THE TRUE MEANING
OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
A POSITION PAPER FROM
THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY
OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY
AUTHOR: EDWARD TABASH, ESQ.
REVIEWING COMMITTEE: PAUL KURTZ, Ph. D., THOMAS W. FLYNN, DAVID
KOEPSELL, J.D., Ph. D., RONALD A. LINDSAY, J. D., Ph. D., TONI VAN PELT
DATED: MARCH, 2007
Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this
material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes,
provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full
authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To
disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from
the Center for Inquiry, Inc.
Center for Inquiry, March 2007
1
THE TRUE MEANING OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
INTRODUCTION
Perhaps no provision of the Constitution has been the subject of as much debate and
controversy as the Establishment Cause of the First Amendment. (“Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion … .”) Different interpretations of the Establishment
Clause abound. However, although many interpretations of the Clause have been offered, in the
last few decades there have been primarily two opposing viewpoints: One view is that the
Establishment Clause commands strict government neutrality on all religious issues, including
neutrality between religious beliefs and nonreligious beliefs. The other view is that the
Establishment Clause only forbids the government from favoring one religion over others, but
does not prevent government from aiding religion in general, as long as it does so evenhandedly.
The latter interpretation is often referred to as the “nonpreferentialist” view. Several Supreme
Court justices, including the late Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, have endorsed the
nonpreferentialist interpretation. However, a majority of the Court has rejected this interpretation
and has ruled that the government must be neut