A recent draft report from a Trump administration task force presents a contentious interpretation of American religious liberty, asserting that the nation's founders intended for religion to be deeply integrated into public life and law. The report argues that contemporary secularism has corrupted this vision by creating a "Berlin wall" of separation between church and state, hindering the flourishing of faith. The commission proposes policy and legal changes to promote its understanding of religious freedom, which it claims is rooted in the Founders' belief that a Christian God was the basis for individual rights.
This interpretation, however, faces significant challenges from historians. They argue that the report presents a selective and distorted version of history, overlooking the practical concerns that motivated the Founders and mischaracterizing the evolution of religious pluralism. According to these historians, the First Amendment was primarily a pragmatic solution to unify thirteen colonies with differing established churches, aiming to prevent inter-denominational conflict rather than to promote a unified vision of faith.
Matthew A. Sutton, a historian and author, contends that while Protestant Christianity was indeed dominant in colonial America, religious liberty was not extended to those outside its boundaries. He points out that the commission cherry-picks historical events, such as a prayer at the First Continental Congress, while ignoring instances like the rejection of a prayer proposal at the Constitutional Convention. "The First Amendment is not this kind of high ideal about freedom of religion," Sutton stated. "It’s simply about how can we keep these people from killing each other when we know for the last 300 years, different groups of Christians have killed each other in Europe."
Dave Campbell, a scholar of politics and religion, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the Founders themselves held diverse views on the relationship between church and state. He noted that figures like Thomas Jefferson advocated for a separation of church and state, while others favored a more symbiotic relationship. Despite these differences, they agreed on the crucial principle of establishing no official religion and allowing for the free exercise of faith.
The commission's report attributes the perceived erosion of religious liberty to 20th-century European philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, and Jean-Paul Sartre, arguing their secular ideologies have undermined Judeo-Christian values. Historians counter that this narrative is ahistorical. They explain that the move towards a more secular interpretation of law was a response to America's changing religious demographics in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with the influx of Catholics, Jews, and adherents of new religions. This evolution, they argue, led to legal and legislative efforts to protect religious diversity, not a deliberate project by secular liberals to suppress religion.
Sutton explained that the shift began in the late 19th century as states started removing mandatory prayers from public schools and reducing explicit Protestant curricula. This was a practical effort to govern an increasingly diverse country. Post-World War II America further solidified secularism as a symbol of mutual respect among different faiths, particularly in contrast to the antisemitism of Nazi Germany.
The commission's report lists perceived instances of religious oppression and anti-Christian bias in schools, workplaces, the military, and healthcare, including restrictions on prayer, religious symbols, and vaccine mandates for religious reasons. It calls for initiatives such as a national religious liberty violation hotline and a DOJ task force to address these claims. Critics argue that the commission, despite being presented as interfaith, is dominated by a Christian nationalist viewpoint that favors Christianity, and particularly certain evangelical expressions, in the public square.
Campbell suggests that for those aligned with this perspective, religious freedom is not about equal respect for all religions, but about ensuring Christianity, especially their interpretation of it, holds a privileged position in law and public life. This perspective, historians note, aligns with a broader social, legal, and political movement that has gained prominence. The report's findings and recommendations are seen by some as a blueprint for efforts to re-establish a world where a Protestant majority could potentially impose its will on others, with courts appearing more open to such arguments than in recent generations.