Liberty, Equality and the Meaning of Religious Freedom

The Declaration of Independence placed the Enlightenment ideal of “liberty” at the heart of the American soul. It cites liberty among the reasons for creating our new country. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

            The basic meaning of liberty is the ability to do what one wants. Of course even school children know that unbridled liberty is impossible. If one person decides they want to kill another, an extreme example, the second person’s liberty is violated, to say nothing of their life.

            Liberty as a political or governing policy thus consists of balancing of each individual’s ability to behave as they wish against others’ freedom to do the same. The goal is to achieve an equality of liberty for everyone, with everyone attaining as much freedom as possible.

            Another widely used definition of liberty is one of freedom from oppression; as the Merriam-Webster dictionary puts it, “freedom from arbitrary or despotic control.” This notion of liberty inspired the Puritans to leave England and come to the New World. They wanted the freedom to believe and worship as they were convinced that God wanted them to.

            If America’s notion of liberty began with this bid for religious liberty, the result was initially disappointing. True, in 1620 the Puritans established a colony at Plymouth where they followed their faith freely.

            But the Puritan notion of religious freedom was limited to themselves and their own beliefs and practices. It did not extend to anyone who believed different from them. In that they were no different from the Church of England, which had developed its discriminatory policies under King James (d. 1625).

            When Roger Williams and then Anne Hutchinson developed theological positions that differed from those of the Puritans, they were banished. Roger Williams fled to Rhode Island where in 1636 he founded Providence as the first community run on the basis of religious freedom. Anne and her followers later settled there.

            Although we often call Roger Williams the founder of religious liberty, what he really created was religious equality. The practical effect of bringing together several groups with different religious beliefs in Rhode Island set up an ironic conundrum: religious freedom had to be restricted to achieve the highest level of religious liberty.

            Each group in Rhode Island was free under the second definition of liberty, that of freedom from oppression and control. But they were not free under the first one, that of the unlimited ability to do as they wished. Where one group’s free expression of belief and practice impinged upon another’s, they had to work out a comprise to prevent that. These compromises usually limited both sides’ freedom, although ideally with as little limitation as possible.

            America’s great reputation for religious freedom is therefore the reputation for religious equality. Every religion and every version of a religion is free to worship and believe as each one chooses, as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others. The clarion call we still sound for religious liberty is a call for equal rights of all religions.

            That is what makes America the standard bearer for religious freedom. Religious refugees from around the world flock to our country because they know they can worship without persecution here.

            What is opposite of equal rights for all religions? Despotism.

            If a country allows one religion to worship and act in accordance with its beliefs at the expense of other religions, then that country no longer has freedom of religion but the religious equivalent of political dictatorship.

            This is the situation for many countries around the world. They have a political system that favors one religion or even one version of a religion. That preference permits the members of the favored religion rights and privileges others do not have.

            This is true whether the religion is Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and even Christianity. The difference in rights between the religion in favor and those out of favor range from mild to extreme, from England’s support of Anglicanism with public taxes, to Israel’s allowing Judaism’s Orthodox wing of Judaism to control marriage law, to frequent persecution of Christians for blasphemy in Islamic countries.

            Only equal rights for all religions and all religious people, as well as non-religious beliefs and people, ensures the most religious freedom possible. Any other position penalizes those who do not follow the privileged faith.

Blame It on the Declaration: America’s History of Ethical Change

The Declaration of Independence opens with this statement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” This statement was meant to be a solid and noncontroversial principle of what Americans believed on the eve of rebellion against the British.

So, of course, the meaning of nearly every word has been debated.

Two words have perhaps received the most consideration: “all men.” Who is a “man?” Who is included in this broad claim? At the time, the writers referred primarily to adult white male Christians. But, since the Declaration’s composition, “all men” has been expanded to include members of all races, all genders and all religions. These changes were not easy: The nation fought a civil war. It underwent the struggles of the women’s suffrage movement, the civil rights movements and the more recent debate over gay rights.

Two other words have received almost as much dispute: “equal” and “Rights,” especially combined into a single term “equal rights.”

Equal rights are a lofty principle held up as our highest national goal. All people should be equal. They should have equal liberty, equal protection under the law, equal free speech and equal freedom to worship. These rights seem uncontroversial, but how about equal access to education, voting and civic participation? Equal pay for equal work? Equal access to health care? These are more provocative.

The disputes lie in the shift from principle to practice. It is one thing to have a broad principle; it is another to put it into effect for all citizens. Equal rights are a balance, but achieving balance is difficult.

Humans divide naturally into groups, whether by race, religion, belief, gender, family or any number of other criteria. Putting the principle of equality into practice is a matter of working out how to treat different groups the same.

Much of the USA’s legislative history features debates over how to provide equality to the members of all groups. Indeed, when cultural debates over equal rights become strong, groups aim to create laws favoring them. This is how a group achieves a “win.”

This process takes place in a back-and-forth manner. One group gains rights; then, another group sees itself as lacking rights because of the change in the first group; and it strives to make adjustments in its favor.

The Civil War ended slavery. Then came Reconstruction, when poor whites saw themselves overshadowed by the newly freed blacks; their “equal rights” were eroded by these new citizens. The whites then restricted black access to equality (e.g., voting rights) to preserve whites’ “equal rights.”

This example shows the historical dynamics of moral debate in the USA: It is a struggle for balance among competing groups. The same dynamic appears in the evangelical Christians’ response to gay marriage. They want the right not to act in a manner supportive of gay marriage.

Religions can inspire inequality. True believers of nearly all stripes see their way of life as God-given. To compromise so that nonbelievers have equal rights is not encouraged. Indeed, religions often have divine sanctions against compromise with people of other faiths, even if they belong to the same nation.

If this situation was not complex enough, American businesses have long had moral concerns, and they often get involved in cultural debates over equal rights.

This happens frequently. The NCAA refused to hold tournaments in North Carolina after the state passed its anti-transgender bathroom law; PayPal and Deutsche Bank cancelled expansion plans in the state, robbing it of jobs and investment. Disney and Marvel threatened to remove their movie business from Georgia over its recent “religious freedom” bill. Google and Microsoft filed legal briefs against the Trump administration’s immigrant ban.

Similarly, both Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A worked against the contraception mandate in Obamacare, balking over the inclusion of certain aspects of women’s health care.

Whichever side businesses take, their motives are rarely altruistic; their moral actions sustain their bottom line. 

The Declaration of Independence’s seeming straightforward principle of equal rights for all citizens has led to centuries of moral debate over its application. Equality of individuals is seen through the eyes of groups, each group striving to ensure its “equalness.” These groups bring their own ethical standards into the debate, whether the standards come from notions of human equality, divine ordinances or economic success.