The First Amendment is a simply written, valuable doctrine for the United States, yet perceived challenges to those words deserve thorough scrutiny from the nation’s leaders.

In plain text, as noted at the top of this page, the First Amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the former Alabama senator, spoke at a Justice Department summit Monday on religious tolerance at a time when courts have been asked how to balance anti-discrimination laws against the First Amendment’s religious freedom guarantees.

He also announced the creation of a “religious liberty task force” to implement Justice Department guidance on respecting and accommodating religious beliefs, including those of department employees.

At first glance, Sessions wading in with concern is encouraging. As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and head of the Justice Department, protecting the sanctity of the First Amendment should be a major concern of every arm of government and United States citizens.

Without the assurance of the First Amendment, the nation would lose its foundation and not stand above countries where tolerance and basic rights are largely subjective, and often non-existent. Within those few words is a message for religious tolerance, a guarantee to worship by the faith you choose, a free and unhindered press, and the right to assemble, protest and petition the government for action or change.

In considering the message of the First Amendment, it’s important that Sessions approach the topic of religious tolerance with care. People of faith do need to feel safe that they can gather and worship without fear from another religious group or those who do not embrace religion.

Sessions objects to members of Congress asking judicial and executive branch nominees about their religious dogma. But he also praised a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple in a case that reached the Supreme Court and ended in the baker’s favor this year.

There seems to be some confusion in some of what Sessions embraces, but overall his stance to protect religious freedom, hopefully creating a better environment of tolerance, is admirable.

As for as the baker who refused to make a cake for the same-sex couple, that had nothing to do with establishing a religion or freely exercising faith. While the court ruled in his favor, making a cake for two people he disagreed with because of religious conviction is another realm outside of having a religion protected by America’s foundation.

The United States has long been diverse country; now, even more so. Sessions needs to make sure his efforts are broad and without reproach where religious tolerance is concerned. Critics are afraid he only wants to ensure protection for the Christian faith, but if his intent is carried out as he has said, this could be an opportunity to create a time of more tolerance among people of all faiths in this country.

We hope that Sessions is successful in fostering a greater sense of tolerance for religious freedom. Being able to practice a religious faith is not, however, a mandate to spread discrimination in public life where all citizens are guaranteed broad rights.