Skip to main content
Religious Freedom Toolkit

Part IV | Select Quotes from Church Leaders

Category A | Frameworks

Topic 2 | Principled pluralism

A primary goal of principled pluralism is to create “constitutional space” for diverse communities to live in peace and harmony. “Constitutional space” is a metaphor to illustrate the principled application of constitutional protections afforded religious freedom and other fundamental rights as they converge in the public square.

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder Gerrit W. Gong: Freedom of expression and religion in the public square  

“Rights of expression and Freedom of Religion or Belief can be collectively trampled when ideas based on moral or religious conviction are excluded from the public square. Distinguished international groups remind us ‘religious or belief convictions are a source for the protection of the whole spectrum of inalienable human entitlements—from the preservation of the gift of life, the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, belief, opinion and expression to the freedoms from want and fear, including from violence in all its forms.’”

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder Gerrit W. Gong: Religiously based viewpoints contribute to social and policy discourse.  

“Religiously based viewpoints and religious people often have much to contribute to social and policy discourse. While the origins of these viewpoints may be religious in nature, secular implications are often profound. Therefore, in weighing even secular implications, much is missed if religiously based viewpoints are not considered, together with other viewpoints, solely because they stem from a religious perspective.

For example, from a secular standpoint, the implications of the weakening of the family as a basic unit of society are extensive and serious. If, in policy discussions pertaining to family- related laws and regulations, religious voices are excluded altogether, policy decisions are likely to be taken that may not give adequate weight to the importance of the family within society, from a secular perspective.”

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder D. Todd Christofferson: Inclusive, religion-friendly “secularity”  

“Religious liberty facilitates a proper separation of church and state that avoids any justification for secular hostility toward religion. In a liberal democracy, the powers of the state should not be exercised directly or dominated by one religion at the expense of the rights and freedoms of others. Conversely, government should not interfere with the internal religious affairs of religious organizations. Nor should religious people be denied the right of all citizens to express their opinions and support policies that advance the good of the nation as they understand it.

In this balancing, lawmakers should strive not for an aggressive secularism that expels religious beliefs from the democratic conversation or marginalizes the role of religion in society. They should instead seek an inclusive, religion-friendly ‘secularity,’ based on equal respect for religious and nonreligious persons and viewpoints, where no one religion or ideology officially dominates the state. A generous, inclusive religious liberty is far more likely to lead to an enduring pluralism than a rigid, ideological secularism that oppresses religion and religious believers.”

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder D. Todd Christofferson: Religious freedom protects the space we all need to live according to our most deeply held beliefs and values.  

“Whether you’re religious or not—whether you initially recognize it or not—everyone has a stake in protecting religious freedom. That’s because protecting religious freedom protects the space we all need to live according to our most deeply held beliefs and values, where we’re free to act according to belief or conscience. The space in society not primarily motivated by profit or politics we often refer to as civil society. Certainly the exercise of religious belief or conscience belongs in this space. But so do a host of other voluntary activities and associations where people get together to solve problems or meet needs that aren’t otherwise being met. It’s this part of society where people can live and act based upon what’s most important to them, and it’s largely defined by the rights enshrined in the First Amendment. Those rights all work together. That means you can’t weaken one right without also weakening the others: the right to freedom of speech, the right to a free press, the right to assembly, the right to free association, and the right to petition our government when we have grievances.”

◆ ◆ ◆

President Dallin H. Oaks: Public reason crowds religious voices and values from the public square.  

“For its proponents, ‘public reason’ is the only legitimate way of speaking or acting in the public square, including public policy debates and lawmaking. And public reason is defined in such a way as to exclude religious values, because religion is said to be a private rather than a public matter. Applying this theory—widely discussed in academic discourse and now emerging in court opinions—religious voices, values, and motivations are being crowded out of the public square. They are becoming an unacceptable basis for legal or policy argument on public issues and even for citizen referenda or legislative lawmaking. Religion is being marginalized to the point of censorship or condemnation.”

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder Neil L. Andersen: Creating space for religious groups to practice their faith freely  

“Professor Nilay Saiya explains why this is important: ‘Religious freedom encourages peaceful religious forms of activity by creating space for religious groups to practice their faith freely, bring their religiously-informed ideas to the public square, make positive contributions to society, and engage in debate through open channels of discourse, thus allowing diverse perspectives to be heard and depriving extremists the ability to win the battle for hearts and minds by default.’

These principles benefit everyone, not just the powerful. Religious freedom protects individuals and groups in society who are weak, vulnerable, outnumbered or unpopular. It checks the power of authoritarian regimes and counters the prejudices and excesses of social majorities. Religious freedom creates an atmosphere where refugees and migrants feel more welcome to integrate and contribute to society. Acting on their beliefs, religious communities are in a good position to help the stranger.”

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder D. Todd Christofferson: “Positive” freedom to lives one’s religion  

“To be clear, by ‘religious freedom’ I do not mean just freedom from persecution based on religious belief or practice. Such freedom is crucial, of course, but it’s hardly enough. As I have explained previously, ‘A robust freedom [of religion] is not merely what political philosophers have referred to as the “negative” freedom to be left alone. . . . Rather, it is a much richer “positive” freedom—the freedom to live one’s religion or belief in a legal, political, and social environment that is tolerant, respectful, and accommodating of diverse beliefs.’ Religious freedom, in short, ‘gives us all space to determine for ourselves what we think and believe—to follow the truth that God speaks to our hearts.’”

◆ ◆ ◆

Sister Ruth L. Renlund: We should not require religion to be left at the door of the public square.  

“Yet, there is a tendency to stifle people with certain beliefs from expressing what is considered socially or politically incorrect. Barack Obama, former President of the United States, said, ‘Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.’ Similarly, people of faith are wrong to ask other believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.”

◆ ◆ ◆

President Dallin H. Oaks: Silencing one voice risks silencing every other voice.  

“[S]ome public policy advocates have attempted to intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making laws in our democracy. Some of these characterize the free exercise of religion as protecting no more than the privilege of worshipping in the protected space of homes, churches, synagogues, or mosques. Beyond those protected spaces, the argument goes, religious believers and their organizations have no First Amendment protection—not even normal free speech guarantees—because religious voices, especially in the public process of lawmaking, are simply an effort to impose religious beliefs on others, which is, of course, unprotected by the Constitution.

These arguments leave me wondering why any group of citizens with secular-based views are free to seek to persuade or impose their views on others by a democratic lawmaking process, but persons or organizations with religious-based views are not free to participate in the same democratic lawmaking process. We should all understand that if one voice can be stilled, every other voice is potentially at risk of being silenced by a new majority that finds other arguments too ‘bigoted’ or ‘hateful’ for the public square.”

Previous - Topic 2 Analysis
See also Religious Freedom Library
Next - Topic 3 Summary