How Jefferson and Madison’s partnership – a friendship told in letters – shaped America’s separation of church and state

  Few constitutional principles are more familiar to the average American than the separation of church and state.

  According to the Pew Research Center, 73% of adults agree that religion should be kept separate from government policies. To be sure, support varies by political or religious affiliation – with Democrats supporting the principle in much higher numbers – and depending on the specific issue, such as prayer in public schools or displays of the Ten Commandments monuments. Yet only 19% of Americans say the United States should abandon the principle of church-state separation.

  That said, criticism appears to be on the rise, particularly among political and religious conservatives. And such criticism comes from the top.

The establishment clause: Everything to know

  Religious freedom in the United States is guaranteed by two provisions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  One, commonly known as the establishment clause, has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent government from either advancing (that is, establishing) or hindering religion, preferring one religion over others, or favoring religion over nonreligion.

Have religious conservatives lost their minds?

  Although the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, the concept is based on the First Amendment, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

  Down through history, the union of church and state has resulted in great evils. Even today, in the twenty-first century, some countries have state religions or state churches. This includes not only Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia but also “Christian” countries like Norway and the United Kingdom.

Court OKs coach's on-field prayer, shifting balance for religious expression

  In its decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton, the Supreme Court strengthened First Amendment protection for religious speech by government officials.

The Case

  Public high school football coach Joseph Kennedy filed a lawsuit alleging his rights to free speech and freedom of religion were violated when he was fired for praying at the 50-yard line after each game.

Religious liberty has a long and messy history – and there is a reason Americans feel strongly about it

  At the close of its recent term the Supreme Court ruled on the cases of Carson v. Makin and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, rekindling controversy over one of the most enduring issues in American history: religious liberty. Another of this term’s blockbuster decisions, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, underlines the fact that religious beliefs and actions in the public realm matter. Whether the issue concerns religion and education, prayer, or reproduction, Americans feel strongly about their religious liberties.

Devil in the detail of SCOTUS ruling on workplace bias puts LGBTQ rights and religious freedom on collision course

  The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling extending workplace discrimination protection to cover sexual orientation and gender identity was cheered by LGBTQ people and allies. Indeed, the June 15 decision represents a big win in the fight for LGBTQ equality.

  But buried towards the end of a 33-page majority opinion written by conservative stalwart Justice Neil Gorsuch is a sober warning that those celebrating the decision might have initially missed.

Christians should protect freedom of expression for all people

  It’s an idea that we Evangelicals like because we usually hear it discussed in the vein of protecting our particular right to express and live out a Christian worldview. But do we really know what our constitutional right to religious liberty is rooted in, and what protecting it for the long haul will require of us?

  This tension was clear in the substance of a recent debate between fellow conservatives David French and Sohrab Ahmari. Both men are Christians but have markedly different views on how people of faith should counter pressures from the secular left to protect religious freedom and foster human flourishing.

Can government contractors refuse workers based on religious beliefs?

  While religious freedom can mean many different things to you personally, within the U.S. Constitution it means only two things: the government can’t promote one religion over another (or promote religion over the lack of religion, or vice versa) and you have the right to worship, or not, as you choose —the government can’t penalize you for your religious beliefs.

  This month, the Department of Labor proposed a rule that could potentially pit these two types of religious freedoms against one another. The rule would allow federal government contractors to make hiring and firing decisions based on religious beliefs. Currently, federal government contractors are prohibited from discriminating against people on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin or disability — and under the Obama Administration, sexual orientation and gender identity were added to that list. The proposed rule wouldn’t overturn that policy; instead, it would make it easier for contractors to get a religious exemption so they don’t have to follow it.

Reclaiming religious freedom

  Last month, the most religiously diverse U.S. Congress in our nation’s history was sworn into office. For proponents of religious liberty, this was an incredible opportunity to celebrate this fundamental American right. At the same time, however, the current political context raises crucial challenges to religious liberty that this Congress must urgently address. Even as more religious minorities are elected to our nation’s highest offices, protections for those groups are widely being stripped away. And in recent years, many self-proclaimed religious liberty advocates have instead done much to abuse this right by privileging the religious beliefs of a select few over the freedom of all people. Their efforts have eroded the separation of church and state in order to discriminate against specific vulnerable communities. The right to religious liberty should protect these communities and all people from discrimination—not cause them harm.

Taylor Dawson: Religious liberty for all

  Free exercise of religion is a bedrock principle of American governance. As schoolchildren, we’re taught that Pilgrims fled to America to avoid persecution by the Church of England. While many of America’s founders were Christians, they prohibited government from favoring one religion over another. Our constitutional protection for religious exercise is listed first in the Bill of Rights. That wasn’t a mistake.

Charles C. Haynes: To uphold religious freedom in 2017, do small things with great love

  Farewell to 2016, arguably the worst year for religious freedom in living memory.

  From genocide in Syria and Iraq to ethnic cleansing in Burma, religious oppression and persecution destroyed countless lives, exiled millions and fueled the greatest humanitarian crisis since World War II.

  Most of the world’s population – more than 5 billion people – now lives in countries with high restrictions on religious freedom.

Charles C. Haynes: Religious freedom in the age of Trump

  In the end, this election wasn’t decided by Russian hacking, sexual assault charges, “blood coming out of her whatever,” the FBI or any of the other extraordinary moments that defied the norms of political behavior and discourse. “We the People” decided it.

  Enough of us were so angry, alienated and frustrated that we were willing to roll the dice on a presidential candidate whom, if the exit polls are correct, a vast majority of voters consider unqualified to lead the most powerful nation in the world. Day-after message? Blow up the country and see what happens.

  The overriding issue wasn’t health care, taxes, jobs, climate change (barely mentioned) or even the ridiculous “wall.” The issue was – and is – what kind of country are we, do we want to be?

Charles C. Haynes: Republicans, Democrats and the stakes for religious freedom

  As this strange, unorthodox and downright scary presidential campaign heads into the final stretch, let’s pause to consider what’s at stake for religious freedom in this election.

  Like motherhood and apple pie, religious freedom is universally popular with members of both major parties. But you don’t have to read far in the party platforms to discover that Republican and Democratic definitions of religious freedom could not be farther apart in meaning and application.

  According to the GOP platform, religious freedom involves, among other things:  Defending marriage as the union between one man and one woman; passing laws protecting people of faith who refuse service to same-sex couples; and displaying the Ten Commandments in public places.

This Independence Day, celebrate religious liberty for all

  Millions of Americans have gathered with family, friends, and neighbors to celebrate Independence Day today. But the July 4th weekend has long been about more than just barbeques and fireworks. It is also a chance for Americans to reflect on the nation’s fundamental values and celebrate fundamental American freedoms, including what many call the first freedom: religious liberty.

  This year, Independence Day coincides with the end of Ramadan—the Islamic holy month when Muslims worldwide fast from dawn to sunset. However, Ramadan includes more than just abstaining from food and drink. During this month, Muslims strive to come closer to God by performing charitable acts, mending broken relationships, and building character while practicing self-discipline. Ramadan can be a challenging month for Muslims to observe, not only because of the long, hot days of fasting but also because of the constant scrutiny, discrimination, and hate crimes that Muslims face today from bigoted individuals in the media, politics, and the general public. These daily aggressions offer a stark reminder that religious liberty is not a reality for all in the nation.

Charles C. Haynes: Make America safe again: Reject Islamophobia

  Two weeks ago, three men assaulted a 19-year-old American Muslim in Astoria, Queens. One suspect shouted “Arab” and punched the victim twice in the face. A second screamed “ISIS” and approached with a metal pipe. When a bystander appeared, the three suspects fled the scene.

  What’s especially alarming about this incident is how commonplace such hate crimes have become across the United States. Attacks on American Muslims and Muslim institutions have surged over the past year – a surge that can be directly correlated to anti-Muslim rhetoric in the 2016 presidential campaign, according to a study released by the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University.

Charles C. Haynes: Without LGBT rights, religious freedom fails

  Last week Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina scrambled to contain the damage caused by the passage of a state law limiting bathroom access for transgender people and eliminating local anti-discrimination ordinances based on sexual orientation.

  Under mounting pressure from civil liberties advocates and business interests, McCrory made what critics called cosmetic changes, notably issuing an executive order expanding the state’s employment policy for state workers to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

  Opponents of the law say McCrory’s actions are too little, too late. Absent repeal of the legislation, North Carolina will likely face more boycotts, protests and pushback from businesses threatening to cancel investments in the state.

Carolyn Davis: Advancing progressive religious liberty in 2016

  On March 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court took up Zubik v. Burwell. Supreme Court justices once again heard from those challenging the employer contraceptive coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. The plaintiffs argue that the law violates their religious freedoms, even though the ACA allows them to avoid actually providing the insurance if they fill out a simple form. Zubik is an example of cynical efforts by extreme conservatives to exploit religion as a smokescreen for policies that discriminate and endanger the rights of Americans everywhere. It is a version of religious freedom that allows certain religious beliefs to trump the rights of others, cause harm, and allow one group to impose their religion on another. This bears little resemblance to the liberty our country’s founders intended.

Charles C. Haynes: Justice Scalia’s disastrous decision on religious freedom

  Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13, conservative religious and political leaders have lavished praise on the long-serving justice as a champion of religious freedom.

  Alan Spears, head of the Christian advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, hails Scalia as “the most vocal and passionate voice on the Supreme Court for religious freedom.” Sen. Ted Cruz warns, “We are one justice away from a Supreme Court that would undermine the religious liberty of millions of Americans.”

  But surely this is either a case of selective amnesia or wishful thinking.

Lauren Kokum: Voting with values that work for all

  Each year, the Family Research Council sponsors the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. The summit postures itself as the “premiere conservative event” in the nation—one that sets a framework for “values voters.” As in years past, this year’s summit agenda included traditional marriage, religious liberty, sanctity of life, and limited government.

  For decades, social conservatives have championed these issues—which supposedly encompass the entire values universe—along with the discriminatory policies they entail. But this year, the summit was easily upstaged by the prophetic and political nature of an international visitor: Pope Francis. During his U.S. visit in the days leading up to the event, the pope preached a starkly different message—one that was merciful and welcoming rather than judgmental.

Sanam Malik: The ‘Clock Kid’ incident is a small part of a bigger problem

  Last week, 14-year-old Texas high school student Ahmed Mohamed brought a homemade digital clock to school hoping to impress his teacher. Instead of receiving praise for his great work, however, he was handcuffed, booked, and falsely charged with bringing a bomb to school. After an intense public outcry, all charges against him were dropped, and he was released. Ahmed is a Muslim American.