Freedom FROM Religion: Our First Amendment Right

By: Aashi Mehrotra and Charlie Hoang 

In this day and age, the line between church and state has become ever so blurred. This article argues that numerous actions across various branches and levels of government are unconstitutionally imposing religious views on the people, therefore ignoring that freedom of religion also stands as freedom from religion.

What does it truly mean to be “one nation under God” when hundreds of millions of Americans either do not subscribe to any religious belief, or follow faiths outside of Christianity and its denominations? As religious influence on politics intensifies, are we truly upholding the constitutional promise to separate church and state, or are we slowly becoming a land where religious views and interpretations are not just systems of faith or personal convictions, but politically imposed mandates?

The United States of America is a democratic republic. We elect officials from various locations around our great country to vote amongst themselves on policies that affect the rest of this nation. We elect them–we choose them–based on their beliefs and morals, some of which come from their own faiths. However, making decisions based on morals and imposing their religion on the people they serve are two entirely different actions. 

Context: 

The First Amendment of the United States, known as the Establishment Clause, which was drafted by James Madison and ratified in 1791, stands as a cornerstone of American liberty. It declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The implications of this word choice are astute, as the founding fathers decreed that not only are the people of this country free to practice and believe in any religion, but the government, specifically congress,  is not allowed, in any capacity, to favor, publicize, respect or impose a religion on the people. 

The Establishment clause was born of a rich history of religious struggle and deep-seated desire to prevent the newly formed nation from replicating the religious conflicts that had plagued Europe for centuries. The American colonies themselves were initially formed by groups seeking religious freedom, yet many of these colonies quickly established their own state-supported churches, leading to new forms of religious intolerance and discrimination against opposing groups. Even so, there was no shortage of religious diversity in the colonies. As stated by Facing History & Ourselves, an organization founded with the purpose of spreading political knowledge, “the Protestant wing of Christianity constantly gave birth to new movements, such as the Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Unitarians and many more…The middle colonies saw a mixture of religions, including Quakers (who founded Pennsylvania), Catholics, Lutherans, a few Jews, and others. The southern colonists were a mixture as well, including Baptists and Anglicans.” Influenced by Enlightenment ideals and the practical experience of religious pluralism in the colonies, the founders sought to create a neutral government in matters of faith. Thus, the Constitution, notably, chooses to make no mention of God apart from the First amendment and Article 6, which explicitly states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” 

Despite that, Pew Research Center has combed through and analyzed each state’s individual Constitution and found that although “the U.S. Constitution never explicitly mentions God or the divine…God or the divine is mentioned at least once in each of the 50 state constitutions and nearly 200 times overall.” What’s interesting is the different word choices States make in their constitution that reflect their population’s beliefs. For example, “Hawaii’s constitution refers to the divine only in its preamble, which states that the people of Hawaii are ‘grateful for Divine Guidance.’” In contrast, the Texas state constitution explicitly mentions God four times. Rather oxymoronically, the preamble states: “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” while Section 6 claims to offer freedom of worship by stating: “No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. ” The official oath of office also requires the phrase, “so help me God.”

In this day and age, the line between church and state has become ever so blurred. Numerous actions across various branches and levels of government are unconstitutionally imposing religious views on the people, therefore ignoring the simple fact that freedom of religion also stands as freedom from religion. 

Religion in Public Schools: 

Public schools, the concept of free education provided by the government and intended to be impartial, inclusive spaces of learning for all children tend to be battlegrounds for political and in this case, religious ideologies. The daily recital of the God-mentioning Pledge of Allegiance in school and the current political advocation for religious teachings in school should be worrisome to the free American.  

However, that is not to say there is no precedent for people to fight back against such unconstitutional behavior. The landmark Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale (1962) serves as an example. This case, focusing on mandatory prayer in New York public schools, resulted in a historic ruling: the Supreme Court declared state-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that by providing a prayer and mandating its recitation, the state was endorsing religion, violating the First Amendment. Engel v. Vitale established a critical precedent, affirming that public schools cannot lead or require religious activities for students. 

Even with this precedent in place, current politicians such as President Donald Trump have argued for and plan to increase the role of religion in public schools. For example, as indicated by remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, there are calls to “bring religion back” into public life, including schools. His unedited words are as follows, “We have to bring religion back.  We have to bring it back much stronger.  It’s one of the biggest problems that we’ve had over the last fairly long period of time.  We have to bring it back. Thomas Jefferson himself once attended Sunday services held in the old House Chamber on the very ground where I stand today, so there could be nothing more beautiful than for us to gather in this majistic place — it is majestic — and reaffirm that America is and will always be ‘one nation under God.’ ”

 It is worth noting that America has NOT always been “one nation under God” as stated in the pledge of allegiance. Instead, the pledge was written in the late 1800s, or 1885 to be exact. Donald Trump’s words at the event bring to light the gray area the existence of the National Prayer Breakfast seems to fall in. The high-level participation of government officials, especially the President, can be seen as government endorsement of religion, even if the event is privately organized. The President’s presence and remarks can be interpreted as the government lending its prestige to a religious activity, which is unconstitutional. 

As broken down by BJC, a religious liberty organization, President Trump’s 900-page 2025 plan also includes “Not only protect[ing] from regulation but ‘prioritiz[ing]’ faith-based programs in receiving federal grants under both the Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education (HMRE) (p. 480-81) and the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) (p. 481) programs. Project 2025 says the federal government should ‘maintain a biblically-based … definition of marriage and family’ and should allow organizations that believe that marriage exists only between a man and a woman to affirm that view in ‘healthy marriage’ programs subsidized by taxpayer funds. (p. 481)”  That means that tax-payer dollars are spent in an unchecked, unrestricted manner to impose religious ideologies in public schools—ideologies that include discrimination against members of the LGBTQ+ community.  

Such efforts to promote religion in schools often directly conflict with the principles established in Engel v. Vitale. The ongoing push to integrate religion into public schools represents a significant challenge to the separation of church and state and the promise of religious freedom for all students.

“In God we Trust” on Currency: 

Beyond bigger displays of the combination of church and state such as the Pledge of Allegiance, religious symbolism in Government architecture, the National Prayer Breakfast, and Christmas’s existence as a national holiday, are more subtle ones such as the phrase “In God we Trust” written on our currency. While seemingly innocuous to some, its presence on the nation’s currency raises profound questions about government endorsement of religion and its implications for a religiously diverse citizenry. 

The historical context of the phrase reveals that its integration into U.S. currency is a relatively modern development, not a tradition dating back to the founders. While the phrase first appeared on coins during the Civil War, its widespread use is a product of the mid-20th century. As various sources indicate, including information from Pew Research Center, the motto was officially adopted as the national motto in 1956 and mandated for all currency in 1955, during the height of the Cold War. This timing is crucial; the inclusion of “In God We Trust” was largely a response to the atheism associated with communist ideologies. It was a deliberate act to distinguish the United States as a nation rooted in faith, setting it apart from what was perceived as godless communism. 

However,  as Sarah Begley from TIME magazine wrote in 2016, there was certainly opposition to this decision: “The motto appeared on paper currency beginning in 1957, and in the subsequent decades, numerous legal actions have sought to remove it from currency and strike ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance. . . the banality of the phrases may not be worth the fight as a symbol of separating church from state.” Even so, Begley makes the distinction that even though action has been taken, it has not been successful in the eyes of the courts. She quotes a 1991 cover TIME story by James Keyser, “Today even ardent separationists seem to agree with retired Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who wrote in 1983 that slogans such as ‘In God We Trust’ have ‘lost any true religious significance.’” Just because the phrase isn’t harmful enough to directly elicit a change in religion, its presence on the bills should not be tolerated as it is physical evidence that the government has chosen to favor and impose Christianity on the American People — a population where at least 115.5 million people are not Christian. How could supporting God on the pieces of paper every American has in their pockets not be considered religious?

This historical backdrop highlights that the motto’s presence on currency is not merely a reflection of long-standing national belief, but a decision made in a specific political and ideological context. Legally and ethically, the motto sparks ongoing debate. Does “In God We Trust” constitute a government endorsement of religion, violating the First Amendment? For citizens who are atheists, agnostics, or adhere to non-theistic faiths, the motto can feel alienating, suggesting that the government privileges theistic belief. The impact is significant. While many religious citizens may find the motto comforting and reflective of their values, for non-religious individuals and those from minority religious traditions, it can send a message of exclusion. It raises questions about national identity: does being a “true” American implicitly require a belief in God? In a society committed to religious neutrality, the constant presence of a religious phrase on something as universal as currency continues to fuel discussions about religious representation and its intersection with politics’ role in public life. 

Healthcare Issues—Abortion and Gender-Affirming Surgery: 

Though we see religious ideology sneak its way into daily life as a futile game of semantics, it is not just that. Unfortunately, faith and religion’s altruistic qualities reveal to be more of a chokehold than a warm embrace. 

Religious beliefs, particularly within Christianity, have played an integral role in shaping political attitudes towards issues such as abortion and LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. At some point, we must recognize that the First Amendment deliberately established a separation of religion and state because the purporting of good faith in religion easily becomes a political ploy. 

The Moral Majority, a voting bloc of conservative evangelical Christians, is a perfect example of this. Historically, attitudes among evangelicals regarding abortion were more ambivalent before Roe v. Wade, with many supporting “therapeutic abortion”—exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or health risks. However, after Roe’s 1973 ruling, opposition to abortion became a rallying point for conservative religious groups, with evangelist and Catholic organizations like the Moral Majority and the National Right to Life Committee soliciting other religious groups to denounce abortion. The Christian belief that life begins at conception has pervaded the ethical debate of abortion, likening it to murder; it has drowned out alternative religious beliefs, such as Islam’s belief in ensoulment occurring later in pregnancy. Setting aside personal beliefs completely, this doctrine has, more importantly, deprived millions of women across the Southern U.S. of their reproductive rights. This is evident in abortion legislation in states like Texas that reflect the notion of the “sanctity of life” and life at conception. 

One of the most influential Supreme Court cases in this regard was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), in which the Court ruled that closely held for-profit corporations could refuse to provide contraceptive coverage implemented by the Affordable Care Act to employees on religious grounds. The Court’s justification was that requiring employers to provide contraception coverage constituted a “substantial burden” on their religious exercise, violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This case exemplifies the political capacity of the RFRA in limiting access to reproductive healthcare and sets a precedent for other organizations to deny reproductive healthcare coverage under the guise of religious violations. 

Religious exemptions have also influenced hospital policies in Catholic-affiliated medical institutions, which, despite their violations of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, refuse to provide abortion services, sterilization procedures, or even emergency contraception based on religious doctrine. Data on Catholic hospitals operating under Ethical and Religious Directives—policies issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops—showed that “Catholic hospitals had higher proportions of births to women of color than non-Catholic hospitals”(Shepherd et. al). Concerns arise as Catholic hospitals are starting to rebrand themselves, masking themselves as secular institutions by “removing religious icons and imagery and by changing their names”(London and Siddiqi). This lack of transparency poses a risk for women of color, who already suffer from higher rates of infant and maternal mortality and are unaware of religious restrictions that have previously denied life-saving procedures to women experiencing pregnancy complications. [Something about how it further marginalizes vulnerable communities in the health sector. Transition to LGBTQ community] 

RFRAs were initially enacted to protect religious practices from government overreach, but have since been used to justify the aforementioned reproductive rights, as well as exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. 

Research has shown that the enactment of RFRAs can have measurable negative associations with LGBTQ health. A study analyzing data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) found that the passage of Indiana’s RFRA in 2015 coincided with a significant increase in the number of unhealthy days reported by sexual minority adults. The study suggests that Indiana’s RFRA measures protecting private entities contributed to increased psychological distress and negative health outcomes among LGBTQ individuals; the bill is perceived to provide a “license to discriminate”(Petri A). The link between legislation and sexual minority health was further corroborated by studies done in 2009 and 2010, which observed an association between sexual minority individuals and increased psychiatric disorders (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009; Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010). 

Beyond individual cases, RFRAs have broader implications for employment, housing, and healthcare protections. Many faith-based institutions have sought exemptions from providing equal benefits to LGBTQ employees or allowing gender-affirming care in their healthcare plans. By 2017, seven states within the span of a few years had passed laws tax-payer funded child welfare programs that allowed them to refuse service under religious objections and turn down LGBTQ couples wanting to foster and adopt (Oakley, Cathryn). The Trump administration reinforced these religious exemptions, establishing that South Carolina foster agencies were “not required to comply with federal nondiscrimination rules barring discrimination on the basis of religion”(London and Siddiqi). The RFRA outlines that the government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless it furthers a compelling governmental interest. The Trump Administration’s decree in South Carolina prioritized religious beliefs over anti-discrimination protections, rejecting anti-discrimination protections as “compelling governmental interest.” 

This string of policies and exemptions reveals the larger issue at hand: a devastating lapse in the United States’ freedom of religion, and the emerging contest between religious freedoms and human rights. 

Conclusion: 

Faith guides us in the journey of life we share with each other on this Earth. It is abstract and unique to us alone—a choice we strive to make. Despite the good it has brought to humanity, it is entirely subjective and has no place in politics. From the conception of the United States, politics has walked a fine line between the separation of church and state and integrating Christianity in every aspect of government. Not everyone follows the parable’s Good Samaritan—nor should they be expected to. In a nation built upon freedom, creed must never constitute law. 

[Image Credit: Augustus Tholey/Leaders of the First Continental Congress]