[.ca] Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between ... (ISBN 0814719368)

The Wall:
Thomas Jefferson's celebrated "wall of separation" metaphor has exerted a profound influence on American thought and practice regarding relations between church and state. This little book, thoroughly researched and carefully reasoned, examines the subject from several different perspectives. The author begins by analyzing the historical context of Jefferson's statement. Receiving a letter of courtesy from the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson consulted two cabinet officers on a draft response and replied within two days (on January 1, 1802) with a view to countering Federalist and clerical attacks on his supposed irreligion during the 1800 presidential election and to "sowing useful truths & principles among the people" (25). In close scrutiny of the letter, Dreisbach shows that Jefferson agreed with the Baptists that religion is a matter of conscience and went on to say "that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions," and that the American people had "declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" (48, 148). As Dreisbach contends, Jefferson interpreted the First Amendment as prohibiting Congress from establishing religion; thus it prohibited him as president from designating days of thanksgiving or prayer. But the amendment did not separate religion and civil government. As president, Jefferson attended religious services in the Capitol, and he used rhetoric with religious content in official utterances. Moreover, the First Amendment did not prohibit the states from legislating with respect to religion. As governor of Virginia, Jefferson had issued religious proclamations. In sum, the "wall" of the letter "served primarily to separate state and nation in matters pertaining to religion, rather than to separate ecclesiastical and all governmental authorities" (56). A chapter considers uses of the "wall of separation" trope by Richard Hooker (1554-1600), Roger Williams (1603?-83), and James Burgh (1714-75), which Jefferson may have known. The author is unfortunately unclear and inconsistent as to whether Jefferson was familiar with Williams's use of the metaphor (78, 82). Another chapter shows that Jefferson and some worthy contemporaries used other metaphors to defend religious liberty-"effectual barriers," "great barriers," "certain fences," and a "line of separation"-and that recent observers have suggested the concept of a zone between two walls in which church and state could interact-all this with a view to evaluating the desirable characteristics of a wall. Jefferson's metaphor belatedly entered American thought and practice. His reply to the Danbury Baptists first became available to the public in Henry A. Washington's edition of Jefferson's works (1853; reprinted 1868 and 1871), and later in other editions of his writings. The phrase "wall of separation" first made its way into constitutional discourse when Chief justice Morrison R. Waite quoted the text in which it appeared in Reynolds v. United States (1879). Waite drew on Jefferson's letter to distinguish between the government's power to reach actions as opposed to opinions in a case involving the Mormon practice of polygamy. Waite placed no emphasis on the metaphor, but he declared that the Danbury letter "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the \ofirst\c amendment thus secured" (98). Nearly seven decades later, in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo L. Black, writing for the Supreme Court, invoked the Danbury letter's "wall of separation" passage. Black propelled the metaphor on its career of influence in legal, political, and religious discourse. In cases following Everson, the Supreme Court often cited the Danbury letter, and it became dogma, widely held. In time, however, justices began to protest that "a rule of law should not be drawn from a figure of speech," and that the Court's task in resolving complicated cases was "not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution" (104). In 1985 then Justice William H. Rehnquist declared that "the 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned" (103, 105). A final chapter addresses the perils and promises of metaphors. In law they are apt to mislead. As Stephen J. Safranek warned, "the Court's abuse of metaphor will ultimately prove disastrous" (116). The legal system depends on the use of language, Safranek added, but when the Supreme Court hides its decisions behind deceptive metaphors, it allows lawyers and jurists to hide behind this confusion and to focus on outcomes rather than reasoning. The "wall," Dreisbach observes, has become "the central icon of a strict separationist dogma that champions a secular polity in which religious influences are systematically stripped from public life" (117). He concludes with an exemplary and evenhanded exposition of the case both for and against a wall. The book's text (128 pages) is followed by an appendix (25 pages) of nine relevant documents from the papers of Jefferson, notes (86 pages), an excellent selected bibliography (24 pages), and a useful index (11 pages). The notes, which often explain at length matters treated in the text, are integral to the argument. Use of a key to frequently cited references and of ibid, where appropriate would avoid needless repetition in the notes. Daniel L. Dreisbach's Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State brings a fresh perspective to bear on a complex subject and deserves a wide reading. Winton U. Solberg University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

THE BEST SCHOLARSHIP REFUTING JUDICIAL PSEUDOHISTORY:
Outlandish judicial pseudohistory by the Supreme Court, especially the spurious charlatinism of Justice Hugo Black, now reigns in religious jurisprudence and at top law schools. Most of it stems from the eggregious misreading of Thomas Jefferson's private letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists in 1802. Daniel Dreisbach's meticulously researched volume now renders this prevailing pseudoscholarship untenable. Never has a misconstrued epistle been so badly misused to radically change the meaning of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was not even in the First Congress which drafted the first ten amendments. A careful reading of BOTH the letter from the Danbury Baptists and Jefferson's kind reply does not indicate any hostility toward a generalized public recognition of God. They all understood that the First Amendment prevented either federal favoritism or persecution directed toward any religious denomination. But Hugo Black's pseudohistory has become the basis for establishment of mandatory secularism as the national state relgiion. This "naked public square" was not to be found in Jefferson's thinking, even if one wrongly assumes that this private letter has weight as constitutional law. The same day of his penning of the Danbury letter, Jefferson was presented a massive 1,235 pound cheese by the Baptist preacher John Leland as a gift from the Cheshire, Massachusetts Baptists. Two days latter Jefferson attended church IN THE U. S. CAPITOL and Leland preached the sermon. No cries of "wall of separation of church and state" were raised. No fees were charged for use of the Capitol. Jefferson also attended church at the Abermarle County courthouse in which Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian and Methodist services were held on rotating Sundays. The "wall of separation" metaphor remains a fixture in court decisions. But it must be enforced by judicial tyranny, not by intellectual honesty. Dresibach's book gives us the truth which has too long been suppressed.

Quick read - very Enlightening:
Daniel L. Dreisbach, Professor in the Department of Justice, Law, and Society at American University, provides an in-depth historical analysis of Jefferson's letter of 1 January 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association and how a singular phrase in that letter has become the basis of interpretation for the proper relationship between church and state in constitutional law. Dreisbach argues that the architectural metaphor, "wall of separation between church and state," has become the "defining motif for the constitutional role of religion in American public lifeýEit\c has become a cherished symbol for a strict separationist policy that champions a secular order in which religious influences are systematically removed from public life." Dreisbach demonstrates that such a formidable barrier between religion and civil government was never intended by early 19th century religious dissenters, the framers of the First Amendment, or even Jefferson himself. Dreisbach provides a detailed analysis of the historical context of Jefferson's letter. He discusses the conflict between the Federalist clergy and Republicans during the 1800 election over Jefferson's religious views. Dreisbach notes the support of the Republican Baptists of New England for Jefferson and the basis for this support. The New England Baptists suffered as a minority faith under an established church ýECongregationalism. There was mutual support between the Federalists and the Congregationalist clergy during the turn of the century, as evidenced by their alliance during the 1800 election. After Jefferson and the Republicans came to power, the New England Baptists hoped to find an ally of liberty in Jefferson and that he could somehow have an influential effect in favor of their disestablishment agenda. Jefferson's famous letter to the Danburry Baptists of Connecticut was his reply. Dreisbach notes that the Baptists were not enthusiastic about Jefferson's metaphor, 'wall of separation,' and that it may have done more harm than good for their cause. First, he states that "\ot\che New England Baptists had framed their agenda in terms of disestablishment, but they did not want religious influences separated from public life and policy." Second, the Baptists might have feared that Jefferson's metaphor would be used against them by charging that they were advocates of separation (which they were not), a common charge used during this time to discredit religious dissenters. Dreisbach puts Jefferson's letter in context by interpreting it according to the time it was written and according to the man it was written by. He notes that "the word 'church,' rather than 'religion,' in Jefferson's restatement of the First Amendment emphasized that the constitutional separation was between ecclesiastical institutions and the civil state." Of greater importance, however, is Jefferson's jurisdictional interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Jefferson was first and foremost and advocate of states' rights and the First Amendment to the Constitution was no exception. As Dreisbach points out: "Although JeffersonýEesired each stateýEo protect the natural rights of citizens, it is unlikely that he thought the First AmendmentýEas the appropriate device to achieve this goal. The use of a First Amendment wall to protect dissenters' religious rights in the states would have dangerously undermined that other great protector of civil and religious liberty ýEfederalism." Dreisbach argues that it is this jurisdictional nature of Jefferson's metaphor that distinguishes it so greatly from its contemporary use today. Dreisbach then traces the resurgence of Jefferson's metaphor in the judiciary and how its meaning became twisted into something bearing little resemblance to the original usage. He focuses primarily on Justice Black's opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Dreisbach contrasts the two uses of the metaphor: "Whereas Jefferson's 'wall' explicitly separated the institutions of church and state, Black's wall, more expansively, separates religion and all civil government. Moreover, Jefferson's 'wall' separated church and the federal government onlyýElack's wall separates religion and civil government at all levels ýEfederal, state, and localýEBlack turned the First Amendment, as ratified in 1791, on its head." Dreisbach then goes on to note how this use of the First Amendment actually goes against what it was intended to protect ýEreligious freedom. He asserts that, "Jefferson's metaphor is a source of much mischief because a wall emphasizes separation to the virtual exclusion of First Amendment values such as freedom of religious exercise and association. Separation becomes the ultimate First Amendment value, crowding out all the other values." Read this book with Hamburger's, Separation of Church and State.

Everything You Wanted to Know About the "Wall of Separation":
There is hardly a discusion of American church-state relations that does not invoke Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation." I have long been interested in Jefferson and church-state relations and have read many books on these subjects, but this is the only book I know that explores the origins and uses of the "wall of separation" metaphor. It is a relatively short, but richly documented, book. The author points out that the metaphor was featured in church-state discourse long before Jefferson used it. The book brings to life the bitter presidential politics that provided the context for Jefferson's use of this figurative phrase. This also serves as a reminder that church-state controversies have been a part of American politics, including presidential electoral politics, from the earliest days of the Republic. Church-state disputes, unfortunately, remain an important and divisive part of public life. This is one book that, through exploring the past, helps us better understand the future. I highly recommend this book. Five stars.

Biography of a Metaphor:
This is the definitive biography of Thomas Jefferson's celebrated "wall of separation" metaphor. This thoroughly researched and engaging book examines the origins of the "wall of separation" metaphor and the historical and political context in which Jefferson used it. Professor Dreisbach also explores uses of the figurative phrase long before Jefferson and traces the metaphor's entrance into mainstream political and legal rhetoric. Students interested in how the "wall of separation" has shaped American church-state relations will not want to miss this important new book.