The worst-understood passage in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is probably the first: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That such a simple provision is the source of so much uncertainty is hardly the fault of regular Americans failing to understand the text’s plain meaning, nor is it due to changes in language that often turn the words of the Constitution into an impenetrable puzzle. Rather, as Michael McConnell and Nathan Chapman show in their outstanding new book, Agreeing to Disagree, blame for muddling the meaning of the Establishment Clause falls squarely on the robed shoulders of Supreme Court justices of the mid-to-late twentieth century. Whether the justices were more confused or confusing is a close competition. More certain is that Americans will have to steady themselves as the current Court moves towards a healthier and historically grounded—yet painfully unfamiliar—interpretation of the First Amendment. Not content to provide the context for the ongoing sea change, McConnell and Chapman argue with concision and common-sense appeal that reading the Establishment Clause as a pluralism-fostering device is both constitutionally authorized and workable.
Read Full Article »
