In short, no.  It hopes for self-government; it does not require it.

By giving this answer I’m siding with the classical tradition against some of the early modern revisionists.

My post "What Conscience Isn't" has been widely reprinted under the title "Is Conscience an Illusion?"  To read it, click here.

You may have noticed that I keep coming back to certain puzzles, like a dog chewing a bone.

Sometimes people argue that the Framers couldn’t possibly have meant what they said when they guaranteed the free exercise of religion with no exceptions.  The argument runs like this:

The twentieth century taught some of us that totalitarianism is evil.  What it taught some totalitarians is that their methods had to change.  Do people resist the compulsory destruction of their cherished institutions?  Very well, then compulsion must be made to look like liberty.

Mondays are reserved for letters from students.  This one is matriculating at Santa Clara University.

Question:

The two First Amendment religion clauses are often described as though they were in conflict, so that they have to be “balanced” against each other.