The Quaker Exemption and Religious Liberty Today

By Thomas Kidd
Mar 25, 2014

As oral arguments begin in Hobby Lobby’s challenge to the HHS abortifacient mandate, we might ask what the Founders would think about this case? On one hand, they could not have imagined it. The public sale of government-approved contraceptives and abortifacients (and to be fair, that of most modern medicines of any kind) would have been unfathomable in 1776. And the notion of a government requiring businesses to provide contraceptive and abortifacient coverage? Such an idea could never have occurred to them.

But part of the debate would have struck them as quite familiar: the concept that certain laws might require exemptions for those who objected on religious grounds. For the Founders, the most common cases of such exemptions involved Quakers. The Quakers were one of the most radical groups emerging from the English Reformation, and in the 1680s they founded Pennsylvania. Quakers were pacifists and refused military service. They also objected to the swearing of oaths, a common practice in courts and in the seating of political officials.

The Quakers’ opposition to oaths was based on a plain reading of Matthew 5:33-37, in which Jesus said “Swear not at all...But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (KJV) Early Americans assumed that requiring an oath for legislators or participants in court cases would help guarantee honesty and integrity, but those requirements functionally banned Quakers from accessing some of the most basic institutions of government.

By the eighteenth century, many American colonies had begun to enact exemptions for Quakers so they would not have to swear oaths. Typically this involved allowing objectors to “affirm” that they would tell the truth or do their duty, a compromise which satisfied Quakers’ objections. This policy became so entrenched in American law that the Constitution’s oath of office for the president takes it into account: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.” According to the Judiciary Act of 1789, judges had to swear (or affirm) to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States, concluding with the petition, “so help me God.” But the act also noted that the “words, ‘so help me God,’ shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath.”

Quakers were also afforded exemptions from military service, and along with Baptists, they asked for and sometimes received relief from the religious taxes imposed by many of the colonies to support established denominations, usually either the Anglican or Congregationalist Church. Often the colonies would require dissenters like the Baptists to produce a certificate showing that they were really active in a dissenting congregation and not just trying to avoid the tax. But that system was clumsy, and Baptists in the Revolutionary era resented having to do anything to get out of paying a tax they considered a violation of conscience in any case.

The Baptists’ opposition to state establishments of religion, and to the exemption certificates, set the stage for their great campaign in the 1770s and 1780s against religious establishments of any kind. That campaign helped to end most official state support for particular denominations. Along with prominent political leaders such as James Madison, Baptist pressure helped ensure a national commitment to full religious freedom, as articulated in the First Amendment.

The great Baptist champion of religious liberty, John Leland, a staunch ally of Madison and Thomas Jefferson, acknowledged that religious dissenters could not be allowed to “disturb the peace” and harm fellow citizens under the cover of conscience objections. However, he insisted that governments which really valued religious liberty should afford exemptions to laws that “prevent liberty of conscience,...because men cannot stretch their consciences like a nose of wax.” Sincere religious non-conformists should not be treated like common vagrants, he said.

Extending exemptions for cases of religious conscience is a longstanding part of America’s effort to ensure both the rule of law and real religious liberty. Secularist advocates today will argue that religious freedom does not extend beyond the walls of congregations, but that was not the view of the Founders. Religious liberty was public liberty.

Secularist advocates will similarly argue that we cannot account for the messiness of religious liberty claims – we can never judge the validity of the many possible conscience claims, they say. The public good (meaning, in the case of the HHS Mandate, broad access to health care, including abortifacients) must trump dissenting religious concerns. But again, the Founders realized that government would have to accommodate sincere religious objections, even when majorities in a legislature believed that a law served the public good.

Any reasonable observer can see that the Green family of Hobby Lobby (as well as their co-litigants Conestoga Wood) has a sincere religious objection to providing abortifacient coverage to employees. Their convictions represent an honest, longstanding objection to abortion held by many other Americans. The HHS Mandate, conversely, represents an abrupt, intrusive requirement of the national government that has obvious ramifications for the consciences of many American employers. Trying to ram this policy through, without offering substantive conscience exemptions, would have struck the Founders as ungenerous and coercive. 

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, , Christian Citizenship, Healthcare, Religious Liberty,

3 Comments (post your own) feed

1 On Mar 28, 2014, at 4:15pm, Bob from Lansing wrote:

Very good article.  My only disagreement with the Hobby Lobby lawsuit is the corporation decides what medical procedures the insurance will cover.  Some for of contraception in this case, blood transfusions for others, A wild west of insurance.  I would hate to have to ask what religion my next company is so I can decide if I need their approved type of medical coverage. Happily, my current company is secular.  SCOTUS made companies people with citizens united and now it looks like they will give them religions.  I see them as neither.

2 On Apr 2, 2014, at 10:27am, Bruce from Ohio wrote:

Thank you, Professor Kidd, for the article, which, speaking as both a practicing attorney and an historian by training, I think fairly encapsulates the view of the Founders with regard to religious liberty. At bottom, I agree that the Founders would have been deeply dismayed (to say the least) by the HHS Mandate—including the fact (which would have struck them as quite remarkable, in addition to worrisome) that such a mandate was being issued by the federal government, as opposed to state governments.

3 On Apr 2, 2014, at 10:34am, Bruce from Ohio wrote:

In response to ‘Bob from Lansing,’ I respect your view on difficulties that may arise by providing religious liberty exemptions for businesses. However, please understand that defining corporations as “persons” was not the result of the Citizens United case. If you read the transcript of the recent oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court on Hobby Lobby, you will see repeated references to the “Dictionary Act,” an act of Congress (1 U.S.C. ยง 1) that expressly defines “person” as including “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” Such an inclusive definition is no accident, nor is it political or ideological in nature: rather, it is the vehicle by which companies (as well as natural persons) can be made liable to the laws and regulations issued by the federal government. Moreover, until recently (i.e., the politicized aftermath of Citizens United), that definition was rarely (if ever) controversial.

Post a Comment

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Comments are moderated. Learn how we moderate comments, but here are the highlights:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name.
  2. Comments must be on topic.
  3. Comments are limited to 1000 characters, multiple posts permitted.
  4. Please do not type in ALL CAPS.
  5. We feed name-calling and vulgar language to a really big robot.

By clicking the below Submit button, you express agreement to the Guidelines in their entirety.

You May Also Like

Letter to Rep. Franks on Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

By Staff - Jun 17, 2013

Dr. Russell Moore sent a letter June 17, 2013, to Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) thanking him for his leadership on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797), which would prohibit the abortion of unborn babies who have reached 20 weeks post-fertilization or later (except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother) based on scientific evidence that babies can feel pain by this stage of development, if not earlier.…

Read More