logo
Growing consensus on religious freedom benefits everyone, religious or not

Growing consensus on religious freedom benefits everyone, religious or not

The Hill4 days ago

In an era of heightened polarization, especially in the nation's capital, it's rare to find a value that unites Americans across political, generational and ideological divides. But one principle is quietly gaining ground: religious freedom — and not just among the devout.
Earlier this year, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty released its annual Religious Freedom Index, which revealed that support for religious freedom in the U.S. is not only strong but growing.
The index, based on a survey of 1,000 American adults, measures support across six dimensions, from 'Religion in Action' to 'Religious Pluralism.' A score of zero reflects total opposition to all surveyed aspects of religious freedom, while a score of 100 represents complete support.
This year's composite score reached a record-high of 70 out of 100 — the strongest since the index launched in 2019.
The upshot, according to the report, was that an increasing number of Americans 'crave a culture that values religious freedom — a place where faith is respected, not sidelined.'
Why does this matter? Because it signals that Americans — especially younger ones — are beginning to recognize that religious freedom isn't just about religion. It's about liberty.
A big part of the story — and a reason for optimism — is Gen Z. When it comes to being open to discussions and expressions of someone's personal faith or allowing for religious expression in the public square, Gen Zers led the way among all age groups. This suggests that the up-and-coming generation is comfortable expressing and encountering differences with others, despite often being portrayed as narrow in thinking.
Another bright spot on the index was religious pluralism. Although that metric has historically been strong, this year it climbed to a record high of 86. Even non-Christian respondents were more likely to report feeling accepted.
For people of faith, this is good news. But what about those who aren't religious? Is religious freedom a zero-sum right that benefits only the religious?
The reality is quite the opposite. In fact, many of the secular constitutional rights we now take for granted arose from religious minorities fighting for their right to preach, proselytize and publish their religious views.
Consider Jehovah's Witnesses. During the 1930s and 40s, their public proselytizing and refusal to salute the flag or send soldiers to war led to immense persecution. Many communities used legal means to suppress their preaching. They were arrested for distributing religious tracts without a license and for 'breaching the peace' by playing religious recordings.
But they did not back down — they went to court. and they won. Witnesses brought a bevy of cases, resulting in at least 190 appeals and dozens of favorable Supreme Court decisions. Today, those decisions form the backbone of America's robust free-speech case law.
Those court victories didn't just affirm the rights of Witnesses and other public preachers. They helped define the First Amendment as we know it. Today, thanks to their efforts, everyone from political canvassers to Girl Scouts can go door-to-door to make their pitch or sell cookies. Activists can protest in public, and students can express themselves on campus.
Extending the right to preach can also influence secular movements on a larger scale. The Black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, for example, might not have been possible, were it not for the free speech, press and petition rights secured by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Like the Witnesses before them, Black activists were arrested for going door-to-door to hand out leaflets and for assembling in public spaces. Again, some were arrested for breaching the peace. The late congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis was famously arrested in Selma, Alabama, for carrying a sign outside a courthouse that read 'One Man, One Vote.'
Several such cases made their way to the Supreme Court. In case after case, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Black civil rights activists, it relied on the precedents secured by Witnesses.
Today, a similar pattern may well continue to play out. When the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a high-school football coach who sought to pray at the 50-yard line after games, its ruling affirmed the rights of other coaches who wish to religiously express themselves. But as a free speech precedent, the decision might also protect a coach taking a knee for social justice.
Religious freedom doesn't need to be zero-sum: It can be a rising tide that lifts all boats. It should be something to cheer for, even if you aren't religious.
Joshua C. McDaniel is an assistant clinical professor of Law at Harvard Law School and faculty director of the School's Religious Freedom Clinic.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'
Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'

Miami Herald

time38 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'

On Friday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order targeting legal firm Susman Godfrey, ruling it was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." This is the fourth defeat in court Trump has suffered since imposing punitive measures on a number of law firms that either were involved in legal cases against him or represented his political rivals. Newsweek contacted the White House and Susman Godfrey for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and telephone respectively. In March, Trump issued a slew of executive orders targeting law firms resulting in a number taking legal action, though others struck deals with the White House which saw them agree to do unpaid work on behalf of causes the president supports. Critics argued Trump's move was unconstitutional and an assault on free expression, whilst the White House said it was needed to combat what it termed "dishonest" activity. The executive orders Trump imposed on various law firms, including Susman Godfrey, featured a number of punitive measures such as blocking their employees access to government buildings, terminating government contracts and suspending security clearance. Friday saw District Judge Loren AliKhan conclude that in the case of Susman Godfrey, Trump's order was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." She said: "Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey was already the subject of a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 15. Susman Godfrey is the fourth law firm targeted by Trump's executive orders that has successfully fought to get them blocked in court, following Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. The rulings were issued by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. In a statement, Susman Godfrey said: "The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." In his ruling on WilmerHale's case, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said: "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. "The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence." Friday's judgement means the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey will not go into effect. The Trump administration has not said whether it plans to appeal. Related Articles Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security AdministrationHarvard Finds International Student Lifeline Amid Trump Visa Showdown 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Behind the Curtain: Unprecedented new precedents
Behind the Curtain: Unprecedented new precedents

Axios

time38 minutes ago

  • Axios

Behind the Curtain: Unprecedented new precedents

Through silence or vocal support, House and Senate Republicans are backing an extraordinary set of new precedents for presidential power they may come to regret if and when Democrats seize those same powers. Why it matters: New precedents are exhilarating when you're in power — and excruciating when you're not. Here are 10 new precedents, all set with minimal GOP dissent: Presidents can limit the classified information they share with lawmakers after bombing a foreign country without the approval of Congress. Presidents can usurp Congress's power to levy tariffs, provided they declare a national emergency. Presidents can unilaterally freeze spending approved by Congress, and dismantle or fire the heads of independent agencies established by law. Presidents can take control of a state's National Guard, even if the governor opposes it, and occupy the state for as long as said president wants. Presidents can accept gifts from foreign nations, as large as a $200 million plane, even if it's unclear whether said president gets to keep the plane at the end of the term. Presidents can actively profit from their time in office, including creating new currencies structured to allow foreign nationals to invest anonymously, benefiting said president. Presidents can try to browbeat the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, including by floating replacements for the Fed chair before their term is up. Presidents can direct the Justice Department to prosecute their political opponents and punish critics. These punishments can include stripping Secret Service protections, suing them and threatening imprisonment. Presidents can punish media companies, law firms and universities that don't share their viewpoints or values. Presidents can aggressively pardon supporters, including those who made large political donations as part of their bid for freedom. The strength of the case in said pardons is irrelevant. Between the lines: Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions — a decision widely celebrated by Republicans — underscores the risks of partisan precedent-setting. Conservatives sped to the courts to block many of President Biden's signature policies — and succeeded. But taking those broad injunctions off the table now means they'll also be unavailable the next time a Democratic president pushes an aggressive agenda. That future president will be able to keep implementing even legally shaky policies — just as Trump now can. What to watch: Trump previewed some of those policies at a celebratory press conference on Friday, saying the Supreme Court's ruling cleared the way for executive actions that had been "wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." They include ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, terminating funding for "sanctuary cities," suspending refugee resettlement, and blocking the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care. Axios Zachary Basu contributed reporting.

Attacks on Muslims flood mainstream after Mamdani win
Attacks on Muslims flood mainstream after Mamdani win

Axios

time38 minutes ago

  • Axios

Attacks on Muslims flood mainstream after Mamdani win

Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary triggered a wave of Islamophobic attacks — including from sitting members of Congress — that once might have disqualified the perpetrators from public office. Why it matters: Openly racist rhetoric has become normalized at the highest levels of American politics. Islamophobic and antisemitic incidents both reached an all-time high in 2024, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Anti-Defamation League, respectively. The mainstreaming of Islamophobic rhetoric in political discourse comes a decade after President Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" as part of his 2016 campaign. Driving the news: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) urged the Justice Department to denaturalize and deport Mamdani, who was born in Uganda and became a U.S. citizen in 2018. Under federal law, denaturalization is an extreme measure typically reserved for cases involving fraud during the naturalization process. The other side: Mamdani, who would be the first Muslim mayor of New York, has spoken openly about the violent threats and hateful messages he's received throughout the campaign. He told MSNBC that he sees his victory as "an opportunity for me to introduce the fact that being Muslim is like being a member of any other faith." The big picture: The fractured media ecosystem — splintered into hyperpartisan echo chambers — has made the public shaming of racism less effective. Attacks that once would have drawn bipartisan outrage now circulate with impunity — especially on social media platforms, where hate can go viral. The baseless attempts to link Mamdani to Islamist terrorism could alarm some voters, especially amid rising antisemitism in a city that is home to the world's largest Jewish population outside of Israel. Yes, but: Some of Mamdani's loudest critics are already unpopular in New York, raising the possibility that their Islamophobic posts could backfire — and further galvanize his coalition into a history-making victory. Catch up quick: Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo by assembling a young, multiracial coalition in one of the nation's largest and most diverse cities. That coalition included progressive Jewish voters in Manhattan, college-educated liberals in Brooklyn's Park Slope and working-class communities in Queens. Mamdani, currently serving in the New York State Assembly, is of Indian ancestry. He was born in Uganda and moved to New York at age 7. After his victory, MAGA activists and Republican lawmakers took to social media to attack Mamdani's faith, heritage and left-wing politics. "Zohran 'little muhammad' Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York. He needs to be DEPORTED," Ogles posted on X. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) posted an AI-generated image of the Statue of Liberty wearing a black burqa. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) tied Mamdani's victory to what she called America's "forgetting" of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What they're saying: "Wow. Just wow," James Zogby, co-founder of the Arab American Institute, told Axios after reviewing the posts. Zogby said Islamophobia is becoming more brazen because "there are no repercussions." "We see the same Islamophobia from the same bigots anytime a Muslim runs for public office," said Basim Elkarra, executive director of CAIR Action, the political arm of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "Now it's been normalized." Zoom out: Since Sept. 11, 2001, Muslim and Arab Americans have periodically been the targets of racist and Islamophobic political campaigns. In 2005, then Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) suggested the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if attacked by radical Muslim terrorists. In 2010, the proposed Park51 Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan — branded the " Ground Zero Mosque" by activist Pamela Geller, founder of Stop the Islamization of America — became a national campaign flashpoint. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (R-Mich.), who became the first two Muslim women elected to Congress in 2018, have faced years of Islamophobic attacks from Republicans and conservative media. State of play: Muslim Americans have built broader, multiethnic coalitions and political alliances in recent years. "I don't think [Islamophobia] is going to fly this time," Zogby said. Elkarra echoed that view, saying Mamdani's popularity could help him withstand the wave of attacks he's likely to face. There are currently an estimated 3 to 4 million Muslim Americans in the U.S. Between the lines: Days before the primary, Mamdani became embroiled in controversy for declining to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada" during a podcast with The Bulwark. Mamdani, a longtime critic of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, said the phrase represented to him "a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights." The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) responded by urging all New York City candidates — without naming Mamdani — to "disassociate themselves from and avoid using language that plays into antisemitic tropes." Calls to "globalize the intifada," the ADL said, invoke a decades-old history of attacks on the Jewish people and amount to "an act of incitement that encourages violence against Jews." The bottom line: Mamdani has condemned antisemitism and promised to be a mayor for all New Yorkers — one who will be laser-focused on the city's affordability crisis.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store