ABSTRACT
The religion clauses of the First Amendment thus impose two restrictions: the Establishment Clause requires a degree of separation between church and state, and the Free Exercise Clause recognizes a sphere of religious liberty that Congress cannot invade. Ever since Everson, some scholars have insisted that the justices' focus on the Virginia struggle for religious liberty led them to misinterpret the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Thus, in striking down aid to religion while requiring the accommodation of religious beliefs in the application of general legislation, the Court is merely fulfilling the somewhat opposed purposes of the two provisions. First, it depreciates the Constitution by assuming that it incorporates an incoherent understanding of the proper relation between government and religion. Second, it offers no guidance for determining whether one should opt for neutrality or accommodation in resolving particular disputes. The method for protecting freedom of worship and freedom of conscience in religious matters is quite the reverse.
