you don’t infringe on the rights of others. As Seidel wrote, “Your right to swing your religion ends where the rights of others begin.” For instance, and as an extreme example, you’re allowed to think that your God has commanded you to sacrifice your child (as he did with Isaac), but you are unequivocally not allowed to actually carry out the sacrifice. The right of your child to be free from harm and your obligation to adhere to the same criminal laws as everyone else supersedes your religious freedom. This is how it has to be. If this were not the case, religion could be used to justify any action and circumvent any law.
Line # 3: State and church - This third line ensures that government officials do not use the inherent power of their position or government resources to promote or spread their particular religion. This should be obvious; we live in a pluralistic country with a variety of religions, and while Christianity is the most prominent, the First Amendment was not created to protect Christian supremacy—it was created to protect religious minorities.
To illustrate these principles in action, let’s briefly consider the infamous case of Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples based on her religious convictions (Seidel covers this in much greater detail in the book).
Davis was brought to court for her refusal to perform her legal duty and issue legitimate and lawful marriage licenses. After due consideration, the court ultimately ruled that Davis must in fact issue the licenses, despite her religious convictions. The question, of course, is this: Did the court infringe on her constitutional rights to religious freedom?
As Seidel explains, the answer is an unequivocal “no,” which can be clearly seen based on the three lines we described above:
1. Actions versus beliefs. The court did not order Davis to change her beliefs; she is free to personally remain a bigot, free to personally refrain from marrying an individual of the same sex, and free to quit her government position if she doesn’t agree with the secular and neutral marriage laws that apply equally to everyone.
2. The rights of others. The court appropriately noted that the right for Davis to practice her religion ends where it infringes on the general legal rights of others; in other words, the rights of same-sex couples to marry. To see how obvious this is, assume, hypothetically, that the couples Davis refused to license were black. If Davis were to deny marriage licenses to couples on account of their color, who would dare defend this action, even if she cited her religious convictions? And if you believe that she has no legitimate grounds to deny black couples a marriage license, then the burden is on you to show how discriminaiton against homosexuals is any different than discrimination against people of color.
3. State and church - In this particular case, Davis was using her position of power in the government to deny the rights of others based solely and exclusively on her very specific religious beliefs. This is clearly unconstitutional, and for good reason, as we’ve stated above. But keep in mind that this doesn’t even address the fact that her argument may fail even on her own terms, as certain Christian churches would claim that their religion would have no issue with same-sex marriage in the first place. But either way, you can see why we would want to avoid creating a situation where bigotry and the circumvention of the law can be justified based on esoteric personal interpretations of ancient texts.
This all seems a lot simpler than these cases are typically made out to be, but, unfortunately—based on the current composition of the Supreme Court—it’s not unlikely that the court would now rule in Davis’s favor. It essentially did so in the case of Jack Phillips, who infamously refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on the grounds of “religious freedom.” Cases like these are always the same story; bigotry justified by religion. The only difference is that, now, the Supreme Court is accepting that justification.
What Seidel so brilliantly demonstrates in this book is that, to the Supreme Court, “religious freedom” is coming to increasingly mean “Christian privilege.” As Michael Farris said, “The test of religious freedom is whether you’re willing to stand up for the religious freedom of those that you disagree with theologically.” In that regard, the Supreme Court unequivocally fails, as it has repeatedly sided with Christians while failing to protect the rights of others, including Muslims (see Trump’s Muslim travel ban).
As an example, consider the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, where the court ruled that, essentially, for-profit corporations can circumvent federal regulations—in this case, the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate—if its owners object to those regulations on religious grounds. Even ignoring the questionable idea that corporations can have religious beliefs to begin with (they can’t), this ruling clearly violates Line # 2, in that the owners' religious beliefs infringed on the rights of women to receive federally guaranteed healthcare services.
But as far as the court is concerned, the owners’ Christian beliefs trump the rights of the company’s employees to receive these mandated services. This is a clear example of what we’ve been saying is so important to avoid; creating a precedent where people (or worse, corporations) can simply ignore laws that don’t coincide with their religious beliefs. It’s essentially the same as telling Kim Davis that she is free to deny marriage licenses to gay couples, or even black couples, on the basis of nothing more than her bigoted religious convictions. This is not the road we want to go down.
Seidel points out the hypocrisy every step of the way. Fundamentalist conservative Christians, or “Crusaders,” as Seidel refers to them in the book, will deny minority religions of the equivalent rights they advocate for themselves. Crusaders, for instance, will have no problem whatsoever with government officials holding Bible study sessions using government resources, but if those same government officials were instead reading out of the Koran, you’d see a complete 180 reversal in their tune. That’s because religious freedom to Crusaders means nothing more than the freedom to practice and prioritize Christianity—and only their version of Christianity on top of that. This has resulted in the court refusing to remove Christian religious symbols from government property, forcing taxpayers to fund Christian churches and religious education, and allowing Christian churches and organizations to circumvent health regulations during a pandemic. A Christian country is simply what they’re after.
Survey data backs this up. According to a recent national survey of more than 2,000 people, “61% of participants who identified as Republican would be in favor of the U.S. being declared a Christian nation.” Considering all we’ve discussed so far, can you think of anything more terrifying and antithetical to true religious freedom than declaring one particular religion as the “official” religion of the country? Well, the Supreme Court may actually make it happen. And if it does happen, remember that a Christian country to the Crusaders means a country founded on the principles of white supremacy and religiously justified misogyny, racism, and homophobia.
The true constitutionalist would be appalled at this direction. As Seidel wrote, “There is no freedom of religion without a government that is free from religion.” The First Amendment protects our rights (for now) to personally practice any religion or no religion at all and to be free from the religious burdens of others, and the courts should protect this right equally for any religion—especially the minority ones—while drawing the line of lawful religious practice at the point where others are harmed, the rights of others are infringed, or general and neutral secular laws are circumvented. Unfortunately, this common-sense approach to religious freedom is not the one that is currently embraced by the Crusader-packed Supreme Court, and we should all, as a result, be very afraid.
But Seidel has given us the toolkit to think about religious freedom cases, and it’s honestly rather simple. Your religious freedom ends where it places undue burdens on others, just as you wouldn’t want others’ religions placing undue burdens on you (essentially, the Golden Rule). Likewise, you should not be willing to grant your own religion any rights that you are unwilling to grant to the religions of others, and that usually means refraining from religious practice or symbolism on government property or by using government resources. If you don’t want a muslim teaching your kids about the Koran in public schools, then keep your Bible out of the classroom in like measure. You’re free to teach your kids as you wish, privately at home. It’s as simple as that.
And finally, recognize that you are not allowed to circumvent secular laws based on religious beliefs without granting everyone else the same reciprocal right. But if everyone has the capacity to ignore laws based on their own personal religious convictions, then there is little difference between this scenario and having no laws at all.