The current American political landscape overflows with sharp conflict and disdainful rhetoric. The norm for American political discourse has alarmingly mutated from spirited good-faith debate into no-holds-barred, personal, and unproductive quarrels. We have seen this unfortunate transformation transpire on the floors of Congress, forums on social media platforms, and even dinner tables at Thanksgiving. As political tension continues to escalate, it is critical to find common ground issues that can unite us and act as release valves for the deep political strains currently hampering American civic society.  Defending religious liberty for all is a timely political issue that can help restore and repair the severed tapestry of American political life. A comprehensive defense of religious liberty fosters civic virtues such as charity, restraint, and a willingness to accommodate differing viewpoints. The survival of our constitutional order depends on these civic virtues. In his book “American Covenant,” Yuval Levin discusses how the polity of republicanism requires a type of citizen for its sustainment. Republicanism offers its own “anthropology,” or the blueprint of the human person. Levin discusses how traits like selflessness, restraint, and accommodation mark the archetypal citizen needed to preserve a republican system of government. As Abraham Lincoln said in his second inaugural address, “With malice toward none, with charity for all.” Citizens that succumb to selfishness and the desire to dominate political opponents will find it near impossible to properly function in a system of ordered representation and the checks, balances, and compromises necessary for diverse peoples to live together.  The Founders also recognized both the necessity and rarity of civic virtues. James Madison argued in Federalist 51 that the reason why we need checks on governmental power is because men are not angels, neither are they naturally inclined to pursue such a status. At the same time, the Founders acknowledged that the law is a teacher and can shape the character of its constituents. That recognition motivated the Founders to draft a constitution that could channel human fallibility toward a system of government that promotes liberty and justice for all through the structure of federalism, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights. Among other virtue-encouraging constitutional provisions, few, if any, are more prominent than the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Protecting our first freedom of religious liberty, the free exercise clause is also a pedagogical instrument for promoting the anthropology of republicanism. For religious citizens, it clarifies that firmly held beliefs and civic accommodation are not mutually exclusive, thus promoting both forbearance and religious formation. One can believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ provide the only way for forgiveness of sins against God and restoration to fellowship with the Father, while still permitting those who disagree, such as Jews, Muslims, and others, to freely worship in their own ways, or to believe nothing at all. Our constitutional system allows Americans of different religious backgrounds to accommodate each other while, at the same time, strengthening their own religious beliefs, convictions, and practices. The free exercise clause shows that religious convictions are not in a zero-sum game with civic accommodation. Citizens can and should exercise fervor in faith, which may manifest in evangelistic efforts, while maintaining charity in civic relations with those of different religious stripes.  The free exercise clause provides wide latitude for Americans to hold and exercise religious beliefs. Subsequent statutes like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act reinforce this constitutional provision. This is because the government is not the proper institution to decide who is preaching truth and who is preaching heresy. As the Supreme Court declared in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 728 (1871), “[t]he law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.” The court’s declaration is not a constitutional mandate for a bland moral relativism, neither for a religious lukewarmness that believes all religions are correct. Instead, the denominationally neutral phrasing of the free exercise clause promotes both robust assertions of absolute truth and the emergence of numerous religious systems in American society.  Moreover, the free exercise clause and its statutory descendants invaluably protect an individual’s right of conscience and decisions to live out general religious convictions that emanate from the conscience. The experiences of the earliest American colonists demonstrate the need for protecting the religious liberty of all Americans because that is the antecedent to any and all exercises of freedom. The protection of religious liberty necessarily extends to the protection of the individual conscience, or “inner voice,” and beliefs about ultimate questions. The basis for protecting the conscience is the biblical concept that all people are created in the Imago Dei and are thus entitled to liberty in exercising their reason when considering life’s biggest questions. This is why the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom also affects areligious Americans. Even though they do not subscribe to any religion, areligious people also make decisions based on their conscience and contemplate deep questions about reality and human purpose. Were it not for the free exercise clause, the government would be able to mandate a specific religious viewpoint, and by extension, interfere in the inner conscience and place the intellectual freedom of all Americans at risk.   When the government tries to dictate to citizens what to think, that threatens the whole constellation of constitutional liberties. If the government was allowed to control citizens’ thoughts, there is no defense against a snowballing infringement of external constitutional rights, like the right to bear arms, receive a trial by jury, or by protected from cruel and unusual punishment. That is why the First Amendment is first among equals. When we prohibit the government from forcing beliefs onto citizens or censoring beliefs that conflict with the current prevailing orthodoxy, it sends the clear message that ordered liberty defines republicanism and requires a panoply of constitutional provisions to protect the individual and to safeguard this structure of government. It is with gratitude that we reflect on the Founders’ decision to amplify this message by way of enshrining religious liberty with the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Importance of Religious Liberty and the Anthropology of Republicanism appeared first on The Daily Signal.