Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
America’s Depressing Beliefs about the First Amendment
America’s Depressing Beliefs about the First Amendment
Jan 16, 2026 4:15 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
PBR: Only as Good as the People
What’s wrong with populism? Nothing, necessarily. But, to hazard a tautology, populism is only as good as the people. I think this territory was covered pretty well by Alexis de Tocqueville, whose view was in turn covered pretty well by Sam Gregg in mentary of a couple weeks ago: “The American Republic,” Tocqueville wrote, “will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” As Sam notes, Tocqueville cited the importance of religion...
Using ‘Human Rights’ to Squelch Free Speech
In the June issue of Reason Magazine, Ezra Levant details his long and unnecessary struggle with Canadian human rights watchdogs over charges that he insulted a Muslim extremist, who claimed to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. This sorry episode also cost Levant, the former publisher of Canada’s Western Standard magazine, about $100,000. Read “The Internet Saved My Life: How I beat Canada’s ‘human rights’ censors.” (HT: RealClearPolitics). Levant sums it up this way: The investigation vividly illustrated...
Global Giving and Local Needs
This month’s Christianity Today features a cover package devoted to the challenge faced by non-profit ministries amidst the recent economic downturn. The lengthy analysis defies any easy or simplistic summary of the state of Christian charity. There are examples of ministries that are scaling back as well as those who are enjoying donations at increased levels. Compassion International and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship are cited as those bucking the conventional logic that giving to charities decreases during a recession. “So far,...
Acton Commentary: Entrepreneurship isn’t enough
Economists and business schools have, in recent decades, rightfully praised entrepreneurs for their ability to create wealth and transform entire industries. But there’s more to it than that, says Sam Gregg in mentary. “If taxes are high, property-rights unprotected, and corruption the norm, then the environment embodies major deterrents to wealth-generating entrepreneurship,” he writes. “Why would people risk being entrepreneurial when they can’t assume their ideas won’t be stolen or their profits arbitrarily confiscated?” Read mentary at the Acton Website...
Acton Commentary: From Crisis to Creative Entrepreneurial Liberation
A new study from the Kauffman Foundation shows how Americans are increasingly turning to entrepreneurship to pull themselves out of an economic crisis. “When individuals are truly free to exercise their talents and trade the production of their labor, without oppression from tyrants or the entanglements of unnecessary government ‘oversight,’ the net effect is mutually beneficial for society as a whole,” writes Anthony Bradley in this week’s Acton Commentary. Read mentary at the Acton website and share your response in...
Review: Joker One
It is appropriate that Donovan Campbell offers an inscription about love from 1 Corinthians 13:13 at the beginning of his book, Joker One: A Marine Platoon’s Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood. That’s because he has written what is essentially a love story. While there are of course many soldier accounts from Afghanistan and Iraq, some that even tell more gripping stories or offer more humor, there may not be one that is more reflective on what it means to...
PBR: Politics and Populism
Last week Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, made the case for “ethical” populism. Speaking of the Tea Party phenomenon, he writes, the tea parties are not based on the cold wonkery of budget data. They are based on an “ethical populism.” The protesters are homeowners who didn’t walk away from their mortgages, small business owners who don’t want corporate welfare and bankers who kept their heads during the frenzy and don’t need bailouts. They were the...
What do our holidays mean to us?
[Editor’s Note: We e Ken Larson, a businessman and writer in southern California, to the PowerBlog. A graduate of California State University at Northridge with a major in English, his eclectic career includes editing the first reloading manual for Sierra Bullets and authoring a novel about a family’s school choice decisions titled ReEnchantment, which is available on his Web site. For 10 years Ken was the only Protestant on The Consultative School Board for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange...
PBR: Cheesy Christian Movies and the Art of Narrative
Writing on the Big Hollywood blog, Dallas Jenkins asks the question: “Why are Christian Movies So Bad?” Jenkins, a filmmaker and the son of “Left Behind” novelist Jerry Jenkins, points to a number of telling reasons for the glaring deficit in artistic plishment, what you might call the dreck factor, that is evident in so many films aimed at the faithful. Jenkins’ critique points to something we’ve been talking about at Acton for some time: the need for conservatives to...
Gregg on the Moral Environment of Entrepreneurship
In today’s Detroit News, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg talks about the sort of “moral, legal and political environment” that must exist if entrepreneurs are to flourish. He applies these precepts to the very serious economic problems in Michigan, where Acton is located: … in the midst of this enthusiasm about entrepreneurship, we risk forgetting that entrepreneurship’s capacity to create wealth is heavily determined by the environments in which we live. In many business schools, it’s possible to study entrepreneurship...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved