Over a quarter of a century ago, in his dissent in 2000’s Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, wherein the Supreme Court invalidated student-led prayer prior to the start of high school football games in Texas, Chief Justice William Rehnquist feared that “the Court … bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.” Even if one puts aside legitimate concerns that the supporters of prayer in Santa Fe ignored the rights of members of other faiths, conflict continues over the extent to which Justice Rehnquist’s dissent rings true.
Opposition to religion emerged, for example, in two recent controversies. In the first, a mayor in South Carolina attempted to order the removal of a manger scene on public property. In the second, a religious separationist group complained about the plan of Governor Sara Huckabee Sanders of Arkansas to extend the Christmas break one day, to Friday, for public employees. This column thus reflects on the role, if any, of religion in American public life.
It seems that the United States, a nation founded at least in part on an imperfect notion of freedom of religion that was typically reserved for members of the dominant Christian traditions in the early American colonies, is in a state of flux. Aware of its role in American history, Vice President J.D. Vance in his December 20, 2025 speech at Turning Point USA’s AmFest declared that “we have been, and by the grace of God, we always will be, a Christian nation.” This likely added fuel to the controversy over religion in public life.
The guarantee of religious freedom enshrined in the First Amendment notwithstanding, according to which “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” proponents of the nation’s increasingly secular culture seem to oppose inclusion of Jewish and Christian values in wider societal and cultural discourse, even as a recent Pew Study suggests that religion is gaining influence in American life. This study also reports that most respondents perceive a conflict between their faith-based beliefs and mainstream culture. An earlier survey by Rasmussen Reports maintained that religion is under assault in the United States. Accordingly, a question remains as to whether the Jewish and Christian values at the basis of American culture are, in fact, being excluded from the national discourse, including public education that shapes so many American students.
Opponents of religion, particularly Christianity, in public life are often led by those identifying themselves and their causes as “progressive” rather than liberal. The attitudes of some of these militant progressive secularists are the antithesis of the liberal open-mindedness they espouse, as they reject views not conforming with their own, extending largely to issues involving race and sexual orientation and excluding people of faith, evidencing the hostility to which Rehnquist referred. Ironically, almost forty years after the initial publication of Allan Bloom’s seminal Closing of the American Mind, it seems that religion’s opponents risk creating a new closing.
Amid this apparent hostility toward religion, the Judiciary has been ground zero for the culture wars on various issues, including religion’s place in education and public life. Criticizing the Judiciary’s role in this process, albeit not in cases directly involving religion, Justice Antonin Scalia pithily commented that judges have “taken sides in the culture war, departing from [the Court’s] role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.” In another case, Scalia mused that the “Court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case, it is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”
Following Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Supreme Court discovered a heretofore undiscovered right to same sex-marriage in the Fourteenth Amendment, its proponents have sued people of faith who were unwilling to offer their services to same-sex couples because doing so would have violated their religious beliefs. These supporters of same-sex unions sought to impose their wills on individuals whose religious beliefs are different, failing to acknowledge that respect is a two-way street.
Most notably, though without directly addressing religious freedom, in a pair of cases from Colorado, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court pushed back, ruling that same-sex couples could not, respectively, compel a baker to prepare a custom-made cake or a wedding website designer to offer her services. The justices explained that compelling individuals to use their talents to communicate messages with which they disagree would violate their biblical beliefs in marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.
As reflected in these ongoing legal conflicts, many who proclaim diversity as a virtue brook little or no dissent from their views on a wide range of issues. If anything, these critics do all they can to exclude what are euphemistically referred to as traditional values, whether religious or secular, including biblical views of marriage and sexuality. Unfortunately, religion’s critics appear to have lost sight of the notion that because tolerance and respect must be mutual, one must give them to get them. Moreover, in challenging “traditional” values, these critics ultimately undermine their own bases for freedom of speech and religion by curtailing the free, open exchange of ideas.
Because religious beliefs represent the breadth of the human experience, it is essential to acknowledge the hostility to them, whether in the wider society or public schools, displayed by some of religion’s critics, even as they continue to call for other forms of cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity. What happens in schools, a professional and personal focus of mine, is significant, because it reflects developments in the larger society. Educators can advance respect for religious diversity by teaching students that although they are free to disagree with those not sharing their beliefs, they should do so without being disagreeable, meaning there is no need for rudeness or a lack of civility.
Moving forward, by recognizing how religion exemplifies human diversity, hopefully people of goodwill will repudiate hostility to the faiths of others. One way to mitigate antipathy toward religion is to teach children about different faiths in classes such as world culture and literature. In recognizing that any mention of religion in schools or the larger marketplace of ideas does not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, educators can help children grow into adults with better understandings of, and respect for, diverse perspectives, including on matters of faith, other than their own.
Religion and respect for diversity in its many manifestations are both clearly important in society. Although people may disagree on questions of faith, then, it is imperative to do so respectfully. Only by having mutual respect can individuals and groups learn to disagree without being personally disagreeable, accepting the importance of true diversity of perspective, including religion, for the greater good in the hope of creating inclusive communities open to a wide ideological spectrum.
