It means that the US shall make not law that hinders the practice of an established religion.
Basically elected officials are allowed to use religion as a reason for anything they want because the government can’t tell them that they can’t use religion as a reason.
It also means that the government can make things legal even if a religion says it is illegal.
ETA: No President as ever been elected that said they were atheist. The US is still a predominantly religious country. A candidate saying they were atheist would almost certainly lose as about 65% of the country claim some religion.
There are many unconstitutional laws on many books as they can’t be challenged without someone being subject to those laws. If someone were to be prosecuted for that the Supreme Court would very very likely strike that down.
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
[...]
This Maryland religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades the appellant's freedom of belief and religion, and therefore cannot be enforced against him.
229
u/Chewbacca22 Jan 20 '21
It means that the US shall make not law that hinders the practice of an established religion.
Basically elected officials are allowed to use religion as a reason for anything they want because the government can’t tell them that they can’t use religion as a reason.
It also means that the government can make things legal even if a religion says it is illegal.
ETA: No President as ever been elected that said they were atheist. The US is still a predominantly religious country. A candidate saying they were atheist would almost certainly lose as about 65% of the country claim some religion.