The American Public Is Being Gas-Lit by the Religious Right About Religious Liberty

The United States is awash in discourse about “religious liberty,” mostly coming from the religious right. Understanding how they measure religious liberty is the key to seeing that they are not talking about religious liberty for all believers, but rather preference for the positions they lost in the culture wars—women’s rights to reproductive health, which they bundle under one heading, “abortion,” and LGBTQ individuals’ rights. These are the two core positions taken by the religious right today. The clearest statement of what the committed religious right seeks is coming out of the Christian Nationalist movement. Most Americans do not fully understand what they believe or why the Trump Administration supports them so publicly. On the first point, I dissect a published statement below. On the latter, that’s easy. They are a voting bloc, despite being a small minority. What Do the Christian Nationalists Believe and Want? Christian Nationalists, empowered by the White House, have become vocal about their plans for the United States. It is not that they are riding a wave of popular support. According to the Pew Research Center, only 10% of American adults view Christian Nationalism favorably, and only 17% want the federal government to declare Christianity the official national religion. Indeed, only 20% of white evangelical Protestants view Christian Nationalism favorably. A majority of Americans—54%—say the government should enforce the separation of church and state. Those numbers are unlikely to be surprising to most Americans who have never remotely considered living under orthodox theocrats, despite the support the theocrats receive from the White House. There is a softness among Americans, though, for religion generally, which means that while only very small numbers are willing to tolerate the establishment of a ruling religion, majorities view it in a favorable light, especially Christianity. Just over seven in ten Republicans decline to endorse establishing Christianity as the official religion—27% favor it—yet 55% say the government should promote Christian values without declaring an official religion. Democrats are far less receptive to defining public values in Christian terms. It is always good to know the views of any group that seeks to control the country, and fortunately, the Evangelical side of the Christian Nationalist movement has not been shy about laying out its plans for the rest of us: “The Statement on Christian Nationalism & the Gospel“ (The Statement). They contrast sharply with the Catholic movement to control America’s government for their religious ends, which is manipulated through shell companies and secrecy bonds by Leonard Leo, the Heritage Foundation under Kevin Roberts, and Opus Dei. The latter Catholics have scored large wins with Supreme Court appointments and the selection of JD Vance as Vice President. The former are closely and publicly tied to President Donald Trump. This self-consciously illiberal Statement lays out “a set of governing principles rooted in Scripture’s teaching,” including “Christ rules,” “civil magistrates [have] delegated authority to be under Him,” and “obedien[t] to Christ’s Great Commission in which he commanded his followers…to make disciples of ‘all nations.’” Civil authorities are supposed to further baptize everyone and “teach them to obey all that [Jesus has] commanded.” I have italicized “obey,” because it is a word and theme that runs through the document. They believe that countries are required by God to endorse Christianity, and by that they mean their “truth,” which is, of course, their interpretation. All political thinking is to “be taken captive to the obedience of Christ.” Nor is there any “objective standard” by which to judge justice or any “one world” governmental system before the return of Christ. Christ is the “sovereign King of kings,” who commands “Christian and non-Christian [civil authorities] alike.” His dominion extends to every aspect of the country’s life so that there can be no separation of the “sacred aspects of life” from the “supposedly secular.” Civil officials may not “contradict what God has said in His Word,” which is an oblique endorsement of blasphemy laws. Religious liberty stops at “human sacrifice, wife burning, or inhumane maiming,” which is their list of examples of violation of the “rights to life, liberty, or property.” They do not ban the physical abuse of children as they endorse the use of the “‘rod’ for instruction, training, and discipline in wisdom and righteousness.” Nor do they identify women as leaders. Only “Biblically qualified men” may lead His Church. All in the nation will be subject to punishment for “great evils.” Then the document provides a list of “short-term priorities of Christian Nationalism”: declare days of holy obligation; ban abortion, pornography, and same-sex marriage; make government friendly to them; secure the borders; repel foreign aggression; and “recapture our national sovereignty from godless, global entities like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Economic Forum; and avoid “adventurism in overseas ‘democracy building.’” The whole project is capped off by their “Big Picture Agenda,” which is that their Christianity will rule and the Ten Commandments will be treated “as the foundational law of the nation.” Frankly, I was most surprised by the repeated assertions against “sinful ethnic partiality,” as that sentiment departs from the racist messaging and thinking of the Trump Administration and the white supremacists Trump has catered to. In the end, though, it simply means that every race and ethnicity is to be controlled by their Christ, too. This first portion of the document is based on implementing all Ten Commandments. They also offer an “alternative” for those who would only implement the “second table,” or commandments 6 to 10. If one were to adopt the second table, the first rule they choose is to revive the anti-blasphemy laws, because they tell us that they do not “coerce conversion or hinder religious liberty in private.” They certainly would inhibit religious liberty in public under current understandings, but their view of religious liberty is that it begins and ends with their beliefs. In this version, they enjoin “that just laws orient citizens toward the truth of God’s Word,” which is to say that only those laws aligning with what they say is God’s Word are acceptable. While the Ten Commandments do not speak to abortion, they derive from the “second table” that civil disobedience is appropriate when they are required to “allow abortion” and to mandate equal protection for all from the “moment of fertilization” and treat abortion as a homicidal offense. They also reject “pragmatism,” which is so perfectly ironic that I will not add any further commentary. Unsurprisingly, they reject the separation of church and state and assert that it is appropriate for a nation’s laws to “impose morality and religion.” What I take from The Statement is that they have reached their wits’ end trying to persuade by word or example a majority of Americans that their worldview is correct. They lost the culture wars, so they figure they will simply impose their faith on everyone if only Trump will allow them. It’s honestly pathetic until you remember that Trump lacks morals or concern for the rest of America, and caters to them because they are a voting bloc. Only a very small percentage of Americans support this thinking, but Trump is just fine giving them as much power as they want. So we need to watch how they try to institute The Statement through the federal government. Texas has already moved on elements of this agenda: S.B. 10 requires the display of the Ten Commandments in every public-school classroom, and after a district court enjoined it, the Fifth Circuit upheld the law in April 2026, with the challengers now seeking review in the Supreme Court. How the Religious Right Is Gas-Lighting the American Public About Religious Liberty What our journey through the Christian Nationalist manifesto above shows is that they believe the law necessarily should reflect their values and that there are two primary agendas: ending abortion and same-sex marriage. The same is true of the Christian right generally. What The Statement does not say, but which powerful leaders in the movement say openly, is that women should not work, should be vessels for child-production, and even should lose the right to vote. For example, that is the worldview of Doug Wilson, whose church counts Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth among its adherents. Now, if one believes that the law should conform to one’s religious beliefs, then one will inevitably measure religious liberty according to those beliefs. For the religious right, that means that religious liberty includes the right to restrict women’s access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion, and to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals. Moreover, when the religious group believes in proselytizing, they will inevitably promote and publish their “religious liberty” measures. They don’t label their measures accurately, e.g., “religious liberty rankings according to our religious beliefs,” but rather call them religious liberty rankings as though they are neutral. In one of the greatest ironies of our time, “religious liberty” measures from the religious right do not measure liberty for all believers but rather freedom for them, first and foremost. The more extreme the anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ laws are, the more liberty the religious right sees. These built-in biases are laid bare when one compares national rankings of religious liberty by religious right organizations against national rankings of abortion access and LGBTQ rights. The relationship is not a strict inverse, but the correlation is unmistakable. The most striking comparison shows that Arkansas recently ranked first in “religious liberty” in the country when measured by the religious right, such as the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy, and dead last in the Out Leadership’s State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index. Conversely, the second-best place for LGBTQ is New York, while it is ranked the worst for “religious liberty” by the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy. On the abortion issue, four of the most restrictive abortion states—Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Idaho—are in the top eight “best” religious liberty states. Along the same lines, nine out of the thirteen most restrictive abortion states are in the top 20 of “best” religious liberty states. Comparing these indices provides a stark example of the extraordinary fact that the most exercised contemporary religious liberty proponents are not protecting millions of Americans’ religious liberty. That’s correct, a majority of the United States–millions of religious (and nonreligious) persons—strongly support the rights of women and LGBTQ. Their religious liberty is treated as a throwaway as the religious right desperately tries to categorize them as “secular” so they don’t have to admit their religious liberty is only for a few. This religious liberty movement has become an enemy of civil rights. Unlike Martin Luther King, Jr., who advocated from a religious position for civil rights, the loudest voices in today’s religious liberty universe are adamantly opposed to civil rights. That is reinforced when one compares the amicus briefs filed in the Supreme Court’s case for this Term, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, which addresses the question whether Colorado can fund universal pre-school programs but require recipients who receive the funding not to discriminate based on “race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 26.5 4-205(2)(b) (2025); 8 Colo. Code Regs. § 1404-1:4.110. The entities that came forward demanding the right to discriminate against LGBTQ children and families are Catholic schools. Ironically, other Catholic schools are participating in the program as my co-author Prof. Leslie Griffin and I point out in our amicus brief for New Ways Ministry in the case. In that case, the religious right lines up for its version of religious liberty behind Petitioners’ demand for state funds to discriminate against gays, while major civil rights groups and other believers side with the Respondent state of Colorado, trying to fund universal pre-k without discriminators and to prevent the harm inflicted on LGBTQ children and families when they are excluded by the government. The core argument raised in St. Mary Catholic Parish’s briefing and their supporting religious right amici–that there is a constitutional right to be funded for the discriminatory use of government fund–should concern everyone. It is an extreme and dangerous expansion of what religious liberty has meant in the United States. Until now, neutral and generally applicable laws have been subject only to rational-basis, that is to say low-level, review. That means they are upheld in virtually every scenario. Now Catholic schools are arguing that the non-discriminatory rule of law is not enough for them. They should be “most-favored persons” in this country, on their thinking, who can demand that the government underwrite their missions regardless of the law and the harm they would inflict. The religious right is furiously fighting for this case because they are so worked up against LGBTQ individuals’ rights and dignity. They just can’t get over losing this hard-fought public battle and feel the need to exclude LGBTQ and same-sex marriages at every turn, as though they can win the culture war by excluding their opponents from the institutions they seek to control. If they spent half this effort on preventing child sex abuse, children would be a lot safer in their spaces, but I digress. Leading with LGBTQ discrimination in this case obscures the reasons to be concerned that religious groups, if they were to prevail in this case, would use this new-found extreme protection to demand government funding of racism (white supremacists) or misogyny (far right White Christian Nationalists like Doug Wilson). Thus, we shouldn’t get lost in the specific argument about LGBTQ rights that is raised in this case. Every category Colorado is trying to protect is at risk if the Court dramatically transforms religious liberty away from the rule of law. This is the end goal for the religious right: not just to seek imposition of their beliefs on every law but also to force the government to fund their religiously-motivated discrimination against women and LGBTQ people. It’s an end run around the culture wars they decisively lost. There was a time not long ago when the religious right eschewed government funds for their mission, because they did not want the entanglement that would require, but in the last twenty years, as they have increasingly tasted political power, they have become voracious with their arguments for an entitlement to taxpayer support. Now, they want to be able to support political candidates, aka, to serve as political PACs, to have the government fund their pervasively religious schools, and to keep their most-reviled sinners as far away from them as possible—powerful women and LGBTQ individuals. Each of these stances is unpopular with a solid majority of Americans. To sum up, when you read about a “religious liberty” ranking or hear a “religious liberty” argument, ask whose liberty is being measured. And for the majority of Americans, please take off your rose-colored glasses. The religious liberty that undergirds American democracy is composed of a rule of law that fosters religious diversity and not the establishment of any particular religion.