III. The challenge of diversity
V. Statistics on religiosity in America
Originally written Sept. 23, 2002; revised May 4, 2005; and re-revised Jan. 26, 2010.
Charles Haynes is quoted in the University of Massachusetts Press book,
Religious Liberty in America:
The First Amendment in Historical and Contemporary Perspective
Also see,
By Bruce T. Murray
Web Sage Editor
In order to grasp the meaning of the First Amendment, it is important to understand the logic and philosophy behind it.
Embedded in the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty are fundamental values and rights that are considered universal and "inalienable."
“Most people forget or never understood that religious liberty is not something you get from the First Amendment; it is something this country recognizes people have by birthright,” said Dr. Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center.
In other words, religious liberty is not the result of a governmental action creating it, tolerating it or “allowing it,” but religious liberty is a pre-existing human right that should be free from government intrusion. In terminology of formal logic, religious liberty is a necessary condition that stands alone, and governmental action is not sufficient to make it exist. The government's primary role is to ensure that this basic right is not infringed.
In the lead-up to the drafting of the Bill of Rights, James Madison discussed the rationale behind religious liberty in his landmark “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” (1785). Madison cited the right of conscience as a fundamental value behind the right of religious liberty.
“The religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right,” Madison wrote.
This philosophy later came to be expressed in the First Amendment as, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...”
Issues of conscience are behind many claims and conflicts involving religion. For example, school dress codes that prohibit head covering or hoods might be interpreted overbroadly to prohibit religious head covering.
“What does the school do about the Orthodox Jewish child or the Muslim girl – members of religious groups that require head cover? Who would say, ‘I'm sorry, you have to take it off. Choose between the obligation to your God or the state’?” Haynes said.
Conscious objection to war is another instance of the same conflict playing out in a different way – for example, Quakers who refuse to register for the draft because their religion prohibits them from participating in war. “It's not because they don't want to put on a uniform or they want to be annoying, but God forbids them to go to war. What is the higher authority – the United States or God?” Haynes said.
In all such cases, regardless of the outcome, claims of conscience are taken seriously in this country. “The framers thought we should take these claims seriously precisely because they believed freedom of conscience is an inalienable right,” Haynes said.
“Many of the framers believed there was a higher authority in their lives than the state; and the state's role is to protect the rights of individuals to follow the dictates of their conscience as far as possible. ... This may be the greatest contribution the United States has made to civilization.”
The United States is not only the most religious nation in the developed world, it is also the most diverse, with some 3,000 religious groups. (See statistics on religiosity in America.)
The United States is unique among nations in that it was founded not on kinship and blood lines, but on the values and philosophy espoused in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the other writings of the founders.
“At our best, Americans are defined by the principles and ideals that we share and hold in the framing documents,” Haynes said. “As we move into the 21st century and as we become more and more diverse, if we don't define ourselves along principles and ideals – and instead define ourselves along race, religion and other ways – we are going to have a difficult time as a nation.”
“The United States is a nation with high religiosity and also high political civility. We are one of the few nations with both. Some nations, like those in Europe, have high political civility and very low religiosity; and other nations have high religiosity but low political civility. The place we are in is a very fortunate place, but danger lies ahead if we don't attend to the principles of this messy experiment called the United States.”
How are Americans going to manage their religious differences and negotiate conflict as the nation becomes ever more religiously diverse?
Haynes believes the First Amendment is the key to national unity in an increasingly pluralistic age.
“The First Amendment is really the core framework for dealing with these issues. It is in fact what we do share across our differences,” he said. “We have to think about the First Amendment in light of who we have become. That is very challenging. This requires moving from a model of unity at the expense of diversity, to a model that expresses unity in the interest of diversity.”
In other words, every ethnic and religious group must be able to identify with the common civic ideas and principles of the nation. And they will only be able to do so if the laws are applied equally and fairly.
“The atheist, the Sikh, the Hindu, the Jew – they respond to that American part of their identity if they understand that it is not weighted for or against them but is in their interest,” Haynes said.
Surveys consistently show that religion remains a major force in the lives of Americans. In to a 2001 survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 64 percent of the respondents said religion is very important in their lives. This number has remained relatively stable over the past two decades, after declining between the mid-1960s and late 1970s. The Pew figures are corroborated by Gallup polls on religion.
In terms of church attendance, the Pew survey indicates that 40 percent of respondents say they attend religious services at least once a week. Results from the same poll going back to 1996 have changed little.
Americans' participation in religion contrasts sharply with their European counterparts: In France, only about 4 percent of the population regularly
attends church services; and in Sweden, church attendance is about 1 percent.
“Religion matters in this country; it has from the beginning,
and it still does,” Haynes said.