During 2020 and 2021 First Amendment Freedom of Religion rights came under an increased number of unsettling attacks on churches and church gatherings. Decapitated statues, desecrated images, vandalized monuments of religious figures, and churches set ablaze as “symbols of oppression.” Using the COVID pandemic as justification local officials threatened to shut down synagogues, limit attendance at worship services, enforce social distancing, and forbid singing or chanting, despite allowing protests with massive crowds in close proximity to shout and sing. Howard County, Maryland Executive Calvin Ball issued an Executive Order stating “There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service.” This was an issue of monumental importance to Catholics for whom the Liturgy of The Eucharist is the most important part of Mass. The fact that it was quickly rescinded does not diminish this governmental overreach on the free exercise of religion.
In what are often referred to as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Historical context, though complex, must be understood. During colonial times the intermingling of political and religious rule was the norm, including collection of religious taxes. Up to and including recent times, there is disagreement as to the intent of the Establishment Clause. Was it drafted to prevent the establishment of a state-supported Church like the Church of England that commanded loyalties of churchgoers, or to prohibit government support for any religion or religious practice?
In 2005 law and religion scholar Winnifred Fallers Sullivan wrote a book titled “The Impossibility of Religious Freedom” outlining how religion cannot be coherently defined for the purposes of American law due to differing definitions of what religion is. She posits that while Freedom of Religion, in a political sense was once a force for tolerance, it has evolved into a force for intolerance.
With regard to the Free Exercise clause a recent case is instructive. When Obamacare was implemented in 2013 the law required employers, including religious groups, to provide contraceptive and abortion-inducing coverage in mandated health insurance plans or pay heavy fines. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a congregation of Catholic nuns founded in 1839 to serve the elderly poor, fought back in court claiming that the mandate violated their solemn vows. They were forced to continue their fight in court until President Trump took office and his Administration expanded exemptions to religiously-affiliated groups; Pennsylvania sued over the validity of the exemptions, and the case made it to the Supreme Court where the Justices ruled in a 7-2 split that the Administration acted within its authority. During the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden promised to overturn the Trump exemptions.
Religion in the Present Day
When it comes to the practice of Religion, it is widely accepted that it decreases between older and younger generations. A 2014 Pew Research Center study, updated in 2018 and 2019 titled “In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace” speaks for itself. Generations that identify with a religion range from 88% for WW II/Post-War (defined by Pew as the “Silent Generation”) to 82% Baby Boomers, 73% Generation X, and 58% Millennials (Generation Z is not surveyed). The opposite of religious identification is “unaffiliated” tallying 10%, 17%, 25%, and 40% respectively.
The net result is likely to be erosion of the Constitution Right to free exercise of religion due to fewer citizens willing to defend it. The Biden Administration intended to resurrect Obama efforts to force a religious organization to take actions in violation of their long-standing, clearly defined, and deeply held religious beliefs. Cultural elites, often hostile toward religious institutions, are banding together to roll back Trump administration protections that sought to allow health care professionals to opt out of performing procedures such as abortions or gender reassignment surgeries that violate their beliefs.
In addition to health care professionals, individuals and businesses that provide services to the public have been targeted for their views on marriage and biological sex. Bakers, florists, photographers, venue operators, website developers, calligraphers, local government officials and educators have been targeted administratively and via lawsuits. Those who defend traditional beliefs are often demonized via the invented phrase “Christian nationalism.”
There was a bill endorsed by the Biden Administration that passed in the House prior to stalling in the Senate called the “Equality Act.” The act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed to combat racism to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, and is exempt from the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights describes it as “…the most radical assault on religious liberty, the right to life, and privacy rights ever packaged into one bill.” It would have resulted in another assault on the Free Exercise clause. Instead of respecting differences in religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality, it would persecute people of faith by forcing individuals and organizations to violate their beliefs or face government sanctions or lawsuits.
Religion versus Morality
In a 1798 speech to the Massachusetts Militia John Adams stated “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The context of the statement is provided earlier in the speech, where Adams warns that should Americans speak of justice and moderation while practicing injustice and unnecessary expenditure; speaking sincerely while seizing and carrying off another’s property and acting uncivilly, this country will be mired in misery. “Because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” Considered in light of efforts to undermine the rule of law experienced through summer and fall 2020 and disregard for the best interests of citizens by political elites, this warning is ominous.
Morality and religion are neither mutually dependent nor exclusive – they are like a Venn diagram with many shared concepts. There are two perspectives on religion worth noting that date back to the ancient Greek philosophers, reinforced throughout the development of Western political thought. One might be deemed the “Preacher’s Perspective” tasked with the salvation of souls, and the other the “Statesman Perspective” tasked with the practical means necessary to perpetuate ideals of governance. In order to uphold and safeguard the system put in place by our Founders, there is a simple standard by which the actions of any individual, group, or entity can be measured that is not tied to any specific religion – decency and honor.
Last edited: March 18, 2025