APPLIED PROJECT

1

Safeguarding Secular Values in Highly Religious Western Countries

ISS 512

December 12, 2020

The United States is one of the most praised, modern, free democracies in the world. America is used as an example of a country, which operates on the principles of individual liberties, freedom, equality, opportunity, and diversity. Many of the most important individual liberties are defined and enforced by the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. The idea is that these rights and liberties are afforded to every American citizen, and cannot be seized or taken away by any government actor, official, or entity. There is supposed to be a clear distinction between government power and authority, and individual liberty and rights. A key message with the definition and protection of these individual liberties and rights is that they are value free and belong to the individual citizen.

One of the founding principles of democracy in America is the idea of secularism. Secularism is not explicitly written in the U.S. Constitution, but it is implied in describing and protecting First Amendments Rights under the ideas like the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause explains that the federal government cannot create or establish an official religion. This tenet also explains that the government cannot legally favor or endorse any specific religion over another (Legal Information Institute, 2020). The Free Exercise Clause protects the individual religious and spiritual rights of citizens. This clause details that American citizens carry the rights to accept and practice any religious belief and ritual they prefer. Legal Information Institute, 2020). The idea is that citizens are free to believe in and practice any religion of their choice without fear of intervention or interference from the national government. Thomas Jefferson, one of the original Founding Fathers, actually mentions the phrase a separation of church and state in his letter to the Danbury Baptists to argue that that government should not be directly involved with advancing, promoting, or forcing religious ideals, principles, and observances on the general public (Bill of Rights Institute Org., 1802).

The U.S. carries a longstanding history of integrating traditional Christian values into political, social, and economic institutions and policies, which still occurs in modern society and government institutions today. One recent example is the Supreme Court Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in which the highest court in the land ruled that a private cake business carries legal rights to deny service same sex couples because of religious liberty freedoms (Chemerinksi, 2020). Such decisions open the door for increasing discrimination against minority groups for religious purposes, which sets and reinforces dangerous precedent. However, this clearly challenges some of the ideals and goals of the Establishment Clause, and the ability for citizens to practice and choose religion, free of political or government pressure or influence. In order to reduce cultural, social, and religious tension, the U.S. government must eliminate the use of Christian ideals and values for justification of public policies to promote and safeguard real religious liberty and tolerance in modern America. This requires a redefinition, reframing, and enforcement of secularism in the most powerful, influential, political, social, and economic institutions nationwide.

The U.S. is currently composed of more diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups than any other period in American history. However, there is strong disagreement on patterns of behavior, activities, and decisions being made within key institutions regarding the direction and interests of collective society. Many members of the white, Christian majority are not entirely comfortable with shifts in the ethnic, racial, and religious makeup of the country in the twenty-first century. In fact, certain Christian groups like Evangelicals, members of the United Methodist Church are each more than 90% White (Lipka, 2015). Despite ideas and guiding principles including, secularism advanced through the Constitution, some segments of society feel that the U.S. is a “Christian country” and that policies, laws, and cultural processes should be guided by Christian values, belief systems, and ideas. For example, positions on divisive issues like women’s reproductive rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, climate change, and LGBTQ rights are often separated along religious lines and values. However, due to First Amendment religious protections covered under the freedom of speech, masses of citizens view favoring Christianity is discriminatory and offensive.

The fact remains that integrating certain elements of Christianity into politics and public institutions is not a new phenomenon. For generations, different forms of U.S. currency like printed money carries messages like “In God We Trust.” The pledge of allegiance, which was practiced in public schools for decades is also historically debated. Conflict and disagreement over the pledge made its’ way to the Supreme Court because of phrases in the allegiance claiming “One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The landmark decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) essentially confirmed the idea that religious freedom allowed people the option to not say the pledge in public institutions like schools. According to authors London and Siddiqi, for decades the Supreme Court’s interpretation of religion in social and political institutions is that religious liberty should no harm to any citizen or groups of citizens (2019). This idea was actually translated into legal policy in the early 1990s through a policy referred to as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The purpose of signing the RFRA into law was to accurately describe and expand the rights of all American citizens to religious liberty. A key pillar of the policy is that it describes that the government should not significantly burden one’s religious exercise without compelling justification (London & Siddiqi, 2019). In fact, the basis for the law is that the government should not intervene in religious practices unless it supports or advances a specific governmental goal or interest in the least restrictive way possible. The overall goal of this specific religious freedom policy is to promote and protect the free exercise of religion, while at the same time more clearly enforcing and safeguarding the religious liberty for every American citizen (London & Siddiqi, 2019). Due to constant disagreements and the inability for Congress to pass bills collectively, it is surprising that this legislation was developed and passed into law with high levels of bipartisan support and cooperation. This law was widely praised among many different civil rights advocates, and diverse religious faith communities. However, in recent times, especially under the Trump administration, national level interpretations of this policy tend to be leaning toward the advancement of Christian values.

Several recent Supreme Court cases starting in 2014 reflect that the RFRA is now being used in a much different manner in which it was originally developed. For example, the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, reflects a significant shift toward religious exemptions from previously neutral religious laws (London & Siddiqi, 2019). The facts of the case called into question the ability for the founders and owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family to operate their business, manage employees, and benefits like healthcare based on the Christian principles and Biblical teachings they covet. Under employment requirements of the Affordable Care Act, employment rooted healthcare plans must provide specific kinds of preventative healthcare including, FDA authorized contraception (Oyez, 2014). The ACA provides exemptions for this provision for non-profit organizations, but not profit companies like Hobby Lobby. However, Hobby Lobby challenged the tenets of the policy, claiming that it violated religious liberty protections safeguarded under the RFRA. The Supreme Court eventually agreed and claimed that the Hobby Lobby carries the right to deny contraception under their rights to religious liberty (Oyez, 2014). The decision in this case provides grounds for powerful corporations to use broad Christian beliefs to supersede the individual religious liberties and beliefs of their employees. The result is an interpretation of religious law, which treats large corporations as individuals, and permits them to utilize free exercise rights over the will, values, and beliefs of their employees. Authors London and Siddiqui argue that this carries significant influence in regards to the legal system because the decision in this case allows corporations like Hobby Lobby to reject access to no-cost contraceptive health coverage through the business, which employees are entitled to under the umbrella of federal law (London & Siddiqi, 2019). Since this controversial decision, members of the Trump administration continue to use religious liberty protections to advance certain Christian values and beliefs over the entire country. For example, President Trump frequently uses Christian appeals to appoint justices, criticize abortion laws across the country in an effort to end abortion, and most recently condemn COVID-19 restrictions, which keep Christians out of church during the pandemic.

Due to the Christian application of the RFRA and principles of religious liberty, vulnerable groups continue to be the target of religious discrimination. London & Siddiqi state “religious liberty is misused to discriminate against vulnerable communities, such as religious minorities, non-religious people, people of color, women, and the LGBTQ community” (2019). This is evident ways in which restrictive laws at the state level are often used to deny access to birth control, and abortion for working class citizens, and communities of color, which are those often in need. Members of the Trump administration like former Attorney General Jeff Sessions provided guidance on federal law protections for religious liberty, which expands the power of businesses and public institutions to translate religious discrimination into law. This guidance makes religious exemptions a legal priority over all other individual rights and liberties (London & Siddiqi, 2019). Recent interpretations of religious liberty allow healthcare professionals to refuse care to citizens like members of the LGBTQ community in the name of religious beliefs and values. The framework defines constitutional and statutory protections of religious liberty so widely that they can be integrated at nearly every level of society. Many of these provisions directly undermine the protections offered to religious minorities and the LGBTQ community created under the Obama administration (London & Siddiqi, 2019). The legal favoritism toward Christian values ultimately denies certain populations equal religious treatment under the law. It is true that all religions in America could potentially be used to target and discriminate against certain populations. However, Christianity has been the dominant religion practiced and promoted since the original development of America, and dominates all social, political, and economic institutions. Christian favoritism is accepted and used because it is the norm, and most widely practiced religion. Some may wonder what fed into this reinforcement of dominant Christian values in mainstream institutions and political structures.

Since the early 1980s, shifts in cultural and religious values have been dominated by conservative coalitions carrying a major Evangelical Christian influence. Generally, this coalition works in the context of the Republican Party, and promotes Republican interests in electoral politics (Bernstein & Jakobsen, 2010). As a result, over the last four decades American citizens grew accustomed a strong push for conservatism in U.S. policy regarding issues surrounding gender and sexuality. There is a preference to integrate traditional Christian values into the discussion and political agenda regarding issues over family, reproduction, and marriage. One of the challenges with addressing these conservative Christian values is that they carry different consequences on competing segments of society. Unfortunately, poor women, and women of color seem to be especially negatively impacted by Christian values seeping into public policy and social issues (Bernstein & Jakobsen, 2010). This is evident in the lack of legal and health protection and care for sex workers, and poor working class minorities, who are often denied access to basic healthcare services like contraception and abortion services for those in need. These processes and influences are nearly impossible to overcome because they are engrained in the Christian Protestant norms of hundreds of years ago, despite America being founded on principles like secularism.

Evangelicals who support Christian conservatism argue that religious influence in politics and key social and economic institutions is not necessarily negative. As Bernstein and Jakobsen argue, religion can be used as a tool to increase social cohesion, generate better understanding, and provide direction and guidance to the collective culture and government, but the historical presence of Christian influence on American political life, and the preference of a Protestant secularism carries significant problems related to gender and sexuality. Historically, each of the main branches of government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches relied on Christian norms and direct claims from the religious principles surrounding the faith to guide ideals and values surrounding sexuality and gender (Bernstein & Jakobsen, 2010). As a result, themes of imperial subordination and heterosexual familism via the nuclear family are dominant in the U.S. There are masses of communities, which may not have a problem with this, but such Christian, Protestant influence directly undermine the rights and experiences of different ethnic and gender groups in the modern U.S.

Protestantism hegemony is important to acknowledge because at various points in American history the lens has been applied to deny and exclude other religious groups. The use of Protestant Christianity in political realms also shaped other religious developments in key public institutions within other sects like Catholicism. For example, Bernstein and Jakobsen explain, that the Catholics created their own distinct Catholic education system nationwide, which stands distinct from the public education system (2010). This reflects how the preference for respective Christian faiths often shapes larger social systems, and denies entry for other religious groups. The Jewish and Islamic communities may create and maintain their own schools in America as well. However, the number of Catholic schools, and their influence in the school system in America is much more pronounced. When looking at controversial, emotional, divisive issues like abortion and women’s reproductive rights, the impact is also strong.

The Evangelical Christian philosophy regarding women’s abortion and reproductive rights is strongly shaped by traditional Protestant ideas about life and women’s bodies. As Bernstein and Jakobsen explain, leaders within these faith based groups historically have been able to build relationships and coalitions with actors within state government to shape the direction and framework of public policy. Of course, conservative Christians were much more successful during certain eras, and in recent decades used the traditional pillars of Christianity to push against certain areas of liberal progressivism in different layers of government. One example is the blowback against Supreme Court rulings preventing school prayer from being openly practiced in public schools. Another more recent and currently relevant issue, is the Christian conservative push against funding for health institutions like Planned Parenthood, and the ability for American women to utilize access to abortions and contraceptive resources. This shows how a failure to protect truly religious freedom and enforce secularism is contributing to an all-out assault on women’s rights and liberties in modern America. The issue for gender equality in the U.S. is not simply the impact and effects of Christian religion alone, but Protestant dominance, which consists of religious influence and a presumption of secularism, which still tends to favor Christian ideals (Bernstein & Jakobsen, 2010). The Protestant Christian influence in political and government institutions is now so strong that opposing viewpoints essentially become invisible.

The diversity of religious perspective and opinions shaping idea about gender and sexuality in open political discourse is now non-existent. For example, when discussing issues like abortion, women’s rights, the environment, war, racism, and discrimination are discussed today, it is always publicly debated from a Christian lens. The media and political actors rarely, if ever, discuss these complex issues, which touch all from the eyes or lens of Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists. The default position is that of a White conservative Christian, which aligns with the historical Protestant view of religion and secularism in America. Bernstein and Jakobsen examine these issues by explaining that politicians, legislators, and state actors in modern government can take the religious position on issues like abortion to invoke a Christian secular perspective without ever needing to explicitly state support for a specific religion (2010). For example, when a current Republican Congress member claims that their “traditional” faith is important in analyzing his or her position over reproductive rights like abortion, one concludes that this means anti-abortion, and restrictive policies designed to limit access to such services.

The problem is that this engrained conservative Christian position in powerful government institutions illustrates that there is no real religious freedom and diversity, or secularism in the sense that citizens believe the separation of church and state should work. Christian conservatives argue that religious liberty is essential to the functioning of society, yet it appears many members of Christian communities only prefer their religious beliefs and values to be important and relevant in policymaking and governance. This is important because it prevents diverse American citizens from expressing, acknowledging, and learning comprehensive, competing, and distinct viewpoints on issues of gender, sexuality, and environment. The failure to promote and safeguard secularism essentially prevents the freedom and diversity of thought and expression. It is important to note that there are liberal and progressive Protestant Christian denominations, which do support issues like same sex relationships, and the rights of sexual minorities. However, as Bernstein and Jakobsen describe, “While this alliance between Democrats and Christians might be assumed to usher in a model of religious political engagement in a far more progressive guise, on questions of gender and sexuality, the result is by no means obvious” (2010, p. 1025). This reflects that historically, the dominant position is one of Christian conservatism, which supports a Christian form of secularism.

Christian secularism should be viewed as a unique form of separation of church and state in that that favors Christianity while suppressing the religious liberty and values of all other minority religious backgrounds and faiths. This, all other forms of religion and spirituality and marginalized and prevented from entering key political, social, and economic institutions and processes.

This Christian influence is significant in both national and foreign policy initiatives today. Bernstein and Jakobsen explain that in order to examine this relationship between religion, politics, and secularism, one can simply look at recent anti-trafficking in U.S. policy over the last two decades to see how it manifests. Evangelical Christian NGOs and secular feminists each play a pivotal role in shifting issues to the policy agenda. The idea is that the religious undertones shared by competing groups can bring parties together, which might otherwise by on polar opposite sides of the political spectrum. However, policy challenges like sex trafficking allow competing interest groups to join forces to fight a perceived common problem (Bernstein & Jakobsen, 2010). The interesting trend about American foreign policy in regard to anti-trafficking is that it is still dominated by conservative Christian ideals, goals, and interests.

Bernstein and Jakobsen go on to explain that Christian and Evangelical Christain organizations and networks are now assisting state actors in defining the crime and act of human trafficking. In the past, human trafficking mostly involved a broad spectrum of forced labor, not always or only forced sexual labor. However, with the growing impact and pressure applied by Evangelical Christian interest groups, state actors in the U.S. are using more concise, neoliberal terms and definitions aimed at describing and punishing actors involved in new forms of “domestic trafficking”, which target both legal and illegal markets for prostitution in America (Bernstein & Jakobsen, 2010). Religion helped shift the discussion away from all forms of forced trafficking and labor, and emphasizes the concerns and threats of sex trafficking associated with prostitution because of religious values and undertones.

The consequences of integrating Christian ideals into modern policies against trafficking is that it makes certain actors like pimps and prostitutes targets of harsh punishments and sentencing, even in states and zones where prostitution is legal. For example, authorities attempt to arrest, charge, and convict these actors not necessarily for the crime of sexual transactions between consenting adults, but for the trafficking of women and girls, even when they are not directly involved in such trafficking rings. Ultimately, sex workers are being targeted for crimes they may not even be involved in. Authorities are largely able to get away with such tactics because of the religious influenced redefinition of trafficking, which focuses on sexual labor, and the perception that those in the sexual labor industry need saving and their freedom back (Bernstein & Jakobsen, 2010). This shows how religious values are being used to punish those who are deemed to participate in an immoral sector of business like prostitution. This also reflects the manner in which religious views and values are often used in a predatory manner to criminalize actors in certain sectors of life and businesses because of moral concerns and motivations. Supporters of the Christian religion and influence in government and policy might not view such trends as a major detriment to society. However, big businesses and government actors are now being directly sway by Christian principles to deal with trafficking by focusing on punishment and criminalization, rather than protecting legitimate sex workers, and making the industry safer for participants, which actually works against key goals like gender equality and empowerment. The restrictive policies introduced and advocated for by religious groups tends to marginalize women of color, and working class citizens, which tend to be from the minority community. Is it even possible conceptually to take a secular approach to policymaking to address complex policy and social issues like human trafficking today? This is a sensitive and complex question because of private issues often connected to framing trafficking like human rights, liberty, agency, morality, and overall well-being.

Critics and analysts examining the role and definition of secularism may view the concept as a flawed lens or dynamic for upholding religious freedom, tolerance, and biased free governance. However, is secularism actually the problem, or is it simply the way that it is define and applied in Western cultures like America? Those in America, which are worried about the Christain right’s influence in government and policymaking are concerned that a free democracy may shift into a theocracy. One of the most popular messages associated with the idea of secularism in America is that religion should be entirely detached and separated from politics. The overall goal or ideal of democracies is that political power should be shared by all citizens, and no citizen or state actors should be denied citizenship or opportunity for participation of religious beliefs, or lack of religious affiliation (Stout, 2007). As a result, no single religious perspective like Evangelical Christianism should come to dominant American politics at all.

From the position of author Stout, the goal for social and political institutions should be to redefine secularism, into an evolving type of separation of church and state called democratic secularism. Stout argues that such a view of secularism strives to make religion and religious institutions an entirely private matter, which are completely removed from politics and formal government (2007). Convincing people that religion is an entirely private matter, and practicing their rituals and beliefs completely separate from political views is challenging because of the history of religion in America. Some theorists feel that democratic secularism is in danger of being completely lost in modern societies like the U.S. because theism dominates politics. From this viewpoint, religion can be tolerated, but only in regard to it being completely eliminated from politics. The idea is that democracy can be improved and safeguarded by removing religious influence. For example, democratic governments should not grant religious institutions and organizations tax dollars or tax-exemptions because it makes religion a priority over other institutions and networks (Stout, 2007). Government actors and institutions should also not reference, favor, or endorse a specific religion in any context. Religious institutions should also avoid endorsing any official government actor, party, or candidate.

The challenge with enforcing these separations is that religion is not framed, outlined, or described in the U.S. Constitution as an entirely private matter. Religious and spiritual views often help citizens define, assess, and frame the importance of key issues within their private and public lives. Creating a constitutional or federal law to force citizens to use their religious values and beliefs only in their private lives is oppressive and denial of individual liberties and rights, which are so highly valued and appreciated in modern America. Convincing citizens in a democracy like the United States that religion should be a private matter requires the use of effective persuasion.

Supporters of democratic secularism call for a completely withering away of theism over time, which is highly unlikely considering the significant historical influence of religion in the U.S., which still persists today. In a democratic society like the United States using force to get people to make religion a private matter is simply inappropriate, and authoritarian in nature. Stout claims that a potential strategy for convincing people to separate religion is by making the benefits of privatizing religion attractive and salient (Stout, 2007). Citizens must think that doing so will better their lives, and enhance the range of liberties and rights they enjoy. Without this type of persuasion, it is unlikely that citizens would be willing to make such a drastic shift in their lives. However, again in a country with such strong religious, Christian roots, this is a difficult task, and likely unrealistic. As a result, it is important to take a step back and try to create a new framework for examining and practicing secularism.

Maybe it isn’t “religion” at all, but the type of religion, which shapes American government and Western politics, which is the problem. What if American culture simply eliminates the dominance of the conservative Christain style secularism practiced by Evangelicals out of the realm of politics? This may be the necessary strategy for truly enforcing religious freedom and safeguarding “secularism.” There are many religions and religious beliefs and values, which are highly democratic, inclusive, tolerant, and comprehensive. So it may not be that secularism requires a complete separation of church and state, instead we need to take Conservative Chritain ideals out of politics entirely.

A successful transition is one that includes, integrating theist moderates, and those from diverse religious and spiritual backgrounds, which may not be strongly religious. This includes, getting atheists, and agnostics involved in key political institutions by building coalitions to promote diversity of thought and spirituality in social and political institutions. Encouraging and promoting competing religious and spiritual views also must be a point of emphasis in the education system, starting at early ages to ensure that young people understand the benefits of competing religious and spiritual perspectives and theoretical frameworks. The U.S. carries a history of favoring Christian principles in schools, which must be addressed and halted to truly promote and protect secularism in the U.S. The goal here is to remove the presence and dominance of Christianity from government altogether and replace it with a unique form of religion and spirituality. The idea is to achieve realizable, practical secularism by building and safeguarding religious and spiritual diversity in key political and social institutions, processes, and relationships.

Democratic secularism is not necessarily the answer because such a view requires a full removal of religious and spiritual beliefs, values, rituals, and practices from the lives of American citizens, which does not seem feasible or realistic in modern society. Instead, federal and state institutions should work directly with religious organizations, interest groups, and associations to better understand competing views, values, beliefs, and needs. Another part of this plan is to create a department within the federal government to discuss and debate policy issues with the sole goal of removing religious favoritism and preference from lawmaking practices and public policies.

The Department should be referred to as “The Department of Religious and Spiritual Equality and Justice.” Members representing every spiritual and religious background in America will be selected to the department to review policies, regulations, and restrictions nationwide, which conflict with religious diversity, equality, and fairness. This board shall carry powers to challenge and invalidate laws based on majority vote within the department. For example, executive orders like the Muslim travel ban would certainly be deemed illegal and invalidated under the authority of the Department because it targets a region of the world affiliated with a specific religion, and because the President who created the law previously detailed that he believes “Islam hates us.” The law is clearly associated with negative views about a specific religion, and therefore violates religious liberty. These measures may appear to be harsh and restrictive, but such steps are necessary to truly promote and protect religious diversity and liberty.

Removing religious bias and preference for any single religion must be completely eliminated within government to achieve secularism. Advancing this type of progressive entity is likely to be controversial because it challenges the powers of certain branches of government like the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch), but this is required to take religion out of politics. Another step in removing religious Christian bias in government, and promoting religious liberty and tolerance is removing rituals like swearing on the Bible during governmental ceremonies and rituals, and court room procedures. Doing so, tends to show a preference for certain religions over others. The government must also take the tax-exempt protections away from religious entities to ensure that all moneymaking institutions are treated the same way, and not given legal protections over others for being connected to religion. Lastly, all religious institutions must be required to comply with reasonable regulations and social policy, and cannot reject laws based on religious ideals and values. For example, all churches must be forced to comply with reasonable COVID-19 restrictions including, limiting the number of visitors and requiring masks during the pandemic. This shows that religious beliefs and freedom cannot be used as a justification for ignoring certain laws and mandates, and that the rule of law takes priority over religious affiliation. Integrating each of these unique and groundbreaking steps are effective measures for promoting secularism and religious diversity in an evolving, modern, American society.

Reflective Paragraph

The changes I focused on in my final revision focused on the advice and comments made by the professor. I emphasized clarity, citations, and building on recommendations for achieving religious diversity and secularism in a conservative Christian dominated America. After conducting an analysis of my feedback, I realized that I needed to elaborate on my recommendations for building a secular culture and government, which consider religious liberty an important cog in society, but removes religious preference and favoritism in governing and policymaking processes. I also recognized that I needed to clean up my citations and conveying information from my research sources to ensure that the audience or readers are able to differentiate my own ideas and insight from the respective authors. These changes were necessary to improve flow, clarity, and organization, while expressing my own unique vision for a secular future in America, driven by religious diversity and tolerance.

References

Bernstein, E.., & Jakobsen, R., J. (2010). Sex, secularism, and religious influence in U.S. politics. Third World Quarterly, 31(6), 1023-1039.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby stores. (2020). Oyez Org. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-354

Chemerinksi, E. (2020). Not a masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. American Bar Association Org. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/

Letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists. (1802). Bill of Rights Institute Org. Retrieved from https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/danburybaptists

Lipka, M. (2015). The most and least racially religious groups. Pew Research Center Org. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/

London, E., & Siddiqi, M. (2019). Religious liberty should do no harm. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/reports/2019/04/11/468041/religious-liberty-no-harm/

Stout, J. (2007). 2007: Presidential address: The folly of secularism. Journal of American Academy of Religion, 1-12.