(ANALYSIS) As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of its independence, old questions have returned about who belongs and whose religious practices are truly protected in the country.<\/p>\n
At the start of the year, an arson attack significantly damaged the oldest synagogue in Mississippi. Two days later, local officials in Oklahoma rejected a proposal to build a mosque after opponents declared Islam \u201chostile to our Constitution.\u201d A Texas GOP congressman complained on social media that a Hindu festival was a \u201cthird world\u201d practice. These incidents come amid resurgent claims that the United States is a Christian nation.<\/p>\n
All this has happened even as President Donald Trump has emphasized a particular idea of religious liberty throughout his second term. In his proclamation for Religious Freedom Day in 2026, he emphasized familiar ideas of Americans\u2019 \u201cGod-given right to practice their faith, follow their conscience, and worship their God freely and without fear.\u201d But the statement also seemed to reflect a broader project of lending government support to Christianity. The proclamation linked support for religious liberty with projects to eliminate \u201canti-Christian bias.\u201d <\/p>\n
READ: What The Declaration Of Independence Says \u2014 And Doesn\u2019t Say \u2014 About God<\/a> <\/p>\n The tension between embracing religious liberty and the marginalization of other religions in favor of Christianity is not new. As a historian of U.S. religion, I recognize that ideals of religious freedom have long coexisted with religious discrimination or outright bigotry. Importantly, however, history also offers a lesson for the present by showing the important role U.S. Christians have played in combating such bigotry. <\/p>\n As the founders built a new nation, many emphasized the importance of religious liberty. Shortly after independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson began drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. When enacted a decade later, the law declared<\/a> that Virginians\u2019 \u201ccivil rights\u201d did not depend on their \u201creligious opinions.\u201d Civic participation was not limited to members of particular traditions, and there was no state-funded church. The law was a foundational step to prevent government from discriminating against citizens on the basis of their beliefs.<\/p>\n The Virginia statute provided a template for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791. The amendment prohibits<\/a> Congress from enacting laws that favor particular religions or interfering with free religious practice. It represents a key safeguard for personal belief against the power of the federal government.<\/p>\n Legal safeguards did not mean that all religious groups were treated equally, however. In reality, many Americans imagined the new nation to be a Protestant country.<\/p>\n Official and unofficial religious discrimination<\/p>\n Despite protections at the federal level and in some states, including Virginia, state and local governments were not bound<\/a> by First Amendment protections until the 1920s. Religious discrimination in civic life was commonplace for the nation\u2019s first 100 years.<\/p>\n North Carolina prohibited Catholics from holding public office until the 1830s<\/a> and Jews from doing so until the 1860s. New Hampshire\u2019s Constitution banned<\/a> all non-Protestants from holding public office until 1877.<\/p>\n Smaller instances of religious bigotry abounded as well. In some public schools, including in large cities such as Philadelphia, students of all religions were required<\/a> to read the Bible and sing Protestant hymns. Jewish Americans were often forced to work on their Sabbath and found themselves barred<\/a> from some hotels and resorts, especially in the second half of the 1800s.<\/p>\n At times, hostility to religious minorities even fueled outright violence. The Philadelphia Bible Riots<\/a> of 1844 began when the city\u2019s growing Catholic population challenged the use of a Protestant Bible translation in public schools. Anti-Catholic nativists responded with force, and the ensuing conflict left over a dozen people dead.<\/p>\n Toward a \u2018Judeo-Christian\u2019 America<\/p>\n Things slowly began to change soon after the nation\u2019s centennial in 1876. As I explore in my work<\/a>, rising indifference toward religion among many Americans, as well as outright atheism, pushed many Protestant leaders to reevaluate how they treated their Catholic and Jewish neighbors.<\/p>\n Echoing a distrust of atheists that runs deep<\/a> in U.S. history, these Protestants believed that any religion \u2013 even a non-Protestant one \u2013 was better for society than no religion at all. This conclusion prompted many Protestants to more fully affirm Catholicism and Judaism. By the early 1900s, it had become common for Protestant ministers to challenge religious bigotry, as one Minnesota clergyman did when he publicly lamented<\/a> the \u201cfalse notions and wretched prejudices\u201d held against Jews.<\/p>\n This attitude gained support among the nation\u2019s leaders. President Theodore Roosevelt took a major step by publicly praising<\/a> Catholics and Jews. He insisted that their religious affiliations did not keep them from being \u201cfull Americans<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n After appointing the first Jewish Cabinet member in U.S. history, Roosevelt boasted<\/a> \u201cin my cabinet at present, there sit side by side Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Jew.\u201d<\/p>\n There was soon a backlash to the growing acceptance of religious diversity. The 1920s witnessed the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan. Its anti-immigrant campaigns targeted<\/a> Catholics and Jews with particular force.<\/p>\n Still, the idea that Jewish and Catholic Americans were equal stakeholders in American society took root. By the 1950s, politicians, academics and religious leaders described the United States not as a Protestant country but a \u201cJudeo-Christian<\/a>\u201d one.<\/p>\n Expanding multiculturalism<\/p>\n The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965<\/a> opened a new chapter for religious pluralism in the United States. The law ended restrictions on immigration from non-European countries. Consequently, the number of practitioners of Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam increased significantly.<\/p>\n Christian groups lobbied strongly for these changes. The National Council of Churches, which represented the country\u2019s major Protestant denominations, lent its significant clout to support<\/a> the legislation. U.S. Catholic organizations likewise endorsed the 1965 law. For many Catholics, earlier experiences of discrimination and prejudice guided<\/a> their desire for a more welcoming, inclusive immigration policy.<\/p>\n After 1965, religious diversity became far more visible to ordinary Americans. Earlier generations of immigrants \u2014 including Catholics and Jews in the 1800s \u2014 typically settled in ethnic enclaves. By contrast, immigrants now settled in diverse suburban communities<\/a>. Newly arrived Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims often lived next door to Protestant, Catholic and Jewish families.<\/p>\n As in earlier periods, these developments were not entirely harmonious. The 1980s and \u201990s witnessed violent attacks against both the institutions and individual practitioners of minority religions. Islamic centers and Buddhist temples were targeted<\/a> in places ranging from Massachusetts to Minnesota, to Tennessee. The large population of Hindu Americans in northern New Jersey endured a wave of violence<\/a> against individuals. Despite these instances, scholar of religion Diana L. Eck<\/a> chronicled in her 2001 book \u201cA New Religious America<\/a>\u201d how fully the religious nature of the U.S. had been transformed as the nation became characterized by multiculturalism.<\/p>\n While religious minorities have often faced exclusion and hostility, many Americans have long believed that guarantees of religious liberty promise a more inclusive society. In its 250th year, that promise is being tested once again.<\/p>\n