Americans have become increasingly hostile to the notion of “objective truth” (henceforth, ‘Truth’). Rather than accept that there’s any such thing as Truth, many embrace that we all have our own “individual,” relative truths. More and more, Americans think we can agree to disagree and “coexist” because, ultimately, what is true for one need not be and is not true for another. They think we should refrain from getting bogged down in facts and logic because assuming that one is right, so the thought goes, can lead to conflict and hurt feelings. Who are we, after all, to tell another how he should live his life (never mind that the government does this explicitly through laws every waking second)? Thus, we should just let people live the way they want. It’s the only way we can live in harmony.
Unfortunately for American relativists, the historical character of the United States rejects that we should just let people live the way they want and refrain from pursuing Truth. Indeed, the United States was founded on a principle that diametrically opposes this relativist assumption; the Founders wanted Americans to pursue Truth, as shown by their providing Americans a right to pursue Truth. That right is the Freedom of Religion.
Freedom of Religion presupposes Truth. And since the United States was at least partially founded on religious freedom, the United States was at least partially founded on the principle that Truth exists. Relativism, however, denies and attacks Truth by discouraging people from pursuing it. Relativism thus attacks a fundamental, inalienable American right, thereby outing itself as a deeply unamerican philosophy. If, therefore, one is an American, he cannot be a relativist.
Let’s start by playing (quite literally) the devil’s advocate to my thesis: It may seem that Freedom of Religion in fact presupposes relativism and denies Truth. Indeed, so one may argue, isn’t the point of Freedom of Religion to allow people to believe in different God-like entities, for example, and live by different moral codes? Doesn’t this allow something to be true for someone and not true for someone else?
Take, for example, the Mormon fundamentalist who considers polygamy morally permissible. Now take the Christian who considers polygamy morally impermissible. Freedom of Religion allows both of these people to hold their respective beliefs — and hold them as true. Thus, it is true, according to the Mormon fundamentalist, that polygamy is morally permissible, such that, if one practices Mormon fundamentalism, he may practice polygamy without upsetting his moral conscience. Likewise, it is true, according to the Christian, that polygamy is morally impermissible, such that, if one practices Christianity, he may not practice polygamy without upsetting his moral conscience. Freedom of Religion, therefore, seems to presuppose relativism about truth: It is true for Mormon fundamentalists that polygamy is morally permissible, while it is true for Christians that polygamy is morally impermissible. Each faith has its own set of truths, and followers of each faith are free to believe and practice them. Thus, what is true for followers of one religion need not be and is not true for followers of another religion — as provided by Freedom of Religion.
This line of thought fundamentally misrepresents the freedom that Freedom of Religion allows. It’s not that ‘polygamy is morally permissible’ is true for Mormon fundamentalists and false for Christians. It’s that Mormon fundamentalists and Christians disagree on polygamy’s moral character. In this way, Freedom of Religion allows us to engage in religious disagreements.
Religions, at their cores, strive to grasp Truth. Religious disagreements, therefore, ultimately concern Truth. Hence, Christians and Mormon fundamentalists who contest polygamy’s morality think that their side is right and that the other side is wrong. Christians do not think polygamy morally impermissible only for Christians, nor do Mormon fundamentalists think polygamy morally permissible only for Mormon fundamentalists. Rather, Christians and Mormon fundamentalists respectively think polygamy morally impermissible or permissible for everyone — which is to say, in an objective, non-relative sense.
The kinds of disagreements that Freedom of Religion allows, then, are disagreements concerning objective Truth. Freedom of Religion provides us with the freedom to pursue Truth by disagreeing over what is True. This is, in fact, the very reason for religious freedom in the first place.
Freedom of thought more generally allows for freedom of disagreement. Now, the point behind freedom of disagreement is to test beliefs and see which ones come out on top. When we allow for this kind of freedom, we allow people to freely share their ideas, and we can collectively determine which of those ideas deserve broader attention — which is to say, which ideas are reasonable. This most certainly applies to Freedom of Religion. Freedom of Religion is a species of freedom of thought — specifically, freedom of religious thought. And if the point behind freedom of thought is to test different beliefs to see which ones are right, then the point behind freedom of religious thought — that is, Freedom of Religion — is to test different religious beliefs to see which ones are right. And because, as explained previously, religious disagreement is disagreement concerning Truth, the point of Freedom of Religion or freedom of religious thought is to allow us to test beliefs concerning Truth — that is, to test beliefs concerning how best we can pursue Truth. Freedom of Religion, therefore, fundamentally aims to grasp Truth. That is the reason for its existence.
The United States was, therefore, founded on the idea that we can — and should — strive for Truth as a community. It was founded on the idea that we should listen to each other regarding ways to pursue Truth so that we can rationally decide how to pursue Truth and thus rationally decide what is True. Relativism, however, prevents this type of discourse by denying that Truth exists. Indeed, if Truth doesn’t exist, then there’s no point in pursuing it because we cannot attain something that doesn’t exist! And if there’s no point in pursuing Truth, then there’s no point in questioning what is True. Hence, relativism prevents us from pursuing Truth and from questioning what is True. And since this is the very point of Freedom of Religion, relativism fundamentally sets itself at odds with this freedom. Relativism threatens Freedom of Religion by threatening its reason for being — the pursuit of Truth. We cannot exercise our right to religious freedom as relativists because, in assuming relativism, we deny that which religious freedom seeks: Truth.
Relativism is, therefore, deeply unamerican. The United States was, to a large extent, founded on Freedom of Religion, i.e., the pursuit of Truth. Relativism, however, rejects Truth and thus rejects Freedom of Religion. As a result, relativism rejects one of America’s foundations; it rejects a foundational American principle and right. One cannot, therefore, be both a relativist and an American. These positions are mutually exclusive.
John Mancini is a professional social and political philosopher with a special interest in family and education policy. He has published and spoken at professional domestic and international conferences on a variety of ethical and social-political issues. John holds bachelor’s degrees in philosophy and political science from the University of Rhode Island and a master’s degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia.
