First Commandment and First Amendment

[Michael Ejercito]

First Commandment and First Amendment

There is a difference between state prohibition and state support

Religion has influenced the political and social life in this
country for centuries. Indeed, most American politicians follow one of
many faiths that derive their moral traditions from the Sheva Mitzvot
B'Nei Noach (Laws of the Sons of Noah. Certainly, they must follow
these morals with respect to their PERSONAL lives. And yet, what about
public policies they endorse? Based on their faith, how must they
decide on many issues facing society? For example, the Sheva Mitzvot
B'Nei Noach prohibits idolatry and blasphemy. And yet, the First
Amendment PROTECTS idolatry and blasphemy. There seems to be a
conflict between the First Commandment and the First Amendment.

But such a conflict is not necessary. The Supreme Court stated that
"[t]here is a basic difference between direct state interference with
a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative
activity consonant with legislative policy." Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S.
464 at 475 (1977) Thus, while, notwithstanding the First Amendment's
free exercise clause, there is no duty to enact legislation criminally
punishing idolatry, blasphemy, or sodomy, policies funding shrines to
Zeus, Quetzacoatl, or Saint Mary would violate the Sheva Mitzvot B'Nei
Noach, as well as the First Amendment's free exercise clause.

Michael