You Don’t Have the Freedom of Religion in America

At first glance, that title sounds absurd. Of course we have freedom of religion in the United States—it's one of our most cherished rights. But if by “freedom of religion” we mean the unlimited right to believe and do anything whatsoever in the name of religion, then the truth is simple: you do not have that freedom in America—and you never have. The question is not whether religious freedom exists, but what it actually means—and where its limits must be drawn.

The United States of America offers one of the most robust protections of religious liberty in human history. Citizens are free to worship—or not worship—according to the dictates of conscience. This freedom is deeply embedded in the American experiment and is often rightly celebrated as one of our most cherished rights.

But here’s a question that is rarely asked with sufficient clarity:

Is freedom of religion absolute?

To begin answering that question, we must return to the philosophical foundations of the United States of America. As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in the United States Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

This is not merely poetic rhetoric. It reflects a profound metaphysical and moral commitment: all human beings possess objective and unalienable rights—rights that no individual, group, or government has the authority to violate.

Indeed, the very purpose of government, properly understood, is to protect these objective God-given rights. This includes the protection of religious liberty—the freedom to believe, to worship, and to live according to one’s deeply held convictions.

However, this raises an important tension.

A Thought Experiment: The Order of Moloch

Imagine a religious movement—let’s call it The Order of Moloch. Adherents of Molochism sincerely believe that their gods command acts most of us would—and should—consider unthinkable: the kidnapping, sexual abuse, and ritual sacrifice of children as an act of devotion.

Now consider the question:

Should the United States recognize this as a legitimate exercise of “freedom of religion”?

Of course not.

But notice why.

The answer is not merely that we find these beliefs morally repugnant (though we certainly do). The deeper reason is that the practices of Molochism would violate the objective and unalienable rights of other human beings—specifically, their right to life, liberty, and bodily integrity.

And this is precisely where clarity is needed.

Freedom of Religion Is Not a License to Harm

Religious freedom in the United States has never meant the freedom to do anything in the name of religion. Rather, it is the freedom to believe and to practice—so long as those practices do not violate the rights of others.

We already recognize this principle in other domains. Consider freedom of speech. Americans are free to express a wide range of ideas—even deeply offensive ones. But this freedom is not unlimited. It does not include the right to slander, to issue credible threats, or to incite imminent violence.

In the same way, freedom of religion is bounded by the same moral reality that grounds it in the first place.

The very foundation that gives us religious liberty—unalienable human rights—is the same foundation that places limits upon it.

Belief vs. Practice

At this point, an important distinction must be made.

One may be free to believe that Molochism is true. The government does not—and should not—police private belief. But no one is free to act on those beliefs when doing so violates the rights of others. That is to say, one is not free to actually practice Molochism in the United States of America.

This distinction is crucial. It preserves both:

• genuine freedom of conscience, and

• the protection of innocent human life.

Without this distinction, the concept of “religious freedom” collapses into a license for abuse.

A Deductive Case

At this point, the conclusion can be stated not only intuitively, but deductively:

1. According to the philosophical foundations of the United States—as articulated in the United States Declaration of Independence—all human beings possess objective and unalienable rights, including the right to life and bodily integrity.

2. The legitimate purpose of government in the United States is to protect these unalienable rights.

3. No right—including the right to religious freedom—includes the freedom to violate the objective and unalienable rights of others.

4. If a practice violates the objective and unalienable rights of others, then it ought not be legally permitted in the United States of America.

5. The practices required by Molochism (e.g., kidnapping, sexual abuse, and ritual sacrifice of children) violate the objective and unalienable rights of other human beings.

6. Therefore, the practice of Molochism ought not be legally permitted in the United States of America.

In other words:

Based on the philosophical foundations of America, it should be illegal to practice Molochism in America.

Why This Matters

In a pluralistic society, we will inevitably encounter a wide range of religious beliefs—many of which we strongly disagree with. A healthy and free society must protect the right of individuals to hold and express those beliefs.

But an objectively good and just society must also recognize that not all practices are permissible simply because they are religiously motivated.

If we abandon the grounding of objective and unalienable rights—if we treat religious freedom as absolute—then we lose the very moral framework that makes freedom meaningful in the first place. Religious liberty is a great good. It is worth defending. But it is not without limits—and those limits are not arbitrary. They are rooted in the objective reality that all human beings possess objective and unalienable rights that must be protected.

A society that forgets this does not become more free. It becomes absurd, insane, and evil.

Applying the Principle

The thought experiment above may involve a fictional religion, but the principle it reveals is anything but fictional. It provides a lens through which we can evaluate any worldview or religious practice—whether ancient or modern, familiar or foreign.

The question is not:

“Is this religion sincere?”“Is this religion popular?”“Is this religion protected?”

The question is:

Do the practices of this worldview violate the unalienable rights of other human beings?

That is the standard. And importantly, this standard applies equally to everyone. That means it applies to minority religions like Islam. It applies to secular worldviews like atheism or Marxism. It applies to all of us.

This means we must be willing to ask difficult questions:

• Do certain practices—religious or otherwise—undermine the objective and unalienable rights of women and children?

• Do any belief systems justify harm to innocent human beings?

• Are there culturally accepted practices that, upon closer examination, violate the very unalienable rights we claim to protect?

These are not easy questions. But they are necessary ones.

At the same time, it is equally important to recognize that many religious traditions such as Christianity, Judaism, and modern-day Mormonism—despite deep theological disagreements—are fully compatible with America’s foundational principle that all humans possess objective and unalienable rights. Such traditions make not only great neighbors, and peaceful neighborhoods, but often contribute to the moral and social stability of a free society.

But when a worldview demands what The Order of Moloch demands, or what Sharia Law demands, the issue is no longer merely theological. It becomes a matter of justice.

And when justice is at stake, the line must be drawn.

Bottom line: You do not have the freedom of religion in America; rather, you have the freedom of religion as long as it is compatible with the theological and philosophical foundations of America found in the Declaration of Independence and reflected in the American constitutional tradition.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton