Skip to main content

Thomas Jefferson, the First Amendment, and Why We Can't Stop Fighting About Religous Freedom

By Valerie Tarico ~

Thomas JeffersonIn 1878, the Supreme Court of the United States wrestled with a religious freedom case focused on Mormons and polygamy. In the written decision, Chief Justice Morrison Waite explained the court’s attempt to discern the intent of the First Amendment. He turned to someone who had been in the room when the Amendment was written—Thomas Jefferson:

Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,—I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." (emphasis mine).

Waite took Jefferson’s words to be definitive: “Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”

In other words, the Constitution guarantees a right to religious opinion, not behavior, and specifically not behavior that violates civic responsibilities. Lest we think freedom of thought is too trivial to have been the concern of America’s founders, we need only look at how Muslim theocracies are attempting today to insert anti-blasphemy laws into the United Nations or how sanctions against blasphemers have recently been strengthened in places ranging from Russia to Pakistan to Ireland.

Based on this understanding of the U.S. Constitution, the Waite Court ruled that civil authorities had the right to regulate marriage, and that religious conscience claims offered no exemption. Twelve years later, bowing to legal and cultural pressures, the Latter Day Saints Church reversed its support for polygamy. But in the long run, neither Waite nor Jefferson himself has provided a satisfactory solution to American battles over religion in public life.

That is because the line between freedom of opinion and freedom of action is not nearly as clear as it sounds. As a psychologist, I would argue that belief dictates behavior, and strong belief is a strong dictator. If you step through my front door, how I respond depends on why I think you are there. If you come as a friend, I’m likely to be friendly. But if I believe strongly that you are there to rape and kill my daughter, I am likely to shoot you.

A sense of divine mission, if anything, lowers barriers between belief and behavior. Religious belief can be humble and hopeful, but often it is instead backed by righteous certitude that can trump social norms and even humanity’s deepest ethical intuitions.

I once wrote an article entitled, “Why Good Christians Do Bad Things to Win Converts.” The short answer to the title question is that religious beliefs can co-opt and redirect moral intuitions even in otherwise decent people. For example, earnest volunteer missionaries in Child Evangelism Fellowship feel driven to save kids from hell, and if this requires telling kindergartners they were born bad and deserve eternal torture, so be it. Hell-belief creates an imperative in which the end (salvation from torture) justifies deception, manipulation and fear induction. If I myself believed kindergarteners were slated for torture, I too might be willing to risk causing religious trauma syndrome.

Belief dictates behavior. It is impossible to disentangle creed and deed.

And so we are left with a tangle.

The dividing line drawn in the U.S. Constitution, clarified by Jefferson and reiterated by Waite, may allow civil law and religious pluralism to coexist, but it is inherently unsatisfying. It offers only the most abstract outline for addressing questions about religious freedom: yes to the right of individuals to formulate God and goodness according to the dictates of their own minds; yes to the right of the collective to constrain individual behavior for the sake of coherent civil society and the common good. From day one, lawmakers, the priesthood, corporate bodies, and individual citizens have been wrestling with how to make this work. And despite over 200 years of effort, we have failed to reach agreement on how to balance these competing demands.

The problem—Americans hate to admit this—is that we cannot have it all.

Pretending that we can grant deference to “sincerely held” religious belief while still sustaining a thriving pluralistic democracy—is an exercise in self-deception.By their very nature religions make truth claims and behavioral demands that are at odds with the goals and methods of civil society. Religion seeks to optimize wellbeing in some afterlife; civil society seeks to optimize wellbeing here on earth. Those two goals don’t always align. Religion asserts rules for living based on appeals to authority. Ideally, social science proposes rules for living based in evidence and reason.

To further complicate the matter, the truth claims and behavioral demands of many religions are mutually exclusive. Christianity alone has fragmented into over 34,000 different denominations and non-denominations because Christians disagree emphatically about God’s priorities and experience these differences as irreconcilable. And though Christianity in one form or another may be the majority spiritual worldview in America, it certainly isn’t the only one.

Our religious and spiritual differences put us at odds about the most sacred aspects of our lives: whether we bring a child into the world, how we view the moral standing of other species, who we are willing to kill, and how we die. Furthermore, sincerely held religious belief can oblige believers to control other people and religious institutions to control outsiders. When religious believers are prevented from acting on these obligations, they feel violated, even persecuted.

By definition, religious orthodoxy seeks conformity. This means that increasing one person’s religious freedom decreases the religious freedom of another. Giving religious rights to institutions limits the rights of individuals and vice versa.

Secular rules and responsibilities, including basic criminal codes and child protections, not infrequently countermand religious rules and responsibilities as understood by individual believers. American Evangelicals and conservative Catholics keep telling us this, loud and clear, and we should listen to them. Religion is whatever the believer says it is, and no secular or ecclesiastical authority has the power to say otherwise. Enabling a woman to prevent pregnancy, complying with anti-discrimination laws, stopping parents from whipping their children, allowing a cancer patient to manage his own dying process—these really do violate some people’s religions.

Pretending that this isn’t the case—pretending that we can grant deference to “sincerely held” religious belief while still sustaining a thriving pluralistic democracy—is an exercise in self-deception.

The best we can do is struggle to find balance points that respect individual autonomy while limiting the religious freedom to do harm to either America’s democracy or citizens. The First Amendment, as interpreted by Jefferson, grants our government broad latitude to promote the general welfare in cases where religion might dictate otherwise. The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, basis for the recent Hobby Lobby case, reverses the order of priority, granting sincere believers exemption from otherwise universal responsibilities and rules. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a church-state watchdog, is calling for legislation that would overturn RFRA altogether and revert to earlier standards, which are summarized in Ruth Ginsberg’s Hobby Lobby dissent. Constitutional scholars Marci Hamilton and Leslie Griffin instead propose congress should adopt 10 exemptions from the blanket privilege RFRA grants to believers. As they put it, “There are some actions no law should permit even if the person says he was acting out of religious motivation.” Their list includes child sex trafficking, terrorist acts, gender discrimination, housing discrimination, illegal drug use, endangering species at risk, and financial fraud but sidesteps current controversies like female genital mutilation and the right of religiously motivated parents to beat children or deny them education. Senators Mark Udall and Patty Murray introduced even narrower legislation to stop employers from interfering in an employee’s family planning decisions.

Regardless of how broad or narrow the constraints on religion may be—no matter how compelling the evidence that limiting a given religious behavior promotes public health, child wellbeing, human rights, tax fairness, broad sustainable prosperity, or global relations—lawmakers can be assured that some people of faith will resist. Their sincerely held beliefs oblige them to do so. Religions cannot self-regulate any more than corporations can. That is why it is up to those on the outside to make our own best judgments about what is real and right and to set limits that honor universal ethical principles and wellbeing.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of Subscribe to her articles at


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not