Thank you for this piece, Kahlil. The history of syncretism and spiritual resistance is something that deserves far more attention, and I learned a lot this morning.
What strikes me reading this is how declaring an official religion would require erasing not just Black spiritual traditions, but the very principle that brought so many people to these shores in the first place. The irony has always been there: religious outcasts fleeing persecution who then turned around and persecuted others. But we’ve also always had leaders who saw that hypocrisy clearly and fought against it.
Here’s what I can’t reconcile about the Christian nationalist position: if you’re already a Christian, you have the community, the fellowship, and (if you believe) the benefit of being right with God. That’s enormous. So why do you need the government picking winners and losers based on personal relationships with the divine? The same people who distrust government involvement in their daily lives want that same government enforcing control over the most intimate realm of human experience: our thoughts about existence and meaning? How does that skepticism suddenly disappear when it comes to faith?
This has me thinking about whether a constitutional amendment clarifying religious protections could actually work. Something that gives religious communities what they legitimately want (protection from government interference in their practice) while making crystal clear that no faith gets state sponsorship. The founders knew state-sanctioned religion corrupts both the state and the religion. What would an amendment look like that fixes this tension in a way that even devout Christians could support? It’s something I’m now planning to explore (thanks to Kahlil’s essay) in my newsletter series “A New Bill of Rights,” which looks at constitutional reforms that might actually heal some of our democratic dysfunction.
Off the top of my head, what if an amendment included language like: “No level of government shall establish, endorse, or show preference for any religion or religious denomination over others, nor for religion over non-religion or non-religion over religion.” That clarifies things for everyone: believers of all stripes and non-believers alike.
But to get buy-in from religious communities, you’d want to pair it with something like: “The right of individuals and religious institutions to practice, express, and live according to their faith shall not be infringed, nor shall any person be compelled to participate in religious exercise against their conscience.” Maybe even: “Religious organizations shall retain the right to govern their internal affairs, doctrine, and membership according to their beliefs without government interference.” But maybe we need a caveat in there about not allowing religious leaders to be put in positions of absolute trust with children, because people below the age of consent often get lost in these debates. Everyone should have the right to leave a religion if they want to, no matter how young they are. But the exact wording would be tricky. Lots to think about!
The idea is that you’re trading state endorsement (which corrupts faith anyway) for ironclad protection of actual religious practice. Most Christians I know don’t actually want the government running their church; they want to be left alone to worship freely. An amendment like this gives them that guarantee in permanent ink while making clear the government can’t play favorites. Seems like a fair deal to me.
This essay has genuinely inspired me to start drafting on this question. Thank you for that, Kahlil.
I'm truly for what you are saying about the early religions of the Blacks as being anti-oppression ,especially that which will counter the narrow-minded and bigoted view of Christian Nationalism , but you will certainly know when I say that anything that is counter to many denomination's view of Christianity, will be construed as demonic and will be summarily condemned as heretical ,unacceptable and ungodly .
To me, the commonality of most religions is to treat others like we all like to be treated ourselves and move on from there in keeping the separation of church and state intact within our government, while suggesting the same of other governments , as well.
Thank you for this piece, Kahlil. The history of syncretism and spiritual resistance is something that deserves far more attention, and I learned a lot this morning.
What strikes me reading this is how declaring an official religion would require erasing not just Black spiritual traditions, but the very principle that brought so many people to these shores in the first place. The irony has always been there: religious outcasts fleeing persecution who then turned around and persecuted others. But we’ve also always had leaders who saw that hypocrisy clearly and fought against it.
Here’s what I can’t reconcile about the Christian nationalist position: if you’re already a Christian, you have the community, the fellowship, and (if you believe) the benefit of being right with God. That’s enormous. So why do you need the government picking winners and losers based on personal relationships with the divine? The same people who distrust government involvement in their daily lives want that same government enforcing control over the most intimate realm of human experience: our thoughts about existence and meaning? How does that skepticism suddenly disappear when it comes to faith?
This has me thinking about whether a constitutional amendment clarifying religious protections could actually work. Something that gives religious communities what they legitimately want (protection from government interference in their practice) while making crystal clear that no faith gets state sponsorship. The founders knew state-sanctioned religion corrupts both the state and the religion. What would an amendment look like that fixes this tension in a way that even devout Christians could support? It’s something I’m now planning to explore (thanks to Kahlil’s essay) in my newsletter series “A New Bill of Rights,” which looks at constitutional reforms that might actually heal some of our democratic dysfunction.
Off the top of my head, what if an amendment included language like: “No level of government shall establish, endorse, or show preference for any religion or religious denomination over others, nor for religion over non-religion or non-religion over religion.” That clarifies things for everyone: believers of all stripes and non-believers alike.
But to get buy-in from religious communities, you’d want to pair it with something like: “The right of individuals and religious institutions to practice, express, and live according to their faith shall not be infringed, nor shall any person be compelled to participate in religious exercise against their conscience.” Maybe even: “Religious organizations shall retain the right to govern their internal affairs, doctrine, and membership according to their beliefs without government interference.” But maybe we need a caveat in there about not allowing religious leaders to be put in positions of absolute trust with children, because people below the age of consent often get lost in these debates. Everyone should have the right to leave a religion if they want to, no matter how young they are. But the exact wording would be tricky. Lots to think about!
The idea is that you’re trading state endorsement (which corrupts faith anyway) for ironclad protection of actual religious practice. Most Christians I know don’t actually want the government running their church; they want to be left alone to worship freely. An amendment like this gives them that guarantee in permanent ink while making clear the government can’t play favorites. Seems like a fair deal to me.
This essay has genuinely inspired me to start drafting on this question. Thank you for that, Kahlil.
I'm truly for what you are saying about the early religions of the Blacks as being anti-oppression ,especially that which will counter the narrow-minded and bigoted view of Christian Nationalism , but you will certainly know when I say that anything that is counter to many denomination's view of Christianity, will be construed as demonic and will be summarily condemned as heretical ,unacceptable and ungodly .
To me, the commonality of most religions is to treat others like we all like to be treated ourselves and move on from there in keeping the separation of church and state intact within our government, while suggesting the same of other governments , as well.
Wonderful article! Thank you for sharing and teaching the origins of African American spirituality!