(OSV News) – As the United States indulges in a star-spangled celebration of its 250th birthday, a cornerstone of historical significance that stands out is religious freedom, and unlike for many other nations, it is a unique founding principle of this nation.
“From the beginning, we’ve had this quarrel — that’s why I call it the Founders Quarrel — which is, on the one hand, there was agreement that we should have religious liberty. But what that actually meant — was what?” Linda Przybyszewski, associate professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, told OSV News.
“They argued about it,” she said of the Founding Fathers, “because so many of them believed that some form of belief in God was necessary to teaching people virtue and morality — since we need virtue and morality in order to be a self-governing republic. The question then became, ‘Who’s going to teach the religion?’ … And I don’t think that has ever gone away.”
The variety of religious traditions in the U.S. also complicated matters.
“At the founding of the United States, we saw a fascinating mix of groups who argued for religious liberty,” explained Przybyszewski. “There were deists — people who believed in God, but had their doubts about Christ — like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. There were also sort of ‘orthodox’ churches, which were in some cases newer — like the Baptists, or the Presbyterians — and they had been actively persecuted by colonies that had established churches; that is, churches with privileges.”
During the colonial period of the early 1700s, most colonists — about 85% of some 500,000 — lived in colonies with an official state church, typically the Congregational (Calvinist) or Anglican Church.
“This disparate group of people argued very strongly for religious liberty,” Przybyszewski said, “which is why we have in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or imposing on the free exercise of religion.”
Michael Breidenbach — dean of the Honors College and associate professor of history at Ave Maria University in Ave Maria, Florida — agreed.
“Religious experience for colonial Americans was very varied. There were some colonists who came specifically because they were fleeing religious persecution. There were others who were forced to come to America, in the case of enslaved people and indentured servants,” he shared.
“There were others who were trying to find a better life than what they had in Europe. And most of them were, I would say, a Christian in some description — although there are notable and important exceptions with Jews and Muslims; and of course, those who did not profess the faith, gnostics or atheists,” said Breidenbach.
He noted that most frequently, arguments for religious toleration involved a fair degree of self-interest — meaning those who wished it for themselves were not necessarily committed pluralists.
“Religious toleration,” Breidenbach said, “is a kind of grant from the civil authority that allows for religious nonconformity because that does better for civil peace — and a kind of recognition that conforming people to a religion they do not believe in makes them hypocrites; makes them not true believers; and otherwise creates a lot of dissension in a political community.”
The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 — written by Cecil Calvert (1605-1675), son of George Calvert (1580-1632), the Catholic founder of the colony of Maryland (later home of the first U.S. diocese) — is typically identified as the first American law specifically referring to “the free exercise” of religion.
It mandated religious tolerance for Trinitarian Christians, stating, “No person or persons shall from henceforth be any ways troubled, molested, or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof.”
Ironically, it was repealed in 1654 when William Claiborne, who was stridently anti-Catholic, took control of the colonial government. A new law was passed barring Catholics from openly practicing their religion.
The “Great Awakening” of the 1740s — an evangelical revival of Christianity that swept the colonies, ushering in both religious and political change — further fueled debates.
“By the time we get to American Independence,” said Breidenbach, “what changes is that we see a shift in the discourse to the natural rights of someone to freely exercise one’s religion — public worship — according to the dictates of their conscience. And that’s a different commitment because the government can’t abridge those rights,” he added. “They can maybe limit them under certain conditions — but they are natural rights, and so that’s a much more firm protection.”
Catholics, Breidenbach noted, were at the forefront of the commitment for the natural rights of religious liberty.
Archbishop John Carroll of Baltimore (1735-1815) — the first Catholic bishop in the U.S. — wrote publicly on the subject; his brother Daniel Carroll (1730-1796) was a framer of the U.S. Constitution; and their second cousin Charles Carroll (1737-1832) was the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence.
Still, non-Protestants often faced exclusion and outright persecution.
In the 17th century, Massachusetts hanged people for being Quakers; when the Declaration of Independence was signed, nine of the 13 colonies prohibited Catholics and Jews from holding office; in 1838, the governor of Missouri issued Executive Order 44, calling for the “extermination” of the Mormons; and during the 1830s, Protestant mobs burned convents and sacked churches during anti-Catholic riots.
“A lot of American Protestants didn’t even think the Catholic Church was producing people who were going to make good citizens,” explained Przybyszewski. “The Protestant view of Catholics was that this was a backward, superstitious, not really Christian church — which their faith had rejected centuries earlier.”
Even the first Catholic U.S. president, John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), had to convince Protestant-majority America he would not answer to the pope: “I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy stressed. “I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the Church does not speak for me.”
Since May 2020, at least 410 anti-Catholic episodes have occurred throughout the country, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops notes.
“Incidents,” the USCCB states, “include arson, statues beheaded, limbs cut, smashed, and painted, gravestones defaced with swastikas and anti-Catholic language and American flags next to them burned, and other destruction and vandalism.”
The USCCB itemizes an annual list of religious freedom concerns; the latest edition was released in mid-February.
For 2026, those identified as “critical” are “political and anti-religious violence; unjust terms and conditions on federal grants, and unreliability of government; access to sacraments for ICE detainees and immigration enforcement at houses of worship; school choice and the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit; repeal of provisions that prevent religious organizations from participating in government programs; and further repudiation of gender ideology.”
While present questions of religious liberty may seem discouraging, Breidenbach nonetheless sees a lesson in the revolutionary history the nation is celebrating.
“Catholics in colonial America were presumed dangerous until proven loyal. And to go from being suspected subjects of a king to trusted patriots in a new republic is a remarkable transformation,” he emphasized.
“It’s something that still needs to be retold; it needs to be revitalized,” said Breidenbach. “Because — when we think about questions of religious liberty today — we need to firmly say that, whatever you think about a particular religion, one has to acknowledge that Catholics were founders and framers of this country.”
