Religious-Freedom Exceptionalism
By Dr. Chris Seiple on 26 April 2011
Lately Republican presidential hopefuls have been rallying to the flag of "American exceptionalism" and blasting anyone who dares to question or qualify it. A book due out in June by Newt Gingrich is titled, A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters. Unfortunately the coming campaign season is unlikely to help clarify the proper extent to which America can be said to be "exceptional." The issue is likely to be crassly politicized rather than subjected to objective historical, legal, and social analysis.
One point we should be able to agree on, however, is that some (not all, but some) of America's most important leaders in the colonial era embraced religious freedom in a way that was quite exceptional by world historical standards. This is not to suggest any American triumphalism. Indeed, the history of American "civil" society has not been as civil—or predestined or pretty—as some might wishfully think. For example, when the colony of Massachusetts was founded—without the participation or compensation of the local Indians—it was established such that civil and ecclesiastical accountability resided with the same authority. This form of religious establishment was quite intentional and did not allow for deviance (ironically enough, as many of the colonists had fled persecution in Europe to practice their faith freely in the new world).
After living there for four years, a local pastor, Roger Williams, decided that a Christian government telling him how to worship was inconsistent with his Christian values—namely, it was not the right or the responsibility of the government to tell him how to practice his belief. Williams held that freedom of conscience came solely from a God who had created each human in His own image, a God who commanded His human creation to love their neighbors as themselves.
So Williams headed west in the winter of 1635 and took refuge among the Indian friends he had previously made, paying them for the land. In this new place, he established the colony of Rhode Island, a place where Indian, Quaker, Baptist, and Anglicans were welcomed each as equals.
America is not a Christian state today precisely because these Christian values were present at our beginning.
Williams recognized that this kind of religious freedom was not only the right thing to do—according to the best of his faith, not to mention the best principles of liberal democracy—but it was also in the self-interest of both the state and society. Williams understood religious freedom as the cornerstone of civil society, and thus as a bulwark against social instability. In other words, if minorities were not allowed to practice their faith freely, they might agitate and disrupt society, possibly with violence.
Accordingly, religious freedom made for good local neighborhoods, the accumulation of which created a strong society loyal to the state. Williams made these points clearly in Rhode Island's 1663 colonial charter, linking religious freedom and security, values and interests:
They have freely declared, that it is a much on their hearts ... to hold forth a livlie experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best bee maintained ... with a full libertie in religious concernements; and that true pietye rightly grounded upon gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignetye, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligation to true loyalty.[1]
During the same time period, Massachusetts hung people for their religious beliefs (e.g., Quakers on the Boston Common), and accused its citizens of being witches. Rhode Island did not suffer this same instability because of its commitment to religious freedom and the resulting mutual respect that existed among its citizens, and between them and their government.
The history of America has been its conscious and sub-conscious choice about whether to follow the 17th century example of Rhode Island or Massachusetts. When America has sought assimilation—when it required the minority to live as directed by the government—America has done quite poorly. For example, the Confederate States of America is the only North American government to have a constitutional amendment declaring itself "Christian," as it fought to preserve slavery.
Nevertheless, even amidst this most negative example, there has always been the capacity for ongoing self-rebuke, and self-correction. This living capacity to integrate—to bring minority ethnic and religious groups into society, under the rule of law, without asking them to sacrifice the essence of their identity—is the sine qua non of the American experience. Over time, the result has been a strong society, enabling a stable state and a prosperous country, which, full circle, protects and promotes its minority citizens.
[1] The Rhode Island Colonial Charter, July 15, 1663. "The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School," http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ri04.htm.
Last updated 26 April 2011