Part IV | Select Quotes from Church Leaders

Category F | Doctrines

Topic 32 | Non-establishment and free exercise

The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment provides, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” These two provisions, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, both serve a single objective: religious freedom for all. The Establishment Clause (or, more accurately, Non-Establishment Clause) does this by guaranteeing that there will be no state religion and that religious groups should be treated equally. The Free Exercise Clause does this by limiting the types of burdens the state can place on religious actions or manifestations.

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder D. Todd Christofferson: Dividing the authority of church and state had the powerful effect of establishing limits to the authority of both.  

“Dividing the authority of church and state had the powerful effect of establishing limits to the authority of both—even in countries like the United Kingdom with a state church. Government came to be understood as inherently limited—its legitimate authority not including matters of religious belief or practice, for those are matters of the spirit. By the same token, while churches have legitimate authority over matters of religious belief and practice, they lack civil power over property or life. Governments do not rule churches, and churches do not rule governments; each has a limited sphere of competence, power, and legitimacy.

That is a profound notion that we often take for granted. It means that secular government is not divinely omnipotent and, conversely, that religious authority cannot act as an all-powerful government. There are inherent limits to both governmental and religious authority over society, and in the tensions and spaces created by those limits we find many of our freedoms.”

• D. Todd Christofferson, Why Atheists (and Everyone Else) Should Support Freedom of Religion or Belief, Address to All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for International Freedom of Religion or Belief, UK Parliament (May 1, 2018), https://www.religiousfreedomlibrary.org/documents/why-atheists-and-everyone-else-should-support-freedom-of-religion-or-belief.

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder Quentin L. Cook: No single church should be the “established church” with legal rights that adversely impact the religious faith of others.

“Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both the heart and the foundation of a representative democracy. Freedom to believe in private and to assemble and exercise belief and speech in the public square are essential to protecting unalienable rights. Religion combines all of these essential freedoms and needs to be protected.

However, no single church should be the ‘established church’ with legal rights that adversely impact the religious faith of those whose beliefs are not in accord with the ‘established church’s[’] tenants.”

• Elder Quentin L. Cook, Commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Parliament, Palace of Westminster, London, England (Dec. 6, 2023), https://www.religiousfreedomlibrary.org/documents/commemoration-of-the-75th-anniversary-of-the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

◆ ◆ ◆

Elder D. Todd Christofferson: Separation of church and state avoids secular hostility toward religion.  

“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.”

• D. Todd Christofferson, Religious Liberty: The Basis of a Free and Just Society, First Forum on Religious Freedom in the Southern Cone (Oct. 29, 2021), https://www.religiousfreedomlibrary.org/documents/religious-liberty-the-basis-of-a-free-and-just-society.