What Is the First Freedom and Why Is It Essential?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is that “religious freedom undergirds the very existence of America.” President Dallin H. Oaks of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints authored an essay about the First Amendment, moral absolutes, and why the Constitution was created for a religious people. The essay was published at the Deseret News and was adapted from an earlier address given at Chapman University School of Law. 

Here is a note from the Editor: The centrality of religious freedom to the revelatory nature of America’s founding is why we’ve curated seminal selections on this first freedom in honor of America’s 250^th anniversary. These essays highlight the critical role faith played and continue to play in living out the inherent truths of the Declaration of Independence.

The first provision in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is what many believe to be its most important guarantee. It reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

For almost a century, the First Amendment’s guarantee that the United States shall have “no law (prohibiting) the free exercise (of religious)” has been understood as a limitation on state as well as federal power. The guarantee of religious freedom is one of the supremely important founding principles in the United States Constitution, and it is reflected in the constitutions of all 50 of our states.

As noted by many, the guarantee’s “pre-eminent place” as the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution identifies freedom of religion as “a cornerstone of American democracy.” The American Colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, came to this continent for the freedom to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation’s Bill of Rights.

So it is that our federal law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States,” So it is, I maintain, that in our nation’s founding and in our constitutional order, religious freedom and its associated First Amendment freedoms of speech and press are the motivating and dominating civil liberties and civil rights. Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable and important to our free society and therefore deserve special legal protection.

Our nation’s inimitable private sector of charitable works originated and is still furthered most significantly by religious impulses and religious organizations…. Religious beliefs instill patterns of altruistic behavior.

Many of the great moral advances in Western society have been motivated by religious principles and moved through the public square by pulpit-preaching. The abolition of the slave trade in England and the Emancipation Proclamation in the United States … were driven primarily by individuals who had a clear vision of what was morally right and what was morally wrong. In our time, the Civil Rights Movement was, of course, inspired and furthered by religious leaders.

Religion also strengthens our nation in terms of honesty and integrity. Modern science and technology have given us remarkable devices, but we are frequently reminded that their operation in our economic system and the resulting prosperity of our nation rest on the honesty of the men and women who use them…. These standards and practices of honesty and integrity rest, ultimately, on our ideas of right and wrong, which, for most of us, are ground in principles of religion and the teachings of religious leaders.

Our society is not held together just by law and its enforcement, but most importantly by voluntary obedience to the unenforceable and by widespread adherence to unwritten norms of right or righteous behavior. Religious belief in right and wrong is a vital influence to advocate and persuade such voluntary compliance by a large proportion of our citizens.

Others, of course, have a moral compass not expressly grounded in religion….

My final example of the importance of religion in our country concerns the origin of the Constitution. Its formation over 200 years ago was made possible by religious principles of human worth and dignity, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that Constitution today. I submit that religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of religion in our public life without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms.

The founders who established this nation believed in God and in the existence of moral absolutes – right and wrong – established by this Ultimate Lawgiver. The Constitution they established assumed and relied on morality in the actions of its citizens. Where did that morality come from and how was it to be retained? Belief in God and the consequent reality of right and wrong was taught by religious leaders in churches and synagogues, and the founders gave us the First Amendment to preserve that foundation for the Constitution.

The preservation of religious freedom in our nation depends on the value we attach to the teachings of right and wrong in our churches, synagogues and mosques. It is faith in God that translates these religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits the nation.

What Lessons for 2026 Can We Learn from 1976?

America celebrated its Bicentennial in 1976. Lessons were learned, and Rebecca de Schweinitz at the Deseret News reminds her readers: “Recognizing the nation’s religious diversity and acknowledging its flaws are not at odds with a unifying commemoration.” 

As the country approaches the 250 anniversary of the Revolution, Americans are increasingly divided over what they are celebrating. Some advance a triumphalist narrative of a providential nation, virtually perfect at its founding and rooted in a singular religious identity, while others, who see value in confronting the country’s struggles, are case as at odds with the patriotic project. Fifty years ago, during the 1976 bicentennial, many American religious communities wrestled with similar tensions. They celebrated, but they also reflected, confessed and organized, treating the bicentennial less as an occasion for patriotic display than as an opportunity for democratic practice, grounded in diverse expressions of faith and lived out in families, congregations and communities. That moment offers no simple blueprint, but it points to ward practices – cooperation across difference, moral self-examination and active participation – that remain essential now.

Religious freedom as a shared stewardship

At the national level, religious leaders made clear that the bicentennial could not be claimed by any single tradition. Initiatives like Project FORWARD ’76 (“Freedom of Religion Will Advance Real Democracy”) brought together Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Latter-day Saint and other groups in a shared endeavor. Their goal was not a unified religious interpretation of America but something more foundational: a democracy strengthened by the moral vision of people.

The structure of such efforts mattered. Rather than competing for cultural influence, religious groups cooperated. They exchanged resources, sponsored research and encouraged congregations to explore how religious liberty and democratic life are intertwined. Religious diversity was treated as a strength to learn from and safeguard, not a problem to solve….

Gratitude and repentance in the work of patriotism

Some of the most meaningful Bicentennial work of Project FORWARD ’76 happened in local congregations. Churches did not simply drape sanctuaries in flags. Many reinterpreted national symbols through a moral and theological lens.

In one Lutheran resource, “Stars, Stripes, and Crosses,” the American flag became a framework for reflection. The stars pointed to aspiration, the ideals of liberty and equality. The stripes represented suffering and contradiction, the ways those ideals had been tested or betrayed. The cross stood as a moral measure, reminding believers that no nation, however, noble its founding, is beyond judgment.

This was neither spectacle nor cynicism. It was an effort to tell the truth. Patriotism meant loving one’s country enough to see it clearly and to work to improve it. That spirit shaped worship itself. Bicentennial services blended gratitude with introspection, patriotic hymns alongside prayers that named national failures like racism, inequality, exclusion and violence.

In doing so, faith communities practiced a form of moral speech linking faith to public responsibility. They affirmed that devotion to God does not require silence abut injustice, and that love of country can include a call to repentance.

Remembering in ways that widen belonging

Congregations also turned to history as a lived, shared experience rather than a distant narrative. Programming featured oral histories, archival work and intergenerational storytelling: Young people interviewed older members about migration, work, worship and community-building; families shared photographs and artifacts; “Do you remember?” evenings gathered neighbors to share memories.

These efforts connected individuals to a larger, generous story and invited them to see themselves within an ongoing national project shaped by religious commitments. They also strengthened relationships across generations and fostered belonging rooted in faith and community.

Importantly, these efforts did not simply reinforce exceptionalist narratives. Many congregations included Native American perspectives, inviting Indigenous speakers, integrating Native histories and confronting the consequences of colonization. The bicentennial became an occasion to ask how a nation founded on liberty could also be a site of dispossession.

This widened perspective did not weaken national identity. It made commemorations more honest, meaningful and demanding of people of faith.

Service as patriotic and covenant responsibility

For many religious communities, the most authentic way to mark the bicentennial was not ceremony but service. Congregations organized hunger walks, planted community gardens, supported food banks and engaged in tutoring programs, prison outreach and advocacy. Such efforts pushed people of faith to wrestle with harder questions about poverty, justice and what the nation’s ideals required in practice.

In this context, voluntarism became more than a civic virtue; it was a religious obligation tied to national purpose. To celebrate the nation’s founding was to take responsibility for its unfinished work….

Creating democracy together

Perhaps most strikingly, bicentennial programming treated democracy as something to be learned and practiced. Congregants of all ages and denominations studied their communities, listened to neighbors, engaged public officials, and contributed to local reform efforts.

Politics was not presented as distant or inherently corrupt, but as a domain where moral agency mattered – a place individuals could act on their values to serve the common good. Underlying this was a broader conviction that democracy depends on participation, on citizens willing to listen, learn, deliberate and act in alignment with their moral convictions.

Religious communities helped cultivate positive civic habits, serving as schools of moral and ethical citizenship where people practiced cooperation, developed empathy and linked principles with action.

A nation as shared work: Faith, humility and the more perfect union.

Looking back, the bicentennial era approach contrasts with contemporary currents that more tightly link religious and national identity in exclusionary ways. Where earlier efforts stressed pluralism and honest reflection, today’s rhetoric can narrow belonging, dismiss critique and favor symbolic affirmation over lived engagement. These differences are not merely political; they reflect deeper questions about how faith relates to democracy.

In 1976, many religious communities saw their role as strengthening democratic life through dialogue, accountability and bridge-building – work requiring humility and openness to complexity. It also required a particular understanding of belonging. The nation was not a possession to defend but a project to shape, a shared endeavor inviting both gratitude and responsibility.

Recovering that approach does not mean returning to the 1970s. That era had its own limitations. But the habits it cultivated remain relevant. It showed that commemoration can be more than celebration. It can be a time for reflection, learning and recommitment.

It showed that patriotism can include critique, and that such critique – grounded in love and responsibility – can strengthen the nation. Moreover, it underscored that religious communities can play a vital role in democratic life by fostering participation, cooperation, moral clarity and care for others.

As the United States approaches another anniversary, the question before us is not simply how to celebrate. It is how to do so in ways that sustain a healthy democracy.

The bicentennial offers one answer. It calls us to turn memory into action, widen the circle of voices and measure our national life not only by our ideals but also by how faithfully we live them.

If we take that lesson seriously, celebration itself can become an act of faith – one that binds us more closely to one another and to the enduring work of building a more perfect union.

Rebecca de Schweinitz claims that Americans need to act with faith. One of the ways that we can act with faith is to turn to the God of this land, even Jesus Christ.

As part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ observance of the America 250 commemoration, the First Presidency is holding a special unified fast on Sunday, July 5, 2026 – the day after the United States’ 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The purpose of the fast is to express gratitude for religious liberty as well as to pray for religious freedom to be strengthened throughout the world. Fasting is more than going without food; it is also praying to express gratitude for blessings as well as to ask for help. Everyone is encouraged to join Latter-day Saints in this special fast.

Why Is Religious Freedom Essential for Peace?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday has to do with religious freedom and peace. According to President D. Todd Christofferson, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, religious freedom is “the cornerstone of peace in a world with many competing philosophies.”

President Christofferson and his wife, Kathy Christofferson, along with Elder Matthew S. Holland, General Authority Seventy, and his wife, Paige Holland, visited Philadelphia – the foundational hub of U.S. democracy. They toured historic sites in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, including the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, on Friday, June 12, 2026.

According to Sarah Jane Weaver, editor of the Deseret News, the Christoffersons and Hollands were joined by Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Elder Alexander Dushku of the Seventy as well as other leaders of faith at the Canterbury Medal Gala

on Thursday evening. The event is an annual gathering sponsored by Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute. 

President Christofferson offered the invocation at the Becket event, held as the United States celebrates the nation’s 250^th anniversary. Weaver reported as follows.

“Moral agency, the ability to choose right from wrong and to act for ourselves, is essential to God’s plan of salvation,” President Christofferson wrote on social media after the event.

“Religious freedom ensures that people can exercise their agency in matters of faith.

“We are grateful to be associated with so many wonderful people of faith who we stand with to advocate for religious freedom….

Reflecting on his time in Philadelphia, President Christofferson noted a key verse found in Latter-day Saint scripture, Doctrine and Covenants 101. It teaches that the Constitution was “established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh.”

“[That means] all mankind, not just in this nation but everywhere in the world,” President Christofferson said. “I think it’s proven to be that wherever those principles have been adopted, the people have flourished and the blessings that we enjoy have been enjoyed by them.” …

Both President Christofferson and Elder Holland (who leads Latter-day Saint global communication efforts) praised Becket for defending and promoting religious liberty for all, according to the news release.

“I think about that Joseph Smith statement, that [he would] be willing to die for the rights of all different faiths – Catholic, Jews, Muslims. Not just our own,” Elder Holland said. “We see that with Becket. We’re willing to stand with others to defend their rights. And they’re willing to stand with us. There’s a power and a principle of equality and inclusiveness that we’re doing this in a multifaith way.”

President Christofferson said Becket is very effective. “They do a superb work. The key to their success is that they’re focused on religious liberty for everyone. Not just certain faiths, but all faiths and even those who have no faith. They are intent on ensuring that everyone has what the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides, and that is freedom of belief and religion and practice.”

How Does Religious Freedom Bless All God’s Children?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the ways that religious freedom blesses all of God’s children. The Savior wants us to defend the religious rights of all people – including those who believe differently. He declared to Joseph Smith that the freedoms preserved in “the laws and constitution of the people … should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77. Here are the words of several prophets, apostles, and others about religious freedom in America blessing all God’s children. 

Prophet Joseph Smith

I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.

It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul – civil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race. (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2011], 345)

President Dallin H. Oaks

Religious teachings and the religiously, motivated actions of believers benefit society and deserve legal protection.

For example, there are many needs for humanitarian assistance – hunger, disease, and lack of education to mention only a few. Religious liberty enables believers and faith communities to provide this aid to society’s neediest members. Most religions exhort their believers to give to the poor. Most also teach their believers that they are accountable to God for this duty.

Religions also play a vital role in contributing to social stability. Societies are not held together primarily by law and its enforcement, but by those who voluntar8ly obey the unenforceable because of their sense of accountability to God….

When citizens learn to live together with respect – despite important religious differences – they are also more likely to live peacefully with others with whom they have important secular differences.” (“Pursuing Religious Liberty Worldwide [address given at the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit, July 20, 2022], newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org)

President D. Todd Christofferson of the First Presidency

For centuries, people fought over religious differences, often with government suppressing one religion in the name of another. Religious liberty has allowed people of diverse religious traditions to live together in peace and friendship despite profound disagreements…. Governments that protect religious freedom have fewer social conflicts and greater levels of social cohesion. (“Religious Liberty: The Basis of a Free and Just Society” [address given at the First Forum on Religious Freedom in the Southern Cone, Oct. 29, 2021], religiousfreedomlibrary.org)

Elder Ronald A. Rasband of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

If religion is not there to help with shaping character and mediating hard times, who will be? Who will teach honesty, gratitude, forgiveness, and patience? Who will exhibit charity, compassion, and kindness for the forgotten and the downtrodden? Who will embrace those who are different yet deserving, as are all of God’s children? Who will open their arms to those in need and seek no recompense? Who will reverence peace and obedience to laws greater than the trends of the day? (“To Heal the World,” Liahona, May 2022, 93)

President Camille N. Johnson of the Relief Society

I believe that the most important and impactful work of women continues to be done when we are for our own children, teach a friend to read, patiently address the needs of an elderly neighbor, prepare a meal for the sick, or cry with a sister who is grieving. The universality in the way we bear and nurture humanity connects women across cultural divides and language barriers, laying a foundation for peace.

I strive to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. I believe He came to earth to save humanity from sin and death and to lift us in our sorrow and distress….

The work of defending the United States Constitution, religious freedom, and the family is not just for legal scholars and academics. It is for … Relief Society presidents and non-lawyers and people of every religious persuasion….

Let us follow the Prince of Peace and practice, in our personal and professional lives, His perfect example…. He wants to engage with us – and will as we joyfully engage in His great work. (J. Reuben Clark Law Society, “2026 JRCLS Annual Fireside,” YouTube, Jan. 16, 2026, youtube.com/@JReubenClarkLawSociety)

Why Is Religious Freedom Critical for Restoring and Repairing America?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is religious liberty and its importance to all people. Religious freedom says that all people have the right to worship who and/or what they choose.

In their article published at The Daily Signal, Jason Chahyadl and Jordan Lorence claim that “Defending religious liberty for all is a timely political issue that can help restore and repair the severed tapestry of American political life.” Their reason is that “A comprehensive defense of religious liberty fosters civic virtues such as charity, restraint, and a willingness to accommodate differing viewpoints.” They also claim that these civic virtues are the foundation on which the “survival of our constitutional order depends.” 

The authors are not the only ones with the above belief. They note that Yuval Levin, in his book “American Covenant,” “discusses how the polity of republicanism requires a type of citizen for its sustainment.” So what is that type of person? The type of “citizen needed to preserve a republican system of government” has “traits like selflessness, restraint, and accommodation.”

Abraham Lincoln shared a similar thought in his second inaugural address: “With malice toward none. With charity for all.”

James Madison wrote in Federalist 51 a statement that is now famous, and the authors paraphrase the statement: “The reason why we need checks on governmental power is because men are not angels, neither are they naturally inclined to pursue such a status.”

Citizens that succumb to selfishness and the desire to dominate political opponents will find it near impossible to properly function in a system of ordered representation and the checks, balances, and compromises necessary for diverse peoples to live together.

The Founders also recognized both the necessity and rarity of civic virtues….

At the same time, the Founders acknowledged that the law is a teacher and can shape the character of its constituents. That recognition motivated the Founders to draft a constitution that could channel human fallibility toward a system of government that promotes liberty and justice for all through the structure of federalism, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights.

Among other virtue-encouraging constitutional provisions, few, if any, are more prominent than the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Protecting our first freedom of religious liberty, the free exercise clause is also a pedagogical instrument for promoting the anthropology of republicanism. For religious citizens, it clarifies that firmly held beliefs and civic accommodation are not mutually exclusive, thus promoting both forbearance and religious formation. One can believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ provide the only way for forgiveness of sins against God and restoration to fellowship with the Father, while still permitting those who disagree, such as Jews, Muslims, and others, to freely worship in their own ways, or to believe nothing at all.

Our constitutional system allows Americans of different religious backgrounds to accommodate each other while, at the same time, strengthening their own religious beliefs, convictions, and practices….

The free exercise clause provides wide latitude for Americans to hold and exercise religious beliefs. Subsequent statutes like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act reinforce this constitutional provision….

Moreover, the free exercise clause and its statutory descendants invaluably protect an individual’s right of conscience and decisions to live out general religious convictions that emanate from the conscience….

The protection of religious liberty necessarily extends to the protection of the individual conscience, or “inner voice,” and beliefs about ultimate questions. The basis for protecting the conscience is the biblical concept that all people are created in the Imago Dei and are thus entitled to liberty in exercising their reason when considering life’s biggest questions.

This is why the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom also affects areligious Americans. Even though they do not subscribe to any religion, areligious people also make decisions based on their conscience and contemplate deep questions about reality and human purpose. Were it not for the free exercise clause, the government would be able to mandate a specific religious viewpoint, and by extension, interfere in the inner conscience and place the intellectual freedom of all Americans at risk.

When the government tries to dictate to citizens what to think, that threatens the whole constellation of constitutional liberties. If the government was allowed to control citizens’ thoughts, there is no defense against a snowballing infringement of external constitutional rights, like the right to bear arms, receive a trial by jury, or by protected from cruel and unusual punishment. That is why the First Amendment is first among equals….

It is with gratitude that we reflect on the Founders’ decision to amplify this message by way of enshrining religious liberty with the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.

What Are Some Religious Freedom Victories?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns religious freedom and, in particular, taxpayer funding of gender transition procedures for inmates in Georgia. Sarah Holliday published an article at The Daily Signal reporting on the topic. 

On Wednesday, Georgia’s State Capitol was the stage for a “heated debate” over legislation aimed at sparing taxpayers from funding gender transition procedures for inmates – including “sex change surgeries, hormone replacement therapies, and cosmetic procedures designed to alter sexual characteristics.” While the measure garnered strong support from Republicans, Democrats voiced their displeasure with the bill and the financial protections it offers.

Senate Bill 185 passed Georgia’s House by a 100-2 margin, with the only dissenting votes coming from Democrat lawmakers Regina Lewis-Ward and David Sampson. The rest of the party’s representatives chose a different tactic, staging a dramatic walkout from the chamber in protest. And yet, their exodus did little to disrupt the bill’s momentum. It awaits only the signature of Republican Gov. Brian Kemp to become law.

Prior to the walkout, state Rep. Tanya Miller, a Democrat, expressed her opposition to the legislation. “Our constituents sent us here to address serious pressing issues affecting their daily lives,” she said. “Yet, instead of addressing real problems, my colleagues in the majority party continue their extreme agenda.” But according to Georgia Republicans, it is worth addressing.

Immediately after the Democrats’ walkout, Republicans criticized their protest. According to the Daily Caller, “Republican House Majority Whip James Burchett said that elections have outcomes and added that Georgia taxpayers deem this issue significant and oppose funding elective surgeries.”

In fact, this focus on taxpayer priorities reflects a broader Republican agenda in Georgia, exemplified by another recent legislative push. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed the General Assembly earlier this year. While SB 185 prioritizes fiscal balance, RFRA focuses on constitutional balance – specifically when it comes to religious freedom, as it was modeled after a federal law to protect that right.

Just a week before RFRA’s passage, Family Research Council Action Operations Coordinator Jacob Kersey wrote of why Georgia’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act “is necessary to protect people of faith.” Kersey, a Georgia native, has experienced government overreach firsthand when he was effectively fired from his former employment as a police officer in Port Wentworth. The reason? His posting of a Bible verse on his personal social media that some of his team found offensive.

“My supervisors ordered me to remove my post,” Kersey wrote, “saying it was the ‘same thing as saying the N-word.’ I disagreed and declined to do so, expressing my concerns that my religious freedom was being infringed.” After being “given an ultimatum, resign ow or be fired the next time someone finds my Christian beliefs offensive, I made the difficult decision to resign.”

He wasn’t alone. “I’m not the only Georgia public servant who faced similar fallout due to religious speech,” Kersey noted, citing [other] cases…. At the end of the day,” he added, “the passage of the Georgia RFRA isn’t about … me; it’s about the right of all Georgians to enjoy their God-given First Amendment right to religious expression.” …

“What we have seen this legislative session in Georgia is Democrats refusing to abandon transgender ideology, one of the main reasons they lost in 2024,” he told The Washington Stand. “Protecting Georgian taxpayers from being forced to pay for “gender transition’ procedures for inmates is commonsense and good policy.” And when it comes to the Democrats walking out of the chamber on Wednesday, Kersey noted that was just one of many examples of Democrats opposing good policy.

“Georgia Democrats voted against keeping men out of women’s sports, against increasing protections for all Georgians of faith, and against protecting taxpayers from being forced to pay for ‘gender transition’ procedures for inmates,” he stated. “The fact that Georgia Democrats staged a walkout instead of voting on SB 185 is because they know they are between a rock and a hard place: Their base that supports pro-transgender policies, and the overwhelming number of voters in Georgia who do not.” According to Kersey, the reality is that “they are afraid to go on the record for SB 185, but they are scared to oppose their base. In other words, they can’t have it both ways – it’s a lose-lose.”

Kersey’s description of Democrats in Georgia fits Democrats in Congress. They pursue antics -- such as singing at press conferences – and lies rather than actually voting against commonsense bills. Democrats actually oppose the efforts of the DOGE team in rooting waste and fraud out of the federal government.

Democrats brought more than 170 legal cases just to slow the progress of the Trump administration rather than helping. They do not accept the principle that “elections have consequences” as stated by their fearless leader Barack Obama. They obviously do not care that America is near bankruptcy and would have gone further down that road if Trump had not been elected. I hope that Democrats never gain power again because the majority of their policies are anti-America.

Should Churches Pay More for Water in Texas?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns religious freedom. A local government in Texas violated the Constitution when it charged taxes that were disguised as fees, according to claims in a new lawsuit. According to Lucy Gilbert, Grace Community Church in The Woodlands, Texas, is suing the local government with a claim of “illegal excessive” fees charged to install a water tap. 

The Church claims that the fees violate both the U.S. Constitution and the State of Texas’s religious freedom law. The lawsuit was filed against Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District on Wednesday by First Liberty Institute and King & Spalding LLP. First Liberty is a legal organization whose focus is on religious liberty, and King & Spalding is an international law firm.

The county’s water tap fee scheme is a thinly veiled illegal property tax on Grace Community Church,” Jeremy Dys, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement Thursday. “Local governments like Montgomery County, in search of new revenue, are illegally targeting churches and other non-profits with similar schemes.”

The district initially told the church that labor and materials would cost $24,900 to connect to the water line. Lter, the church asked the district to install the water tap, which the district said would cost $61,500, which is much higher than the actual cost. The church challenged the cost because of its tax-exempt status, at which point the district countered with a tap fee of $147, 938, more than doubling the prior fee. Eventually, the church had no choice but to pay the fees.

“No government agency should impose a ‘fee-in-lieu-of-taxes’ against faith-based entities,” Dys told The Daily Signal. “What we see now is merely an effort to generate revenue by those the State of Texas have protected against taxation because of the tremendous good they do in the community.”

Dys said the church had not heard of any other complaints about the district placing illegal fees on any other entities.

Is Religious Liberty Training Good for Woke Attorneys?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns freedom of religion. In 2017, Charlene Carter, pro-life flight attendant for Southwest Airlines, was fired because she disagreed with the purposes for which her union dues were being spent. She went on social media to voice her concern about her dues being used to send the president of the union to the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. She did not want her dues to be used to support pro-abortion causes. 

According to an article by Nicole Russell in The Daily Signal, Carter hired an attorney and filed a claim for discrimination against her “due to her pro-life beliefs rooted in her religious beliefs.” The jury awarded $5.2 million to Carter, but U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr reduced the amount to “$800,000, to align with federal limits on punitive damages.” Starr also ordered Southwest to rehire Carter.

Judge Starr also order the three lawyers representing Southwest Airlines to take eight hours of “religious-liberty training from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative nonprofit law firm that specializes in First Amendment law” before August 28.  ADF is the nonprofit law firm that has represented several other people fighting religious liberty cases. It is “best known for its wins at the Supreme Court in both Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 303 Creative v. Elenis.”

“[T]he Court concludes that training on religious freedom for three lawyers at Southwest the Court finds responsible (Kerrie Forbes, Kevin Minchey, and Chris Maberry) is the least restrictive means of achieving compliance with the Court’s order,” Starr wrote in his ruling. “The Alliance Defending Freedom (‘ADF’) has conducted such training in the past, and the Court deems that appropriate here.”

Southwest announced Tuesday that it would appeal Starr’s ruling, but it seems logical and sensible, and it’s not overwrought. But some in the left-of-center media reacted to the sanctions with outrage and disdain over both this particular kind of “diversity training” and the group the judge prescribed for providing it; namely, the ADF.

Russell wrote that “Southwest was found to be in serious violation of Carter’s religious liberties.” She indicated that the judge’s decision was an appropriate consequence because the training would help the Southwest attorneys to better “understand what the concept of religious liberty entails within the First Amendment.”

Russell also showed her approval for the training to take place at Alliance Defending Freedom because ADF “has won 15 cases at the Supreme Court on issues just like this.” ADF is a “highly specialized law firm of attorneys and staff who understand and respect the authority of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to free speech or free exercise of religion cases. 

What Was Graham Thinking?

            Abortion has been in the news for the past year or so after the Supreme Court said that they would hear oral arguments on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. However, the news was quiet until the Supreme Court leak about the probable decision in the case. Protesters marched at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house and at the home, church, and school of Amy Coney Barrett and her family. A man even traveled across state lines to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh but gave himself up to law officers before doing the deed.

            Although the mainstream media fails to mention all the attacks on pregnancy centers and churches, they have jumped on the news that would further their agenda. There was recent news that a decision on the leaker would be forthcoming, but the news erupted again when Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C) came out with his brainy idea.

            Graham made the stupid decision to introduce a bill in the U.S. Senate “that would prohibit elective abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with few exceptions.” Somehow, Graham did not get the message that the Supreme Court sent the abortion decision back to the STATES. His bill added fuel to the anger of Democrats about Roe v. Wade being overturned.

            In addition to feeding the Democrat anger, Graham’s bill divided Republicans and complicated Republican efforts to take control of the House and the Senate. What a dumb thing to do? Was he trying to sabotage his own party? NBC News reported, “From the halls of Congress to the campaign trail, Republicans attacked the bill as a distraction that divides the GOP and reminds voters that most of them see the party as too extreme on abortion.”

            Graham’s bill also refocused Kelsey Dallas’s “attention on the faith-related fallout from the Supreme Court’s ruling. In her article at the Deseret News, Dallas highlighted “three recent developments at the intersection of religious freedom and abortion rights.” 

            Dallas’s first highlight is that “Faith groups are divided over Graham’s bill” just as they were split over the Supreme Court’s ruling in June. Some groups that are more liberal are now claiming religious freedom demands. “Religious freedom demands the right to an abortion so people can make their own reproductive decisions according to their own beliefs and principles.” Conservative groups are, of course, applauding Graham’s bill just as they did the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

            The second highlight is a “new lawsuit [that] challenges abortion restrictions in Indiana.” A group of religious leaders filed a lawsuit in Indiana against a new abortion ban in the state the “interferes with religious practice.” The lawsuit “contends that the new abortion ban would violate Jewish teaching…. It also cites theological teachings allowing abortion in at least some circumstances by Islamic, Episcopal, Unitarian Universalist and Pagan faiths.”

            The third highlight is a question, “Will religious freedom claims succeed?” No one knows the answer to the question, but “some religious freedom scholars are skeptical” of their success.

            The bottom line is that Graham’s ridiculous law could cause Republicans to lose a few seats in Congress. Will the loss of those seats cause the Republicans to fail to take control of the House and Senate? Democrat control of both Houses of Congress and the White House has been a disaster for America. If you want to save America from communism, VOTE RED!!!

What Does Religious Liberty Have to Do with Marriage?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns marriage and religious freedom. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees religious freedom: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

The principle is stated plainly for all to read, yet many people do not want to believe it says what it says. Other people claim that the First Amendment applies only to the federal government. Such people do not understand that the Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment protection of religion applicable to the states in 1940. Freedom of religion is well established. Americans are free to practice their religion in public places and to share their beliefs outside their homes.

The same cannot be said about marriage because marriage is not even mentioned in the Constitution or any of the Amendments to it. This brings us to an article posted by Roger Severino stating that senators should not play games with religious freedom and marriage. He claims that they are using “fig [leaves], smoke and mirrors, lip service, and bait and switch.”

It’s hard to pick exactly the right way to describe the attempts by Sens. Mitt Romney, R-Utah; Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., to whitewash (there’s another!) the attacks on people of faith presented by the same-sex marriage bill being considered by the Senate.

As I and others (particularly Ryan T. Anderson) have argued for years, marriage is the exclusive, lifelong, conjugal union between one man and one woman and any departure from that design hurts the indispensable goal of having every child raised in a stable home by the mom and dad who conceived them.

The misnamed Respect for Marriage Act, however, would erase the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that preserved man-woman marriage at the state and federal levels before it was rendered totally inoperative by the Supreme Court’s Obergefell and Windsor decisions.

Congress should not double down on the Supreme Court’s mistake, especially when the only practical effect of the bill would be to put a giant target on the backs of people and institutions of faith….

Worse still, the Respect for Marriage Act would create a roving license for private parties to sue anyone who arguably is acting “under color of law” when providing government-funded or -regulated family services such as adoption and foster care.

Indeed, we’ve seen government actors hound faith-based adoption agencies out of major cities across America because of their views on marriage. That is, until the Supreme Court in the Fulton case called that out for what it is: unconstitutional discrimination.

But the House, which passed a version of the Respect for Marriage Act with no debate July 19, didn’t get that message, and did nothing to address the undeniable concerns for religious liberty.

Some senators, however – namely Baldwin, Collins, and Romney – want to prop up this bad bill by offering an amendment that purports to address some of these concerns.

            Severino warned Americans to not be fooled. He explained that cunning attorneys use excess words to misdirect attention. “Here, the amendment sponsors recite ‘factual findings,” “rules of construction,” “religious liberty,” and “respect” all over the place, but in ways that are meaningless because they either aren’t given any effect or are limited to irrelevance by other provisions. He then proceeded to “address each obfuscation in the order” presented.

First: Baldwin, Collins, and Romney would amend the bill’s findings of fact to say that “Congress affirms” that people with decent and honorable beliefs about marriage are “due proper respect.” Note it never says that those beliefs include those once held by Democrat leaders … namely, that marriage only can be the union of one man and one woman….

Second, the three senators’ amendment would add a rule of construction saying that no existing protection of religious freedom would be taken away….

Third, the amendment would allow faith-based institutions and nonprofits to decline to participate in a “solemnization or celebration” of a same-sex marriage….

Fourth, the three senators’ amendment would add a rule of construction saying the bill by itself would not deny tax-exempt status, licensing, grants, and contracts “not arising from a marriage.”

Although this amendment finally acknowledges that the issues with tax-exempt status, licensing, grants, and contracts we have been talking about are real, the “rule of construction” does nothing to address them.

            Severino accuses the drafters of the amendments of conjuring up “the illusion of religious freedom while undercutting it at every turn.” He continued, “Baldwin, Collins, and Romney are likely keenly aware that the First Amendment Defense Act proposed by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, would meaningfully address many of the religious liberty defects, suggesting that they are features, not bugs.”

            Now the drafters claim that they need more time to work on the amendments. Maybe they are working to “sneak something in during a lame-duck session after the Nov. 8 elections.” Severino said, “If senators are serious about religious freedom, they should reject the Baldwin-Collins-Romney amendment out of hand and look to Lee’s proposed amendment instead.”

            However, according to Severino, Lee’s bill would be less bad than the Baldwin, Collins, and Romney bill, but it would not be a good bill. “One hopes Congress will drop the whole thing and just get back to legislating for the public good….”

What Do Court Decisions Mean for Future of Religious Freedom?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns religious liberty. In the 2021-22 term, the U.S. Supreme Court made four decisions in support of freedom of religion. William J. Haun is a senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and recently published a commentary of the decisions. 

            In Haun’s view, the Supreme Court neglected “America’s best traditions of religious liberty” for more than 50 years and ruled “in favor of legally baseless standards” that have “stoked the cultural misunderstandings of religious freedom that we see today.”

            Haun reminded his readers of the importance of religious liberty to the American founders. Freedom of religion was so important to them that they put it first in the First Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” Haun made the following explanation:

The American founders set religious liberty aside for constitutional protection by including two “religion” clauses in the Constitution’s First Amendment: the establishment clause, prohibiting a government-supported established religion, and the free exercise clause, protection everyone’s right to exercise their religion.

[Emphasis added.]

            According to Haun, the Supreme Court used “very abstract theories” to interpret the clauses beginning in the 20^th century. Under these interpretations, “Judges were empowered to achieve a kind of ‘neutrality’ between government and religion, and avoid the appearance of government ‘endorsing’ religion.” Haun continued, “These up-in-the-clouds ideas confused the law because they had no roots in the reasons stated by the founders, nor did they have any roots in the practices of ordinary Americans that reflect our traditional commitments to flourishing religious exercise. However, the constitutionalists on the current Supreme Court are finding a different interpretation of the First Amendment according to Haun.

Those practices, and America’s founding regard for religious liberty, are now animating the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. Through four religious liberty cases, in a re-rooting of core American freedoms, the court this term ended longstanding distortions of First Amendment. It did so by relying on traditional understandings of the First Amendment’s religion clauses which were crafted to account for America’s long history of religious accommodation, the reality of pluralism and the unique role religion plays in securing self-government.

            Haun used “two key cases” to show why the justices needed to make this course correction. The cases are Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Employment Division v. Smith (1990). The first case “twisted the establishment clause into a tool to squelch all religion expression from public spaces in the name of ‘neutrality.’” The second case “twisted the free exercise clause to preserve this no-religion ‘neutrality’ by allowing ‘neutral’ political decisions to burden unpopular religious exercise.”

Decisions like these fly in the face of our country’s history and traditions – a legacy that sees unique virtue in religious liberty. To take one powerful example (of many): In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” the Rev. Martin Luther King wrote that religion is necessary in explaining why the rights of Americans rest on a higher power than the state, and therefore the state has no power to take them away.

The Rev. King rightly believed that when the faithful are at their best, their religious exercise serves as a “thermostat” that helps society uphold its highest virtues – not just a “thermometer” that reflects fashionable views. American self-government requires self-governing people, and as George Washington said, religious exercise is indispensable to that end.

The court’s decisions this term continue to re-anchor religious liberty in this traditional understanding. Lemon is formally abandoned. And while Smith has not yet been abandoned, the decision can no longer justify the government’s invocation of abstract “neutrality” to refuse accommodating longstanding religious practices. This is a new path, but one based on old ideas – ideas that, as Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, said in 2019, guarantee religious exercise out of “respect and tolerance for differing views, an honest endeavor to achieve inclusivity and nondiscrimination, and a recognition of the important role that religion plays in the lives of many Americans.”

            A third case, Ramirez v. Collier, was part of the reset. This case concerned the “rights of the condemned,” and the decision “protected a death-row prisoner’s right to have his pastor lay hands and audibly pray over him before his execution.” All but one of the justices rejected the “neutrality-equals-no-religion approach.”

            Case number four protected the raising of religious flags, and case number five protected public prayer. The protection in the decisions on Shurtleff v. City of Boston and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District came “by invoking American national traditions.”

In Shurtleff, Boston sought to exclude a flag with the Latin cross from flying in front of City Hall. And in Kennedy, a school district sought to end the employment of a high school football coach for praying on the 50-yard line. As the court explained, these exclusions stem from what Kavanaugh called Lemon’s “mistaken view” that religious “neutrality” requires expelling religion from public. Instead, the court said the First Amendment should be understood by its “terms and the traditions undergirding them.” Those traditions prohibit government efforts to stifle religious expression simply because an onlooker might feel offended. “Respect for religious expressions,” the Kennedy decision said, “is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic.”

            The last case, Carson v. Makin, concerned nondiscrimination for religious schools. In this decision, “the court protected the right of religious schools to participate in tuition assistance programs” Because of the Lemon decision, the state of Maine “had excluded religious schools because they taught religion.” However, the court decided that this exclusion “lacked any justification from a ‘historic and substantial’ tradition.” The justices felt that “Maine had violated the centuries-old tradition of religious schools deciding, for themselves, how to religiously form their students and express their faith.”

            Haun has hopes that the court’s decisions this term will help to calm the cultural divides in America. “By interpreting religious liberty from the bottom-up, and looking to longstanding American traditions, the court’s interpretation of the First Amendment is a basis for common ground.” It is a reminder of “traditions toward religious liberty” and “the best ways in which they have handled disagreement.”

Is Religious Freedom Essential for the Choice of Faith?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns freedom of religion. Religious freedom was discussed recently in Rome, Italy, by leaders from numerous religions. Pope Paul VI welcomed guests to the 2022 Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit.

            G. Marcus Cole, dean of Notre Dame Law School and founder of the Notre Dame Religious Liberty initiative, addressed the theme of the summit – “Dignitatis Humanae.” According to Jeffrey D. Allred, Cole said that “Religious freedom is a necessary precondition for anyone to choose a faith.” He quoted Cole as saying, “The world is also learning that it is an essential precondition for political freedom, economic prosperity and human flourishing.” 

During his remarks in Rome, Cole said founders of the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Initiative conceived of it as a comprehensive approach to preserve, protect, restore and defend religious freedom in the United States and around the world. “While we come from many different faith traditions, and some from none at all, we are all here today because we share the fundamental belief that freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are essential to human flourishing. Indeed, they are fundamental human rights.”

            The theme for the summit was taken from a statement made by Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965, at the end of Vatican Council II. Jeffrey D. Allred indicated that this declaration states the reason the Catholic Church supports freedom of religion. “The protection and defense of religious freedom is central to the Catholic faith today.”

            President Dallin H. Oaks, first counselor in the First Presidency, represented The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He gave the keynote address at the summit and called for “a global effort to defend and advance the religious freedom of all the children of God in every nation of the world.” 

Are You Willing to Fight for Free Speech and Religious Beliefs?

             The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns violations of religious beliefs and the right to free speech. Colorado makes a practice of trying to force people to use their talents to supply services for same-sex weddings. A few years ago, a cake maker in Colorado had to go to the Supreme Court to get the state off his back. Now, another artist in Colorado is fighting against the same oppression.

            The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the case of Lorie Smith, a Colorado graphic designer. She claims that Colorado is forcing her to supply services for same-sex weddings. The arguments in her case will be heard next fall. 

Smith is being defended by Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit legal organization that focuses on protecting religious freedom and free speech. The organization held a press conference on Wednesday outside the U.S. Capitol to highlight Smith’s lawsuit against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Smith spoke at the event and said, “All of us should be free to say what we believe, even if the government disagrees with those beliefs.”

Joining Smith at the press conference were several lawmakers, including Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) as well as Representatives Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), and Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.).

In addition, 18 senators and 38 House Republicans filed an amicus brief on June 2 in support of Smith. Cruz spoke at the press conference about the universal importance of Smith’s case at the Supreme Court because it would set an important precedent for free speech.

Colorado wants to compel the speech of Christian artists and business owners who decline to use their God-given talents to celebrate events that run contrary to what their faith teaches. Colorado law restricts the fundamental First Amendment rights of Lorie and other business owners like her. And it doesn’t just target Christians only.

Consider it this way: Should a Muslim artist be compelled by the government to draw the image of Muhammad? Should Jewish artists be forced to create art that they consider to be antisemitic? Should a Democrat political firm be forced to take on Republican clients?

            Kristen Waggoner, ADF general counsel, also spoke at the press conference. “Free speech is an inalienable human right, and it is the foundation for self-government. The government doesn’t grant us this right, but fortunately, our Constitution protects it and we are stewards of that freedom.”

What Is the Relationship Between Religion and Government?

            My Come, Follow Me studies for this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 133-134. These sections contain several principles that are good to study at this time. Two of those principles are preparing for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and information about governments. This post will consider the principle “Governments were instituted of God for the benefits of man” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:1). First, I will give some background.

            The revelation that is recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 133 was received through the Prophet Joseph Smith at Hiram, Ohio, on November 3, 1831, following a two-day conference. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was barely nineteen months old, and the conference focused on the publication of the Book of Commandments. This book was never published due to the destruction of the printing press and many of the papers during a mob attack in Jackson County, Missouri.

            The revelation came to answer questions “the Elders desired to know relative to preaching the Gospel to the inhabitants of the earth, and concerning the gathering [of Israel]” (Doctrine and Covenants 133, section heading). In the revelation, the Lord commanded members of the Church of Jesus Christ to “go ye out of Babylon” and to “go ye forth unto the land of Zion” (Doctrine and Covenants 133:7, 9) to prepare for His Second Coming. The revelation also included events that would take place at the time of His Second Coming and during His millennial reign. The Lord also taught that His restored gospel would prepare the earth for His Second Coming. This section is known as the “appendix” to the Doctrine and Covenants.

            Doctrine and Covenants 134 is not a revelation but a document prepared by humans. Church members met in a special meeting on August 17, 1835, in Kirtland, Ohio, with the purpose of approving the upcoming publication of the Doctrine and Covenants. Oliver Cowdery was presiding at the meeting in the absence of the Prophet Joseph Smith who was visiting Church members in Michigan Territory. During the meeting, Church members voted to include in the Doctrine and Covenants “a declaration of belief regarding governments and laws” (Doctrine and Covenants 134, section heading).

            First, I will give some background to the situation. After the Saints were illegally driven from their homes in Jackson County, Missouri, in late 1833, Church leaders asked state and federal government officials for help in protecting the Saints’ civil rights and reclaiming their lost property. Church leaders made repeated appeals for help, but all of them failed.

            In July 1833 very few printed copies of the Book of Commandments survived the mob violence in Independence, Missouri. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ still wanted copies of the revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith, so a meeting was convened as explained above to approve the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants prior to its publication.

            During the meeting, Oliver Cowdery read aloud an additional document titled “Of Governments and Laws in General.” Members in attendance unanimously approved the document’s inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it became Doctrine and Covenants 134 in the 1835 edition.

            This document was not a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, but it supports a statement made by the Prophet when he wrote thirteen statements known as the Articles of Faith. The twelfth article states: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

Oliver Cowdery may have prepared the document with help from William W. Phelps. The paper clarifies the beliefs of Church members regarding their relationship to government and the law. (See The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 4: April 1834-September 1835, ed. Matthew C. Godfrey and others [2016], 479-82). Here is the document now recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 134.

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. [Emphasis added.]

            State and federal governments failed to protect the freedom and religion of the Saints, but members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are staunch supporters of the Constitution of the United States, believing that it was divinely inspired. According to Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, there are basic principles of religious freedom that we should all promote and support:

There are four cornerstones of religious freedom that we as Latter-day Saints must rely upon and protect.

The first is freedom to believe. No one should be criticized, persecuted, or attacked by individuals, or governments either, for what he or she believes about God. It is very personal and very important….

The second cornerstone of religious liberty is the freedom to share our faith and our beliefs with others…. As parents, full-time missionaries, and member missionaries, we rely on religious freedom in order to teach the Lord’s doctrine in our families and throughout the world.

The third cornerstone of religious liberty is the freedom to form a religious organization, a church, to worship peacefully with others…. International human rights documents and many national constitutions support this principle.

The fourth cornerstone of religious liberty is the freedom to live our faith – free exercise of faith not just in the home and chapel but also in public places (“Preserving Agency, Protecting Religious Freedom,” Ensign, May 2015, 112).

            Members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe that every mortal who has ever lived upon the earth or will ever live upon the earth fought for agency in the pre-mortal world. Latter-day Saints continue to fight for agency – freedom and liberty – in this world. “Governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man,” and they are responsible to protect the God-given rights of all humanity.