Religious Freedom or Toleration: Which one is American?

We talk much about religious freedom both in public debate and in common conversation in America. What does religious freedom mean in the United States? How did our founders understand it? For a Catholic wishing to enter into dialogue on the topic of religious freedom in the United States, these questions become highly important, as the Lockean “doctrine of toleration” written into our law by the founding fathers and others thereafter differs from the idea of religious freedom that grows out of a respect for the inherent dignity of the human person as a child of God. These differences cause much of the frustration that arises when the government – technically acting within the bounds of law in the spirit of toleration – encroaches on true religious freedom.

The idea of toleration is a great political idea, at least for the development of a smooth functioning secular state. The so-called “doctrine of toleration” one finds in Locke’s Second Treatise seems very reasonable: rather than muddy itself in the affairs of religion – as it did for many years before – the state will simply tolerate all forms of religion. I can worship in my way, you can worship in yours, and the state will stay out of it all (sort of). At this point, Locke and the Church seem pretty well aligned, at least until one asks, “Why should men be given religious freedom?”

For Locke, men should be given religious freedom because men are radically free in their natural state. There is no real end to the toleration found in Locke; it is largely determined by political practicality. You will not find objective standards against which to measure the worth of one religion or religious practice to another, because men are simply free to worship and congregate as they sit fit. Not much of an anthropology happening there. Locke offers a kind of religious freedom because it allows him to dismiss the more difficult question of how to incorporate the role of religion into the common welfare. The Church, however, has a different end in mind for human and religious freedom.

After trudging through the pages of Locke’s Treatise, one will find delight in the grand vision of humanity found in Dignitatis Humanae. In this document promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, there is a beautiful declaration on religious freedom beginning with the fundamental proposition that at the core of the human person an irremovable dignity arises from the joint gifts of reason and free will. The primary task of men is to respond in worship to the Creator and Grantor of such gifts, and “immunity from coercion in civil society” (i.e. religious freedom) is required for that response. Religious freedom or human freedom as such, is not an end in itself; rather, freedom from coercion creates the atmosphere necessary for the quest for truth, a quest that freedom, in turn, demands. 

The doctrine of toleration guiding lawmakers yesterday and today falls short of the full vision of man, the freedom given him and the right response to it. So often, the United States is associated with Christianity – for good reason, mind you – but that association does not mean that we are a Christian nation. We look back at our founders with awe and reverence – again, for good reason – but their guide was much more Locke than it was the Catholic Church. Our nation is a great product of Enlightenment thought, not of a rich theological tradition. Understanding these fundamental differences between the philosophical groundwork of our nation and the theology of the Christian tradition will help to limit the frustration often directed toward our government when good law comes in conflict with the interests of Christians. Maybe its not the way you would like, but our government is working just as intended.