2011bepress Legal RepositoryOpen access

The Religion Clauses as Mutually Reinforcing Mandates: Why the Arguments for Rigorously Enforcing the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause are Stronger When Both Clauses are Taken Seriously

Alan E. Brownstein

Open full text 2 citations

Abstract

Legal commentary often describes the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as either being in tension with each other or as serving overlapping and redundant purposes. Both of these perspectives commonly share a willingness to dispense with or subordinate the requirements of one clause while calling for the rigorous implementation of the other. This Essay suggests a different and overlooked dimension of the relationship between the two clauses: in important ways each of the religion clauses supports and reinforces the justification for and rigorous enforcement of the other. Correspondingly, the dilution of one clause undermines the arguments for taking the other clause seriously. To some significant extent, the religion clauses stand or fall together These reinforcement and dilution connections cover a range of justifications for, and applications of, the two clauses. Establishment Clause constraints on state subsidies of religious institutions and activities support the value formation justification for protecting free exercise rights. The holding of Employment Division v. Smith, eliminating constitutional protection against neutral laws of general applicability, undermines the taxpayer liberty justification for limiting state aid to religious institutions. Free exercise exemptions and accommodations standing alone unacceptably advantage religion in the market place of ideas, and establishment clause limits on government support for religious organizations and beliefs standing alone unacceptably disadvantage religion in the market place of ideas. The rigorous enforcement of each clause (or neither clause) is necessary to balance out these distorting impacts. This essay identifies and discusses these and other ways in which the arguments supporting or undermining each of the religion clauses reinforces or weakens the other.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Legal commentary often describes the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as either being in tension with each other or as serving overlapping and redundant purposes. Both of these perspectives commonly share a willingness to dispense with or subordinate the requirements of one clause while calling for the rigorous implementation of the other. This Essay suggests a different and overlooked dimension of the relationship between the two clauses: in important ways each of the religion clauses supports and reinforces the justification for and rigorous enforcement of the other. Correspondingly, the dilution of one clause undermines the arguments for taking the other clause seriously. To some significant extent, the religion clauses stand or fall together These reinforcement and dilution connections cover a range of justifications for, and applications of, the two clauses. Establishment Clause constraints on state subsidies of religious institutions and activities support the value formation justification for protecting free exercise rights. The holding of Employment Division v. Smith, eliminating constitutional protection against neutral laws of general applicability, undermines the taxpayer liberty justification for limiting state aid to religious institutions. Free exercise exemptions and accommodations standing alone unacceptably advantage religion in the market place of ideas, and establishment clause limits on government support for religious organizations and beliefs standing alone unacceptably disadvantage religion in the market place of ideas. The rigorous enforcement of each clause (or neither clause) is necessary to balance out these distorting impacts. This essay identifies and discusses these and other ways in which the arguments supporting or undermining each of the religion clauses reinforces or weakens the other.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Legal commentary often describes the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as either being in tension with each other or as serving overlapping and redundant purposes. Both of these perspectives commonly share a willingness to dispense with or subordinate the requirements of one clause while calling for the rigorous implementation of the other. This Essay suggests a different and overlooked dimension of the relationship between the two clauses: in important ways each of the religion clauses supports and reinforces the justification for and rigorous enforcement of the other. Correspondingly, the dilution of one clause undermines the arguments for taking the other clause seriously. To some significant extent, the religion clauses stand or fall together These reinforcement and dilution connections cover a range of justifications for, and applications of, the two clauses. Establishment Clause constraints on state subsidies of religious institutions and activities support the value formation justification for protecting free exercise rights. The holding of Employment Division v. Smith, eliminating constitutional protection against neutral laws of general applicability, undermines the taxpayer liberty justification for limiting state aid to religious institutions. Free exercise exemptions and accommodations standing alone unacceptably advantage religion in the market place of ideas, and establishment clause limits on government support for religious organizations and beliefs standing alone unacceptably disadvantage religion in the market place of ideas. The rigorous enforcement of each clause (or neither clause) is necessary to balance out these distorting impacts. This essay identifies and discusses these and other ways in which the arguments supporting or undermining each of the religion clauses reinforces or weakens the other.

Key concepts: Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, Dormant Commerce Clause, Enforcement, Taxpayer, Law and economics, Political science, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Religion Clauses as Mutually Reinforcing Mandates: Why the Arguments for Rigorously Enforcing the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause are Stronger When Both Clauses are Taken Seriously — Research Paper | ScholarLens