Joseph Nuttall

Topic paper
4/13/17

From the beginning of written history, the Americas have been a place of religious

diversity. Even before the European colonization of America, native peoples varied in their

beliefs and the practice of their various religions. The United States of America has

progressively increased in religious diversity since its infancy. Today, this diversity poses

continued disagreement and necessitates clear laws regarding the involvement of the government

in religion and the protection of individual rights with respect to religion. The founders of the

constitution and champions for religious freedom have fought for these essential social rights.

Much has been written in an effort to resolve religious differences and much has been done to

promote pluralism.

Given continued disagreement and conflict, we will look at the intent of the founders of

the constitution with respect to religious freedom and the division of beliefs that Americans face

today. We will further investigate solutions to our current issues in light of the intent of the

founders.

In response to A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion

that advocated the financial support of a Christian church by the local government (a popular

practice in those days). James Madison set forth 15 points of remonstration that included the

many issues of past governments with regard to an established civic religion, the unequal

treatment of citizens, the effect of bias in establishing laws, the individual right to practice their

beliefs, and so on. From his eighth renunciation of the bill we read:
 A Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of

his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither

invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.1

This ideology, that each individual as well as each religious sect has equal rights was not

unique to Madison. George Washington, in a letter addressing the members of the New

Jerusalem Church of Baltimore wrote: We have abundant reason to rejoice, that in this land the

light of truth and reason have triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that

every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart.2 (emphasis

added)

Although this view seems rather natural to Americans today, it was a new way of looking

at the relationship between church and state. Up to this point, government mandated religions

and widespread persecution of anyone not practicing the state religion was the societal norm.

Suggesting the establishment of a government that rejected these practices was revolutionary.

Thomas Jefferson joined the dialog with the argument That to compel a man to furnish

contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful

and tyrannical

...that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our

opinions in physics or geometry3.

1
James Madison, (June 20, 1785), Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
Retrieved from:
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/memorial-and-remonstrance/
2
George Washington, (January 27, 1793), To the Members of the New Jerusalem Church of Baltimore
Retrieved from: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-12-02-0027

3
Thomas Jefferson, (1779), Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
Retrieved from:
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/virginia-statute-religious-freedom#footnote4_2rn2t65
 Hence the phrase separation of church and state that almost all Americans are familiar.

We read in the First Amendment to the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof4. This right of each individual

to practice his or her religion is perhaps most eloquently worded by James Madison: If all

men are by nature equally free and independent, all men are to be considered as entering into

Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than

another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an equal title to

the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience. Whilst we assert for

ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of

divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the

evidence which has convinced us.5

Freedom of religion! We finally did it! Yet we still have debates about what it means to

have the freedom to practice our beliefs. Consider some of the religious freedom dilemmas we

are faced with today from the perspective of a website on religious tolerance:

A fertility clinic may welcome any member of the public who has fertility concerns.

However, a physician hired by the clinic may refuse, on religious grounds, to assist a gay or

lesbian.

A pharmacist may believe, contrary to the conclusions reached by medical researchers,

that morning after pills can prevent the implantation of a zygote -- a fertilized ovum -- in the

lining of the uterus, thus preventing a pregnancy. She or he may further believe that this is a form

4
United States Constitution, First Amendment
5
James Madison, (June 20, 1785), Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
Retrieved from:
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/memorial-and-remonstrance/
of abortion. On religious grounds, the pharmacist may refuse to fill a prescription for a woman

who wishes to avoid -- not terminate -- a pregnancy.

Some employers -- particularly those of religiously-affiliated organizations -- feel they

have the religious freedom -- based on their religious beliefs -- to deny their employees access to

birth control.6

At first glance, it may seem that the physician, pharmacist, or employer is violating the

freedom of others, but can we require by law that they do something that violates their moral or

religious code? By the First Amendment, we cannot prohibit the free exercise of ones religion.

So what do we do with regard to these and other incidents?

Thomas Jefferson wrote: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only

as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods,

or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

But what about the issues mentioned above where we are talking about more than mere

difference of belief but the effect of that belief on another citizen? Are we to deem it injurious to

others if a marriage counselor refuses to council a same sex couple on the grounds of religion or

for a business to refuse to serve an individual whose beliefs are in contradiction with their own

or for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for a drug they are morally opposed to, or for a

parent to beat their child if their religion teaches that this was is acceptable form of discipline or

for a woman to be denied certain rights on account of gender roles taught in a religion or for any

maner of similar religious beliefs and practices?

6
http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfreeintro.htm
 If a religious belief allows for murder or theft, our laws can easily differentiate between

what is legal and what is not. These issues however, arent always as easy for us to explicitly

define legality.

Some feel that the definition of religious freedom is changing and it often refers to the

freedom for an individual, clergyperson, or denomination to express condemnation, spread

misinformation or disinformation, exclude, denigrate, oppress, refuse to deal with others, and/or

express hatred towards other individuals or groups. Often, the right to restrict the civil rights of

the targeted groups is included.7 This is certainly not the intent of the founders.

Others feel that their freedoms to practice their beliefs are being infringed upon by the

government if they are forced to compromise their religious beliefs in support of other beliefs

and practices. That there is a new trend toward acceptance of the LGBT community or abortion,

or other beliefs and practices at the expense of their own beliefs and practices. The arguments

and variance of opinions reflect the diversity of America.

So what is to be done? There seems to be an impasse; we cant force an individual to act

against their conscience nor can we allow discrimination and infringement on the rights of

others. Should we research each incident and determine whether the act of discrimination is

motivated by adherence to ones religion or not? Perhaps there is a better way to end the debate

or at least move to a better understanding.

The Pluralism Project of Harvard University suggests an alternate form of resolution or at

least a way to narrow the gap between Americans: pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active

seeking of understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it

7
http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfreeintro.htm
... is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to

remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears

that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our

ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly

...pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and

encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and

listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue

does not mean everyone at the table will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the

commitment to being at the table with ones commitments.8

In conclusion, we have come a long way since the beginnings of American colonization

with regard to religious freedom. We still have some progress to make and where perfect

solutions to the worlds problems that accommodate each individual are likely impossible, an

effort to understand one another and work for a common goal is certainly a good place to start.

8
Diana L. Eck, (2006), What is Pluralism?
Retrieved from: http://pluralism.org/what-is-pluralism/