Religious liberty functions as a “hard exception” to collectivist governance because it legally privileges individual conscience over the “general will” of the state. While collectivism relies on universal compliance to function (e.g., everyone must pay the tax, everyone must follow the mandate), the Free Exercise Clause allows individuals and institutions to opt out of these universal rules if they burden sincere religious beliefs. Under current Supreme Court precedents like Fulton and Hobby Lobby, this creates a fragmented legal landscape where the state’s “collective” power is constantly punctured by religious exemptions.
Zohran Mamdani Inaugural Address – January 1, 2026
Religious freedom and socialism have historically clashed because they represent rival claims to ultimate authority. Socialist governance typically centralizes power in the state to manage resources and enforce social equity, requiring a unified citizenry to succeed. Religion, however, posits an authority higher than the state, and demands that believers obey divine law over civil mandates when they conflict. This creates a structural friction; when a socialist state demands total allegiance to a collective plan (such as state-run education or property redistribution), religious groups often resist, viewing the state’s encroachment as a violation of their conscience. Consequently, socialist regimes have often viewed religion not just as a private belief, but as a political competitor that threatens state cohesion.
In a collectivist framework, the “public good” (as defined by the state) supersedes individual preference. However, the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause effectively grants religious citizens a “super-vote”—a constitutional right to refuse participation in collective projects that violate their conscience. This makes religion the one of the most robust legal barriers to the type of “expansive” governance Mayor Mamdani proposed in his inaugural address.
Mayor Mamdani’s pledge to “replace rugged individualism with collectivism” assumes the state can enforce uniformity. But the Supreme Court, currently dominated by a pro-religious liberty majority, has spent the last decade strengthening the ability of religious actors to resist such uniformity. As the city attempts to expand its role in healthcare, education, and housing, religious organizations will likely be the first to successfully block these mandates in court.
Continue Reading
This article was originally published on Substack. Subscribe to get updates directly to your inbox.