Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
America’s Depressing Beliefs about the First Amendment
America’s Depressing Beliefs about the First Amendment
Jan 2, 2026 4:12 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
Explainer: President Obama’s FY2016 Budget
What is the President’s budget? Technically, it’s only a budgetrequest—a proposal telling Congress how much money the President believes should be spent on the various Cabinet-level federal functions, like agriculture, defense, education, etc. (A PDF of the 150 page document can be found here.) Why does the President submit a budget to Congress? The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires that the President of the United States submit to Congress, on or before the first Monday in February of each...
Samuel Gregg: The Anglosphere As Actor On The World Stage
Samuel Gregg, Acton’s Director of Research, asks whether or not the Anglosphere nations (Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States) continue to be a viable political force in the world today at the Library of Law and Liberty. Gregg begins with his unique Anglosphere experience: Given that I am of Scottish and English descent, grew up in Australia, did my doctorate in Britain, and now live and work in America, I am about as much a product of...
A Parable for the Entrepreneur
In this week’s Acton Commentary, “A Parable for the Unemployed,” I provide a brief survey of the biblical view of work, concluding with reference to the parable of the workers in the vineyard in Matthew 20. As I argue, this parable “might just as well be called the parable of the jobless. It teaches us to wait patiently and expectantly for ways that we can be of service to God through serving others.” Or as the Theology of Work mentary...
Federal Court Rules Religious Organizations Can Hire (and Fire) for Religious Reasons
Earlier today a federal appeals court handed down an important ruling that protects the liberties of religious organizations. In the case of Alyce Conlon v. InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected a plaintiff’s attempt to enforce state and federal gender discrimination laws on one of the nation’s largest Christian campus ministries. According to the court opinion, Alyce Conlon worked at InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA (IVCF) in Michigan as a spiritual director, involved in...
Why Keep Funding Ineffective Government Programs?
Head Start doesn’t work. More people than ever are now on food stamps. Medicaid is staggering under the weight of its own bloat. Why are we continuing to fund bad programs? This is what Stephen M. Krason is asking. Such programs keep expanding: There has been a sharp increase in the food-stamp and Children’s Health Insurance programs. Obama has proposed more federal funding for Head Start and pre-school education generally, job training for laid-off workers, and Medicaid. In fact, the...
Video: Arthur C. Brooks Outlines The Formula For Happiness
The 2015 Acton Lecture Series continued on January 29th with a presentation by American Enterprise Institute President Arthur C. Brooks, who delivered a great talk on whatreally leads to happiness in life. In an era when Americans are finding less and less satisfaction with their nation while enjoying great pared to much of the rest of the world and overall human history, what can we do to regain our confidence in the American enterprise system that has lifted much of...
Mini-Grants on Free Market Economics
Are you a professor interested in free market principles? Do you know of one? The Acton Institute is offering mini-grants between $1,000-$10,000 for faculty at colleges, universities, and seminaries in the United States and Canada. The purpose of these mini-grants is to enhance the effectiveness in the teaching and scholarship of market economics. In the past, these mini-grants were only available for business and economics faculty at Christian schools, but this year any faculty (in the U.S. and Canada) working...
You Can’t Separate Stewardship from Economics
As Christians continue toturn their attentionto the intersection of faith and work, it can be easy to dwell on such matters onlyinsofar as theyapplyto ourindividual lives. What is our purpose, ourvocation, and our value? How does God view our work, and how ought we to render it back tohim? What is the source ofour economic action? These questions are important, butthe answers will inevitably point us to a more public (and for some, controversial) context filled with profound questions of...
Affordable Energy Drives Basic Needs in the Developing World
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day,” wrote Maimonides. “Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” With all due respect to Maimonides, much has happened since the 12th century. Among those changes is inexpensive, plentiful energy which powers refrigeration, which frees a man from the burden of fishing every day and allows him to engage in other worthy pursuits. That is only if the progressive crusade to strand fossil fuels...
How Puritans Became Capitalists
In his book,Heavenly Merchandize, Mark Valeri, professor of church history at Union Presbyterian Seminary, finds that the American economy as we know it emerged from aseries of important shifts in the views of Puritan ministers: IDEAS:You’re saying that the market didn’t rise at the expense of religion, but was enabled by it? VALERI:You need to have a change in your basic understanding of how or where God works in the world before you can envision different economic behaviors as morally...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved