Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
America’s Depressing Beliefs about the First Amendment
America’s Depressing Beliefs about the First Amendment
Jan 26, 2026 7:08 PM

What do Americans know about the First Amendment? Since 1997, the First Amendment Center has attempted to find out by taking an annual survey of the “state of the First Amendment.” The results for 2013 are about as depressing as you’d expect:

Americans were asked what they believed was the single most important freedom that citizens enjoy. The majority (47%) of people named freedom of speech as the most important freedom, followed by freedom of religion (10%); freedom of choice (7%); right to vote (5%); right to bear arms (5%); right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (3%), and freedom of the press (1%).

Women were twice as likely as men to name freedom of religion as the most important freedom. Thirteen percent of women named freedom of religion, whereas only 6% of men did.

Freedom of religion is literally the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment, making it the first freedom listed in the Bill of Rights. It was listed first because of it’s historic importance to the Founders and their forefathers. Yet today only 10 percent of Americans think it is our most important freedom? No wonder our government officials are so unconcerned with violating our religious liberties.

Then again, it could be that most American aren’t even aware that religious liberty is a specific freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. For instance:

Asked to name the five specific freedoms in the First Amendment, 59% of Americans could name freedom of speech, followed by 24% who could name freedom of religion, 14% freedom of the press, 11% the right to assemble, and 4% the right to petition. Thirty-six percent of Americans cannot name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The percentage of Americans who can name these five First Amendment rights has generally increased over the years since the project began in 1997; however, the awareness of First Amendment rights has decreased overall this year. Knowledge of freedom of religion, speech, and assembly decreased from 28% to 24%, 65% to 59%, and 13% to 11%, respectively, since last year. Those who could name freedom of press increased from 13% to 14% and those who name the

right to petition remains the same at 4%.

Americans not only don’t know what’s in the First Amendment, they have erroneous beliefs about what they think is in the Constitution:

Asked whether they believe that the U.S. Constitution established a Christian nation, 51% of Americans agree while 25% disagree. The number of those who strongly agree with this statement has decreased and those who mildly agree has increased over the years since the question was first asked in 2007. Americans who identify as conservatives are much more likely than others to agree that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Sixty-seven percent of

conservatives, 49% of moderates and 33% of liberals agree that the Constitution established a Christian nation.

Additionally, Americans who consider themselves evangelical or born-again Christian are more likely than non-evangelical Christians to agree that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Seventy-one percent of evangelicals or born-again Christians agree, while only 47% of non-evangelical Christians support the statement.

Our country is not a “Christian nation” but rather, as the Baptist theologian Albert Mohler duly notes, “a nation of Christians.” America, he argues, “is not Christian by constitutional provision or creedal affirmation—but its people are overwhelmingly Christian by self-affirmation.” But whatever one believes about America being a “Christian nation” that concept is nowhere found in the U.S. Constitution.

Not surprisingly, a country where citizens don’t appreciate the importance of religious freedom have no qualms about the government taking such liberties away from groups that receive government funding:

The majority of Americans (62%) agree that if a religiously affiliated group receives government funding, then the government should be able to require the group to provide health-care benefits to same-sex partners of employees, even if the religious group opposes same-sex marriages or partnerships. Those who disagree tend to feel more strongly on this issue than those who agree with the statement. Twenty-one percent strongly disagree, while 13% mildly disagree.

Higher percentages of young Americans agree that religious groups receiving government funding can be forced to provide health care to employees in a same-sex relationship. Sixty-eight percent of 18-30-year-olds, 62% of 31-45-year-olds, 61% of 46-60-year-olds, and 56% of Americans over 60 support this statement.

Americans who identify as liberal supported the statement the most, followed by moderates and conservatives. Eighty-two percent of liberals, 65% of moderates and 44% of conservatives agree that the government should be able to force groups to provide health care to same-sex couples.

Additionally, non-evangelical Christians (66%) are much more likely than evangelical or born-again Christians (41%) to support the government’s requiring federally funded religious groups to provide health care to same-sex couples.

Actually, it’s probably more accurate to say that anytime money is involved, the government can force people to violate their religious beliefs:

A majority of Americans (52%) believes that a business providing wedding services to the public should be required to serve same-sex couples, even if the business owner objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

Again, when individuals disagree with this statement they tend to strongly disagree. Twenty-eight percent of people strongly disagree, whereas 17% mildly disagree.

Younger Americans are more supportive of the statement that wedding businesses should be required to serve same-sex couples. Sixty-two percent of Americans 18-30, 55% of 31-45-year-olds, 51% of 46-60-year-olds, and 39% of people over 60 support the statement.

A strong majority (70%) of liberals agrees that government should be allowed to require wedding businesses to serve same-sex couples, while slightly more than half of moderates (56%) and a third (34%) of conservatives support the statement.

Non-religious (59%) and Catholic (61%) Americans are much more likely than Protestants (39%) to believe that the government can require wedding businesses to serve same-sex couples.

Fortunately, a majority of Americans still respect the right of their fellow citizens to worship as they choose:

In 2013, 65% of Americans agree that freedom to worship as one chooses applies to all religious groups regardless of how extreme or on-the-fringe their views, while 31% disagree. This is the highest percentage of Americans who have said the freedom to worship does not apply to extreme and fringe groups since the question was first asked in 1997.

These survey results reveal a broad failure of civics education. As Joseph Knippenberg says,

Clearly we have not made pelling case for the importance of religious freedom, especially among younger people and minorities. This is a problem both in education (where I suspect too many teachers simply steer clear of any topic that bears on religion) and in our popular culture. It seems to me that virtually no one is effectively making the case for the ponent of pluralism. We’re all about diversity in race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation (all of which, we think, deserve the special solicitude of government). But we don’t recognize how our love of equality and uniformity is at war with other kinds of diversity and pluralism, especially when we believe that government programs ought to be homogenizing, rather than respectful of the liberty necessary to foster less visible kinds of pluralism and diversity.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
How Would St. Francis Vote?
Denver Bishop Charles Chaput, whom I had the personal joy of meeting and hearing speak a few years ago, gave an address at a mass for Catholic public officials in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, just before the November elections. Chaput, who is one of my favorite bishops, makes profound and clear moral sense of chaotic sub-Christian thinking on a regular basis. “The world does need to change, and in your vocation as public leaders, God is calling you to pursue that task...
Bozell’s Odd Understanding of Coercion
According to the Church Report’s Jennifer Morehouse, Parents Television Council President L. Brent Bozell is renewing an argument for the FCC to require a la carte cable programming. “It’s time to let the market decide what it wants on cable programming,” says Bozell. I’m sympathetic to this view. I would prefer the option to be able to pick and choose which cable channels I pay for and get access to, instead of having to decide on subscription levels which include...
‘Pimpin’ Ain’t Easy,’ and Neither is Parenting
During a recent family trip to visit relatives, we settled down for a night of wholesome family entertainment to watch “Inside Man” (well, maybe not all that wholesome; it is a film about a bank robbery, after all). This post has almost nothing to do with the plot of the movie, so if you haven’t seen it, don’t fret. It is a film worth queuing on your Netflix, however, and I mend it despite the fact that I don’t much...
Government Works to Protect Tithing
Following up on the story from a couple months back about restrictions to bankruptcy filings prohibiting filers from budgeting for tithing, and in the midst of the controversy surrounding Rick Warren’s invitation to Sen. Barack Obama to appear at a Saddleback Church event, es both houses of Congress have passed the “Obama-Hatch Tithing Bill.” The bill would “protect an individual’s right to continue reasonable charitable contributions, including religious tithing, during the course of consumer bankruptcy. The measure passed the United...
Two Career Marriages
A genuinely thorny pastoral issue that often arose in the course of my counseling was the question of two-career marriages. What should a couple do if the wife wanted/needed to work outside the home when children were present, especially when the children were young? Because I served suburban churches (from 1972-1992) some of my congregants needed to be e families just to survive. Others did not but made a choice to pursue two careers anyway. The scenario always varies from...
Passing on the Pork
As noted at WorldMagBlog (among many other places), the ing Democratic majority in Congress is suspending the process of earmarking, at least temporarily. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the ing chairmen of the House and Senate mittees, have pledged that “there will be no congressional earmarks” in the ing budget. Earmarks will be available again in the 2008 budget cycle, after “reforms of the earmarking process are put in place.” There’s a lot of smoke right...
Trimming the Fat
As I’ve noted previously, it is probably best for the cause of limited government that political power be divided rather than in the hands of a single party, no matter which party. This AP story offers evidence in support of that claim from early action by the newly Democratic Congress. At the same time, a close reading of the article indicates that congressional Democrats’ cutting of Republican pork may not result in any meaningful or lasting scaling back of needless...
Check out this Energy Debate
A debate about the future of energy policy is being held over at sp!ked, sponsored by Research Councils UK. From their notice: THE FUTURE OF ENERGY Expanding supply or managing demand? In the opening articles, mentators address the question from different viewpoints. ADAM VAUGHAN, online editor, New Consumer magazine argues that saving energy is the way forward: ‘By taking a number of simple steps, consumers can save energy and money – and help save the planet.’ JOE KAPLINSKY, science writer,...
Objective and Subjective Well-Being
Gary Becker and Richard Posner examine the increasing gap between the rich and poor in terms of wealth and e. This gap was most recently highlighted in a report that “the richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth,” and the richest 1% hold 40% of wealth. The report was issued by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (PDF). Becker seems to accept that wealth inequality is...
Costly Coal Clean-up
Coal has long been a target of environmentalist anger. Soot, strip-mining, smokestacks—so many ugly features. Much of that opposition is overblown, of course (we’ve got to get energy from somewhere), but some of it has merit. This story from Ohio exhibits one of the genuine problems. The state’s taxpayers have to foot a $300 million bill for cleaning up the environmental messes panies have left. Some, but only a small part, of that is being paid for by corporate fees...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved