Judge Alito, Justice O'Connor, and religious freedom

Shamelessness time:  I have an op-ed in today's USA Today, discussing the views of Judge Alito and Justice O'Connor on religious-freedom matters.  Here's a bit:

Alito is an eminently worthy successor to O'Connor. What's more, he is all the more fitting a replacement, given their shared commitment to what has been quite rightly called our "first freedom": The freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment.

Like O'Connor, Alito understands that our Constitution does not regard religious faith with grudging suspicion, or as a bizarre quirk or quaint relic. They both appreciate that, in our traditions and laws, religious freedom is cherished as a basic human right and a non-negotiable aspect of human dignity. This is why both jurists have occasionally come under fire from activists who misunderstand the "separation of church and state."

Our Constitution separates church and state not to confine religious belief or silence religious expression, but to curb the ambitions and reach of governments. The point of the First Amendment is not to "put religion in its place," but instead to protect religion by keeping the government "in its place." The Amendment's Establishment Clause is not a sword, driving private religious expression from the marketplace of ideas; rather, it is a shield that constrains government precisely to protect religiously motivated speech and action.

By the way, I should note that the error in the piece regarding the date of the Holmes quote is one that, as the paper will make clear tomorrow, was the editors' and not the author's.