We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : "I STILL own the ban button, buddy" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (2122)3/11/2015 3:02:47 PM
From: Greg or e  Respond to of 2133
Are the Religion Clauses of the Constitution Contradictory?Mar 11, 2015 | Justin Taylor

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .”

followed immediately by the Free Exercise Clause:

“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Together these are called the “Religion Clauses” of the First Amendment.

Some people suggest that they are contradictory: the Establishment Clause encourages the exercise of “religion” in every possible sense, and at yet the purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to keep religion from being practiced to such a degree that politics are influenced.

Political philosopher J. Budziszewski rebuts the argument:

The Free Exercise Clause does not say that the government should encourage the exercise of religion in every possible sense.

What it says is that Congress must not prohibit it. That’s all.

The Establishment Clause does not say that the government should keep religion from influencing politics.

What it says is that Congress must not make laws concerning official churches, like the Church of England. That’s all.

There is no conflict whatsoever between saying that the national legislature must not prohibit the practice of faith, and saying that it must not make laws concerning official churches.

Conflict arises only when you try to make the clauses mean more than they do.

Budziszewski goes on to argue that the chief reasons advance for the Religion Clauses were themselves religious:

The Framers didn’t want the practice of faith prohibited, because they thought we have duties to God.

But they didn’t want Congress to get into the official church business, because they thought religious truth is best promoted by religious competition.

The states, and the people thereof, were left to do as they thought best.