Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

B 

I have previously discussed my views of the relationship 
between  the  Religion  Clauses  and  how  I  believe  these 
Clauses  should  be  interpreted  to  advance  their  goal  of 
avoiding religious strife.  See, e.g., Espinoza, 591 U. S., at 
___–___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 13–20); Van Orden 
v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 698–705 (2005) (opinion concurring
in  judgment);  Zelman  v.  Simmons-Harris,  536  U. S.  639, 
717–729 (2002) (dissenting opinion).  Here I simply note the
increased risk of religiously based social conflict when gov-
ernment  promotes  religion  in  its  public  school  system.
“[T]he prescription of prayer and Bible reading in the public 
schools, during and as part of the curricular day, involving
young impressionable children whose school attendance is
statutorily compelled,” can “give rise to those very divisive
influences  and  inhibitions  of  freedom  which  both  religion 
clauses  of  the  First  Amendment”  sought  to  prevent. 
Schempp, 374 U. S., at 307 (Goldberg, J., concurring).

This potential for religious strife is still with us.  We are 
today  a  Nation  with  well  over  100  different  religious
groups, from Free Will Baptist to African Methodist, Bud-
dhist  to  Humanist.    See  Pew  Research  Center,  America’s 
Changing Religious Landscape 21 (May 12, 2015).  People
in our country adhere to a vast array of beliefs, ideals, and 
philosophies.  And  with  greater  religious  diversity  comes 
greater  risk of religiously based strife, conflict, and social
division.  The Religion Clauses were written in part to help 
avoid that disunion.  As Thomas Jefferson, one of the lead-
ing  drafters  and  proponents  of  those  Clauses,  wrote,  “ ‘to
compel  a  man  to  furnish  contributions  of  money  for  the
propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and
tyrannical.’ ”  Everson, 330 U. S., at 13.  And as James Mad-
ison,  another  drafter  and  proponent,  said,  compelled  tax-
payer sponsorship of religion “is itself a signal of persecu-
tion,”  which  “will  destroy  that  moderation  and  harmony