Preserving Our Freedom of Religion

The Urgency of Saving Faith from Christians in Name Only

Welcome to the Civic Way journal. This is the final essay of a four-part series on faith, politics and the future of the American experiment. The first three essays were on Pope Francis, Fake Christians and Faith. The author, Bob Melville, is the founder of Civic Way, a nonprofit dedicated to good government, and a management consultant with over 45 years of experience improving public agencies.

---

Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government. – James Madison

Introducing the Issue

The US has long been admired for its religious freedom and pluralism. Our nation’s founders could not anticipate every threat, but their familiarity with Europe opened their eyes to the dangers of a single government-sponsored religion. They embodied their desires to protect religious freedom—the right to practice any religion (or no religion at all)—in the Constitution.

However, thanks to an unholy alliance between the GOP and one sect of evangelical extremists (Christians in Name Only), our religious freedom is in peril. Under the disingenuous banner of “religious freedom,” these zealots hope to impose one religious faith—their brand of politically contaminated fundamentalism—on over 300 million Americans. Under the Trump regime, they hope to tear down the wall between church and state once and for all.

America’s Devotion to Religious Freedom

Our founders understood the value of religious faith. They also knew that, to flourish, religion needed protection from government and church alike. As a result, the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is a secular document without reference to a specific deity or church denomination.

They enshrined religious freedom in two important clauses of the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing or supporting a specific religion. The Free Exercise Clause forbids Congress from making laws that infringe on the free exercise of religion (or none), so long as that exercise does not violate a "compelling" public interest (e.g., public morals or safety).

The phrase “separation of church and state doctrine” is not in the First Amendment. While the doctrine is attributed to Thomas Jefferson^[i], the US Supreme Court has long regarded the doctrine as directly implied by the Establishment Clause. In scores of rulings, such as the 1962 Engel v. Vitale school prayer decision, the Court upheld the doctrine, at least until the Roberts Court.

US courts protect sincere religious practices but strive to balance such protections with other rights. If anything, the federal government has bent over backwards to protect religious entities^[ii]. For example, while federal law^[iii] barred churches from most political activity for nearly 70 years, the IRS has usually ignored illegal political activity by religious groups or abdicated its enforcement duties^[iv].

The Right-Wing Religious Freedom Lie

Right-wing evangelicals are selling America a lie. They want us to believe that they are under siege from secular America and complain of oppression. However, they offer no evidence to support their claims. To the contrary, their religious and political followers are growing. They control (or heavily influence) the three branches of federal government and benefit from Republican trifectas in 23 states.

In 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to sign a same-sex couple’s marriage license. At that time, Justice Alito offered an absurd—and unsubstantiated—argument, “Due to Obergefell^[v], those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society …”

Justice Alito urges those who share his narrow-minded views to “convince people who are not religious that religious liberty is worth special protection.” Of course, “religious liberty is worth special protection.” However, it is not for Alito to judge who is “religious” and who is not. It is that kind of astounding arrogance that exposes the threat of the right-wing “religious freedom” crusade.

The Christians in Name Only, the politically inspired subset of evangelical Christians, cherish religious freedom—for themselves. Their fear is not that they will be persecuted—the Constitution and separation of church and state doctrine provide ample protection—but that other faiths will be protected. Their fear is not religious persecution but religious pluralism.

The Right-Wing Crusade to End Religious Freedom

Don’t be fooled when you hear a MAGA politician or preacher demand “religious freedom.” First, they know they already have it. Second, the claim belies their true intentions—to curtail religious freedom for others, that is, those rejecting their narrow dogma. This has been their quest for many years, regrettably a quest they are on the verge of fulfilling.

The extreme right has long set its sights on killing the separation of church and state doctrine. MAGA disciple Lauren Boebert (R-CO) bluntly articulated their view, “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church … I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter^[vi], and it means nothing like what they say it does.” This statement, however crude, reflects the thinking of most GOP voters^[vii].

The extreme right has deftly wielded “religious liberty” as a cudgel to put the doctrine on life support. It has underwritten numerous lawsuits to exploit the Roberts Court’s right-wing tilt. Since 2005, the US Supreme Court—the Roberts Court—has overwhelmingly supported “religious” arguments^[viii]. The extreme right has had far more wins than losses and, with more religious cases on the horizon, right-wing evangelical hopes are ascending^[ix].

MAGA’s ambitions are clear. Death to the church-state separation doctrine. A single state sanctioned religion. Official religious symbols and rituals in public spaces and buildings. New laws and orders to weaken civil liberties and women’s rights, enforce politically correct bible passages and honor the Confederacy. Special favors for whites, heterosexuals and MAGA loyalists.

The Trump regime is doing its part. First, it abolished the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships^[x]. Next, it established the Religious Liberty Commission to rewrite the history of religious liberty in America. To dictate its desired Orwellian outcome, the Trump regime stocked the Commission with right-wing evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox Jews. The Commission, which also includes Seventh Day Adventist Ben Carson, is devoid of mainline Protestants and liberal Christians.

Some think that the alliance between MAGA and right-wing evangelicals, while mutually beneficial now, could rupture later. Ultimately, MAGA leaders want religion to serve its radical “America First” vision while right-wing evangelicals—Christians in Name Only—want the opposite. For now, their enemies, like Democrats, liberal Christians and secularists, are the same. More importantly, their political aims are aligned. Their alliance will likely hold until they achieve their shared goals^[xi].

The Threats of State-Sanctioned Religion

Throughout history, the marriage of church and state has fostered extremism. Theocracies—nations governed by religious law or leaders—often bring tyranny. Think Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Autocracies that control or suppress religion, like China, North Korea and Russia, abolish civil liberties and the rule of law. Tearing down the wall between state and church does not guarantee tyranny and extremism, but it certainly increases their likelihood.

Religious extremism has plagued humanity for centuries. Christian extremism gave us the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, 30 Years War, Russian pogroms and the fusion of Christianity with National Socialism. In the US, the bible was used to justify many wrongs—slavery, segregation, male supremacy and violence against Jews, Catholics and Mormons. Other traditional religions have not been immune^[xii].

Establishing a government sponsored religion also could corrupt the favored religion. In promoting Christian Nationalism, fake Christians forget that Christianity spread in America not because of state support, but despite it. They also ignore James Madison’s admonition, “the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects.”

The purpose of the church-state separation doctrine is to protect, not limit, religious faith. Allowing everyone to follow their own spiritual path helps legitimize religions. Afterall, a religion’s credibility comes not from government or even pastors, it comes from its members. Using the government to force people to adopt a particular religious faith ultimately hollows out the faith.

Enacting laws to sanction or promote one religion also supplants faith with certitude, which is the antithesis of faith. Confusing certainty for faith makes one afraid to entertain questions about one’s beliefs. It engenders insecurities about one’s faith and represses critical thinking. And an unexamined faith becomes a fragile faith which, in turn, spurs self-righteousness and intolerance.

Saving the Separation of Church and State Doctrine

Some Christians in Name Only claim to have God’s ear. In “God’s name,” many dismiss the Beatitudes, reject empathy and scorn justice. They conflate displaying the Ten Commandments with keeping them. They espouse insurrection, white separatism and cruel policies instead of love and kindness. They condone immorality, dishonesty and censorship but abandon virtue and truth.

These charlatans are right about one thing. Religious freedom—the right to pursue one’s own faith—is both in peril and worth saving. However, it is not their religious freedom that is at risk, but ours. To preserve it, we must bar government from subsidizing or promoting one religion. We must join the sacred fight to defeat the enemies of religious freedom^[xiii].

We must save America’s separation of church and state doctrine.

---

^[i] In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson wrote that, by barring Congress from enacting laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of a religion, the Constitution provided a “wall of separation between Church and State.”

^[ii] Three of these groups have been classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups for anti-LGBTQ advocacy (Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel and American Family Association).

^[iii] Federal law bars churches and nonprofits from political campaigning but not from conducting partisan discussions.

^[iv] The IRS reclassifies churches as associations to exempt them from taxation. From 2010 to 2017, IRS examined only 226 of over 1.5 million tax exempt entities for political activity, sent written warnings to 56 percent and took added action in 10 percent of cases.

^[v] Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 US Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the right to marry for same-sex couples.

^[vi] Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter espousing a “wall of separation between Church and State.”

^[vii] According to a 2021 Pew survey, while 73 percent of Americans believe that the federal Constitution calls for the separation of church and state, only 34 percent of Republicans agree.

^[viii] According to a 2021 Epstein/Posner study, the Supreme Court sided with “religious” groups in 83 percent of its “religious” rulings; this rate contrasts with a 50 percent rate for prior Supreme Courts.

^[ix] While the Supreme Court disappointed the right with its 2015 Obergefell same-sex marriage decision, its other rulings have helped bakers deny wedding cakes to same-sex couples, pharmacists deny morning-after pills to women, ER nurses refuse Covid-19 vaccines to patients and GOP officials divert public school funds to private religious schools. In the 2022 Carson v. Makin case, the Supreme Court invalidated a Maine law barring tax funds for religious schools but allowing them for nonreligious private schools. In the 2022 Kennedy v Bremerton School District case, the Supreme Court ruled that a football coach could conduct post-game prayers on the field so long as he did not require student participation. In a recent case involving a Catholic Charities nonprofit, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that, since the Catholic nonprofit’s activities were “secular in nature,” it should be treated the same as a nonreligious nonprofit. Justice Sotomayor wrote, “It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion.”

^[x] The last three presidents excluding Trump—Biden, Obama and Bush—used the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to identify ways to leverage faith-based organizations in addressing tough issues (e.g., climate change, human trafficking and poverty).

^[xi] Their shared political goals are to gain power, kill the separation of church and state doctrine, sanction one religion (and politically correct dogma), permit church-based discrimination for evangelicals, and curb religious freedom for others.

^[xii] Jewish extremist groups like the Kack party, radical Eyal movement and notorious “Price Tag” movement. Muslim regimes like Iran and violent political movements like al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram and Muslim Brotherhood. Hinduism’s fascism-inspired Hindutva movement and Buddhist nationalists like the Ma Ba Tha.

^[xiii] Aid groups that combat Christian nationalism, such as Faithful America, Red Letter Christians, Vote Common Good, Sojourners, Christians Against Christian Nationalism, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and Freedom From Religion Foundation, and join forces with conservative Protestants, Catholics and Mormons who value religious freedom.