Rad razmatra odnos ustavnih orijentira s ugovorom države i vjerskih zajednica kroz tezu: država koja svojim ustavom štiti pluraln(ističn)ost društva, slobodu uvjerenja i savjesti građana i od svojih institucija i ingerencija odvaja vjerske zajednice, ne bi smjela s njima ugovarati model suradnje koji narušava ili podređuje dio ustavom jamčenih prava. Iniciranjem javne rasprave nastoji se pridonijeti razjašnjenju ne/utemeljenosti dileme o mogućem narušavanju prava čovjeka prouzročenog prekoračenjem ustava pravnim položajem vjerskih zajednica. Paradoks je ako ugovor države i vjerskih zajednica naruši humanističku etiku i laičku smjernicu jer se interpretaciji jedne etičke doktrine osobnosti čovjeka otvara više mogućnosti legalne involucije dijela temeljnih i građanskih prava. Takav ugovor ukazuje i na inkompatibilnost ustava s utilitarizmom suupravljačkog nezamjeranja. This paper is about the relation between constitutional orientations with state contract and religious communities through the thesis of: a state which by its constitution protects social plurality, freedom of beliefs and citizen consciousness and which from its institutions and authority separates religious communities and should not contract with them a model of cooperation which damages or yields a part of constitutionally guaranteed rights. By initiating public debate, an attempt is made to contribute to explain how (un)founded the dilemma is on the possible destruction of human rights caused by exceeding constitution with the legal position of religious communities. The paradox is if the state contract and religious communities destroy human ethics and secular direction because interpretation of one ethic doctrine of human personality opens up several possibilities of legal involution of parts of fundamental and citizen rights. Such a contract points out the incompatibility of constitution with the utilitarianism of co-administrative non-confrontation.