It can scarcely escape my notice that many of the libertarian bloggers I read aren’t the religious type. Fine, I’m not going to be like, you know, judgmental about it. I do get a little griped, though, when it crosses the line from non-belief to active hostility to those who are believers. Even here there are degrees.

As I’ve said, I think the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment combined with the free-exercise clause which follows, as well as the no-religious-test clause in Article VI were extremely wise, though I think it’s because religion is corrupted by association with the state. What concerns me about the Katha Pollitts in this country is that they want the state from which religion is to be separated to grow ever larger. Combined with the coercive power of the state, this can serve to push religion out of public life altogether. Already we’ve seen attacks on the conscience clauses of religiously-affiliated hospitals.

Tell you what, Katha. I’ll respect a strict interpretation of the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment if you’ll respect a strict interpretation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the free-exercise clause of the First. Deal?