Religious Equality in America and White Christian Privilege

Khyati Joshi in her new book, “White Christian Privilege: The Illusion of Religious Equality in America,” documents how in diverse ways whiteness and Christianity is favored in the US. She argues that Americans believe that there is religious equality in the US because of the First Amendment. They think that the constitution and courts have been successful in making the US a land of religious freedom. Dr. Joshi contends that this belief is not true and links whiteness privileges to Christian privileges. In an article in Religious News Service by Simran Jeet Singh, Dr. Joshi explains using three key concepts: Christian privilege, Christian normativity, and Christian hegemony. Christian privilege is associated with the everyday advantages that Christians have in the United States. Christian normativity "refers to how Christian ideas, beliefs, and practices have become so entrenched in American society that they have become the national standard." Christian hegemony is linked with the state or government. It demonstrates the myriad ways in which the American state endorses Christianity. 

In Khyati Joshi’s new book, “White Christian Privilege,” Joshi brings religion into the conversation about privilege, arguing that our perception of whiteness suffers from an “optical illusion”: that religion is one place where there is equality in America.

Because it is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, we presume that religious equality is manifest in our society as well. Yet any analysis that neglects white Christianity’s role in creating and upholding whiteness, Joshi argues, fails to capture the full picture. 

Source: Religious News Service

Joshi upends our usual approach to these questions by focusing not on marginalized communities’ experiences, but the other side of the equation: how the dominant group has created, sustained and framed its distinct advantages. In helping us to see “the rules of society that have been constructed to benefit Christians,” Joshi connects the dots of just how this privilege functions.

The relationship between whiteness and Christianity becomes clearer as Joshi follows multiple threads through American history that inextricably intertwined one’s faith and the color of one’s skin. In the 1790s, the U.S. Congress passed a naturalization act that declared one must be a free white man of good moral character to become a citizen. Explicit about race and gender (white, man) but implicit about religion (good moral character), the legislation deftly linked whiteness and morality, itself an indicator of being a Christian in good standing.

Nearly a century later, when African Americans were granted citizenship through the 14th Amendment (1868) and the Naturalization Act of 1870, it seemed on its face a sign of racial progress. But non-Christian communities — East Asians, South Asians and Native Americans — were still denied citizenship, ensuring that who counted as an American had as much to do with religion as it did with race.

Joshi organizes the rules of Christian society using three key concepts. The first is Christian privilege, which pertains to everyday advantages that folks who identify as Christian or grew up as Christian have in the United States. She gives an example from her childhood in the American South in which a Hindu American named Suha is barred from starting on his high school soccer team because he refused to recite the Lord’s Prayer with his coach and teammates prior to their matches.

Suha’s story transported me back to my high school soccer days in Texas. My team, too, would recite the Lord’s Prayer before each game. I would kneel alongside my teammates and bow my head out of respect – it never occurred to me until much later that I could have requested we say a Sikh prayer as well. Christian prayer was the default, and that this seemed normal to all of us.

Joshi’s second concept, Christian normativity, is related: It refers to how Christian ideas, beliefs and practices have become so entrenched in American society that they have become the national standard. Christian — and particularly Protestant — ways of doing things come to be so normal that non-Christian approaches are perceived as deviant, even threatening. It doesn’t take much of a leap from there to understand why maintaining Christian normativity is at odds with achieving religious pluralism and religious equality.

The third bucket is Christian hegemony. Here the state is the power that endorses Christianity, inserting the words “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance and the inscription of “In God We Trust” on our currency. These and other examples, Joshi argues convincingly, point to how deeply Christianity has been established as our official religion.

The first half of the book, which recounts how these constructs have worked their way through American history, is fascinating and illuminating: fascinating because it helps us see the subtle and overt ways in which religion has partnered with race to produce American racism; powerful because Joshi sheds light on an aspect of white supremacy that is so often left under the hood.

In the latter chapters, rather than historicizing and teaching, she shifts slowly into practical matters, which comes as little surprise to those who know her social justice training. It’s also refreshing in an academic text, a genre that more often than not wallows in problematizing and stops short of solutions.

An entire chapter, “Making Meaning and Making Change,” offers helpful advice on how to move forward, as well as a vision for what it would take to establish religious equality and religious pluralism in America.

Two ideas of hers stuck out to me in particular, both of which I am yearning to see realized. One is changing our assumptions. Once we can see clearly past the optical illusion of Christian privilege, we will become conscious of how damaging our assumptions of Christian normativity can be for religious minorities. Seeing its harmful impact can and should move us to challenge and change our assumptions of what is normal and acceptable.

Second is Joshi’s suggestion of changing our paradigms. Living within a structure built on white supremacist and Christo-centric norms makes it difficult for those who are not white and not Christian to establish equal footing. Bending the structure, opening the door for other faiths to exercise privilege of their own, won’t work, as we will ultimately end up with the same results. A meaningful interrogation calls on us to replace it with a new paradigm, one that does not privilege any groups over any others.

These interventions are as powerful as they are compelling: It is clear that without these steps, we have no path to realizing religious equality and pluralism.

America was not founded as a “Christian nation.” Fight for religious freedom

Paul Rosenburg in Salon (see the article Celebrate religious freedom — the way the Founding Fathers originally intended) explains how the religious right has hijacked the idea of religious freedom to impose Christian doctrine on the unsuspecting Americans. 

Before fake news there was fake history, and one of the most significant examples has long been the religious right’s idea that America was founded as a “Christian nation.” It’s a popular misconception sometimes used to promote a profoundly anti-democratic agenda, the "Handmaid’s Tale"-style belief that Christians have a biblical mandate to control all earthly institutions – including government – until the second coming of Jesus. 

We arrive once again at Religious Freedom Day on Jan. 16, when the Christian right will claim that its “freedom” to oppress others is under horrendous assault. For the third year in a row, they’ll be countered by a growing movement of modern-day Jeffersonians seeking to reclaim the real meaning of that day, and the real history that it celebrates — the hard-won freedom of all to practice whatever form of religious belief, or non-belief, their consciences guide them to. 

“When Christian Right leaders talk about religious liberty, they often really mean theocratic supremacism of their own religious beliefs inscribed in government,” author Frederick Clarkson pointed out in 2016, when I first wrote about Religious Freedom Day. Nothing has changed in their core agenda, but the awareness and willingness to confront it has grown, along with the understanding of how they operate.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution was remarkable precisely because it didn’t claim to derive authority from God in the typical top-down manner, but instead, bottom-up, from the people, following the arguments used by John Locke to justify government, as well as his views on religious tolerance and the distinctions between secular and religious spheres of power. God is never mentioned in the Constitution, nor is any form of religion except in the negative: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Source: Celebrate religious freedom — the way the Founding Fathers originally intended

In the same Salon article, Paul interviewed Frederick Clarkson (who writes about the Dominionist Family Research Council’s approach to organizing within churches in a forthcoming article at The Public Eye, “A Manual to Restore a Christian Nation that Never Was”) on how to expose the lies of Dominionists and Christian nationalists and how to preserve religious freedom in the US and protect Jefferson's legacy. Some of the questions and answers are reproduced below:

In discussing the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation, you write, "This feature of the movement — one that stokes much of its followers’ passion — may also contain the seeds of its undoing." What do you mean?  

The problem for Christian nationalists is that it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. For example, when it came time to forge a coherent national government out of the 13 colonies, the mostly Christian religious and political leaders of the time opted for religious equality under the law, recognizing that if the government could favor a sect or religion, it could control how people think. This is one among many flaws that have always been present in the Christian nationalist narrative, but since most of society didn’t see it, or did not take it seriously, the movement has advanced without being much challenged on the point. 

The religious supremacism inherent in Christian nationalism is repulsive to most people, regardless of their political and religious views. I think if we got serious about taking Jefferson and Madison’s foundational ideas of religious equality under the law into the 21st century, Christian nationalism would crumble. 

The Declaration of Independence is used to smuggle God into the Constitution, but it was written by Thomas Jefferson, who by Cureton's standards was lacking in the very "Christian worldview" that he claims as our nation's lost foundation. How do people like him deal with this contradiction? 

They mostly avoid addressing it. They sometimes point out that Jefferson invoked God at various time and attended church while president. That he said religious things and attended religious services is not, of course, proof against his very public stances in favor of separation of church and state as the best way to guarantee religious freedom for all. That is a problem they cannot actually solve. History is not on their side. 

What can we learn by comparing the actual history of religion in America to the Christian nationalist fantasy?  

When we learn that Christian nationalism is a lie, we get a much clearer sense of hope and possibility in seeing that we are all in this together. We also learn something about what we are up against and therefore have the opportunity to better figure out what needs to be done. I think we also learn that we have been complacent, taking hard-won freedom for granted. But we can also learn of the weakness of their argument, and begin to formulate strong, fact-based arguments against it. 

We can also learn that religious freedom is a powerful, inspiring and authentically revolutionary idea. It is as dangerous to the rich and the powerful today as it was in the 18th century. Religious freedom made possible the best advances in human and civil rights in our history. But we can also see how forces of oppression see that too, and are doing everything they can to neutralize it. 

How does this historical comparison relate to the one you focus on, regarding the history of religious freedom in Virginia and the Bill of Rights? 

I think looking at the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and its role in shaping our constitutional approach to religion and government, exposes the lie of Christian nationalism in a way that allows us to clear away the fog of the long, slow religious war they are waging in America. We also get to see their techniques of strategic misdirection. It’s like learning how a magician performs an illusion: They show us a map of history that points to the Declaration of Independence as the source of the Constitution’s approach to religious freedom. But once we know the story of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and the truth about the origins of our Constitution’s approach to religious freedom, the misdirection is revealed. It is helpful to know our actual history and its meaning, and it is humbling to know how we have allowed the Christian right to use this false narrative to its advantage. 

What is the best way to understand the threat to America that Dominionism represents? How can we best respond to that threat? 

First, we need to take the time to understand that the challenge that we face may not be what we think. Dominionism is not as exotic or as rare as it is sometimes portrayed. It is a comprehensive theology relating to conservative Christians taking control over all areas of life, not just church and state. Its influence is getting wider and deeper, partly because there are many dedicated thinkers and capable doers in this movement. Some are political and governmental leaders. 

Now one might say, what’s wrong with that? Don’t they have a right to bring their Christian values into the public square? To which we say, of course. But by the same standard, we are not required to turn a blind eye to their words, their actions, and their unambiguous intentions. This is what theocratic theorist Gary North called “the dilemma of democratic pluralism.” North asserts that we are obliged to tolerate views that are in fact antithetical to democratic pluralism. The Christian right knows this, and is smart about exploiting our dilemma. How do we oppose something our philosophy requires us to tolerate? 

Let’s not kid ourselves about the profoundly antidemocratic nature of the Dominionist mission. Religious freedom and democracy are not settled matters. We are living the dilemma of democratic pluralism.

How do we address that dilemma? 

There are a lot of things we can do, but here are three things for a start. One is that we need to become much better informed about Dominionism and the way it manipulates the idea of religious freedom to advance an agenda that is anything but free. 

Second, we need to be much better citizen activists, especially in electoral politics. The system we have is competitive. Let’s not cede the playing field to the Christian right, which has invested so much in ideological development and the building of electoral capacity for several generations. It has worked well for them, but they are a well-organized minority: They cannot prevail if the rest of us mobilize in our own best interests. 

Finally, when we hear politicians and religious or interest-group leaders go on about how religious freedom is a “cherished” or “treasured” value, let’s ask them to get real. Religious freedom is not a lovely antique, a family heirloom or a relic of a bygone era. It is a dynamic, progressive value that underlies every other constitutional freedom we have -- and it is under siege. We need to require our leaders to lead in this regard and stop patronizing us.

American Secularism: A historical view of separation of the Church and the State in the US

Introduction

Religions are part of every society’s makeup and even in the most atheistic of societies, one can find more than one religion. The conflict between state and religion, therefore, is always present and states have to come up with a religious policy to deal with this conflict in a consistent way. Given the power religion has over its adherents, it may not be a surprise that most countries regulate religion. Some countries have state religions, while others are hostile toward all religions and can be termed as anti-religious. The US has long been considered an outlier in the developed world in terms of religious attendance. However, not many people know that the US is also an outlier in terms of church-state relationship (Mewes 2002).  

Fox (2008) did a survey of 175 states of the world and concluded that most of the states are not neutral toward religions and are involved in religion regulation. Almost one in four states had official religions and another two-fifths of the countries supported some religions more than others. Around 8% were hostile to all religions and only 3 (less than 2%) supported all religions equally. The US was one of the three states which supported all religions equally. Another measure, more strict than government involvement in religion, was SRAS (Separation of State and Religion). US was only country of the world which neither restricted/regulated the practicing of minority or majority religions, nor passed any religious legislation, proving that the church-state relationship in the US is unique in the world.

The traditional US principle of separation of church and state is based on the First Amendment of the US Constitution and prohibition of the requirements of religious tests for qualification of any office/ trust.

Wall of Separation between Chruch and State

Source: Illinois Family Institute (https://illinoisfamily.org/religious/obama-bulldozes-jeffersons-wall-of-separation/)

There are two religious clauses of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause states, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’. The Free Exercise Clause states, ‘or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’. 

The article 6 of the US Constitution dealt with the requirement of religious tests 

‘… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States’.

These two clauses and article 6 have been interpreted differently by judges in different eras. Judges have agreed on the minimum application of the Establishment Clause, which is that there would be no established or endorsed church. Beyond this, however, there is no agreement. Similarly, there is controversy about how Free Exercise Clause should be interpreted (Long 2012). 

The US in the Eighteenth Century

To fully understand these injunctions of the US Constitution, one has to study the circumstances in which the Framers of the constitution were operating in late eighteenth century. The following discussion will demonstrate that there was a conflict between an elite, which believed in religious freedom, and masses which did not. In the US Constitution, the elite managed to have their way and religious freedom was guaranteed, without any provisos. However, except for clear restrictions on religious tests in oaths, there was nothing specific about religious freedom in the Constitution which allowed the lower level governments to move towards church-state separation enshrined in the Constitution at their own pace. The necessity for immediate change was further downgraded by the actions of the Supreme Court which did not feel the need to enforce the Bill of Rights. 

Religious diversity

Many of the earliest Europeans who immigrated to the US were religious dissenters. Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers, Huguenots and many other came to the US after being persecuted in their own countries. Facing persecution in their own countries, unfortunately, didn’t make them accept the importance of religious liberty and many of these groups (e.g. Puritans) tried to persecute others for not following what they believed. 

These efforts, however, gradually lost their force as colonial America became more and more diverse. This diversity in religious practice was not only the result of immigration from different corners of Europe but also changes/divisions in many denominations/sects as grew in the US (Holmes 2006). Another important element in religious diversity of the colonial America was the dominance of different denominations in different colonies. Despite being part of British Empire, major sections of populations in many colonies didn’t follow the Anglican Church. 

Even for someone, who didn’t believe in religious liberty, it was obvious that choosing one religion/sect and making others accept it without fear and fight was impossible (Wright 2010).     

Founding Fathers, Sons of the Enlightenment

European Enlightenment philosophy had enormous influence on the making of the US Constitution. Many of the most important members of the Constitutional Convention and other important personalities of American Revolution were inspired by the Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, and Montesquieu etc. The ideas of limited government, natural rights, separation of powers and religious liberty were all ideas first popularized by the Enlightenment philosophers. Locke and Montesquieu's writings have been regarded as having the most influence on the US Constitution. Persecution because of one’s religious or other beliefs was an idea close to the Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, who himself suffered, and this idea influenced Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and others. 

There is an ongoing controversy on what the Framers truly wanted. Did they want high or low wall of separation? This question assumes that all the Framers thought alike which is implausible. Munoz (2009) has shown though none of the three main founders accepted the strict separation of church and state, Jefferson, Washington, and Madison had each a different view about the relationship between church and state. According to Munoz, ‘There is no single church-state position that can claim the exclusive authority of America’s founding history and that no one Founder’s position can be assumed to reflect the original meanings of the religion clauses’.

Ironically, Thomas Jefferson, who coined the term "wall of separation," allowed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionary work.

Religious intolerance

Though circumstances in the colonial America at the time of independence were better than the past and also better than many European countries, it was still a religiously intolerant society. Therefore, it would not be correct to think of religious liberty as a popular concept outside the elite that Founding Father belonged to. Anti-Catholicism was prevalent in newly independent America and there were a large number of laws which restricted the ability of Catholics, Jews, and atheists Americans to live as normal citizens (Davis 2010).    

State Rights

Finally, State Rights was another idea which favored religious liberty, although, at the time of the making of the US Constitution, it didn’t stop states from persecuting or prescribing atheists etc. Due to the diversity of the state’s views on religious liberty and inclination of the Framers to leave most of the powers to the state governments, the original constitution didn’t have much on religious freedom except Article 6 and even after First Amendment was added, it was not enforced for almost a century.  

Church-State Relationship in Practice 

Though the US Constitution didn’t see many changes in terms of its provisions relating to the church-state relationship, the way constitution was applied changed immensely during the two hundred and fifty years of US history. One important thing to be kept in mind is the federal nature of the US government where most of the action happens at the local and state level and the federal government has few tools to affect anything happening at lower levels. Changing church-state relationship at the lower levels was particularly difficult as, on this issue, there was neither agreement in the Congress and nor an appetite to touch this sensitive subject among the legislators. Only Supreme Court had the powers to build the wall of separation that it later did. So, for studying the church-state relationship, rulings of the Court are very important (Jelen 2010).

Looking at the important US Supreme Court decisions relating to religion, one is surprised to see that the first important decision relating to religion was delivered in 1879. Compare it with the 1960s, when seven landmark cases relating to religion were decided by the US Supreme Court. The difference is not because of any constitutional change but because of the changing nature of the American society and the Supreme Court.  

Three periods can be distinguished in the US history in terms of church-state relations.

1776-1868

During this period, the federal government and courts generally maintained separation between church and state in their own sphere of influence. However, federal officers and judges did not apply the separation at the state level.  They considered it a prerogative of the states to decide their relationship with the churches. Therefore, while many states applied the First Amendment whole heartedly, others didn’t and there were no consequences. Maryland raised taxes to support ministers, Massachusetts legislature approved the idea of multiple establishments, and Pennsylvanian officials had to take an oath, declaring their belief in God. Some form of religious establishment continued in many states long after the start of the 19th century (Wright 2010).

It is true that at federal government level, separation of church and state was reiterated in treaty with Tripoli and in the delivery of post on Sundays but federal government influence was minimal in the first half of 19th century and what mattered to people were policies at state and local level where state-religion separation was most often not present. The Supreme Court, the one branch which could have done something about it, was more concerned about state right, rather than individual rights. Justice Marshall opined in Barron v. Baltimore (1933) that the Bill of Rights should not be used for limiting state powers. (Wright 2010)

1869-1939

After the Civil War, 14th Amendment in the US Constitution was passed which among other things made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states of the Union.   

The relevant section of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states, ‘..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..’

It was only after the passage of 14th Amendment that Supreme Court started applying the Bill of Rights to the states as part of the due process required. This process of ‘incorporation’ of Bill of Rights was, however, a slow process as the Supreme Court was still very sensitive to the local laws. So while Supreme Court gave some decisions applying the Bill of Rights, none of them were related to Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause. In fact, the only decision related to religion that Supreme Court gave during this period was related to a federal law. Supreme Court decided in Reynolds v. United States (1879) that Free Exercise Clause allowed universal freedom of belief but not freedom of action which is restricted.   

1940 onwards    

During the 1940s, what has been called ‘the New Deal era’, the Supreme Court broadened its interpretation of the federal government powers. This not only helped the New Deal laws but also had implications for the wall of separation between church and state as both Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause were interpreted more broadly. Justice Hugo Black, an associate Supreme Court judge, was instrumental in bringing this change. The following figure shows the difference between how "wall" was interpreted in the eighteenth century and in the mid-twentieth century.


The two walls of separation

Source: The Gospel Coalition (https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/07/16/the-urban-legend-that-thomas-jefferson-believed-in-a-wall-separating-church-and-state/)

The church-state relationship during this era is discussed more broadly in the following section. 

US Government v. Religious Freedom

The need of religious freedom and state often do not conflict. The regular conflict between state and religious freedom is characteristic of only those states which have a state religion and give preference to their state religion over other religions or over atheism or agnosticism. These states usually have laws which make religious conversion difficult (unless it is to the state religion) and put additional liabilities on religious minorities. These states thus restrict an individual’s freedom of belief.

Most of the developed states, like the US, usually do not restrict individual’s freedom of belief and practice. Therefore, state, instead of restricting religious freedom in these countries, protects and promotes religious freedom. The conflicts that arise between religious freedom and such developed states are due to three reasons. First, a state has a responsibility to protect its citizens, especially those who are not in a position to protect themselves. If widely accepted obligation of the state comes into conflict with religious freedom, then religious freedom has to be restricted. Second, a state has to decide when fundamental freedoms of two persons are in conflict. While the fundamentals of the religious freedom are agreed upon, the outer reaches of the religious freedom are hotly contested. Finally, a state may force on its citizen some restrictions, which it considers absolutely necessary for social good. These restrictions are usually very few. 

US experience

Religious freedom in the US was restricted in the 18th and 19th centuries. As discussed above, state restricted the freedom of religious minorities in public sphere. Many states had some form of established religion till late in the 19th century. It was only in the 1830s that Jews were allowed to be elected and vote (Maryland State Archives 2013). Add to it the long history of burning of black churches and restrictions on African-American population of the US, which the Southern states governments, explicitly or implicitly, supported even well into the twentieth century (Brooks 1922, SimmsParis 1998). The issue was, of course, racial hatred but it did make it difficult for African-Americans to participate in their religious practices without fear. So, historically, the US has not done well in terms of protecting the religious freedom of certain sections of its society and despite the apparent legal religious freedom, Christian/Protestant ideas have circumscribed what ‘others’ can do (Sehat 2010). The reason for restriction on religious freedom was, however, not needs of the government but social prejudice.

It is only after the Second World War that major restrictions on religious freedom were based on the need of government. The US government and Supreme Court had to violate one in favor of other in a balancing act. Major areas of disagreement are explained below

Public Schools

A large number of Supreme Court cases relate to public schools where community and individual rights come into conflict on a daily basis. In a large number of cases, Supreme Court has made it clear that any type of religious prayer, instruction and speech goes against religious freedom. Even normal actions, such as giving gifts to one’s class fellows, were denied based on their link with a particular religion.   

Vaccination

The issue of exemption from vaccination based on religious belief is a difficult one. On one side is the religious freedom of a group of people which feel violated and sinned against. On the other side are millions of others which have protected themselves by being vaccinated based on the current medical scholarship but are still vulnerable because of the group which has decided to opt out of this program. In two cases Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) and Zucht v. King (1922), Supreme Court decided that the protection of the community is more important than religious freedom of a group (Novak 2005).

Harm to Children

There are many cases in which state restricted the freedom of religion of parents to protect their children from harm. The case of Rebecca Corneau, who was jailed for not revealing the location of her infant baby after one of her previous baby was found starved to death, resulted in a large controversy as it pitted the strange alliance of feminists and religious rights against the state (Wald 2003, Nicilosi 2000).  

Religious Freedom v. other freedoms

A number of cases involving Jehovah Witnesses’ proselytizing practices brought in conflict religious freedom and other freedoms e.g. right of individual privacy or social peace. Although most of these cases were decided on the basis of Free Speech Clause, it brought to a sharp picture the fact that religious practices of some can cause difficulties for many. Another type of cases was related to the workplace. It is hard to unpack Supreme Court decisions and decide whether the court favored religious freedom of an individual or gave preference to ordinary laws/practice. 

Conclusion

The US state has done well in sufficiently accommodating practices of religious minorities. The branch which has most contributed to this atmosphere of religious freedom is the judicial branch. Since the 1940s, Supreme Court and other courts have forced other organs of state to not only stop actions which restrict the rights of a particular religion but also forbidden most religious actions in the public sphere. Critics can point to few decisions which went the opposite way but nobody can deny that the trend is toward more religious freedom. Two recent developments, however, put the future of these gains in doubt. First, 9/11 has started a debate among Americans about whether they have to choose between security and freedom. Many commentators and organizations declare it a false choice but it is difficult to deny that religious practices and freedoms of religious minorities (especially Muslims) are now in sharp focus. The controversy about the building of a mosque near 9/11 site shows emotions can easily be whipped up. Second, the conservative bent of the current Supreme Court (which has been called the most conservative since the 1930s) has shown that if there is a permanent conservative majority in the Supreme Court then many of the liberal gains of the last century could be declared unnecessary or unconstitutional (Chemerinsky 2010).