Religious Liberty at a Crossroads: Why It Still Matters

On April 13, 2026, the Religious Liberty Commission (RLC) of the U.S. Department of Justice held its final hearing to discuss the past, present, and future of religious liberty in America.

“Today’s capstone hearing of President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission contained more powerful testimony and discussion about how people of religion are under assault by the secular left,” said Chairman Dan Patrick. “It is time to set the record straight: there is no such thing as ‘separation of church and state’ in the Constitution. For too long, the anti-God left has used this phrase to suppress people of religion in our country. During all 7 Commission hearings, witness after witness testified that the so-called ‘separation of church and state’ was used to take their God-given religious liberty rights away.”

While concerns about the free practice of the Christian faith are real and genuine (such as the well-known bakery dispute in Colorado and several workplace Sabbath-keeping challenges), any solutions designed to protect it at the federal level must remain faithful to the Constitution’s safeguards—for all people and all faiths, and not just one group.

It is true that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution; however, the First Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1791, does support the concept to at least some degree:

• The first clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This prohibits the U.S. government from creating a federal religion or imposing religious practices on anyone.
• The second clause adds, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This protects individuals’ right to worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

Both clauses are essential. “The two religion clauses of our First Amendment, operating in tandem, represent the ‘both/and’ genius of our unique religious freedom regime. They tell us that we can both enforce the establishment clause without being hostile to religion, and rigorously protect religious free exercise without favoring one religion above others” (Bettina Krause, Editor, Liberty Magazine, Nov/Dec. 2024, p. 3).

The Constitution also stipulates that: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” (Article VI, paragraph 3), meaning any person of any faith may serve as a representative of the people.

A History of Separation

Through their actions and writings, the founders of the United States made it clear that they intended to keep church and state separate. It was not their desire to make all governing bodies free “from” religious people, but rather to advocate freedom “for” religion.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the “whole American people,” by enacting the First Amendment, built “a wall of separation between Church & State” (Letter to the Danbury Baptists). This letter coined the term “separation of church and state,” but it was based on the Constitution and the intended meaning of the First Amendment.

And the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated during the era of George Washington and ratified by the United States Senate under the presidency of John Adams, provides an authoritative statement from the generation that forged the nation. “Its declaration that the United States ‘is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion’ (Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11) reflects the founders’ deliberate commitment to separating civil authority from religious establishment while still protecting the free exercise of faith.”

“The framers [of the Constitution] intentionally built a system that protected freedom of conscience for all, ensuring that government would neither impose nor favor any particular faith. When that boundary is crossed and when the state begins to elevate religious traditions, it departs from its original design and puts liberty at risk. The preservation of true religious liberty depends on maintaining that clear and essential separation—once it is compromised, liberty itself is placed in jeopardy.”

Why a Religious Liberty Commission?

The RLC was established on May 1, 2025, by President Donald Trump to review the history of religious liberty in the United States. The stated purpose of the commission is to “advise the White House Faith Office and the Domestic Policy Council on religious liberty policies of the United States, including by recommending steps to secure domestic religious liberty and identifying opportunities to further the cause of religious liberty around the world.”

Over the past year, the commission has held seven hearings to examine First Amendment rights, conscience protections regarding health and education, attacks on religious institutions, and the rights of all Americans to freely exercise their faith without fear of government censorship or antagonism.

While Christians can be grateful for efforts to ensure they can freely exercise their religious convictions even under unfriendly state legislators and courts, extreme diligence should be taken so that the pendulum does not swing in the opposite, equally dangerous direction.

According to the White House, President Trump has won over 100 victories for people of faith. While many of these are positive developments, it is conceivable that another administration could use the same government structures to ultimately favor one religion and its adherents, offering an umbrella of influence and power over other religious groups and the unreligious.

The “America Reads the Bible” campaign enlisted over 500 Americans to join President Trump and other religious leaders in reading through the entire Bible between April 18–25. Their goal was to reconnect “leaders and citizens with the transformative power of Scripture.”

A laudable goal, indeed, but could it be evidence that the U.S. government is becoming increasingly willing to align itself with a particular set of beliefs?

Religious liberty is threatened when faith is restricted—and when it is enforced. Any government that promotes one faith risks violating the liberty of those of another faith.

A Prophetic Warning

This trend should interest all students of prophecy.

The book of Revelation describes a final crisis in which a global power enforces religious worship. In Revelation 13, John sees a lamb-like beast that “speaks like a dragon,” using economic pressure and ultimately a death decree (vv. 11–17).

Several features of this power have led many Bible students to identify it with the United States. Especially noteworthy are the lamb’s two crownless horns—suggesting a government without a king and a church without a pope.

Yet the prophecy warns of a dramatic change. This same power, which begins by upholding freedom, eventually speaks “like a dragon”—using its authority to compel conscience rather than protect it.

In light of this, any movement that brings church and state closer together deserves careful attention. A government designed to protect liberty must not become an instrument for enforcing belief.

Is the United States moving in that direction?

To learn more about religious liberty and America’s role in Bible prophecy, read the Amazing Facts Study Guide, “The USA in Bible Prophecy.”